Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.”
We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men. Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Briffault continues with these three corollaries to his law
Even though a woman has accrued past benefits from her relationship with a man, this is no guarantee of her continuing the relationship with him. (Translation: What have you done for me lately?)
If a woman promises a man to continue her relationship with him in the future in exchange for a benefit received from him today, her promise becomes null and void as soon as the benefit is rendered. (“I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.“)
A man’s promise of a future benefit has limited ability to secure a continuing relationship with a woman, and his promise carries weight with her only to the extent that the woman’s wait for the benefit is short and to the extent that she trusts him to keep his promise.
This is something I have been thinking about lately. If my country was attacked, if WW3 started or whatever -- who would I be fighting for? For a government that steals from me and women that will turn into war brides? No fucking thanks. I've actually seen this happen. They move on real quick.
The older I get the more "tribal" my thinking becomes. I spent a long time in uniform and I don't regret it. There's no serious doubt that the US has been a great benefit to humanity (edgelords and envious Euro-weanies to the contrary), but now?
I can't imagine throwing myself into the meat grinder to "support and defend" an ideal that my own government and fellow citizens have abandoned. Me and mine? Okay, but the "Circle of Sacrifice" outside of that is pretty small these days.
While I agree with Briffault, I think he's missing the fact that men also get a veto. I've dumped girls who wanted to be with me. I'd wager that most guys here have done the same, whether it's a "next" or a "ghost" or a full-blown, mascara-running-down-her-face blowout.
Single men need to understand that they don't have to just accept whatever some woman is willing to parcel out. Not only are there something like three billion adult women in the world, but being with the wrong woman is worse than being alone.
I agree, though I think he is correct enough, if you will. Generally, men feel horny and are constantly looking to mate, which gives women the upper hand in negotiation. It takes human intelligence to turn things around, i.e. realizing that you're more succesful by raising your value and less succesful by giving in to a woman's every whim, ironically enough.
I'm not disagreeing with him per se. I'm just pointing out that - by only looking at it from the position where the woman has the upper hand - he misses a key point. That key point is that:
The party that has the upper hand determines the parameters. When it comes to sex that's usually the woman (Briffault's Law), but men have a veto with regard to both sex and relationships. When it comes to providing protection and provision, however, the COMMITMENT power dynamic is usually the reverse of the SEXUAL power dynamic.
Bloopies need to understand their vulnerability as explained by Briffault, but they also need to hear from us that being subordinate to women is not a permanent (or even desirable) state.
True, true. I guess the part about "all the conditions" is a stretch. The way it's put it sounds like women are firmly in charge, which is something they don't want to be unless they're looking for BB.
Seagram7 1y ago Stickied
We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men. Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Briffault continues with these three corollaries to his law
Even though a woman has accrued past benefits from her relationship with a man, this is no guarantee of her continuing the relationship with him. (Translation: What have you done for me lately?)
If a woman promises a man to continue her relationship with him in the future in exchange for a benefit received from him today, her promise becomes null and void as soon as the benefit is rendered. (“I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.“)
A man’s promise of a future benefit has limited ability to secure a continuing relationship with a woman, and his promise carries weight with her only to the extent that the woman’s wait for the benefit is short and to the extent that she trusts him to keep his promise.
No-Stress-Cat 1y ago
This weed tastes like shit. I want my money back.
Lone_Ranger 3 1y ago
Ukraine is cesspit of whores, pimps and criminals. Let it burn.
MovinCruisin 1y ago
This is something I have been thinking about lately. If my country was attacked, if WW3 started or whatever -- who would I be fighting for? For a government that steals from me and women that will turn into war brides? No fucking thanks. I've actually seen this happen. They move on real quick.
lurkerhasarisen 1 1y ago
The older I get the more "tribal" my thinking becomes. I spent a long time in uniform and I don't regret it. There's no serious doubt that the US has been a great benefit to humanity (edgelords and envious Euro-weanies to the contrary), but now?
I can't imagine throwing myself into the meat grinder to "support and defend" an ideal that my own government and fellow citizens have abandoned. Me and mine? Okay, but the "Circle of Sacrifice" outside of that is pretty small these days.
lurkerhasarisen 1 1y ago
While I agree with Briffault, I think he's missing the fact that men also get a veto. I've dumped girls who wanted to be with me. I'd wager that most guys here have done the same, whether it's a "next" or a "ghost" or a full-blown, mascara-running-down-her-face blowout.
Single men need to understand that they don't have to just accept whatever some woman is willing to parcel out. Not only are there something like three billion adult women in the world, but being with the wrong woman is worse than being alone.
MovinCruisin 1y ago
I agree, though I think he is correct enough, if you will. Generally, men feel horny and are constantly looking to mate, which gives women the upper hand in negotiation. It takes human intelligence to turn things around, i.e. realizing that you're more succesful by raising your value and less succesful by giving in to a woman's every whim, ironically enough.
lurkerhasarisen 1 1y ago
I'm not disagreeing with him per se. I'm just pointing out that - by only looking at it from the position where the woman has the upper hand - he misses a key point. That key point is that:
The party that has the upper hand determines the parameters. When it comes to sex that's usually the woman (Briffault's Law), but men have a veto with regard to both sex and relationships. When it comes to providing protection and provision, however, the COMMITMENT power dynamic is usually the reverse of the SEXUAL power dynamic.
Bloopies need to understand their vulnerability as explained by Briffault, but they also need to hear from us that being subordinate to women is not a permanent (or even desirable) state.
MovinCruisin 1y ago
True, true. I guess the part about "all the conditions" is a stretch. The way it's put it sounds like women are firmly in charge, which is something they don't want to be unless they're looking for BB.