Which public figures will self-identify as "polyamorous" or "ethically non-monogamous" before 2026?
108
793
6k
2025
54%
Grimes
39%
Miley Cyrus
36%
Kristen Stewart
35%
Doja Cat
34%
Michael Chabon
31%
Taika Waititi
31%
Tilda Swinton
23%
Eliot Page
23%
Billie Eilish
21%
Andrew Huberman
17%
Lizzo
15%
Sam Altman
14%
Lex Fridman
14%
Hozier
12%
Kanye
10%
Pete Davidson
10%
Any current or former United States Senator
9%
Timothee Chalamet
7%
Olivia Rodrigo
6%
Elon Musk

Rumors will not count, no matter how substantiated. A name resolves yes if there is a quote from the person saying describing themselves as practicing "polyamory", "ethical non-monogamy", or "relationship anarchy".

I may also count it if they are listed on Wikipedia's List of Polyamorists, which I expect to filter out gossip and only including notable people. But if Wikipedia does a poor job at this I might still require a direct quote to resolve a name yes.

It does not count if someone is "seeing multiple people", "taking a break", "in a situationship", etc without saying they are Poly/ENM. I will also not count "in an open marriage" or swinging. This is only for the newfangled kind of poly/ENM, and the connotations with those specific terms.

I'll N/A things on a case-by-case basis for quality control. Please try to submit plausible candidates, don't add someone and then immediately buy them down to 1%.

It's okay to add people after you find a quote that resolves to Yes though, if they are sufficiently famous that they'd be an interesting data point for the market. It needs to be a recent quote for those cases, though. It doesn't count if someone said they were poly 10 years ago and now they might not be.

Any self-identified poly/ENM people will resolve Yes, and everyone else will resolve No on January 1st 2026.

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

2026 is too far away! New markets:

If he did that he'd totally have my vote. (Not that I have one, but okay.)

Don't forget "consensual non-monogamy".

@Snarflak how does that differ from "ethical non-monogamy"?

@shankypanky Arguably doesn't, which is why I said to not forget about it.

Andrew Huberman

missed opportunities

Grimes

I dunno actually, if she's poly she's been so for years right? But she keeps it private.

Why would she start talking about her relationships in more detail now than she has in the last?

surprised at how low Lex Fridman and Elon Musk are, even though both of them are pretty rat-adjacent

@duck_master Lex often talks about how he's a vanilla, monogamous, traditional relationship sort of guy. (it's always the quiet ones though so 🍿)

@duck_master Elon is wayyy too jealous and insecure to be poly

@Stralor one-sided non monogamy

bought Ṁ250 Elon Musk NO

@shankypanky he's here for that worship polygyny

@Stralor pronatalist agenda

Pete Davidson
opened a Ṁ1 Pete Davidson NO at 16% order

not mr. monogamy

I lol'd at the description of poly as "newfangled". The Ethical Slut was published in 1997 (and, from what I hear, it shows). There are definitely Gen X'ers who self-identify as poly, and likely even some boomers, with weird boomer memes in their polycule whatsapp group chats.

@BrunoParga it's true there are books (The Ethical Slut but even much later Sex at Dawn etc) that were published and somewhat popular but it doesn't mean they represented any accepted or widely popular approach to relationships or sexuality. and I think it's inarguable that it's easier to self-identify as someone with a "less traditional" approach to relationships now than it was in previous generations, at least openly.

@BrunoParga Ah, but we can all agree 1997 was just 10 years ago right? That's pretty new!

@shankypanky sure, I agree with all that.

I just think that the description of "newfangled" from Wiktionary applies pretty terribly to polyamory:

(usually derogatory, disapproving, or humorous) new and often needlessly novel or gratuitously different; recently devised or fashionable, especially when not an improvement.

I mean, if poly is "newfangled", what isn't? Divorce? Marrying for love?

Although it could well be that my non-native English speaker ass is reading too much into this.

@BrunoParga Ah, to be clear I just meant it humorously and not derogatorily, except perhaps as self-deprecation.

@Joshua I am sorry to inform you that 10 years ago was when Matrix, Fight Club and Star Wars Episode I came out, 1999, meaning 1997 was a few weeks, maybe months, before that.

@BrunoParga oh - I've never read a formal definition of newfangled it turns out, I only know it colloquially (which doesn't really have a negative connotation imo)

@shankypanky @Joshua speaking of poly books, if you're into this kind of sin and perversion of good costumes (like I am), I highly recommend the book Polysecure, which deals with attachment theory in a poly context.

@BrunoParga ah thanks for the rec - I've read excerpts from this I think (and I know a lot about attachment theory in general) so I'll look it up

@shankypanky oo I'll have to pick that up at some point too

@BrunoParga I think most of us native speakers almost always use "newfangled" as a joke. It has negative connotations, but we elide them to instead place those connotations on us as the speaker, implying that we're "out of touch" with the world around us.

@BrunoParga not sure if you're into podcasts like this (and it's really a shame about the recent press about Huberman's relationship dishonesty) but I'm listening to this one this morning and thought I'd share it with you since you were talking about books:
Dr. David Buss: How Humans Select & Keep Romantic Partners in Short & Long Term | Huberman Lab #48

@BrunoParga I read Polysecure thanks for the rec - nothing wildly groundbreaking ofc but definitely good coverage of Attachment Theory and emotional maturity in interrelationship.

More related questions