No, people mostly act out because they don't know how to behave maturely or they have been taught dysfunctional responses by a culture that is steeped in relationships built on control. Pretending that there are no metrics of emotional maturity is just a way for you to weasel out of having to admit that I'm right about this. Glorifying jealousy as not only inevitable but not about personal insecurity is simply the control aspects of a monogamy-oriented culture speaking.

I completely agree that humans of all stripes break their own rules constantly - it's something I've already stipulated to several times, but in saying that you've acknowledged that polyamorists do have different rules - something that hardly makes them a religious cult. Is kink a religious cult too then because they most certainly do have their own rules and ethos in that community as well?

It's not that there are inherently less rules in monogamy- it's that everyone knows what they are so they don't have to be talked about as much. If there are no inherent rules, then each relationship unit has to devise its own together, which involves a lot more high level communication.

I feel like you are purposely misunderstanding me in order to cling to your point of view and not have to even consider all the very valid points that I've made which challenge them. Of course I'm not advocating that life in rural Africa is idyllic and perfect. I simply made the point - which I made rather clearly - that it's an indication of how other types of social/relationship systems exist in other parts of the world and that contemporary Western cultures and their mores are not the only sort there are - so it's not really "human nature."

"Monogamy with more people" is a metaphor to indicate that people who don't understand the dynamics of a polyamorous relationship style are trying to overlay the dynamics of monogamy on top of being involved with more people - which is why it doesn't work.

I think there are all kinds of reasons why monogamy doesn't work, but mostly they have to do with the restrictive nature of it. That's why there is so much infidelity. US culture highly values monogamy, and considers any breaches of that to be really bad behavior, and yet engages in it in 35-60% of relationships, depending on who you ask. Pair bonds are human nature but sexually exclusivity is not. Modern marriage is also steeped in hierarchy. More than 55% of Americans agree that the man is the "head of the household." You don't have that as a part of poly ethos because individual autonomy is such an important part. Partners might agree to that, but it's pretty rare. Which is probably why 2/3 of existing relationships that open up do so at the suggestion of women.

If you have a relationship dynamic where people are allowed to be both autonomous and in relationships and to do that in the ways that they determine for themselves, it works pretty well for the most part. It's very much the way humans lived for millions of years until the advent of patriarchy about 6-9k years ago when sexual exclusivity (for women - that wasn't expected of men until the mid-Victorian era) suddenly became a part of pair-bonding in a way that it never had before.

Sometimes people outgrow each other, find they are no longer compatible, have their needs and desires change, etc., but if they are "doing poly" in the generally accepted way, it's not the structure that is typically at issue. There are at least half a dozen well known books out there which describe what these generally accepted ways of doing poly are - and they all say pretty much the same things - including the parts about self-responsibility for your own emotions and high levels of vulnerability and communication. If your friends aren't doing those things, then by definition of the generally accepted norms, they aren't really engaged in polyamory - which is pretty much what all the actually poly peeps commented to the author of this OP.

You can keep disagreeing, but it seems to be based more on an emotional adherence to preconceived notions than an interface with facts. 🤷‍♀️