Talk:List of polyamorists

additions
Shouldn't Hugh Hefner be on this list? He's one of the first people I think of when this word/subject come up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.71.137 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Penn from Penn and Teller needs to be added.

Is anyone able to find any public citation for David Bowie? AMProSoft 05:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * His ex Angie talks about their open marriage here and from [ http://www.amazon.com/Backstage-Passes-Life-David-Bowie/dp/0815410018 this Amazon listing] it looks as if she's said as much in print. Whether he's poly now, thirty years down the track, is another question - but it would probably make more sense to base this list on "ever poly" rather than require "always poly" or "now poly". --Calair 10:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden should be added in light of the extensive timeline of their relationship and the simultaneous marriages they managed to keep up. -Dione

Citations?
None of these are cited. Just because Amelia Earhart didn't say that she would require her husband to remain faithful to her doesn't necessarily mean she was polyamorous. How, for instance, was Percy Bysshe Shelley polyamorous? It's not common knowledge and his Wikipedia article says nothing of the sort. The whole thing needs to be cited.---Gloriamarie 05:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, a lot of the citation discussion is over at Talk:Polyamory and the archive listed there; this article was split off from that page. My preference would be to convert the whole thing to a category and shift the onus for citation back onto individual people's pages. --Calair 06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought this might work better as a category also. But, as I noticed there were several persons on the list who haven't any wikipedia article (and nonetheless may be regarded as famous), I decided to make a list rather than a category.  A category would be much easier to manage and more rigorously critiqued. AMProSoft 13:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like Category:Polyamory already exists, so I'll just add some comments to the category description and add the relevant articles to that. If people don't have articles of their own yet, that can be resolved by (somebody other than me ;-) writing them. --Calair 14:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through all the people listed on this page. Added the following, because the existing article already explained the poly connection: Natalie Barney, Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre, Paxus Calta, Amelia Earhart, Robert A. Heinlein, Patricia Ireland, Alfred Kinsey, William Marston, Elizabeth Marston, E. Nesbit, Vita Sackville-West, Harold Nicolson, Bloomsbury Group, Nan Wise. (Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart and Oberon Zell-Ravenheart were already listed.) In Heinlein's case, the article doesn't discuss the poly elements of his personal life, but his fiction alone should be sufficient grounds for including.

I did *not* add the following, because IMHO their articles didn't contain enough to justify categorisation: Olga Kosakiewicz, David Bowie, Warren Buffett, Dora Carrington, Robert Crumb, Aline Kominsky, Penn Jillette, Augustus John, Anais Nin, Eric S. Raymond, Erwin Schrödinger, Percy Shelley, Lytton Strachey, Edna St. Vincent Millay, Karlheinz Stockhausen, David Rovics, Victoria Woodhull.

Quite a few of these should eventually end up in Category:Polyamory, because adequate cites have already been provided here or on Talk:Polyamory, but that information needs to be worked into the individual articles first; I don't have the time or knowledge to take that on. Several of them documented multiple partners but didn't make it clear whether everybody involved was amenable to this. Re. Victoria Woodhull, note that 'free love' in her era didn't necessarily mean multiple partners; it could mean merely the freedom to divorce and remarry. I think her listing here is a mistake so I've removed it.

People who don't have their own English-language Wikipedia article, so couldn't be categorised: CT Butler, Olive Byrne, Kevin C Mason, Robyn Trask, Vincent M. Wales, Dieter Wedel. --Calair 16:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations are mandatory
I've removed all unsourced people from the list and, per WP:RS and WP:BLP, we should not add anything without a citation. --Damiens .rf 18:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Warren Buffet was only separated, not in a relationship with both women. He didn't marry his second wife until his first died. His first wife, Susan, left the family home in Omaha in the late 1970’s, after raising the couple’s three children, and moved to San Francisco. He married again in 2006. Dave
 * Where can we get the information we need about these people. Alot of very famous people have been in open marriages and were swingers, or such.Lord Balin (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We should not use our own original research on this topic to build this article. --Damiens .rf 12:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLPCAT, we should not include living people unless we have a citation to self-identification as a polyamorist. That is, we cannot base inclusion in this list on observation or third-party charaterization, but only the subject's own identification. Yworo (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

