So is that generally how you form your personal beliefs and opinions? Base them on whatever the general consensus is on the subject at hand?
It seems like you are unintentionally conflating polyamory with swinging. The two are definitely not the same thing.
This has to be a first!
“Improbable” is not the same as “impossible”. The unlikely does happen from time to time.
On the OP, in my experience no.
I know a great many poly people - both men and women - and am even speaking at a regional poly conference in a few weeks.
Yes, there is a great deal of focus on sexual intimacy and having multiple partners. But if that were the case it could just be called ‘playing the field’ or ‘living through the 70s again’ or something similar.
While polyamory doesn’t have one definition - there are a lot of practitioners - there’s always an angle of it being more than a physical thing. I know poly groups with real mental and emotional intimacy that is more important than any physical intimacy. It’s just that’s harder for people to get worked up about than sex.
Because swinging is being easy, self-indulgent and immoral?
Nope.
Note I said “depends.” As in it “depends.” Just clarifying that there is a conditional word in that sentence.
None of it was sarcastic. Polyamory can be combined with infidelity and promiscuity and lack of commitment that are typically labeled as slutty. Or it can be a long term and kept in the group relationship. Second part was a rejection of the puritanical view that leads to labeling such as “slutty” of sexual relationships while acknowledging that there are risks involved.
I don’t care what or with whom people do. As long as it is relatively healthy.
Just facts, yo!
It can also be combined with square dancing, card collecting and pasta eating, but these have have nothing to do with what polyamory actually is all about, either.
No, the sluts who can’t keep it in their pants more often identify as swingers. The polyamorous ones are the romantics who fall in love with as well as drop their pants for multiple people, so we end up with multiple ongoing relationships. Note that this doesn’t mean we aren’t sluts who can’t keep it in our pants, but we’re not just that. We’re romantics.
(Yes, I’m poly)
Hmmmm…maybe you are doing it wrong?
The square dancing, the card collecting or the pasta eating?
From Wikipedia: Polyamory (from Greek πολύ poly, “many, several”, and Latin amor, “love”) is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships with more than one partner, with the consent of all partners involved.[1][2] It has been described as “consensual, ethical, and responsible non-monogamy”.
So, no, they aren’t “sluts”.
You know what? In the context of a sexual relationship labeling a participant as slutty and why that may or may not be true is actually relevant though since that is what this thread is about. Just like a so-called monogamous relationship may have a so-called slut or two in the mix a group setting may or may not.
Here’s a Venn diagram for you where one circle is the set of polygamous folks and the other circle is the set of what is known in the vernacular as “sluts.” 00. But pretend the circles overlap a bit. Hopefully, that clarifies things. 
Concerning pasta eating… if the thread was about whether or not polygamous groups were pasta eaters the structure of the answer would be surprisingly similar.
Surprised you haven’t ever brought this up before.
I was looking into polyamory specifically for the square dancing. Guess that’s out 
Maybe I’ll just be a slut instead.
Thanks to all the polyamory defenders in this thread. I have objections to polyamory. If your relationships make everyone in them happier, I’m happy for you. The few polyamorous people I have known, however, haven’t managed to have what I would consider stable long-term polyamorous relationships.
The polyamorous partnerships (good word?) I’ve known formed when someone joined a preexisting couple. They would all be happy for a while, and then someone would leave the partnership. Sometimes the remaining couple was the same one as in the beginning and sometimes it was a new pair. It always seemed to me that relationships are complicated enough with two people and that adding more people to a relationship makes it harder to please everyone with compromise and increases potential jealousy. The polyamorous partnerships I have known just seemed more fragile. I never knew anyone who stayed in a polyamorous relationship with at least three of the same people for more than a couple of years. If monogamous marriages broke up that quickly, few would consider them successful. Did I just know a bunch of polyamorous duds? Or are polyamorous people just satisfied with their intimate relationships having this extra fluidity?
That said, I understand that people can have fulfilling relationships even when they don’t last forever. If the polyamorous partners are satisfied with their relationships, I am happy that they have found joy.
Easy: Not necessarily. Just because they have sex with seven carefully chosen people doesn’t mean they’ll consent to having sex with just anybody.
Self-indulgent: Only if they’re a bad lay. Perhaps they’re a caring, compassionate, giving lover, who just likes sharing the joy with more than one person?
Immoral: Which moral system are you talking about? Because as far as I know being polyamorous doesn’t imply that they voted for Trump or anything like that.
It practically is the first time I’ve deleted and nm’d. I said a bunch of stupid shit, as I often do. I clearly do not understand the OP. So it’s best to just shut-up, in my case.
That’s okay. Just a joke on my part anyway 