For everyone’s ultimate benefit and prosperity, the concept of total equality will tie each gender’s use of spend and sex presentations under two scenarios: when males and females are incurring expenses together in public, and once partnered up, how they act when apart.  In discussing the feminist-type female who still wants the male to pay for the first date, Kris Frieswick of MSN Money Online states “No wonder men are perplexed by the modern woman.  We’re actually prehistoric hypocritical geniuses.”  Perplexed is one way to put it, but it does not have to be this way and it will not under total equality.

This leads us to one of the heterosexualist movement’s first major questions.  If the female wants to continue being subsidized by the male, holding on to that aspect of her traditional sexual role while non-traditionally meeting, hooking up with or dating more than one male, how many males should she allow to pay her food, beverage, entertainment and travel expenses beyond a nominal amount, say $25?

It is my guess any number greater than one per month will be deemed by the Council as unjustifiable in our near-equal-pay society.  Actually, using the calendar month as a natural reset just like a monthly public transportation pass will probably work.  Spend and sex presentations should no longer be thought of as a sort of trade-off that might give the appearance that the male gets sex only by spending and the female has sex only to spend…

The concepts of total equality in relation to male/female partner time spent apart, are just as straightforward as those regarding time spent together.  Once a monogamous partnership is formed, total equality seeks to keep the activities of both genders at the same level of risk for leading to a cheat event.  If both the male and female are still playing their sexual roles when apart, there is total equality.  If neither are doing so, that is they are keeping their respective spend and sex presentations for just each other, there is total equality.  Within the total equality premise, if just one is presenting and the other is not, there is total inequality.  It is that simple.

The male has always had his own set of cheating issues, and those are only getting worse in this age of rapid technological advances and unprecedented individual money and power gain.  While his operational strategy tends to be less visible, or even invisible, in reality the male is now going out-of-bounds more frequently than ever before.  He is regularly flaunting his charm, money and power on other females even after he starts dating someone he likes.

Meanwhile, the female, still giving the appearance of wanting traditional male and female partnership roles, has in fact gone out-of-control, using the power of femininity at her leisure through female fashion and “girlie” activities.  She has no boundaries, now that practically any level of public sexuality display or activity is justifiable, period.  Like the male, she continues her presentations even after she starts dating someone she likes, but unlike the male, flaunting her flesh and body in front of other males is far from invisible.

With out-of-bounds male spend presentations taking place in public concurrently with female out-of-control sex presentations, heterosexual cheating chaos has exploded.  Hormonification and biased dishonesty preside over brutal honesty.  To address the fraud being committed within the cheating activities, total equality also calls for dating penalties—at least conceptually.

While breaking a monogamy promise is not currently against the law, penalties can certainly be introduced in the form of dating sanctions or fines that the slighted partner could have the option of imposing as an alternative to terminating the partnership altogether.  Common sense dictates that any panty-less, I mean penalty-less, system involving humans is setting itself up for abuse by “I’m just doing what is best for me” repeat offenders.