Skip to content
PolyCN

10 规则与协议 Rules and Agreements

:::info 🤖 AI 生成声明 本文由人工智能（Gemini）生成，本人审阅后认为内容质量优良，但是未做人工修正，因此本人不为此内容的准确性和完整性做最终担保。AI 生成内容属于公有领域，您可以自由使用。 :::

The lifeblood of a relationship is people feeling they can influence each other, particularly about really important things.

MIRA KIRSHENBAUM1

关系的生命线是人们感觉他们可以相互影响，特别是关于真正重要的事情。

米拉·克申鲍姆 (Mira Kirshenbaum)1

Many people have strong feelings about rules in nonmonogamous relationships. Rules that work, rules that don’t, alternatives to rules, distinctions between rules and agreements—these are issues we carefully examine in the next few chapters.

许多人对非单偶制关系中的规则有强烈的感受。有效的规则、无效的规则、规则的替代方案、规则与协议之间的区别——这些都是我们在接下来的几章中仔细研究的问题。

For most people, monogamy comes with a set of expectations and rules bundled in. What exactly those are can differ widely from one person to the next, which is a source of much conflict in some monogamous relationships. Does flirting count as cheating? Noticing someone else? Going to a strip club or watching porn? Masturbating? Having certain kinds of friends? Being affectionate with someone? Each of these situations can be handled any number of ways. However, while any two people’s expectations of monogamy are likely a bit different, most monogamous people at least think they know what those expectations are and, in theory, try to live by the rules. If that’s the framework you’re coming from, it’s tempting, then, to ask, “Okay, so what rules do I use for nonmonogamy?”

对于大多数人来说，单偶制捆绑了一套期望和规则。这些究竟是什么，每个人之间可能大相径庭，这在一些单偶制关系中是许多冲突的根源。调情算不算出轨？注意到别人呢？去脱衣舞俱乐部或看色情片？自慰？拥有某些类型的朋友？对某人表示亲昵？每种情况都有多种处理方式。然而，虽然任何两个人对单偶制的期望可能略有不同，但大多数单偶制者至少认为他们知道这些期望是什么，并且在理论上试图遵守规则。如果你来自那个框架，那么很容易会问，“好吧，那么我在非单偶制中使用什么规则？”

This approach works for some people, but there are dangers in thinking about relationships in terms of rules. For instance, we both often hear people say, “Any rules are okay if you both agree to them.” The use of “both” here underscores how stubbornly the assumptions of monogamy and couplehood can cling, even in communities that ostensibly practise nonmonogamy. It assumes there are only two people, that those two will be negotiating with each other (but not with others), that their needs are of prime importance, that they will call the shots, and that they can make decisions for anyone else who becomes involved with either one of them about the best way to build relationships. What matters is what they both agree to, not what everyone agrees to.

这种方法对某些人有效，但从规则的角度思考关系存在危险。例如，我们经常听到人们说，“只要你们俩都同意，任何规则都可以。”这里使用“俩”强调了即使在表面上实行非单偶制的社区中，单偶制和伴侣关系的假设是多么顽固。它假设只有两个人，这两个人将相互协商（但不与其他人协商），他们的需求至关重要，他们将发号施令，并且他们可以为任何与他们其中一人卷入关系的人做出关于建立关系的最佳方式的决定。重要的是他们俩同意什么，而不是每个人都同意什么。

But we encourage an approach to relationships that gives a voice to all the people in those relationships. Many people starting nonmonogamous relationships also want to know: “How can I keep things from changing? And what guarantees do I have that things won’t go wrong?” Rules are often an attempt to answer these questions. The answers we offer are: You can’t, and you don’t have any. And that’s okay.

但我们鼓励一种让关系中所有人都拥有发言权的关系方式。 许多开始非单偶制关系的人也想知道：“我怎样才能防止事情发生变化？我有什么保证事情不会出错？”规则通常是试图回答这些问题。我们提供的答案是：你不能，你也没有任何保证。但这没关系。

Before we go into that, it’s helpful to clarify the difference between a rule and an agreement. Rules, agreements and boundaries are all, at their core, mechanisms for changing behaviour. The differences are in how these different mechanisms go about doing it, what assumptions they make, how they are created and to whom they apply.

在深入探讨之前，澄清规则和协议之间的区别很有帮助。规则、协议和界限的核心都是改变行为的机制。区别在于这些不同的机制是如何做到的，它们做出了什么假设，它们是如何创建的以及它们适用于谁。

Agreements involve all parties

Section titled “Agreements involve all parties”

协议涉及各方

Section titled “协议涉及各方”

As we use the word, agreements are negotiated codes of conduct established among people who are in relationship with each other. An agreement is a covenant negotiated by all the parties it affects. Something negotiated between one set of people—a couple, for example—and then presented as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition to others is not an agreement as we define it. We call that a rule. If Edouard says “I never want you to spend the night with anyone else,” and Maria says “Okay,” this is not an agreement—because it affects Maria’s other partner Josef, who wasn’t consulted. If Josef’s voice is absent from the negotiations, Edouard and Maria have instituted a rule.

正如我们使用的这个词，协议 (agreements) 是在相互有关系的人之间建立的协商行为准则。协议是由受其影响的所有各方协商达成的契约。在一组人之间协商——例如一对夫妇——然后作为一个要么接受要么离开的提议呈现给其他人的东西，不是我们定义的协议。我们称之为规则。如果爱德华说“我永远不想让你在别人那里过夜”，玛丽亚说“好的”，这不是一个协议——因为它影响了玛丽亚的另一个伴侣约瑟夫，而他没有被咨询。如果谈判中缺少约瑟夫的声音，爱德华和玛丽亚就制定了一条规则。

Agreements also allow for renegotiation by any of the people they affect. An agreement that does not permit renegotiation is more like a rule. An agreement that is binding on people who did not negotiate it is a rule. Here are some examples of agreements:

协议还允许任何受其影响的人重新协商。不允许重新协商的协议更像是一条规则。对没有参与谈判的人具有约束力的协议是一条规则。以下是协议的一些示例：

  • If one of us wants to spend the night with someone else, we will let the others know in advance so we can discuss it.

  • If one of us wants to have sex with someone else without barriers, we will all first discuss sexual history, risk and testing before we reach a decision.

  • We will immediately talk about a situation that makes us feel threatened, rather than sitting on it.

  • We will not start new relationships while there are problems in our existing relationships.

  • We will negotiate safer-sex boundaries with each of our new partners.

  • We will make our sexual health information available to new partners who want it.

  • 如果我们中有人想在别人那里过夜，我们会提前让其他人知道，以便我们可以讨论。

  • 如果我们中有人想与他人进行无保护的性行为，我们在做出决定之前都会先讨论性史、风险和检测。

  • 我们会立即谈论让我们感到受威胁的情况，而不是置之不理。

  • 当我们现有的关系出现问题时，我们不会开始新的关系。

  • 我们将与每一位新伴侣协商安全性行为界限。

  • 我们将向想要了解的新伴侣提供我们的性健康信息。

Even when the negotiations include all parties, you must still take care to make the negotiations equitable for everyone. Power in relationships is almost never distributed equally. When a new person starts a relationship with one or more people who are already together, if the established relationship is strong, the newcomer will probably have less power than the pre-existing partners do. If, on the other hand, the established relationship is under stress, the newcomer might be in a relatively empowered position if they represent the possibility of an uncomplicated relationship without a lot of baggage. In a fair negotiation, any person with a disproportionate amount of power must negotiate compassionately, rather than using that power to browbeat others to “consensus.”

