Many folks talk here about egalitarian relationships: What one is, what it looks like, how it operates short and long term, and the kinds of people who like them.

My view, presented for challenge, is: There's no such thing.

When you get all the way down to it, relationships aren't about responsibility, accountability, or who contributes what resources. Relationships are about power - who has it, who wields it, who does a better job of wielding it, how it's wielded, and the purposes for which it's wielded. This is important, because where the power lies and how it's wielded determines the course and quality of relationships, determines who gets into relationships with whom, and determines whether relationships continue.

There is never any relationship between any two people in which the power is equally shared. In any relationship between two people, one person always has more of the power. The power differentials shift from person to person. Sometimes it's one, sometimes it's the other. But always, all the time, one person has a majority of the power. There is never any time in any two-person relationship in which both people hold precisely 50% equal shares of power.

It might not look like one person has more power. It might not feel like it when you're in the relationship or on the outside looking in. But as a practical matter, one of the parties always has more power, and one always has less.

That leads me to this: One person is always the dominant in the relationship and one is always the submissive. Again, the identities of the persons who occupy the "dom" and the "sub" positions change, as the power shifts. But one always is the dom and one is always the sub. That never changes; there is never any time in any relationship where there is no dom or sub and they are precise equals. This situation does not exist in a two-person relationship.

We cannot say that a relationship in which the balance of power is only slightly tilted to one partner or the other, and shifts from time to time, is "egalitarian". This is because even if the power balance is slight, it is still in that person's favor, meaning as a practical matter, that person has more power to wield and has the upper hand at that particular time or in that particular situation. That's not egalitarian.

EDIT: In every sexual relationship I've ever seen that's claimed to be egalitarian, a dom emerges. The relationship quickly evolves and settles to the point where one of the partners gravitates to and occupies the dom position. Usually, in a relationship expressly claimed as egalitarian, that partner is the woman.

The easiest way to test who is the dom in an egalitarian relationship is to present them with a dilemma. They have to choose between X and Y, two diametrically opposed positions. One partner wants X; the other wants Y. Both partners have very good, perhaps even equally compelling, reasons for wanting either X or Y. One course must be selected, they must choose either X or Y; they cannot choose Not X and Not Y; there are no other alternatives; and they cannot give the decision to a third party or mediator. One partner will get what they want; the other will not. How is that decision made? The process by which it's made, and the outcome, will reveal who the dom and who the sub are. End edit

This dynamic applies in my experience to every relationship involving two individuals. It applies to sexual relationships, to platonic friendships, to marriages, to friendships of all kinds regardless of the sexes of the participants, and to work/professional relationships. It applies in every situation where two people are interacting with each other. It is basic politics and political science - the study of power and resource distribution, the study of who gets what, when, where, how, and why.

This is why egalitarian relationships don't exist. Challenge My View.