List of people and citations in German article
In the German article, here:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory#Bekannte_in_einvernehmlichen_mehrfachen_Beziehungen_lebende_Personen

is a list of many Persons who practiced open relationships, the mayority cited with some source. --82.113.121.16 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC) (Joise)

I took a look at the German list. The vast majority seem legitimate. Some however, like Bertrand Russell are debatable (as he own tried non-monogamy briefly after his wife had a child from another man). Also, Etty Hillesum + Edith Nesbit, Hubert Bland , and George Bernard Shaw + Arnold Zweig , writer and Beatrice Branch + (still going over the list) Cooltobekind (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge article into People in open marriages/open relationships
Why not just move or merge this article into the article titled "People in open relationships" or the "People in open marriages" article? They're the exact same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.247.198 (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

They are not the same thing. Polyamory is a broader term that describes both polyfidelity and open relationships. Cooltobekind (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

People on the list
I am not sure if: Alexander Thynn, 7th Marquess of Bath, British Lord should be on the list. I have found conflicting sources, some labelling it as an affair, and some as poly. At this point, I am leaning towards removing it. Cooltobekind (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The following individuals were removed from the list because of inadequate sources. If you come across any sources that could possibly support their inclusion, please post them here.


 * Jack Kerouac, Neal Cassady, writers associated with the Beat Generation
 * Lord Horatio Nelson, admiral, Emma, Lady Hamilton, and William Hamilton, British diplomat
 * H. G. Wells, author


 * Actually, keeping living people on a list on the talk page is also not permitted under WP:BLP. Yworo (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Update to criteria section
I've updated the criteria section because it appeared to condone the use of original research by examining a subject's relationships rather than what WIkipedia's verifiability policy actually requires, which is a citation to a reliable source that explicitly identifies the subject as "polyamorous". Further, living people should not be in this list based on anything other than self-identification as required by WP:BLPCAT. The criteria have been modified so as to make these requirements clear. Yworo (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a link to Wikipedia's policy on sexuality requiring a directly statement of a particular word for someone living (in this case, polyamory), rather than a statement that essential says the same thing (this is with regards to Tilda Swinton and Warren Buffet interview references). The above links do not clarify or support your assertions. Cooltobekind (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it, but it is does not answer my question regarding how specific a self-assertion must be (relating to a specific term, rather that a statement that essentially says the same thing). I ask for respect here, as minority sexualities have historically been discriminated against and their histories hidden. The term polyamory is fairly new and used to describe a wide range of consenting relationships amongst multiple people, that historically have fallen under other (and false) descriptions, such as affairs. The policy references homosexuality and 'closeted gays' - but nothing with regards to polyamory. Someone like Warren Buffet and Tilda Swinton are clearly not hiding their relationships and their activities. How can I get this clarified, or if no clarification exists, get this dispute resolved?


