📘Part 3 非单偶制框架 Nonmonogamous Frameworks

:::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。 :::

When you create intimate relationships, you invite other people deep into your heart. You allow them access to your mind, your body, your emotions. This intimacy is one of the most wonderful, most profoundly transformative things life has to offer. It changes who you are. It tells you that in all the vastness of the universe, you do not have to be alone. But it comes at a price. When you allow others into your heart, and they allow you into theirs, you become exquisitely vulnerable to each other. The people you choose to let in have the power to bring you incredible joy, and to hurt you deeply. If you are to respect the gifts of intimacy you are offered, you have an ethical obligation to treat one another with care.

当你建立亲密关系时，你邀请其他人深入你的内心。你允许他们进入你的思想、你的身体、你的情感。这种亲密是生活所能提供的最美妙、最深刻的变革性事物之一。它改变了你是谁。它告诉你，在浩瀚的宇宙中，你不必孤单。但这需要付出代价。当你允许别人进入你的内心，他们也允许你进入他们的内心时，你们对彼此变得极其脆弱。你选择让其进入的人有能力给你带来难以置信的快乐，也有能力深深地伤害你。如果你要尊重你所获得的亲密礼物，你在伦理上有义务用心对待彼此。

In practice, this can be hard. Even when you allow only one person at a time to affect you so deeply, you must strike a balance between allowing your partner to be who they are and creating a framework where you feel safe. When more than one person has access to your heart, this balancing act becomes much more complicated—and scary.

在实践中，这可能很难。即使你一次只允许一个人如此深刻地影响你，你也必须在允许伴侣做他们自己和创建一个让你感到安全的框架之间取得平衡。当不止一个人可以进入你的内心时，这种平衡行为就会变得更加复杂——也更加可怕。

In Part 3, we suggest frameworks you can use to create safety and security while still respecting the humanity and autonomy of the people you love. Just as Part 2 began with a chapter about your self, so does Part 3, because secure nonmonogamous frameworks begin with your self and your boundaries. The next three chapters discuss rules, hierarchies and various kinds of relationship agreements, and we provide some experience-based critique of some of the common and often unsuccessful ways people try to maintain safety in their relationships. Finally, we provide some ideas about empowered relationships and practical, realistic nonmonogamy agreements.

在第三部分中，我们建议了一些框架，你可以利用它们来建立安全感和保障，同时仍然尊重你所爱之人的仁爱与自主。就像第二部分以关于你自己的章节开始一样，第三部分也是如此，因为安全的非单偶制框架始于你自己和你的界限。接下来的三章讨论规则、等级制度和各种关系协议，我们对人们试图在关系中维持安全的一些常见且往往不成功的方式提供了一些基于经验的批评。最后，我们就赋权关系和实用、现实的非单偶制协议提供了一些想法。

The differences between and relative merits of boundaries, agreements, rules and hierarchies are subjects of heated contention in nonmonogamous communities. Over the last fifteen to twenty years or so, the balance of opinion in mainstream polyamory, in particular, has shifted from rules and hierarchies as the accepted default to a broad rejection of both in favour of agreements, boundaries and non-hierarchical relationships. And yet the distinctions among these frameworks are nuanced and highly context-specific, and it’s easy for conversations to get derailed over definitions. From the outside, the effects of a boundary, agreement and rule might look the same. Likewise, a relationship network with differing levels of priority and commitment might superficially resemble a hierarchical arrangement. Yet the underlying mechanisms at play are very different, partly because they are defined by where power lies—and doesn’t.

界限、协议、规则和等级制度之间的区别及相对优劣是非单偶制社区激烈争论的话题。在过去大约 15 到 20 年里，特别是在主流多边恋中，舆论的天平已经从作为公认默认设置的规则和等级制度，转向了广泛拒绝这两者，转而支持协议、界限和非等级制关系。然而，这些框架之间的区别是微妙的，并且高度依赖于具体情境，对话很容易在定义上偏离轨道。从外部看，界限、协议和规则的效果可能看起来是一样的。同样，一个具有不同优先级和承诺水平的关系网络可能在表面上类似于等级制安排。然而，起作用的潜在机制是非常不同的，部分原因是它们是由权力所在——以及不在——的地方定义的。

When it comes to distinctions among boundaries, agreements and rules, it’s common to see a simplified framing of “rules bad; agreements and boundaries good.” In fact, you’ll see this framing from both people who agree with it and people who don’t. Not only is reality not that simple, but this framing often leads to people trying to disguise rules as boundaries to avoid falling afoul of this, er, rule.

当谈到界限、协议和规则之间的区别时，经常会看到一种简化的框架，即“规则是坏的；协议和界限是好的”。事实上，你会从同意这一观点的人和不同意这一观点的人那里都看到这种框架。现实不仅没那么简单，而且这种框架经常导致人们试图将规则伪装成界限，以避免触犯这条，呃，规则。

We propose that, in the context of intimate relationships, boundaries and rules tend to come up most frequently when people are having difficulty making agreements, when one or more people don’t trust the others involved, or when someone breaks or comes close to breaking the agreements that were made. Agreements are collaborative, and in intimate relationships, they are always preferable. Both boundaries and rules assert control: boundaries over oneself, rules over others. In this sense, boundaries are a better tool than rules, both because it’s much easier to control oneself, and because they acknowledge the agency of other people, and thus treat others as real (axiom 1). Of course, people always have boundaries, and knowing them, as well as knowing how to hold them firmly but gently, is always important. But we believe that in a healthy, established relationship, most of the time you won’t have to defend your boundaries too often, because most of the time you won’t be running up too close to them.

我们要提出的是，在亲密关系的背景下，当人们难以达成协议时，当一个或多个人不信任其他相关人员时，或者当有人打破或接近打破已达成的协议时，界限和规则往往最常出现。协议是协作性的，在亲密关系中，它们总是更可取的。界限和规则都主张控制：界限是对自己的控制，规则是对他人的控制。从这个意义上说，界限是比规则更好的工具，这既是因为控制自己要容易得多，也是因为它们承认他人的代理权，从而将他人视为真实的（公理 1）。当然，人们总是有界限，了解它们，以及知道如何坚定而温和地坚持它们，总是很重要的。但我们相信，在一段健康、稳固的关系中，大多数时候你不必太频繁地捍卫你的界限，因为大多数时候你不会离它们太近。