And in the course of that flirtation, she made an odd remark. She said, "I'm not polyamorous." Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it seemed strange that she would say so during a result- oriented flirtation with Max, who definitely is. If she isn't poly, I wondered, why is she pursuing someone who already has a primary partner? Wouldn't just being in a relationship with Max qualify her as something other than a standard-issue monogamous person? Max and I thought so, and we amused ourselves kicking around some possible terms for her, like "poly-light," or "passively poly." Maybe "poly-by-association," or "poly-in-law"?
However, when I ran the concept past a panel of poly experts--i.e., my friends--they disagreed. "This is not a case where behavior dictates identity," one of them told me firmly. "If she says she's not poly, then she's not." Even Max's mother ruled against us. "Just because she's dating a poly person, that doesn't make her poly."
Then one perceptive gentleman said, "I think it's a trust issue. You both want her to identify herself as poly because it makes you feel more comfortable about the possibility of Max being involved with her. But as long as she respects your boundaries and communicates honestly, then it really doesn't matter what she does or doesn't call herself."
Zing! Right to the heart of the matter. When I say, "I'm polyamorous," part of what I'm saying is, "I align myself with this subculture's rules and philosophy about conducting multiple romantic partnerships." But to insist on applying the word to Elizabeth because I'd prefer she held a similar set of values is ridiculous. Only time and experience will tell if she's an appropriate secondary partner or not. But trying to push someone into an identity he or she doesn't embrace is always a bad way to start a relationship.