即使谈判包括所有各方，你仍必须注意使谈判对每个人都公平。关系中的权力几乎从未平均分配。当一个新人开始与一个或多个已经在一起的人建立关系时，如果既定关系很稳固，新来者的权力可能会比现有的伴侣少。另一方面，如果既定关系处于压力之下，如果新来者代表了一种没有太多包袱的简单关系的可能性，他们可能会处于相对有权力的位置。在公平的谈判中，任何拥有不成比例权力的人都必须富有同情心地进行谈判，而不是利用这种权力恐吓他人达成“共识”。

It’s not possible to totally negate or equalize power differences, but that doesn’t mean you can’t navigate them. Sometimes power differences come from the relative position of each person in the nonmonogamous arrangement, such as long-term vs. newer partnerships, same-city vs. long-distance, and out vs. closeted, among others. Sometimes they’re about socially enforced power structures, such as differentials based on gender, race, class, age and ability/disability, among others. Sometimes they’re about personality type and skill sets, such as the difference between someone who’s confident and at ease expressing themselves and someone who’s shy or has difficulty talking about their feelings. Often it’s about who is more invested in a relationship. Also, more than one power differential can be present at the same time—and not always in the same direction!

完全消除或均等化权力差异是不可能的，但这并不意味着你无法驾驭它们。有时权力差异来自每个人在非单偶制安排中的相对位置，例如长期与较新的伙伴关系、同城与异地、出柜与未出柜等等。有时它们是关于社会强制的权力结构，例如基于性别、种族、阶级、年龄和能力/残疾等的差异。有时它们是关于性格类型和技能组合，例如一个自信且能轻松表达自己的人和一个害羞或难以谈论自己感受的人之间的差异。通常这取决于谁在一段关系中投入更多。此外，可能同时存在不止一种权力差异——而且并不总是方向一致！

It’s beyond the scope of this book to try to sort out all the possible nuances here and what to do about them. But we believe that a minimum first step is for each person to make a point of trying to notice these differences, acknowledge them out loud if possible and figure out, in a collaborative way, how best to make decisions in a way that compensates for them. This process can be tricky. It’s not always easy to see and accept the places where you’re more powerful than others, or to stand up for yourself in places where you’re less so. This is ongoing work for pretty much everyone and, needless to say, it extends well past the boundaries of nonmonogamous relationships.

试图理清这里所有可能的细微差别以及如何应对它们超出了本书的范围。但我们相信，最低限度的第一步是每个人都要努力注意这些差异，尽可能大声承认它们，并以协作的方式弄清楚如何最好地做出补偿它们的决定。这个过程可能很棘手。看到并接受你比别人更有权力的地方，或者在你权力较小的地方为自己挺身而出，并不总是容易的。这对几乎每个人来说都是持续的工作，不用说，它远远超出了非单偶制关系的界限。

We discuss practical approaches to creating workable agreements in chapter 14. But we know rules can still be tempting—so read on to learn about some common types of rules, their rationales, where they may cause trouble and how they can still sometimes be useful.

我们在第 14 章讨论了创建可行协议的实用方法。但我们知道规则仍然很诱人——所以请继续阅读以了解一些常见的规则类型、其基本原理、它们可能在何处引起麻烦以及它们有时如何仍然有用。

Rules place restrictions without negotiation

Section titled “Rules place restrictions without negotiation”

规则施加限制且不可协商

Section titled “规则施加限制且不可协商”

As we use the term in this book, rules are binding limitations placed on someone’s behaviour that are not up for negotiation. Even when a rule is agreed to, it’s a mandate that can only be obeyed or broken. Breaking a rule is assumed to have consequences, such as loss of the relationship.

正如我们在本书中使用的术语，规则 (rules) 是对某人行为施加的、不可协商的约束性限制。即使同意了一条规则，它也是一项只能遵守或违反的指令。违反规则被认为会有后果，例如失去关系。

Why be skeptical of rules? Monogamous society teaches you that to keep your partner faithful and yourself secure, you should limit their opportunity, keeping them away from desirable people. If that mindset carries over into nonmonogamy, it leads to trying to keep yourself secure by limiting who your partners are allowed to have relationships with, or how much time they can be together, or what they do.

为什么要对规则持怀疑态度？单偶制社会教导你，为了保持伴侣的忠诚和自己的安全感，你应该限制他们的机会，让他们远离有吸引力的人。如果这种心态延续到非单偶制中，就会导致试图通过限制伴侣被允许与谁建立关系、他们可以在一起多长时间或他们做什么来保持自己的安全感。

Sometimes people try to use rules to address things they are shy about discussing. It feels scary to talk about your vulnerabilities and insecurities. Often talking about rules becomes a way to try to do that by proxy. It doesn’t work, because if you can’t talk about the reason for the rule, your partners won’t understand the rule’s intent, and that leads to trouble, mischief and rules-lawyering: insisting on the letter of the rule without being clear on the intent.

有时人们试图使用规则来解决他们羞于讨论的事情。谈论你的脆弱和不安全感让人感到害怕。通常，谈论规则成为一种试图通过代理来做到这一点的方式。这行不通，因为如果你不能谈论规则的原因，你的伴侣就不会理解规则的意图，这会导致麻烦、恶作剧和规则律师行为：坚持规则的字面意思而不清楚意图。

Not all rules are intrinsically bad (see, for instance, “Limited-duration rules” on page 198). However, rules always have the potential to become straitjackets, constraining relationships and not allowing them to grow. Sometimes this is intentional—and such rules can be very damaging indeed. If your partner tells you, “I don’t want you ever to grow any new relationship beyond this point,” and eventually a relationship comes along that you want to see flourish, your original relationship may end—not in spite of the rule, but because of it.

并非所有规则本质上都是坏的（例如，参见第 198 页的“限时规则”）。然而，规则总是有可能成为紧身衣，束缚关系，不允许它们成长。有时这是故意的——这样的规则确实可能非常具有破坏性。如果你的伴侣告诉你，“我不希望你在这个点之外发展任何新关系”，而最终出现了一段你想让它蓬勃发展的关系，你原来的关系可能会结束——不是尽管有规则，而是因为规则。

Rules that seek to dictate the structure of a relationship that has yet to exist (for example, “We will only be in a quad”) are attempts to map a country you have not yet seen. These types of rules are most often created by people with little experience in nonmonogamous relationships. Often they attempt to impose order on something that seems mysterious and dangerous. Psychologists have observed that people are remarkably poor at predicting how they will respond to novel situations.2 Most people want certainty; they don’t want to get too far from familiar land. But you cannot explore the ocean if you’re unwilling to lose sight of the shore. Trying to retain the (seeming) certainty and order of monogamy against the apparent scary disorder of nonmonogamy usually ends up failing.

试图规定尚未存在的关系结构的规则（例如，“我们将只处于四人组中”）是试图绘制你尚未见过的国家的地图。这类规则最常由缺乏非单偶制关系经验的人制定。通常他们试图对看似神秘和危险的事物强加秩序。心理学家观察到，人们在预测自己将如何应对新奇情况方面表现得非常糟糕。2 大多数人想要确定性；他们不想离熟悉的土地太远。但是，如果你不愿意失去海岸的视线，你就无法探索海洋。试图保留单偶制（表面上的）确定性和秩序来对抗非单偶制表面上可怕的无序，通常以失败告终。

Some rules indicate fears or discomforts that someone doesn’t want to face. Someone might say, “We want to have other partners, but the thought of my partner prioritizing anyone else when I want attention brings up my fears of abandonment. So we will pass a rule saying I can always interrupt my partner’s other dates, or I must approve my partner’s scheduled time with other people.” When two (or more) people have discomforts they’re trying to avoid, they may play the mutual-assured-destruction game: I will let you control me to avoid your discomforts, if you let me control you to avoid my discomforts. Avoiding discomfort isn’t really the same thing as creating joy; real joy is often on the other side of your comfort zone.

有些规则表明某人不想面对恐惧或不适。有人可能会说，“我们想要有其他伴侣，但想到当我想要关注时我的伴侣优先考虑其他人，就会引起我对被遗弃的恐惧。所以我们会通过一条规则，说我总是可以打断我伴侣的其他约会，或者我必须批准我伴侣与其他人安排的时间。”当两个（或更多）人有他们试图避免的不适时，他们可能会玩相互保证毁灭的游戏：如果你让我控制你以避免我的不适，我就让你控制我以避免你的不适。避免不适并不真的等同于创造快乐；真正的快乐往往在你舒适区的另一边。

The defining element of a rule is a restriction placed on someone without their input or negotiation. Some examples of rules around nonmonogamy that people sometimes try to use are:

规则的定义要素是在没有某人输入或协商的情况下对其实施的限制。人们有时试图使用的围绕非单偶制的一些规则示例如下：

  • We will never spend the night at another lover’s house; we will always come home at night.