 * It is part and parcel of our verifiability policy. We do not do original research. To quote the policy against original research, "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." (emphasis in original). Yworo (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I am deeply confused and hurt by your allegations and attitudes towards me. I am a well-meaning contributor who has spend hours of my time trying to improve this article. You are using your privileged status and knowledge of Wikipedia's policies to manipulate and control the debate regarding the article, where I might otherwise have a case. I also now have an additional concern - you originally stated one thing (that only living persons regarded a direct statement claiming they were polyamorous, and are now holding that status to the dead - when the term is also a recent creation. In turn, you then make accusations against me that I have adding back people improperly, when I am confused as to what standard I am to hold the references to.  In addition, my original concerns regarding the term and its limited history need to be addressed.  Cooltobekind (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The references must directly call the subject polyamorous. For a living person, they must call themselves polyamorous. That's really simple. A person has to identify with the term. Or in the case of a deceased person, must be identified with the term by a reliable source. Wikipedia editors may not make the determination themselves. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it reports on the research of others as described in reliable secondary sources, it does not do the research itself. Yworo (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sincerely sorry that you are hurt, but you do not seem to be listening or trying to understand what the problem with your edits is. I have explained very clearly multiple times, but you seem to have some sort of need to identify people with polyamory who have not either so identified themselves or been identified by reliable sources. Your goals appear to be incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia, which is to report, not research. Wikipedia can be sued for misidentifying people with a label they do not choose to identify themselves with. Are you going to volunteer yourself as the responsible party if Warren Buffet objects to the use of the term to describe him? Yworo (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The dead do not need to self-identify. But they do need to be identified by a citation to an independent third-party researcher who specifically concludes that they were polyamorous. We do not draw conclusions, we report them. Yworo (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You were not clear before, even if you felt you were. I understand your position now, but I feel that their still existing a dispute regarding the term and how to report on those who have had consensual relationships with multiple parties. I am not trying to draw conclusions - I just want to know how these relationships can be recorded and reported properly on Wikipedia. The facts that they all had consensual relationships with multiple parties is not in dispute - the use of the term polyamory is. Making a list entitled "List of Consensual relationships involving multiple individuals" seems a bit over the top and polyamory is the best term to describe these relationships. Cooltobekind (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no. There are people who have multiple relationships and do not consider themselves poly. Some call what they do "open marriage", some call it "swinging". Poly requires love, and only the person involved can know whether they are being poly or doing something else. The relationships belong in the articles about the subjects. We can only call the subject poly if they have so self-identified or been so identified if deceased. The same applies to all sexual categorization. For example, Samuel R. Delany identifies as "gay". He has reportedly had relationships with women, but he does not identify as "bisexual" and we cannot call him that. That same applies here. You don't know whether the subject thought of themselves as cheating, swinging, being open, loving, just in it for the sex, or whatnot. And you can't call a person poly simply because they allowed their partner to practice polyamory. There are certainly relationships in which one partner is poly, the other(s) are monogamous. Who are you to decide what people's behavior means about their thinking and philosophy? Yworo (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As you can see in the discussion page regarding the German wikipedia article on Polyamory, I expressed the same concern about many on their list that I did not include because the sources were inadequate. What I am hearing, is because historically these terms did not exist (because of historic discrimination against these kinds of relationships), and as such their categorization between our modern terms such as "open marriage", "swinging" and "polyamory" cannot be determined, that no list article recording them should be kept. Is there a classification that can be agreed upon that encompasses all these relationships, or are they to be relegated to the trash because there classification cannot be determined? While someone reading or researching the specific person would read about the relationship on their article (if it is already reported), someone who wants to read up on or research those in consensual relationships involving three or more persons, (be they under whatever term - polyamorous relationships, open marriage, etc.) will have to either know who to look for or be adept at searching to find out about such relationships. What disturbs me is what is someone who identifies with such relationships, and is trying to research or find those who were in such histories, will be unable to or have a more difficult time in finding those involved. Historically, those practicing alternative sexualities had their histories hidden and had few role models to look up-to. I am not trying to debate values here - but I am stating that their exists significant historical precedence against such relationships and that sensitivity and consideration towards the historical discrimination and repression of these histories must be a consideration here. I am more than open to an alternative term being suggested, or diving up the content between two or more articles (such as List of Polyamorists and the list of those in an open relationship), based on the best evidence. Content still in dispute could be left on the discussion page(s) until better evidence can be found for the inclusion in one or the other article. Cooltobekind (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * For deceased people, new research may classify a person as poly, then they may be included in this list. There is however no alternative to direct and explicit sourcing. In no case may we evaluate anything. We can only categorize as existing reliable third-party sources categorize. We are here to report on what sources say, not to help "someone who wants to read up on or research those in consensual relationships involving three or more persons". There are plenty of polyamory sites out there that do just that. It's not our job or goal to do so. Yworo (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Removals
There is a discussion over who belongs in this list and Category:Polyamorous people at Category talk:Polyamorous people. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

overreach
Look, it's simple: not every person who was at some point in their life nonmonogamous was therefore polyamorous.

Not everyone who has enjoyed sex with someone of their own gender is therefore homosexual, and I know there are at least a few homosexuals who don't embrace the term "gay." And not every group marriage, triad, threesome, and affair is evidence of polyamory.

Likewise, I would dispute that anyone could have been polyamorous unwillingly. Bad enough they're being pronounced "poly" even though they died before the term was invented (let alone the tenets shored up), but names are added willy-nilly to these lists with little effort to determine whether they did indeed attempt to live up to something closely akin to those tenets. Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of polyamorists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717000213/http://www.wicca.utvinternet.com/view.htm to http://www.wicca.utvinternet.com/view.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of polyamorists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219070801/http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6737 to http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6737
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728152039/http://uupa.org/Sermons/FaithfuPolyamory.htm to http://uupa.org/Sermons/FaithfuPolyamory.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.transsexual.org/Tsbio.htmlJennifer

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Expansion of this list
I believe in principle that this list should be expanded with more diverse people known to be poly, even if the term "polyamory" was not in use at the time. This list unfortunately skews towards activist atheists, activist feminists, activist "LGBT community" members (there's a difference in my view between being LGBT, as in lesbian, gay, bi, or trans, using the common definition of those words, and "the LGBT community" as in the more vocal people who attend Pride parades and such; one needn't attend a Pride parade to be bisexual, for example).

