Response to Women Date for Equity by my Sistah-in-Law

To My Dear Brother:

As with any discussion, it is important to first define the term to which we are ascribing value. As the term equity is derived from the English Common Law, and I am student of law, I will begin from this canon. According to Black's Law Dictionary, (8th ed. 2004), equity is 1) fairness; impartiality; evenhanded dealing; 2) The body of principles constituting what is fair and right; natural law; 3) The recourse to principles of justice to correct or supplement the law as applied to particular circumstances; 4) The system of law or body of principles originating in the English Court of Chancery and superseding the common and statute law when the two conflict; or 5) A right, interest, or remedy recognizable by a court of equity . Which of these definitions is best applied here? Here, we can, for the sake of brevity, limit our discussion to the first of the five definitions in relation to your hypothetical human relationship. In terms of the first definition, I would venture that all people, without regard to gender, seek equitable relationships, that being, relationships based on a sense of fairness. I don't think it was unreasonable for the young lady to ask her partner to be fair--either by allowing her the same right to casual sex, or by being honest about his sexual loyalty to the relationship. This expectation requires the assumption that relationships are informal or formal contracts, and that the man's infidelity was a breach of that contract. This leads to a more questions. Should sexual fidelity be a part of a relationship contract? Is it wrong, or unconscionable to require such a contract term in casual dating relationships? What about marriage? Or relationships that aren't legally recognized as marriage? I'll leave that to you and you readers to ponder. As for your second argument, that somehow the response your received from the "cougar" was inappropriate and inequitable, I would respectfully disagree. If we follow the logic of equity as defined, the request for car, back statement, property value, was quite rational. If we are to be "fair, impartial, and evenhanded," in our dealings with others, then we must make an assumption that those dealing are fair and made in good faith. When you asked for a picture, you asked for a specific piece of information from which to base your decision of whether or not to date her on. This piece of information, a photograph was, by most social standards, superficial and shallow. A photo tells no meaningful information about a person's sense of fairness, or whether or not they will make a good match beyond physical attractiveness. Since you set the tone for the bargain, the "cougar" simply followed your lead! She too asked for basic information, although shallow and superficial, to make a decision about whether or not to date. You are attacking her then, not for the rationality of her question, but for the content! While you value physical beauty as a requirement for dating, she clearly values financial stability and assets in her decision-making. You both want the same things, but you use different measures.

I think its overly simplistic to get into the base "he said vs she said" typical battle of the sexes here. Men and women aren't that different. You wanted a picture to ensure that the potential mate met your standards of health and beauty. She wanted a financial history to determine if you could maintain stability for her friend. What's the difference? As spiritual beings, we must accept that the universe responds only to like energy. If you ask for only the surface of things, the universe can only respond in kind--providing you with another person who is only concerned with the external. I think a better strategy for ALL people interested in dating would be to stop the superficial and shallow inquiries. Instead of asking for pictures or bank statements, why not ask more substantive questions? Or dating someone who doesn't fit your self-imposed limitations? As conscious individuals who choose to live intentionally, why do we persist in using the most unconscious, invaluable information to make major life decisions? What if her friend had been overweight and you had been poor? Does that make you a bad pairing? I mean, if you stay in the shallow section of a pool, yes, you may get wet. But do you ever really swim? I think that to get to real love, and to real equity, we have to jump in the deep end.

Peace, Blessings and Joy,

Your Sistah-in-LAW