  • We will always use barriers when one of us has sex with another lover.

  • We will not refer to any other partner by the same pet names we use with each other.

  • We can have sex with other people, but we won’t love another person as much as or more than we love each other.

  • We will not bring any other lover to our favourite restaurant.

  • If one of us wants the other to break up with another partner, we will do it. (This is called a “veto” and is discussed in chapter 12).

  • We will not have sex with other partners in certain sexual positions, or if the other is not there.

  • We will only start relationships with people who are willing to be in a relationship with both (or all) of us.

  • We will only start relationships with people who are willing to be exclusive to both (or all) of us.

  • 我们永远不会在另一个爱人的家里过夜；我们晚上总是回家。

  • 当我们中的一个人与另一个爱人发生性关系时，我们将始终使用屏障。

  • 我们不会用我们彼此使用的相同爱称来称呼任何其他伴侣。

  • 我们可以和别人发生性关系，但我们不会像爱彼此那样或更多地爱另一个人。

  • 我们不会带任何其他爱人去我们最喜欢的餐厅。

  • 如果我们中的一个人想让另一个人与另一个伴侣分手，我们会这样做。（这被称为“否决权”，在第 12 章讨论）。

  • 我们不会以某些性姿势与亦其他伴侣发生性关系，或者如果另一个人不在场。

  • 我们只会与愿意与我们俩（或所有人）建立关系的人开始关系。

  • 我们只会与愿意对我们俩（或所有人）保持排他性的人开始关系。

These rules may superficially sound a lot like the agreements listed in the previous section. They all start with “we.” The difference is that all of the rules listed here materially affect a third person who did not have a role in negotiating them, and that person must accept them in perpetuity—often before fully understanding their emotional effect—or leave the relationship.

这些规则表面上听起来很像上一节列出的协议。它们都以“我们”开头。区别在于这里列出的所有规则都实质性地影响了没有参与谈判的第三人，那个人必须永久接受它们——通常是在完全理解其情感影响之前——或者离开这段关系。

Safeguards against COVID-19 offer a useful framework for discussing the distinctions between rules, agreements and boundaries, because it is a serious, life-and health-threatening illness that people have strong opinions about, and disagreements over how to handle it have led to the fracture of many relationships (and polycules). It also offers a good example of how the distinctions can become very confusing. For example, while many people have stopped paying attention to the virus, many others still refuse to spend time around unvaccinated people, mask in crowded public spaces and prefer to eat outdoors. These are boundaries, because they describe what the person making the decision is or isn’t willing to do. If your friend will only eat outdoors and you want to have dinner with them, you’ll have to agree to eat outdoors if you want to see them—but no one is making you see them. People who spend time together, whether short-term such as at a dinner party or long-term such as roommates or nesting partners, need to try to reach agreements about their behaviour before and during the time they’re together. “No unvaccinated folks allowed” or “everyone must take a rapid test within two hours of the event” might feel like a rule (for the people attending), a boundary (for the people hosting), or an agreement (if everyone is of like mind and came up with the protocols together).

针对 COVID-19 的保障措施为讨论规则、协议和界限之间的区别提供了一个有用的框架，因为它是一种严重的、威胁生命和健康的疾病，人们对此有强烈的意见，关于如何处理它的分歧导致了许多关系（和多边关系网络）的破裂。它也提供了一个很好的例子，说明这些区别是如何变得非常混乱的。例如，虽然许多人已经不再关注这种病毒，但许多其他人仍然拒绝与未接种疫苗的人共度时光，在拥挤的公共场所戴口罩并更喜欢在户外吃饭。这些是界限，因为它们描述了做决定的人愿意或不愿意做什么。如果你的朋友只在户外吃饭，而你想和他们共进晚餐，如果你想见他们，你就必须同意在户外吃饭——但没有人强迫你见他们。在一起度过时光的人，无论是短期的如在晚宴上，还是长期的如室友或同居伴侣，都需要尝试就他们在一起之前和期间的行为达成协议。“不允许未接种疫苗的人进入”或“每个人必须在活动前两小时内进行快速测试”可能感觉像是一条规则（对于参加的人），一个界限（对于主办的人），或者一个协议（如果每个人都想法一致并一起制定了协议）。

One key thing here is that even if it’s a rule, that doesn’t make it inherently bad: We happen to think it’s perfectly fine to make and enforce rules to protect yourself and others from disablement and death, for example. But it is an indication of who is wielding the most power in a situation. If an agreement cannot be reached, people will default to rules and boundaries; rules are set by people with power, and boundaries can only be enforced by those who have enough power to do so. Take one more example, of a person renting out a room in someone else’s home. The homeowner may have the power to unilaterally impose rules about COVID-19 protections (or lack thereof), but the renter has no such power—they can only try to convince their landlord (and therefore reach agreement), or they can move out, which may be more or less feasible depending on the rental market and the renter’s resources. So here, even setting boundaries might be difficult. The same holds true for workplaces.

这里的一个关键点是，即使它是一条规则，这并不意味着它本质上是坏的：例如，我们碰巧认为制定并执行规则以保护自己和他人免受残疾和死亡是完全可以的。但这是谁在某种情况下掌握最大权力的标志。如果无法达成协议，人们将默认使用规则和界限；规则由有权力的人制定，而界限只能由那些有足够权力这样做的人执行。再举一个例子，一个人租住在别人家里的房间。房主可能有权单方面实施关于 COVID-19 保护措施（或缺乏保护措施）的规则，但租客没有这种权力——他们只能试图说服房东（从而达成协议），或者他们可以搬出去，这取决于租赁市场和租客的资源，这可能或多或少是可行的。所以在这里，即使设定界限也可能很困难。这同样适用于工作场所。

Under capitalism, people are forced to accept that they have to obey some rules, and that setting boundaries may sometimes be impossible. In intimate relationships, we should not have to make such concessions. The absence or presence of empowerment by all parties is therefore a litmus test for whether something is a rule or an agreement in a relationship. Are all the people affected empowered to make their objections heard? Will the others consider the objections seriously, or will some people’s objections always be overruled? What happens if someone wants a structure that doesn’t work for someone else? Are negotiation and compromise possible, or is leaving the only alternative? Agreements empower people, whereas rules enforce power imbalances.

在资本主义下，人们被迫接受他们必须遵守一些规则，并且设定界限有时可能是不可能的。在亲密关系中，我们不应该必须做出这样的让步。因此，所有各方是否被赋权是检验某事物是关系中的规则还是协议的试金石。所有受影响的人都有权让他们的反对意见被听到吗？其他人会认真考虑反对意见吗，还是有些人的反对意见总是会被否决？如果有人想要一个对别人不起作用的结构会发生什么？协商和妥协可能吗，还是离开是唯一的选择？协议赋予人们权力，而规则强制执行权力不平衡。

People don’t generally make up rules by rolling dice or drawing words out of a hat. A rule is made to solve a problem or meet a need. Leading with the need (“How can we help make sure I understand how I am valued by you?”), rather than the action, opens the door to finding collaborative ways to solve the problem without disempowering others with rules.

人们通常不会通过掷骰子或抓阄来制定规则。规则是为了解决问题或满足需求而制定的。以需求为导向（“我们如何帮助确保我理解我在你眼中的价值？”），而不是以行动为导向，这就打开了寻找协作解决问题的方法的大门，而不会用规则剥夺他人的权力。

Rules as an antidote to fear

Section titled “Rules as an antidote to fear”

规则作为恐惧的解毒剂

Section titled “规则作为恐惧的解毒剂”

To some people, the sense of control offered by rule-making feels like an antidote to fear. In cases like this, it’s useful to approach the situation in a compassionate way. If you’re a person who wants to make rules, think about whether there are other ways to manage your concerns (more on that in a minute). If you’re a person who’s chafing under another person’s attempt to make rules, see if you can try to understand where their fear lies, and then see if you can work together to address it. Creativity, communication, kindness and trust are of the essence here.