In any case, when evidence can be found that someone was polyamorous despite the word not existing at the time, or even if they are usually treated as "lovers" or "mistress" but clear evidence is that more than two people intimately associated, bedded, or co-habited for an extended length of time, with the knowledge and consent of all involved, I think a case can be made to add people to this list. I have therefore added Nelson and the Hamiltons, the three of whom owned a house together, and between the three of which letters were sent more-or-less acknowledging the fait accompli that the marriage was in fact a three-way. If more polyamorists can be added on suitable evidence, great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.242.41.176 (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No. That's original research. Read the link. The source must explicitly state what is being claimed. We cannot use implication.

"Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."


 * Skyerise (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * On this basis, is there a basis for including Olive Byrne, Elizabeth Holloway Marston and, William Moulton Marston? The information on them is sourced to a single book, Wonder Woman: The Complete History, which I haven't (yet) read. While we'd probably describe the situation as "polyamorous" if it existed today, the term wouldn't have been in contemporary use; is the phrased used in the book, or in a reliable commentary on the book?


 * I will say, in regards to the original request, that the no-synthesis policy can be harder to apply when a modern term has no precise historical equivalent and modern research is thin on the ground. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I largely agree with the premises made by 80.242.41.176, but find my conclusions heading the opposite direction.


 * Not all men who sexually express themselves primarily with other men identify themselves as "gay," and not all gay-identified men see themselves as part of "the gay community" in any real sense. Not everyone who's queer-identified wants to be associated with (much less associate with) everyone else who's queer-identified.


 * Then, there's the not-insignificant begged question of w.t.f. "community": Community, Community of practice, Community of place, Community of interest?


 * There's even less "poly community" than "LGBTQ community": there's certainly no official Poly Pride Day, and few practicing polyfolk will march in any parade much less protest in front of City Hall. As well, LGBTQ has been variously estimated to (depending how you define the terms) include 10%-25% of the general population; by contrast, people who at some point have even vaguely fulfilled the requirements to experience polyamory has been estimated at <1%. The few poly-centric real-world events are scattered quite thinly — and almost entirely confined to major urban centers, thus excluding (say) a single suburban mother holding down two part-time jobs: she might be in "the community of interest" while highly unable to participate in "the community of place" or even "of practice," so is she part of "the poly community" or not?


 * Okay so back to this list. Basically, unless the W'pedia article specifically says that the subject "is polyamorous" AND gives a solid source for that factoid, it ain't gonna fly. And if the person is alive, then I'd say to err on the safe side of BLP. Editing WILL happen.


 * Moreover, as I state elsewhere, nobody was "poly" before the concept was created — if "they were doing something similar" is being claimed, then the page's title needs to be changed immediately to reflect that. (Though nonmonogamy and adultery have been around at least as long as marriage, the fact is that swingers didn't exist before World War II, and arguably not until its early codification the mid-'50s.) Since we don't know precisely when "poly theory" began to gel, we have the coining of the word polyamory in 1990. If we stretch the concept horribly, I could (uncomfortably) point out that polyfidelity was coined by Kerista circa 1971, and make the case that NOBODY before 1971 could possibly have been polyamorous. Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

