GeniesLoki

My suspicion is that the correct social model for relationships is something like "everyone is poly in principle but the overwhelming majority of people are monogamous or part of a mostly closed small polycule in practice at any given time."

There was a... Let's call it discussion... Recently about whether "neither poly nor monogamy are better than the other" is a true statement. I think it's mostly a bad frame that conflates way too much to be answerable.

Poly is a better system because it allows for much more freedom of movement while trying to figure things out and partial solutions where total solutions are unworkable. Monogamy and monogamy-like things are often closer to the ideal stable individual arrangement though.

I kinda expect personally to never settle down into a fully monogamous-like relationship, partly because I started too late, partly because I 100% never intend to have kids which removes a major driver, and partly for situational reasons, but most people aren't like me.

Also just because things have stabilised doesn't mean they stay stable. Even in long term stable relationships things can change in ways that mean flexibility becomes important again.

But on the other hand poly is often just a lot more work and there are a lot of times in your life where you really want to focus time and energy on other things.

I don't really have a conclusion I'm building to, I just think pluralism and flexibility are good and putting poly and monogamy in opposition to eachother rather than as points on a spectrum isn't doing either side any favours

I agree that putting them in opposition isn't normally helpful. Another ways it's unhelpful is that people are usually arguing against a strawman, which I think you and I have talked about before.