对一些人来说，制定规则提供的控制感就像是恐惧的解毒剂。在这种情况下，以同情的方式处理情况是有用的。如果你是一个想制定规则的人，想想是否有其他方法来管理你的担忧（稍后会详细介绍）。如果你是一个因别人试图制定规则而感到恼火的人，看看你是否可以尝试理解他们的恐惧所在，然后看看你们是否可以一起努力解决它。创造力、沟通、善良和信任在这里至关重要。

It’s not possible to ever feel completely secure in a relationship whose structures are built on fear. Even if you follow all the rules, or the rules are easy for you, on some level you will always be aware that another person’s potential fears are a driving force in the relationship.

在建立在恐惧之上的关系结构中，永远不可能感到完全安全。即使你遵守所有规则，或者规则对你来说很容易，在某种程度上，你总是会意识到另一个人的潜在恐惧是关系的驱动力。

In extreme cases, rules can become tools of emotional blackmail. They constitute a contract that specifies acts of betrayal, and a person who breaks a rule is cast in the role of the villain. Rules-based systems judge people’s character on the basis of adherence to the rules. When rules are used as a tool with which to attack someone’s character—especially if the attacks are based on creative interpretations of the rules—they can become a nearly invisible but extremely corrosive form of emotional abuse.

在极端情况下，规则可能成为情感勒索的工具。它们构成了一份规定背叛行为的合同，违反规则的人被塑造成反派角色。基于规则的系统根据对规则的遵守程度来判断人们的品格。当规则被用作攻击某人品格的工具时——特别是如果这些攻击是基于对规则的创造性解释——它们可能会变成一种几乎看不见但极具腐蚀性的情感虐待形式。

How agreements become rules

Section titled “How agreements become rules”

协议如何变成规则

Section titled “协议如何变成规则”

It’s not surprising that agreements become rules when they are grounded in fear. It often goes like this: People in a relationship—often a couple—sit down and negotiate a set of relationship agreements. At this point there aren’t any other partners, so the people negotiating the agreements rarely consider the effect these agreements will have on others. Then a new person comes along. The partners present the new person with the agreements, with the expectation that the new person will sign on. The new person has little investment in the relationship at this point—and may be inexperienced with nonmonogamy and unfamiliar with any other models of it—so they agree.

当协议建立在恐惧之上时，它们变成规则也就不足为奇了。通常是这样的：关系中的人——通常是一对夫妇——坐下来协商一套关系协议。此时没有任何其他伴侣，因此协商协议的人很少考虑这些协议会对他人产生的影响。然后一个新人出现了。伴侣们向新人展示协议，期望新人签约。此时新人对这段关系投入很少——并且可能对非单偶制缺乏经验，也不熟悉任何其他模式——所以他们同意了。

After a time, one or more of the original two partners experience some sort of insecurity or feel threatened. The newer person is blamed for violating the agreements—or sometimes a subtle, creative interpretation of them. The original partners either end the relationship with the newer person over this infraction, or use the infraction to justify imposing greater restrictions. The new partner agreed to it, right? What gives them the right to complain now?

过了一段时间，原来的两个伴侣中的一个或多个人经历某种不安全感或感到受威胁。新人因违反协议而受到指责——或者有时是对协议的微妙、创造性解释。原来的伴侣要么因这种违规行为而结束与新人的关系，要么利用这种违规行为来证明施加更大限制是正当的。新伴侣同意了，对吧？现在他们有什么权利抱怨？

When things go wrong—when an agreement is hurting someone or isn’t having the intended effect and needs to be renegotiated—saying “But you agreed to this!” is just twisting the knife (and never helps solve the problem). At the beginning of a relationship, you are not yet emotionally invested in it, and you don’t know how it will progress. So it can be easy to accept rules or agreements that later, as you become more vulnerable and more emotionally invested, become quite painful.

当事情出错时——当一项协议伤害某人或没有达到预期效果并需要重新谈判时——说“但这可是你同意的！”只是在伤口上撒盐（并且永远无助于解决问题）。在关系开始时，你还没有情感投入，你不知道它会如何发展。所以很容易接受那些后来随着你变得更加脆弱和情感投入更多而变得非常痛苦的规则或协议。

Rules that new partners are expected to sign on to, but over which they have little or no say, rarely provide space for new relationships to grow. Sometimes these rules are deliberately designed to keep new relationships away from sunlight and water, forcing them to remain stunted or to wither away altogether.

期望新伴侣签署但他们几乎没有发言权的规则，很少能为新关系的成长提供空间。有时这些规则是故意设计的，目的是让新关系远离阳光和水，迫使它们发育不良或完全枯萎。

When you didn’t write the rules

Section titled “When you didn’t write the rules”

当你没有制定规则时

Section titled “当你没有制定规则时”

In nonmonogamy, you will likely find yourself starting relationships with people who already have partners. And that may mean going into relationships that have rules already in place. Accepting someone else’s nonnegotiable rules at the beginning of a relationship sets a precedent: It says that you’re on board with relationships that are built around other people’s needs without considering your own.

在非单偶制中，你很可能会发现自己正在与已经有伴侣的人建立关系。这可能意味着进入一段已经制定了规则的关系。在关系开始时接受别人不可协商的规则开创了一个先例：这表明你接受建立在他人需求之上而不考虑你自己需求的关系。

Anyone who goes into a rules-based relationship, knowing the rules up front, is agreeing voluntarily to be bound by them, right? Well, maybe. All kinds of things might cause someone to enter a relationship that isn’t a good fit—a scarcity model of intimacy, for example.

任何进入基于规则的关系并预先知道规则的人，都是自愿同意受其约束的，对吧？嗯，也许吧。各种各样的事情都可能导致某人进入一段不合适的关系——例如，亲密关系的匮乏模式。

It’s absolutely true that if you enter a rules-based relationship, you are, implicitly and explicitly, agreeing to those rules. And yet, “You knew the rules when you signed on!” is often the parting shot amid a relationship’s wreckage. Consider why. Most of the time, when you start a relationship, you expect your partners to meet you in the middle, to negotiate with you, to consider your needs. Those seem like reasonable expectations. So it can be quite a shock when your partner suddenly slams the door on something and says it’s nonnegotiable. That’s all the more true the longer a “new” relationship lasts. The rules that initially seemed like no big deal might start to grate a little as the relationship deepens over time.

确实，如果你进入一段基于规则的关系，你就是隐含地和明确地同意了这些规则。然而，“你加入的时候就知道规则！”往往是关系破裂时的临别赠言。想想为什么。大多数时候，当你开始一段关系时，你期望你的伴侣在中间与你会合，与你协商，考虑你的需求。这些似乎是合理的期望。所以，当你的伴侣突然在某件事上关上门并说这是不可协商的时候，这可能会让人相当震惊。一段“新”关系持续的时间越长，这就越真实。随着时间的推移，关系加深，最初看起来没什么大不了的规则可能会开始让人感到刺耳。

It is okay to assume that flexibility and agency in your relationships are part of the social contract. It probably wouldn’t occur to you to even have to say “By the way, if we’re getting into a meaningful relationship, I expect you to be willing to consider my needs.” So in that sense, “You knew the rules when you signed on” is not actually true. People cannot be expected to grasp that flexibility and negotiation are permanently forbidden, or what that will feel like after they have emotionally invested and developed some degree of attachment.

