Please note I have not made up my mind about the particular lifestyle so I'm totally neutral here. I'm not into any relationship right now, but when I think of it, I sometimes think about how would it be a monogamous ones and sometimes I feel more like I'd want to stick with some sort of polyamory.
This is simply not true. The number of partners has absolutely nothing to do with the depth of any given relationship, poly or mono.
> I believe issues multiply when you have many.
It's actually the opposite. You don't have to get upset because someone is lacking in some area, because you have someone else that covers it. It actually takes a lot of pressure off of a given relationship.
2. As far as I can tell from everyone else's experience (haha) there are always issues. Issues is not something to be ignored, but rather something to be discussed, otherwise they grow into something you can't actually solve. The more partners you have, the less time you have to discuss those issues.
2. From my actual experiences, there are always issues, yes. However, they're not as big, because you quickly get very good at communicating and resolving those issues.
I didn't mean to imply that issues should be covered up, sorry. That's absolutely not the case. What I meant was, you can appreciate a relationship with different people for different reasons.
It's hard to find out about this for a few reasons. First of all, it's really hard to get good data. This thread is actually the most I've ever spoken about it on the internet, because I'm not really 'outed' in public except to the people who know me in real life. This is largely due to the stigma (and probably some holdover Catholic guilt) that's associated with poly.
Secondly, the data is tainted by people who aren't _really_ practicing open relationships, and only do it to 'spice up' or 'save' a slowly failing monogamous one. I largely attribute my own success to it being one of the preconditions on my relationship being formed.
Let's just say that N philosophers have at least N+1 definitions of what "knowing" means, not all of which are consistent with your position, and leave it at that.
With most "decisions" about my lifestyle, I keep the societal default until unhappiness with it prompts me to change, rather than considering all options from a neutral state. I wonder what the pros and cons of the default-first and neutral-first strategies are? Default first automatically directs your attention to "pain points" in your life, but may make you blind to larger, more existential choices. Default-first also takes into account the "wisdom" of the masses, at least some of which is probably right. Neutral-first keeps you from being locked into any one lifestyle by fear or other attachments.
Examples of things that I've consciously changed from the default settings: I'm vegetarian (animal-rights motivation), I cut my own hair (I like the simplicity and the control).
For reference on the neutral-first strategy (with a pleasingly mathematical twist):
Kidding. I'm the cooking obsessed clean freak in the relationship.
Why do you care? It's a fairly clear word for a new-ish idea, IMHO.
If you want to pick on a word for technical reasons, 'polyamory' itself is actually pretty popular. I can't find a link to the quote now, but it was something along the lines of "Half greek, and half latin? Obviously wrong."
For a choice between between monogamy and polygamy to be relevant, the subject must have the capability to secure multiple partners. How many subjects reading hackernews could possibly have this ability?
edit: wow, I must have hit a nerve. This was purely tongue-in-cheek.
You got me though :)
When you're gay, things are much simpler in such relationships, so that seems to be annectodally more common. Probably selection bias, though.
I have a feeling your intuition regarding homosexuality is probably true, at least from what I've seen.