I've not read that book, but it sounds like everyone around you has and is taking it as gospel. The problem is, I've never read any other other book or article even that takes these views. You are absolutely "real" poly and I think your particular community just has an atypical take on things.
Because polyamorist get to co-construct their own relationships I am perfectly within my rights (as are you) to consider my relationship with my husband to be in a hierarchy above other relationships and I wouldn't become involved with anyone who didn't agree with that. Some people don't like the idea of that, but that's their issue, not mine (or yours). If you randomly Google polyamory you will see hierarchical poly listed in pretty much every story as just one of the many ways that polyamory can be practiced.
I've done some research on it, and overwhelmingly, most polyamory is parallel, with partners having little to no interaction with metamours. The term "kitchen table poly" is relatively new, indicating to me that the practice is also probably fairly new, at least on a widespread level. I don't personally use terms like metamour either, except in articles because it's shorter than writing "partner of a partner" each time.
Swinging is different than poly, but that doesn't mean it's somehow inferior. Boy, you got some judge folks in your community. In ethical non-monogamy people get to do what they want, as long as it's consensual, honestly done, etc. I know plenty of swingers who are happy and fulfilled, and who have warm friendships within their swinging community. Treating anyone as a living sex toy is disrespectful, but that doesn't mean that a couple can't get together with someone else as a third in a perfectly legitimate way.
If those people want to take that book as their bible, I guess that's their right, but expecting everyone else to follow the rules of their bible when it's not in alignment with the larger consensus of what constitutes polyamory seems a bit deluded to me.
A quick search about the validity of hierarchy took me to this:
http://thenewmodality.com/the-great-showdown-of-hierarchical-polyamory-vs-relationship-anarchy/
In my own non-monogamous perambulations, I’ve noticed that the phrase “relationship anarchy” (RA) is newly prevalent. In some places, it’s so prevalent that many people who recently came to the community conflate RA with polyamory itself. This can lead to confusion, given that there are major differences between RA and other poly philosophies, such as “hierarchical polyamory.”
Liz, a 33-year-old in Illinois who practices hierarchical polyamory, says, “I feel like I’ve witnessed a lot of ‘relationship anarchists’ who behave more like relationship libertarians.” She also suggests that relationship anarchists will act like “a partner’s utterly foreseeable response to an action or boundary that they butted up against, or crossed, isn’t their responsibility, but the responsibility of their partner for how they react to it. I’ve seen it wielded as a weapon in relationships when someone didn’t get their way.”
It sounds a lot to me like what you are dealing with.
