This isn’t new, the common folk have been doing it for ages. Some religions like Islam and Mormonism have it built into them. In the U.S., we had the free love era of the 60s and 70s. Also, the common folk are plenty into what they’ve colloquially called “swinging”, and at any age. For example, senior swingers are quite prevalent even today. I think this author is missing a lot of historical context about polyamorous or multi-partner relationships throughout history. So I reject the premise that “affluence” has anything to do with an inclination or acceptance of polyamory.

Maybe what the author is confusing is the flexibility of partners to indulge infidelity in more highly prized, choosier mates (from the partner’s perspective, there’s no objective standard to this). I think this flexibility results from two social conditions:

1) the prized mates are highly desirable in their social circle, so there are some aspects of FOMO to this.

2) the need to please the highly prized mate(s) is born out of some learned insecurity about their status in the circle. If you think you’re lesser than someone, you are likely to acquiesce to their whims to keep their interest. So again, I reject the premise that thinking “monogamy is boring” has anything to do with this.

Over the course of history we’ve experienced the stability that monogamous relationships provide at any socioeconomic level—managing the emotions of multiple partners can get tricky. But again, if the power and status dynamic favors one partner over the other, then the one with the lesser power, status etc. is ripe for getting abused. Or at the very least they go along with it because they don’t have the power to say no or refuse. I am not sure polyamory is the “luxury” this author is making it out to be.