BEAUTY VS CHARACTER AND ALIGNMENT: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CONTEMPORARY EGALITARIAN THEORY OF COURTSHIP, RELATIONSHIP, AND MARRIAGE_ BY BISHOP SAHR ISAAC PETERSON.

Today was, indeed, hectic for me, as such, the many visited places left me unusual. While reading is such a difficult task, argument, Logics, and writing, among other skills, should be looked primarily into, as young herds. 

I’ve noticed something else on those visits, and I can’t stop thinking about it. The moment some ladies cross paths with a man, the first question isn’t “What do you believe in?” or “What are you building?” It’s “Can you settle my bills?” Sometimes it’s day two. Sometimes it’s hour two. Hair done, transport, data, lunch, rent contribution — the list starts before we even know each other’s last names. 

That made me pause and ask: are these same ladies who resort to this quick-witted and anchored life truly humane, or just assuming humans? Why? A woman with pride, and one with chastity, indeed, cannot go that far in lowering herself so soon, making bills for a two-day relationship. Ahahaha! I’m not saying women shouldn’t be provided for in a committed partnership. I’m saying when we reduce a relationship to transactions from the jump, we’re not doing courtship. We’re doing business. And business has no room for the cranial cavity. 

That frustration is part of why I’m drawn to write on the egalitarian type of relationship. No wonder men die earlier than women, according to research. The American Psychological Association notes that men in high-stress provider roles with little emotional support have higher rates of cardiovascular disease and shorter life expectancy. When one person is expected to carry all the financial weight while the other is valued only for looks, both people lose. 

I met a lady last Tuesday at the little cafe near the library in Freetown. She was sitting with a stack of political theory books and a cold bottle of water. I only intended to grab coffee and leave, but she asked if the seat across from her was taken. We started talking about the rain, then classes, then somehow we landed right on relationships. Halfway through, she put her cup down and said, “You know what gets me? The way we keep ranking women like they’re posters. Pretty face, nice body, and that’s the whole application. Where’s the brain in that?”  

That conversation hit the belt. Not because it was new, but because she said it plain. She wasn’t angry. She was tired. Tired of being introduced as “the beautiful one” before “the one who runs the debate club” or “the one who tutors kids on weekends.” In that moment I realized how much we’ve flattened courtship, relationships, and even marriage into a checklist that starts and often ends with physical appearance. 

I’m not arguing against beauty. Beauty is real, and it draws us in. The problem is when it becomes the _utmost_ consideration. When it becomes the standard by which we measure a woman’s worth, her suitability as a partner, or her role in a home. An egalitarian view pushes back on that flattening. Egalitarianism, at its core, is “the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.” Applied to relationships, it means valuing men and women as whole persons — intellect, character, skill, and yes, appearance — without letting one trait dominate the others.

1. Courtship: Choosing with More Than Your Eyes and Your Wallet 

Courtship is supposed to be discovery. But if we enter it treating beauty as the primary filter, and money as the second, we skip most of the discovery. Psychologists have long noted the “halo effect,” where we assume that attractive people are also kinder, smarter, and more competent. We have a similar bias with money: if he pays early, he must be serious. If she looks good, she must be wife material. 

The lady at the cafe called this out directly. She said, “Men will spend months chasing a face and then be shocked six months later that we have nothing to talk about at 2 a.m. And women will chase a wallet and then complain that he’s empty inside.” She’s right. Attraction fades, routines set in, and what’s left is conversation, problem-solving, and shared values. If those weren’t part of the initial selection, the relationship starts on a thin foundation. 

An egalitarian courtship asks a different question: not just “Am I drawn to her?” or “Can he pay?” but “Do we think alike? Do we argue fairly? Can she explain an idea, change her mind, and hold me accountable? Can he admit when he’s wrong?” Those are skills built in the cranial cavity, not in a mirror or a bank app. When young people — and I include myself here as part of “young herds” — practice argument, logic, and writing early, we learn to recognize those skills in others. We stop mistaking a pretty photo or a quick transfer for a compatible life.

There’s also the dignity question I can’t shake. Pride and chastity aren’t about pretending we don’t have needs. They’re about not selling the whole of yourself for immediate relief. A person who asks for bills on day two is often not asking for partnership. They’re asking for rescue. And rescue isn’t egalitarian. It creates dependence. Sociologist Philip Cohen found that marriages with more equal division of paid and unpaid work report higher satisfaction and stability. That starts in how we court.

2. Relationship: Partnership Needs More Than Chemistry and Cash

Once you’re in a relationship, the daily work begins. Bills, family pressure, career decisions, conflict. Beauty doesn’t pay rent. Money alone doesn’t either, if there’s no plan behind it. It doesn’t mediate a disagreement with a partner’s parents. It doesn’t decide how to raise kids. 

Sociologist Arlie Hochschild, in her study of household labor, showed that lasting partnerships depend on what she called “the economy of gratitude” — noticing, communicating, and sharing work. That economy runs on emotional intelligence and intellect, not on physical traits or bank balances. A partner who can read, who can construct an argument without yelling, who can write down a budget and logic through a tough decision, is a partner who can carry weight. 