假设关系中的灵活性和代理权是社会契约的一部分是可以的。你可能甚至想不到必须要说“顺便说一句，如果我们通过建立一段有意义的关系，我期望你愿意考虑我的需求。”所以从这个意义上说，“你加入的时候就知道规则”实际上并不正确。不能指望人们领会到灵活性和协商是被永久禁止的，或者在他们投入情感并发展出一定程度的依恋后那会是什么感觉。

At the beginning of a relationship, you can’t predict what feelings you will have, or how deeply you will attach to someone, because you aren’t there yet. Therefore, it’s easy to say yes to rules that treat you as disposable, or don’t give you a voice in advocating for your needs, because you don’t have the needs yet.

在关系开始时，你无法预测你会拥有什么样的感觉，或者你会对某人依恋多深，因为你还没有到那一步。因此，很容易对那些视你为可有可无、或不让你为自己的需求发声的规则说“是”，因为你还没有那些需求。

In addition, rules-based systems tend to represent, or lead to, a rigid mentality that’s focused on obedience and reward versus disobedience and punishment. In such a framework, a person’s moral character is judged based on whether they’re obeying the rules. Misunderstandings, failures and changes of heart are coded as acts of betrayal, in which the “betrayer” is necessarily the bad guy and the “betrayed” automatically the good. This framework places a high price—being a moral failure—on any person who finds the rules too confining, forgets one, makes an error in judgment or otherwise doesn’t follow the system. Such a system doesn’t lend itself well to compassion, kindness or open communication about what is and isn’t working.

此外，基于规则的系统往往代表或导致一种僵化的心态，这种心态关注服从与奖励，通过违抗与惩罚。在这样的框架下，一个人的道德品质是根据他们是否遵守规则来评判的。误解、失败和变心被编码为背叛行为，其中“背叛者”必然是坏人，“被背叛者”自动是好人。这个框架对任何发现规则过于受限、忘记规则、判断错误或不遵循系统的人都施加了高昂的代价——成为道德失败者。这样的系统不利于同情、善良或关于什么行得通、什么行不通的开放沟通。

Rules that cause problems

Section titled “Rules that cause problems”

造成问题的规则

Section titled “造成问题的规则”

Certain relationship rules among nonmonogamous people are fraught with problems and require great care if you attempt them. To the people who make them, they may feel like agreements. But here, we focus on their effects as rules for the people who did not have a hand in creating them.

非单偶制人群中的某些关系规则充满了问题，如果你尝试使用它们，需要非常小心。对于制定它们的人来说，它们可能感觉像是协议。但在这里，我们关注的是它们作为规则对那些没有参与制定的人产生的影响。

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT). In these arrangements, a person says, “You can have other lovers, but I don’t want to know about them.” DADT relationships affect everyone who becomes involved with the people who have them. They often include restrictions on calling a partner at home, and they almost always preclude visiting a partner at home or spending time in public with them where others could see and mention it to the other partner. These arrangements certainly don’t make room for someone to meet their metamour to check on how this setup is sitting with them, making it easy for someone to claim they’re doing DADT when they’re actually just cheating. We’ll have more to say about DADT on pages 266–267.

“不问不说” (DADT)。在这些安排中，一个人说，“你可以有其他爱人，但我不想知道他们。”DADT 关系影响所有与拥有这种关系的人交往的人。它们通常包括限制给在家的伴侣打电话，而且几乎总是排除去伴侣家拜访或在公共场合与他们共度时光，因为别人可能会看到并向另一个伴侣提起。这些安排肯定没有给某人与表侣见面以核实这种设置是否适合他们的空间，这使得某人很容易声称他们在做 DADT，而实际上他们只是在出轨。我们将在第 266-267 页对 DADT 进行更多讨论。

Rules that require a person to love or be sexually involved with another. When you make love, sex or intimacy with one person the price of sex or intimacy with another, you plant the seeds of coercion. Love and attraction cannot be decreed. You either feel them or you don’t. So making either a requirement is almost guaranteed to fail—or generate dishonesty as someone tries to fit the requirement. Besides, how can you feel truly desired if someone’s having sex with you just because you set yourself up as a barrier they have to get past if they want to sleep with your partner? Ick.

要求一个人爱上或与另一个人发生性关系的规则。 当你把与一个人的爱、性或亲密关系作为与另一个人发生性或亲密关系的代价时，你就种下了胁迫的种子。爱和吸引力是不能命令的。你要么感觉到，要么感觉不到。所以把两者中的任何一个作为要求几乎肯定会失败——或者在某人试图符合要求时产生不诚实。此外，如果某人与你发生性关系只是因为你把自己设置为他们想要与你的伴侣睡觉就必须通过的障碍，你怎么能感到被真正渴望呢？真恶心。

Rules that fetishize or objectify people. Some people treat a partner’s other lovers as fetish objects, demanding detailed, blow-by-blow accounts of every sexual encounter for their own gratification. Your partner’s significant others are not your sex aids. Unless they consent to having the details of their sexual encounters shared with a third person for the purpose of arousal, they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

将人恋物化或物化的规则。 有些人将伴侣的其他爱人视为恋物对象，为了自己的满足要求详细、逐一地叙述每一次性遭遇。你伴侣的重要他人不是你的性辅助工具。除非他们同意为了唤起性欲的目的与第三人分享他们性遭遇的细节，否则他们有合理的隐私期望。

“One-penis policies.” Also known as OPPs, one-penis policies usually crop up among cisgender, heterosexual couples. Under such arrangements, both partners are allowed to date people with vulvas, but not with penises, hence the name “one-penis policy.” These agreements are usually articulated as “we both only date women” (the possibility of dating trans or nonbinary folks doesn’t usually appear to occur to many folks who suggest OPPs).

“一阴茎政策”。 也称为 OPPs，一阴茎政策通常出现在顺性别异性恋夫妇中。在这种安排下，双方都被允许与有外阴的人约会，但不允许与有阴茎的人约会，因此得名“一阴茎政策”。这些协议通常被表述为“我们都只和女性约会”（对于许多提出 OPPs 的人来说，与跨性别或非二元性别者约会的可能性通常不会出现）。

OPPs are usually in place to assuage a man’s insecurity and ostensibly to prevent jealousy, and they expose a number of troubling assumptions. The first is the heteronormative assumption that intimate relationships between women are somehow less serious or “real,” and therefore less threatening to men. This is often combined with the fetishization of sexual relationships between women, and the idea that a straight man could use his partner’s relationships with other women as a form of titillation. It’s rare for women to initiate OPPs, but if that happens, it’s equally problematic, because it places restrictions on men’s bisexuality or renders it taboo. A version of this happens in some areas of swinging culture, which discourage men from being sexual with each other directly, or assume men are never bisexual in the first place, but encourage women to be sexual with each other—often to entertain men.

OPPs 通常是为了安抚男性的不安全感，表面上是为了防止嫉妒，它们暴露出许多令人不安的假设。首先是异性恋常态的假设，即女性之间的亲密关系在某种程度上不那么严肃或“真实”，因此对男性的威胁较小。这通常与对女性之间性关系的恋物化相结合，以及直男可以利用伴侣与其他女性的关系作为一种挑逗的想法。女性发起 OPPs 的情况很少见，但如果发生这种情况，同样是有问题的，因为它限制了男性的双性恋或将其视为禁忌。这种情况的一个版本发生在换偶文化的某些领域，这些领域不鼓励男性直接相互发生性行为，或者首先假设男性从不是双性恋，但鼓励女性相互发生性行为——通常是为了娱乐男性。

A couple of cisnormative assumptions are also at play, primarily the aforementioned assumption that everyone with a penis is a man (or the failure to consider gender diversity entirely). (Content note for the rest of this paragraph for frank, and fairly explicit, discussions of transphobic thought processes.) Every now and then you may find a couple who are open to relationships with people who aren’t cisgender, and who articulate their OPP explicitly in terms of anatomy. But in many ways this is even worse, as it conveys an explicit assumption that trans men without penises are less threatening because they aren’t “really” men—and that even when they have penises, usually those don’t “count”—and that trans women who have penises (and sometimes those without them) aren’t “really” women. To be honest, the more we try to explain the distinctions that people with OPPs try to make among “categories” of people, the more clear the absurdity of trying to divide people this way becomes.

