Thanks for your comments, all.

Matt In The Hat: You raise a valid point. In my post, I’ve exclusively used the word “polyamourous” to refer to individuals – defined, perhaps, as “being capable and willing to engage in multiple romantic relationships simultaneously with the knowledge and consent of all involved.” In this way it’s defined as a philosophy, almost, and the similarity to bisexuality isn’t lost on me.

I’ve also heard the term used to refer to relationships: “I’m in a polyamourous relationship,” etc. Confusingly, these two definitions are not mutually incompatible – for example, it’s quite possible to identify as monogamous and be in a polyamourous relationship (for example, you may allow your partner to have other partners without wanting to do so yourself), or you may consider yourself polyamourous but be in a monogamous relationship, which can in turn be defined as being a definition of the state of affairs (“I have only one partner right now, but I’m potentially available,”) or a definition of the relationship in general (“I’m happy to have multiple partners, but I’m compromising for this relationship”). A similarity could be drawn to bisexuals in a monogamous relationships who may well – and are likely to – still consider themselves bisexual.

With so many terms and so many meanings – and meanings that may have different definitions to different people – I generally find it’s best to avoid them as far as possible. Personally, I tend to describe what I have with Claire and what I have with Ruth as “an open relationship,” and I’ll happily go into detail about what that actually entails (“No, I don’t consider it primary/secondary”, “No, I don’t consider it swinging,” “Yes, it’s exactly as complicated as it sounds,” “Yes, they each have other partners,” “Yes, the relationships are different: X, Y and Z, for example,” and all that jazz) if people actually want to know. Similarly, I try not to take offence at people coming up with their own definitions of what I have – I’ve heard it called polyamoury, nonmonogamy, swinging, partner-swapping, an open relationship, free love, and far more, and the only times I’ve felt the need to correct anybody has been when the definition is unambiguously not-what-we-have (e.g. polygamy – I’m not marrying either of them!).

Nonetheless; I think the short answer to your point is that a lot of people actually consider themselves to by “poly.” I think that the reason for this is that so many people definitively state that a poly relationship “wouldn’t work for them,” and so these are the people for whom one would work. The question’s kind-of academic to me, anyway, because I don’t personally identify as “polyamourous”, just as being in the kinds of relationships I’m in. Just one of the reasons I’m probably not an ideal candidate to have written a post like the one above, perhaps.

Thanks for your feedback, anyway.