If we overvalue beauty alone, or money alone, we create an imbalance. One person becomes the object and the other becomes the audience. Or one becomes the provider and the other becomes the dependent. That’s not egalitarian. Egalitarian relationships require two subjects. Both people bring ideas to the table. Both are allowed to be tired, to be wrong, to grow. As bell hooks writes, “To truly love we must learn to mix various ingredients — care, affection, recognition, respect, commitment, and trust, as well as honest communication.” None of those ingredients are located in cheekbones or in a mobile money alert.  

The lady and I talked about this for almost an hour. She told me about an ex who told her, “You’re too smart, it’s intimidating.” She laughed, but it wasn’t funny. She also told me about friends who bragged about “securing the bag” in week one, and then wondered why the man disappeared in month three. When we teach women that their primary currency is appearance, and teach men that theirs is only provision, we trap both. That’s why the stress piles up. That’s part of why, as public health data show, men die earlier on average — they internalize pressure to provide without being allowed to be vulnerable or collaborative.

3. Marriage: A Life Built on Character, Not Contracts  

Marriage stretches the timeline even further. Decades. Children. Sickness. Career changes. The vows don’t say “in beauty and in beauty.” They say “in sickness and in health,” “for better or for worse.” Those are tests of character, patience, and shared logic. 

Philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues that human flourishing depends on capabilities — the ability to reason, to affiliate, to play, to control one’s environment. Marriage works best when both people have and respect those capabilities in each other. If we marry primarily for beauty, or primarily because someone paid bills early, we’re marrying for conditions that time and economics will inevitably change. Skin ages. Jobs are lost. But the ability to reason through a crisis, to write a hard email together, to argue and then repair — that can deepen. 

That’s why I keep coming back to skills. Reading is difficult. Argument is difficult. Logic is difficult. Writing is difficult. And yet those are the exact tools we need to run a home. When we tell young women — and young men — to prioritize those skills “as young herds,” we’re not dismissing beauty or the need for financial responsibility. We’re putting them in their proper place: as features among many, not the whole structure. An egalitarian marriage means both people can contribute, both can lead, both can follow. It means if one loses income, the other can step up with ideas, not just panic.

“Use the Cranial Cavity”

Back at the cafe, the lady summed it up with a line I haven’t forgotten. She said, “It’s fine for every lady to use her cranial cavity and not be reduced to the other one.” She didn’t need to spell it out. We both knew what she meant: women are constantly pressured to lead with body and looks, as if that’s the only room they’re allowed in. And men are pressured to lead with money, as if that’s the only proof we’re allowed to show. 

I agree. Egalitarianism frees both. It says: bring your mind. Bring your training in argument. Bring your ability to read a difficult book and explain it. Bring your logic. Bring your plan, not just your purse. 

This isn’t about rejecting attraction or rejecting help in a real partnership. It’s about refusing to make either attraction or money the whole test. A relationship that starts with “you’re beautiful” or “I got you” can grow. But a relationship that _only_ has those will starve when life gets real.

To Whom May Concern

We live in a time where images and transactions move faster than ideas. Social media rewards the immediate — the face, the outfit, the ten-second clip, the screenshot of a transfer. It’s easy to start believing that’s all there is. But the places I visited today reminded me that real life is slower. It’s classrooms, clinics, markets, and late-night talks. In those spaces, beauty alone doesn’t solve problems. A quick payment alone doesn’t either. 

If we want healthier courtship, relationships, and marriages, we have to train ourselves and each other differently. Schools, families, and churches should celebrate girls who win debate, who write well, who can diagram an argument, just as much as we celebrate other achievements. We should ask young men the same: can you listen, can you reason, can you build, and can you share the load? 

The lady left before me. She packed her books — one on feminist theory, one on logic — and said, “Don’t forget to use your head. It’s your best feature.” I think she was joking. I also think she was serious. She wasn’t asking me to pay her bill. She was asking me to think.

Egalitarianism doesn’t demand that we ignore beauty or ignore practical needs. It demands that we don’t stop there. It asks us to see the whole person and to choose partners who can grow with us, argue with us, and build with us. In courtship, that means looking past the first impression and the first transfer. In relationships, that means sharing the mental load and the financial load. In marriage, that means betting on character for the long haul. 

Beauty may open the door. Money may keep the lights on for a night. But it’s the brain — the cranial cavity, the place where reading, argument, logic, and writing live — that keeps the house standing for years.

© Bishop Sahr Isaac Peterson

- Sierra Leone.

Works Cited

American Psychological Association. “Stress in America: The Impact of Stress on Men.” _APA.org_, 2023.  

Cohen, Philip N. “The Gender Revolution: Uneven and Stalled.” _Gender & Society_, vol. 28, no. 2, 2014, pp. 109-128.  

Hochschild, Arlie Russell. _The Second Shift_. Avon Books, 1989.  

hooks, bell. _All About Love: New Visions_. William Morrow, 2000.  

Merriam-Webster. “Egalitarianism.” _Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary_, 2026.  

Nisbett, Richard E., and Timothy D. Wilson. “The Halo Effect: Evidence for Unconscious Alteration of Judgments.” _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology_, vol. 35, no. 4, 1977, pp. 250-256.  

Nussbaum, Martha C. _Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach_. Cambridge UP, 2000.  

World Health Organization. “World Health Statistics 2024: Monitoring Health for the SDGs.” _WHO_, 2024.