So start the stories….

To me today, as a satisfied single, it gives me a headache to think about the hypothesis of sharing intimacy with more than one woman, not to mention the problems of competition in case of the presence of other men.

However, polyamory seems to support more the instinctual nature of the male than the female one, if without the presence of other active males claiming their share of cake.

It seems that usually for women one male is enough, although the best of the pack; the problems arise when he is found not to be such.

Btw, I have already spoken from my own realities, but you, obviously, were too busy with your buddhahood and have neither read nor commented on it.

The following notes from ‘Wiki’ confirm these impressions:

“Criticism
Polyamory, along with other forms of consensual non-monogamy, is not without drawbacks. Morin (1999) and Fleckenstein (2014) noted that certain conditions are favorable to good experiences with polyamory, but that these differ from the general population.[79][81] Heavy public promotion of polyamory can have the unintended effect of attracting people to it for whom it is not well-suited. Unequal power dynamics, such as financial dependence, can also inappropriately influence a person to agree to a polyamorous relationship against their true desires.

Even in more equal power dynamic relationships, the reluctant partner may feel coerced into a proposed non-monogamous arrangement due to the implication that if they refuse, the proposer will pursue other partners anyway, will break off the relationship, or that the one refusing will be accused of intolerance.[82][83]

To date, scientific study of polyamory has run into bias and methodological issues.

A significant number of studies rely on small samples, often recruited from referrals, snowball sampling, and websites devoted to polyamory. Individuals recruited in this manner tend to be relatively homogeneous in terms of values, beliefs, and demographics, which limits the generalizability of the findings.[84]

These samples also tend to be self-selecting toward individuals with positive experiences, whereas those who found polyamory to be distressing or hurtful might be more reluctant to participate in the research.[84]
Most of the studies rely entirely on self-report measures. Generally, self-reports of the degree of well-being and relationship satisfaction over time are flawed, and are often based on belief rather than actual experience.[84][83]

Self-report measures are also at risk of self-enhancement bias, as subjects may feel pressure to give positive responses about their well-being and relationship satisfaction in the face of stereotype threat.[84] This disparity was noted by Moors et al. (2014), who compared respondents expressing interest in consensual non-monogamy drawn from the general population to those drawn from online communities devoted to discussing positive aspects of nonmonogamy.[75]

In academic works involving volunteer interviews, the participant is almost always a single partner of such relationships or a small group where certain partners are not present, resulting in one-sided views being recorded about the relationship.[83]

Polyamorous relationships present practical pitfalls:

One common complaint from participants is time management, as more partners means one must divide one’s time and attention up between them, leaving less for each.[83][85]

Related is that the complexity of the arrangement can lead to so much effort being spent on the relationship that personal, individual needs can be overlooked.[86]

Another potential issue is lopsided power dynamics, such as one partner having significantly more resources, being more attractive or being much better at initiating new relationships, making the arrangement clearly more beneficial to that partner than the others.[83]

The strong emphasis on communication can unintentionally marginalize partners who are less articulate.[86]

Finally, negotiating the sometimes complex rules and boundaries of these relationships can be emotionally taxing, as can reconciling situations where one partner goes outside those boundaries.[86][83][85]“

One is that in the context of sannyasins we tend to take for granted the sense of tolerance (not judgment) of our interlocutor, we tend to challenge the boundaries by neglecting the importance, before doing so, of helping to create trust in the relationship, for example by talking about oneself, making one’s point of view comprehensible.

Another reason for conflict could be related to the difficulty in underestimating the importance of the setting in a therapy session, imagining that we should use all opportunities, even in real life, to challenge our and others’ limits, as if we were in an Osho group, which on average we have all done; the result being we invite and procure invasions but with the complication that the absence of a leader will not evolve them into greater understanding and trust, as is normal in groups.

But not always the challenge has an egocentric reason, sometimes there can be wisdom/love in saying to someone: “Hey, you, let yourself go!”

Conflict situations are due when we do not know each other well enough, which often coincides with when we think we know each other very well, the roles between the ‘senior’ and the ‘junior’ not being defined, ultimately a disagreement about the criteria we were talking about before.

Consider also that, strange but true, one can be faithful and adrenally addicted to the same substance and the same pusher for life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

‘The Feeling Function’, by James Hillman.