Originally Posted by rory
I am not sure how what you wrote relates to what I had written, but I am happy to explain what I meant by that. I referred to a hierarchical situation, where the person who has two partners treats one (non-primary) with less consideration than the other (primary). If this person then tried to justify this by arguing that s/he has to do so because egalitarian/equal poly relationship is simply impossible, and we all believed them, I think this would let them off the hook too easy. Does that make sense? What I am trying to say is that it is one thing to practice hierarchy, and another to justify it by claiming hierarchy is inevitable.
It makes a lot of sense, thanks.
As for the inevitability of hierarchical situations, in my opinion they are almost certain to happen if one of the participants in a new polyamorous relationship already has a long-standing relationship with someone else. Pretty much the only way to make it egalitarian would be to downgrade, significantly, the pre-existing relationship.
I don't exclude the possibility that eventually the two relationships could come to be more or less equal - the second person could move into the household, and become a close friend of the first partner, for example. Possible? Sure. Likely? I have no idea.
(I am not thinking of a true threesome, as neither I nor my wife are bi, and thinking about such possibilities doesn't enter our heads).