一些顺性别常态的假设也在起作用，主要是前面提到的假设，即每个有阴茎的人都是男人（或者完全没有考虑到性别多样性）。（本段其余部分的内容提示：关于恐跨思维过程的坦率且相当明确的讨论。）时不时地，你可能会发现一对夫妇愿意与非顺性别者建立关系，并明确地从解剖学角度阐述他们的 OPP。但在许多方面，这甚至更糟，因为它传达了一个明确的假设，即没有阴茎的跨性别男性威胁较小，因为他们不是“真正的”男人——而且即使他们有阴茎，通常那些也“不算数”——而且有阴茎的跨性别女性（有时是没有阴茎的）不是“真正的”女性。老实说，我们越是试图解释持 OPPs 的人在人的“类别”之间试图做出的区分，试图以这种方式划分人的荒谬性就变得越清晰。

Finally, OPPs privilege men’s feelings. They’re based on an assumption that the women involved will just handle any insecurity or jealousy they feel about the man’s relationships with other women—or perhaps, even an implicit patriarchal assumption that the man is entitled to other relationships with women in a way that women are not entitled to other relationships with men. Since men having affairs with women has long been normalized, a woman having a relationship with another man may be seen as more transgressive.

最后，OPPs 特权化男性的感受。它们基于这样一个假设：所涉及的女性将自行处理她们对男性与其他女性关系感到的任何不安全感或嫉妒——或者甚至是一个隐含的父权制假设，即男性有权与其他女性建立关系，而女性无权与其他男性建立关系。由于男性与女性有染早已常态化，女性与另一个男人有关系可能被视为更具越轨性。

Rules that restrict certain things, places, activities or sex acts to one partner. These rules are often seen as ways to protect the “specialness” of one relationship. And it is fair to want to keep some things that are just between you and your partner. A pet name, a special little waterfall deep in the woods, a song. These rituals are part of how we create security. Such rules also court disaster, though, in two ways. The first is when the lists of limited activities become—as they may over the years—long and complicated, thus becoming difficult to remember and increasingly limiting for other relationships. The second is when the “special” activity is either fairly common, or one of among very limited options. If someone is used to calling all their partners “sweetie” or “my love,” it might be difficult and unfair to try to restrict those terms to one person, but maybe not too disruptive to ask that you be the only one they call “cookie monster.” Wanting to keep the bistro in New York City where you had your first date special to two people is different from wanting to keep the one nice Italian joint in your rural town of 10,000 people to yourselves.

将某些事物、地点、活动或性行为限制在一个伴侣身上的规则。 这些规则通常被视为保护一段关系“特殊性”的方法。想要保留一些只属于你和你伴侣之间的事情是公平的。一个爱称，森林深处的一个特别的小瀑布，一首歌。这些仪式是我们创造安全感的一部分。然而，这些规则也会以两种方式招致灾难。第一种是当受限活动的清单变得——就像多年来可能发生的那样——冗长而复杂，从而变得难以记忆并且对其他关系越来越受限。第二种是当“特殊”活动要么相当普遍，要么是非常有限的选择之一时。如果某人习惯称呼所有伴侣为“甜心”或“我的爱人”，试图将这些称呼限制在一个人身上可能是困难和不公平的，但要求你是他们唯一称呼“饼干怪兽”的人可能不会太具破坏性。想要保留你们在纽约市第一次约会的小酒馆对两个人来说是特别的，这与想要把你们那个 10,000 人的乡村小镇上唯一一家不错的意大利餐厅留给你们自己是不同的。

Rules that specify what happens if one relationship runs into trouble. For example, there could be a rule that other relationships must be ended or scaled back. When a couple agrees “If we run into trouble, we’ll drop any other relationships to work on the problem,” they are treating their other partners as disposable. (However, see page 312 on “temporary vessels.”)

规定如果一段关系遇到麻烦会发生什么的规则。 例如，可能有一条规则规定其他关系必须结束或缩减。当一对夫妇同意“如果我们遇到麻烦，我们将放弃任何其他关系来解决问题”时，他们是在将其他伴侣视为可有可无的。（但是，请参阅第 312 页关于“临时容器”的内容。）

Double standards. Rules that place different restrictions on different people are problematic in any situation, and nonmonogamy is no exception. Double standards can be blatant and obvious: For example, Playboy founder Hugh Hefner was famous for having sexual relationships with multiple women simultaneously, all of whom were expected to have no lovers but him. But double standards can also be more subtle and sneaky. A common example is when a couple has a rule stating that they can interrupt each other’s dates with other partners if they need attention, but their other partners are not allowed to interrupt the couple’s dates with each other.

双重标准。 对不同的人施加不同限制的规则在任何情况下都是有问题的，非单偶制也不例外。双重标准可能是公然和明显的：例如，《花花公子》创始人休·赫夫纳以同时与多名女性发生性关系而闻名，而这些女性都被期望除了他之外没有其他情人。但双重标准也可能更加微妙和鬼祟。一个常见的例子是一对夫妇有一条规则，规定如果他们需要关注，他们可以打断彼此与其他伴侣的约会，但他们的其他伴侣不被允许打断这对夫妇彼此的约会。

Sometimes double standards are deliberately engineered to create different classes of partners. If members of a couple claim the right to veto relationships with other people, but other partners are not given veto power over the couple’s relationship, a deliberate double standard exists. The couple may see this double standard as a way to prevent new partners from “causing” them to break up.

有时双重标准是故意设计的，以创造不同等级的伴侣。如果一对夫妇的成员声称有权否决与他人的关系，但其他伴侣没有被赋予对这对夫妇关系的否决权，那么就存在故意的双重标准。这对夫妇可能会将这种双重标准视为防止新伴侣“导致”他们分手的一种方式。

Whenever rules apply unevenly to different people, there is potential for trouble, resentment and jealousy. (Ironically, double standards are often instituted as a way to prevent jealousy, at least within an established relationship, but far more often they end up creating it.) Rules that codify a double standard are disempowering.

只要规则不均匀地适用于不同的人，就有可能产生麻烦、怨恨和嫉妒。（讽刺的是，双重标准通常是为了防止嫉妒而制定的，至少在既定关系中是这样，但它们往往最终会导致嫉妒。）编纂双重标准的规则是剥夺权力的。

Rules as “training wheels”

Section titled “Rules as “training wheels””

作为“辅助轮”的规则

Section titled “作为“辅助轮”的规则”

Another common notion is rules as “training wheels,” a way to learn the skills to navigate nonmonogamous relationships without feeling threatened. A person (or more often a couple) may start out with a list of rules, thinking they will learn trust by seeing other people obey the restrictions. Once that trust has been built, they think, the rules can slowly be relaxed.

另一个常见的观念是将规则视为“辅助轮”，一种在不感到受威胁的情况下学习驾驭非单偶制关系技能的方法。一个人（或更多时候是一对夫妇）可能会从一列规则开始，认为通过看到其他人遵守限制，他们将学会信任。他们认为，一旦建立了信任，规则就可以慢慢放松。

This idea may have become popular from the observation that lots of happy nonmonogamous relationships seem to have grown this way. A couple or group will sometimes start out by drawing up a long, detailed relationship agreement with many pages of rules and specifications, and then, as it’s renegotiated over time, it becomes ever simpler and more general, until perhaps a ten-page document has been condensed to something like “Use good judgment. Be thoughtful. Take responsibility. Don’t be a jerk.” The group’s success makes this strategy look like a winner, and they proudly blog about it.

这个想法可能因为观察到许多幸福的非单偶制关系似乎都是这样发展起来的而变得流行。一对夫妇或一个群体有时会首先起草一份长而详细的关系协议，包含许多页的规则和规范，然后，随着时间的推移重新协商，它变得越来越简单和笼统，直到可能一份十页的文件被浓缩成类似“使用良好的判断力。要体贴。承担责任。不要做个混蛋”这样的东西。该群体的成功使这一策略看起来像是一个赢家，他们自豪地在博客上谈论它。

In fact, we believe the popularity of this idea confuses cause and effect. Because they were thoughtful people who take responsibility, they didn’t need ten pages of rules in the first place. And if they hadn’t been thoughtful people, the rules wouldn’t have helped.

