Originally Posted by CielDuMatin
Nice theory, but I have seen some very happy poly arrangements flourish where the footings are, by choice, and by most people's standards, not equal.
Perfect example of what I was trying to say in my previous post.
I think you mix up principle and practice. Footings not equal in principle would be like an emperor entering into a "poly" relationship with a conquered slave. You seen much happiness coming from inequity like that?
In practice, they are never quite equal, and that could even be an important success factor. In practice, perceived "fairness", as Tonberry mentions, is probably a very good working criterion. Because, as she writes
Of course fair is subjective, but that's the point: it's not up to an outsider to look at a relationship and decide if it's "equal" enough. It's up to the partners inside of it to make sure they don't feel like they're getting the short end of the stick and they don't feel like someone else in the relationship is getting it, either.
Exactly. It is possible that this underlying equality is so self-evident to you that it does not need to be mentioned. But I think I see examples cropping up all the time showing that it is not trivial, and therefore, I really can't see any harm in including it in the foundation.
None of these criteria are up to outsiders to decide, anyway.