As I continue to read in this thread, with full acknowledgement that I've blundered in without having read the whole thread thouroughly before spouting off, I keep thinking that -- for some, at least -- the problem amounts to the whole idea of "secondaries".
Some may enjoy and appreciate their "secondaries," and vice versa, and all can be happy in that PolyLand, but some "secondaries" or would-be-"secondaries" may not like to come in second -- and, frankly, I can't blame them. Who wants to be second when you might like to come in an equal first?
An equal first? Why, sure! Why not? Can't there be a tie?
What does it mean to love and be loved? It seems to me that it cannot mean that someone is "second best" or "secondary", if it is to be complete love, and isn't complete love what we desire?
Maybe some of us don't even know what complete love might be? Or why love must be complete for it to be love?
"Oh, sure, honey, I love you, but you are my "secondary," and I must love my "primary" just a little moreso." <----- Not an arrangement I'd sign onto if I wanted complete love, and what good is an incomplete love?
[Running for cover.]