事实上，我们认为这个想法的流行混淆了因果关系。因为他们是体贴且负责任的人，所以他们一开始就不需要十页的规则。如果他们不是体贴的人，规则也无济于事。

“Training wheels” rules are a seductive idea. They offer a justification for a tightly restrictive model of nonmonogamy, but also offer the promise that someday they won’t be necessary. Some people even think that empowered nonmonogamous relationships are only an option for people who already have lots of experience in nonmonogamy or a secure attachment style. Everyone else starting out is supposed to need the comfort of rules to learn the trust that leads to nonmonogamous enlightenment.

“辅助轮”规则是一个诱人的想法。它们为严格限制的非单偶制模式提供了理由，但也提供了有朝一日它们将不再必要的承诺。有些人甚至认为，赋权的非单偶制关系只是那些已经在非单偶制方面拥有丰富经验或拥有安全依恋风格的人的选择。其他所有刚开始的人都被认为需要规则的安慰来学习通往非单偶制启蒙的信任。

The biggest problem with the “training wheels” metaphor is that it doesn’t treat people as real. People who use it are essentially telling new partners, “I don’t really trust you, and I don’t have the skills to treat you well, so I’m going to use you as practice to learn how to treat future partners well.”

“辅助轮”隐喻的最大问题是它没有把人当成真实的人对待。使用它的人实际上是在告诉新伴侣，“我并不真正信任你，我也没有技能善待你，所以我把你当作练习，以学习如何善待未来的伴侣。”

But not everyone learns to ride a bike by using training wheels. Some people even believe that relying on training wheels teaches bad habits that must be unlearned when the training wheels come off. In nonmonogamous relationships, using rules to avoid dealing with thorny problems like jealousy and insecurity can cause you to learn some very bad relationship habits. Even under the best of circumstances, talking about your fears and insecurities is hard. When you talk about your frailties, you become exposed and vulnerable. Relying on rules to deal with these feelings teaches you that you don’t have to talk about them directly, which prevents you from learning the skills you need to find lasting solutions.

但并不是每个人都是通过使用辅助轮学会骑自行车的。有些人甚至认为，依赖辅助轮会教给人坏习惯，当辅助轮拆掉时必须改掉这些习惯。在非单偶制关系中，使用规则来避免处理嫉妒和不安全感等棘手问题可能会导致你养成一些非常糟糕的关系习惯。即使在最好的情况下，谈论你的恐惧和不安全感也是困难的。当你谈论你的弱点时，你会变得暴露和脆弱。依赖规则来处理这些感受会教导你不必直接谈论它们，这会阻碍你学习寻找持久解决方案所需的技能。

The entire purpose of many relationship rules is risk avoidance. If you already have a relationship when you start exploring nonmonogamy, it’s natural to say, “I would like to protect the relationship I already have, so I want to explore nonmonogamy without risk.” If you come to nonmonogamy when you’re single, it’s natural to say, “I want to protect my heart, so when I have a partner, I will ask them not to do anything that makes me feel threatened.”

许多关系规则的全部目的是规避风险。如果你在开始探索非单偶制时已经有一段关系，很自然会说，“我想保护我已经拥有的关系，所以我想在没有风险的情况下探索非单偶制。”如果你在单身时接触非单偶制，很自然会说，“我想保护我的心，所以当我有伴侣时，我会要求他们不要做任何让我感到受威胁的事情。”

Unfortunately, when you seek to reduce risk by imposing constraints on other people’s behaviour, you transfer that risk onto others. By doing this, you say, “I want to explore nonmonogamy, but I don’t want to take this risk, so I will transfer it onto any new partners, by asking them to be open and vulnerable while also limiting how much they are allowed to advocate for their own needs.”

不幸的是，当你试图通过限制他人的行为来降低风险时，你就把这种风险转移到了别人身上。通过这样做，你是在说，“我想探索非单偶制，但我不想承担这个风险，所以我将把它转移给任何新伴侣，要求他们开放和脆弱，同时限制他们被允许为自己的需求辩护的程度。”

It can take a great deal of courage to start exploring nonmonogamy without relying on rules to feel safe. It does seem that the secret to healthy, dynamic relationships keeps coming back to courage. Forget training wheels. Forget trying to figure out the right rules that will keep you safe forever; there is no safe forever. Instead, go into the world seeking to treat others with compassion whenever you touch them. Try to leave people better than when you found them. Communicate your needs. Understand and advocate for your boundaries. And look for other people who will do the same. Trust them when they say they love you; where communication and compassion exist, you don’t need rules to keep you safe, and where they don’t exist, rules won’t help you anyway. You don’t learn how to be compassionate by disempowering other people; you learn how to be compassionate by practising compassion.

在不依赖规则来获得安全感的情况下开始探索非单偶制可能需要极大的勇气。健康、充满活力的关系的秘密似乎总是回到勇气。忘掉辅助轮吧。忘掉试图找出能让你永远安全的正确规则；没有永远的安全。相反，走进世界，寻求在每次接触他人时都以同情心对待他们。试着让你遇到的人变得更好。沟通你的需求。理解并主张你的界限。寻找也会这样做的人。当他们说爱你时相信他们；在存在沟通和同情的地方，你不需要规则来保护你的安全，而在不存在这些的地方，规则无论如何也帮不了你。你不能通过剥夺他人的权力来学习如何富有同情心；你是通过练习同情来学习如何富有同情心的。

Limited-duration rules

Section titled “Limited-duration rules”

限时规则

Section titled “限时规则”

All this being said … sometimes a rule can be useful, even necessary. The work it takes to become secure and confident can be hard. In some situations, rules that are specific, narrow in scope and, most importantly, limited in duration can be valuable tools for problem-solving. If you’ve found that something your partners are doing just absolutely drives you up the wall, asking them to temporarily stop doing it can give you the emotional space to process whatever’s underneath.

话虽如此……有时规则可能是有用的，甚至是必要的。变得安全和自信所需的工作可能很艰难。在某些情况下，具体、范围狭窄且最重要的是限时的规则可以成为解决问题的宝贵工具。如果你发现你的伴侣正在做的某件事绝对让你抓狂，要求他们暂时停止这样做可以给你情感空间来处理下面的任何问题。

Implementing time-limited rules can be helpful in specific situations, but there’s also a risk in doing so: When you’re comfortable, you tend to want to stay there. That’s why we recommend a sunset clause in any rule: for example, “After three weeks (or some other period of time), we will revisit this issue.” And it goes on the calendar. How much time? That depends on the circumstances and the people, but broadly, for most people a week is too short, and a year is too long.

在特定情况下实施限时规则可能会有所帮助，但这样做也存在风险：当你感到舒适时，你往往想留在那里。这就是为什么我们建议在任何规则中加入日落条款：例如，“三周（或其他一段时间）后，我们将重新审视这个问题。”并把它记在日历上。多长时间？这取决于具体情况和人员，但大体上，对大多数人来说，一周太短，一年太长。

A sunset clause doesn’t mean you’re under a deadline to fix the emotional issue. It’s merely a promise to re-examine and renegotiate at that time. The person asking for the temporary rule is asking their partners to trust that they are willing to work on whatever the underlying problem is, and that they won’t simply keep extending the rule every three weeks into infinity. The partners who are agreeing to the temporary rule are asking the rule-maker to trust that they genuinely want to help support the rule-maker in fixing the issue and that they are willing to give the rule-maker space to work on it.

日落条款并不意味着你有解决情感问题的最后期限。这仅仅是在那时候重新检查和重新谈判的承诺。要求制定临时规则的人是在请求他们的伴侣相信他们愿意解决任何潜在的问题，并且他们不会简单地每三周无限期地延长规则。同意临时规则的伴侣是在请求规则制定者相信他们真心想帮助支持规则制定者解决问题，并且他们愿意给规则制定者空间去解决它。

Alternatives to rules

Section titled “Alternatives to rules”

规则的替代方案

Section titled “规则的替代方案”

When we talk about relationships that are not rules-based, we’re not talking about relationships with no rules whatsoever. Rather, we’re talking about relationships that don’t use rules as the first go-to problem-solving tactic, and that don’t attempt to deal with emotional or security issues solely by creating frameworks of rules.