lists? well... no
Some doubts about "lists of poly people." As with so many W'pedia List pages, the best argument for the continued existence of this is that it's an excellent means to keep fanboy trivia and ephemera from clogging up the actual, useful, credible information — here, Polyamory. Weeb Dingle (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Merely because one person acts in a polyamorous manner DOES NOT mean that all that person's sexual/emotional connections (however deep) are "poly," and further DOES NOT mean that it's somehow "a poly relationship," and DOES NOT mean that everyone connected to a nonmonogamous person is therefore nonmonogamous, let alone "poly." For instance, one person could have two dozen recurrent intimate partners, NONE of whom wants/claims to be poly, and are each therefore fundamentally monogamous in belief and practice, simply non-possessive.
 * There's no indication that everyone who acts in a clearly polyamorous manner WANTS to "join the club," so foisting the label on them is not only highly questionable, but (if they are living) is a clear BLP violation.
 * It's basically impossible for someone to have "been polyamorous" before the invention of the concept. As such creation was a sort of on-the-fly situation, an approximation of the concept's birth would substitute, so 1990. (I've never seen the argument made that "polyamory" was at all intended in some evolutionary manner, though I would truly enjoy reading any contemporaneous account.) Dragging up some corpse in order to paste on a label is clearly synthesis and probably original research.
 * An analogy: Nobody could have "been a Scientologist" before 1952, even if she had been around Hubbard since he created Dianetics (1930s, maybe earlier) and remained highly placed in CoS for the rest of her life.
 * The argument will likely be made that previous terminology such as responsible nonmonogamy somehow weasels this in. If so, then the instant that claim is made, the article's name will become List of responsibly nonmonogamous people; lacking that, please don't even make the claim.
 * In order for someone to be (or have been) polyamorous, they must at some point have figuratively stood up and said "I am polyamorous." Lacking that, they must have claimed to accept (if not willingly and actively perform) the tenets and practices that define the concept polyamory. Lacking even that, the individual IS NOT polyamorous.
 * An open relationship IS NOT THE SAME AS a polyamorous relationship. A couple can be "open" with one or both actively cheating, and an agreement (tacit or explicit) to "ignore" it so long as the home situation continues along satisfactorily, what is sometimes called a DADT (don't ask, don't tell) agreement; there is no commitment to mention their encoupled status to their hookups, therefore (FFI see below) it's not polyamory, Q.E.D..
 * Per the stated premise of List of polyamorists, in casual hookups there's no "strong, deep, close and true loving, romantic, and/or intimate relationship," and in DADT there's no inherent "full knowledge and consent of all involved.
 * In like manner, being inarguably polyamorous DOES NOT mean that the relationship is open. Since there is absolutely no verifiable evidence, we're stuck with popular conceptions and media reports, which heavily spread the belief that MOST polyamorous people are involved in a three-person CLOSED triad (almost always FMF). Portrayals are more marriage with more people (extending the premises of monogamy and marriage, as polygamy/polyandry), a highly circumscribed form of non-monogamy.


 * Each name on this list must point to a Wikipedia article. Either that article must clearly state the person was/is polyamorous (not merely nonmonogamous) or the list entry must point to a credible outside source that makes such a statement. In either case, particularly due to BLP policy, the cited source needs to be highly objective, rather than some "pro-poly" publication or an opinion piece or a blog. Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

slated for removal
The following deserve to be immediately cut for various vioations, but will be blanked and left awhile in hopes someone can fix them.


 * See previous post: Olive Byrne and the Marstons predate polyamory.


 * All cited sources say that Janet Farrar is polyfidelitous, not polyamorous, and they quote her or her partners. Though the latter is (arguably) a subset of the former, it is weaselly for an editor to paste on a label the subjects have actively avoided.


 * All cited sources about Terisa Greenan date from 2010 or 2009. Her "official website" no longer exists (I've cut the link). Her Facebook page is a dead shell. Her listing for voiceover work does not mention polyamory (and says she was "last active 11 years ago"). Her Revolvy page is not only outdated, but entirely a regurgitation of the Terisa Greenan content (and uncited at that). She may be presently polyamorous, or have put that nonsense behind her; until something CURRENT is cited, I'm going to go with BLP.


 * Exactly NONE of the cited sources (including the External Links) corroborate that Brenda Howard was polyamorous.


 * Alexandra Kollontai died more than two decades before polyamory existed.


 * Graham Nicholls SUPPORTS polyamory from a social justice perspective — and even that is according only to a 2012 book. (Supporting the rights of lesbians doesn't make him a lesbian.) The Independent article is from 2009, so aging badly per BLP.


 * Darrel Ray was poly as of 2000. Update (again per BLP) is vital.


 * Nothing, not even her WP article, substantiate that Jennifer Diane Reitz has ever been polyamorous.


 * The only citation for Caitlin Stasey is an interview where she says
 * We are not polyamorous
 * so it's clearly a BLP vio.


 * Tilda Swinton? No citation, unsupported in article, so another BLP vio.

Please correct what you can, ASAP. Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, the cited source for Celeste West DOES NOT even use the word "polyamory."