It is What it is: The Trouble with Relationship Labels

Michael and David are gay men who met on one of those cringy, yet stimulating hookup

apps. They flirted through the app’s messaging system before deciding to meet for

lunch. Lunch? I know. How weird is that? What happened to down and dirty

meaningless sex? Yes, I’m being facetious. Actually, how thoughtful, refreshing, and

lovely to meet for lunch.

Michael is a “mature” man. Okay… an older man (he’s sensitive about his age). He is

intelligent, accomplished, well-educated, attractive (for his age, he would add),

thoughtful, sweet, passionate, playful, and engaging. Although he has sexual

relationships with other guys, Michael was not in a committed romantic relationship

when he met David.

David is two decades younger, and all of the words used to describe Michael also

pertain to David. Despite their generational divide, David and Michael share myriad

common traits and interests. They are sympatico in many ways. And both men are

affected by varying degrees of insecure anxious attachment. They seek reassurance

and validation that they are desirable, lovable, enough.

Oh – and this is kind of important; David lives with his partner of five years in a

consensual non-monogamous relationship.

When Michael and David sat down for lunch, they explored their mutual attraction and

spoke honestly about David’s predilection to be in relationship with more than one man.

Both men expressed their desire to explore an ongoing, emotional connection – not a

one-night stand. After lunch, they took a walk and then kissed when they parted ways –

more than once, just to be sure they felt tingles, which they both did. And so they

agreed to meet again.

Now, six months later, Michael and David’s lunch date has evolved and blossomed into

a full-scale romantic relationship. So, how do Michael and David describe their

untraditional courtship? They don’t. It is what it is and doesn’t wear a label.

But then one day, a friend of Michael’s asked him point blank, “Is David your boyfriend?”

Michael sidestepped the question but got curious about it and wondered how David

would define their union. Michael admitted he’d been reluctant to explore the topic

because he was afraid that he and David might conceptualize their coupling differently,

which could lead to hurt feelings. But Michael gritted his teeth and posed the question.

David responded by saying he didn’t really know but guessed maybe something like

“friends with benefits.” Michael was crushed, his worst fear realized. The attachment

and abandonment wounds Michael has experienced in his life have conditioned him to

sometimes think the worst. David’s words cut deeply. Michael felt insulted and perceived

a relational imbalance that could be tough to overcome.

David instantly realized that his characterization of their relationship had hurt Michael

and quickly explained that he perceives FWB as something very special. But to Michael

– and most of the world, it’s just a more endearing phrase for casual sex partners.

David then asked Michael how he viewed their relationship. Michael said he envisioned

himself as a “secondary partner” to David. Now David objected, stating that establishing

a hierarchical order diminished Michael’s importance, making him “less than” David’s

nesting partner. David’s point is echoed by author Jessica Fern in her book, Polysecure,

where she dispels the notion that “loving someone more means loving someone else

less.”

After a bit more conversation, Michael began to feel more secure about David’s

attachment to him, but the topic was too sensitive and emotional for them to dig any

deeper. So they agreed to simply embrace the relationship they have, and that it shall

remain undefined and nameless.

Both men recognize that they have developed a strong and deep emotional bond,

passionate romantic and sexual chemistry, playful and humorous rapport, and lively

conversation that is vulnerable, thoughtful, intelligent, and meaningful. They feel safe

with each other.

Over the course of their conversations, Michael and David have both articulated that

their relationship is special and very important to each of them. They agree that they

care deeply for and about one another and are grateful for each other’s presence in

their life. And if someone asks the label question, each of them can honestly respond

that the other is “a very special person in my life.” Period.

And yes, you’d be correct in assessing Michael and David’s behavior as avoidant. It is.

And it’s perfectly reasonable and acceptable. Maybe at some point down the road,

David will become more comfortable with the idea of creating a label to define and

signify what he and Michael are to each other. But assigning a name such as boyfriend,

lover, partner, or “special friend” is not a requirement and the lack thereof, does not

diminish their bond.

Relationships are complex, meandering organisms that grow, stagnate, recede, rupture,

repair, stretch, and evolve. Polyamorous relationships are especially intricate and

nuanced. Maybe we’d all be better off if we stopped sweating the details and just be

content with and grateful for what is. While labels are sometimes necessary and

important, they are sometimes unnecessary and unimportant. It would behoove us to

become more secure in the ambiguity of the undefined.

As the learned and wise author, Henri Nouwen, wrote, sometimes we need to “leave

unanswered questions unanswered,” and as John, Paul, George, and Ringo sang, “let it

be.” Yes, the words are poetic and philosophically sound, but acceptance and

integration of them into one’s belief system is a whole lot harder.

By Roger Cahak LPC