当我们谈论非基于规则的关系时，我们并不是在谈论没有任何规则的关系。相反，我们谈论的是不将规则作为首选解决问题策略的关系，以及不试图仅仅通过创建规则框架来处理情感或安全问题的关系。

Many people say they need rules in their relationships, but when they are asked why, it quickly becomes obvious that what they need is actually something else. It is usually something like security or stability; a sense of empowerment, predictability or safety; or an ability to set boundaries or negotiate with their partners. Those are all reasonable needs—and it is possible to have those things without rules.

许多人说他们在关系中需要规则，但当被问及原因时，很快就会发现他们需要的实际上是别的东西。通常是安全感或稳定性；赋权感、可预测性或安全；或者是设定界限或与伴侣谈判的能力。这些都是合理的需求——而且没有规则也可以拥有这些东西。

Conflating rules with needs is common, because many people live in societies that teach them that they need external structures and authority in order to treat other people well. These people internalize the idea that the only way they can rely on others to behave with kindness, responsibility, respect and compassion is to create rigid codes compelling them to. Many people are told that if they make choices from personal autonomy, then responsibilities will be neglected and kindness will fade.

将规则与需求混为一谈是很常见的，因为许多人生活在教导他们需要外部结构和权威才能善待他人的社会中。这些人内化了这样一种观念：他们可以依靠他人表现出善良、责任、尊重和同情的唯一方法是制定强制性的僵化准则。许多人被告知，如果他们根据个人自主权做出选择，那么责任就会被忽视，善良就会消退。

In reality, relationships without rules are (usually) far from a free-for-all in which everyone does whatever they want without regard for anyone else. Instead, if you look at such relationships, many show high levels of communication, negotiation, compassion and understanding. Mononormativity teaches people that “rules” and “commitment” are almost interchangeable: You demonstrate commitment by agreeing to rules that limit your behaviour. From that position, it can be hard to imagine what a relationship without rules would even look like.

实际上，没有规则的关系（通常）远非每个人都为所欲为而不顾他人的混乱局面。相反，如果你观察这样的关系，许多都表现出高水平的沟通、协商、同情和理解。单偶常态教导人们“规则”和“承诺”几乎是可以互换的：你通过同意限制你行为的规则来证明承诺。从那个立场来看，很难想象一段没有规则的关系会是什么样子。

Relationships, especially cohabiting relationships, often involve many commitments and responsibilities. You might think, “How can I be sure the kid will be picked up from school if I don’t have a rule telling my partner to be home by 3:30 on weekdays?” Or “If there’s no rule against late-night dates, how do I know my partner will be able to get up in the morning to go to work?” And the answer is: You don’t. But if a partner is willing to skip out on commitments and responsibilities, they’re probably just as willing to break rules!

关系，尤其是同居关系，通常涉及许多承诺和责任。你可能会想，“如果我没有规定我的伴侣在工作日 3:30 前回家，我怎么能确定孩子会被从学校接回来？”或者“如果没有禁止深夜约会的规则，我怎么知道我的伴侣早上能起来去上班？”答案是：你不知道。但是，如果一个伴侣愿意逃避承诺和责任，他们可能同样愿意打破规则！

To understand relationships that are not rules-based, we need to go back to two of the themes we emphasize in this book: trust and boundaries. You have to trust that your partners want to take care of you—that given the freedom to do whatever they choose, they will make choices that respect your needs and honour their commitments.

要理解非基于规则的关系，我们需要回到我们在本书中强调的两个主题：信任和界限。你必须相信你的伴侣想要照顾你——如果有自由做任何他们选择的事情，他们会做出尊重你的需求并履行承诺的选择。

As Andrea once wrote:3 “Rules have an inverse relationship to trust. They are intended to bind someone to someone else’s preferences. They are aimed at constraint. I will limit you, and you will limit me, and then we’ll both be safe.” The problem with rules, though, is you can never actually force your partners to abide by them. A partner who can’t be trusted to meet your needs can’t be trusted to follow your rules. What you need is a trustworthy partner … and you need to be trustworthy yourself.

正如安德莉亚曾经写道：3 “规则与信任成反比。它们旨在将某人绑定到另一人的偏好上。它们旨在约束。我限制你，你限制我，然后我们都安全了。”然而，规则的问题在于你实际上永远无法强迫你的伴侣遵守它们。一个不被信任能满足你需求的伴侣也不被信任会遵守你的规则。你需要的是一个值得信任的伴侣……你自己也需要值得信任。

Sometimes rules try to compensate for poor boundaries. Some people might say they use rules to prevent drama or to protect themselves from someone who might want to split up their relationship. But nobody can make you and your partner split up, or engage you in messy dynamics, if you don’t agree to it. If you can simply say “No, I won’t participate in this dynamic,” or “I choose to remain with my partner. I’m not interested in dissolving our relationship,” then you don’t need to rely on structures or rules to attempt to do that for you. These are just good boundaries in action.

有时规则试图补偿薄弱的界限。有些人可能会说他们使用规则来防止戏剧性事件，或者保护自己免受可能想拆散他们关系的人的伤害。但是如果你不同意，没有人能让你和你的伴侣分手，或者让你卷入混乱的动态。如果你能简单地说“不，我不会参与这种动态”，或者“我选择和我的伴侣在一起。我对解散我们的关系不感兴趣”，那么你就不需要依靠结构或规则来为你做这件事。这些只是良好的界限在起作用。

In the end, whether you choose to rely on rules or agreements, or simply advocate for your needs and give your partners the opportunity to address them, no relationship will succeed if your partners don’t want to invest in it. If they cannot be trusted to make the relationship work, it won’t, rules be damned.

归根结底，无论你是选择依赖规则还是协议，或者是简单地主张你的需求并给你的伴侣机会来解决它们，如果你的伴侣不想投入，任何关系都不会成功。如果他们不值得被信任去经营关系，那么无论有什么规则，关系都不会成功。

QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF 问自己的问题

When considering your needs for agreements or rules, or whether to sign on to someone else’s, these questions can be useful:

当考虑你对协议或规则的需求，或者是否签署别人的协议或规则时，这些问题可能有用：

  • What needs am I trying to address with this agreement?

  • Does the agreement offer a path to success?

  • Does everyone affected by the agreement have the opportunity to be involved in setting its terms?

  • How is the agreement negotiated, and under what circumstances can it be renegotiated?

  • What happens if the agreement doesn’t work for my partners or their partners?

  • Do I feel like I need rules to feel safe? If so, will the rules actually keep me safe?

  • Are my rules equally binding on everyone they affect, or do they create a double standard?

  • 我试图通过这个协议解决什么需求？

  • 这个协议是否提供了一条通往成功的道路？

  • 受协议影响的每个人是否有机会参与制定其条款？

  • 协议是如何协商的，在什么情况下可以重新协商？

  • 如果协议对我的伴侣或他们的伴侣不起作用会发生什么？

  • 我是否觉得我需要规则才能感到安全？如果是这样，规则真的能让我安全吗？

  • 我的规则对受其影响的每个人都具有同等约束力吗，还是它们造成了双重标准？

Footnotes

Section titled “Footnotes”

  1. the lifeblood Kirshenbaum, Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay, Kindle edition. ↩ ↩2

  2. novel situations See, for example, Timothy D. Wilson and Daniel T. Gilbert, “Affective Forecasting,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 35 (2003): 345–411. ↩ ↩2

  3. an inverse relationship to trust Andrea Zanin, “The Problem with Polynormativity,” Sex Geek (blog), January 24, 2013, https://sexgeek.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/theproblemwithpolynormativity. ↩ ↩2