THE FORUMS

September 2nd, 2014
Briffaults Law: Based on Your Experience, is it Valid?
Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)
Bookmark and Share
 
RockNRollPUA

RockNRollPUA

Trusted Member

Join Date: 12/14/2008 | Posts: 1931

BRIFFAULT’S LAW:
1)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.

There are a few corollaries I would add:

2) Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association. Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

3) A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).

More background info:
http://www.stickmanweekly.com/ReadersSubmissions2009/reader5546.htm


Based on years of field experience and being in dozens of relationships with women, Briffault's Law seems to be a good predictor of female behavior.  It also aligns with the RSD principals of offering value and being high value.  Basically women will only associate with you as long as she  can get something out of it.  Marriage is probably the worst thing you can do in a relationship, because now the woman is legaly entitled to your financial benefits regaurdless of weather you stay with her or not.  Thus the more benefits and value a man has, and the more power he has to give or take away those benefits, the more woman will comply with sex and affection.  As soon as another man who has more benefits than you comes into the picture, POOF the woman dumps you and then latches on to the new male with the additional benefits to herself. 

When I think about how many women that I have fucked that were married to rich doctors, lawyers, and engineers or other provider types, this makes total sense to me.  Women feel no obligation or sense of indebtedness to others the same way men do.  They will only be loyal if there is a high risk of loosing her current benefits.  This behavior is universal and many societies try to mitigate this behavior to promote family stability, such as in Saudi Arabia if your wife refuses to have sex with you, you can refuse to feed her or provide financial support.  In America militant Feminism has gained control over the social consciousness and legal system.  Father's are enslaved through alimony and child support.  Women behave selfishly, are spoiled, and are disobedient.  The general response by men is now to hit it and quit it since the risks of a long term relationship and raising kids is greater than the benefits they are likely to receive.  Basically the entire PUA community emerged due to Briffaults Law, Feminism, and the social changes over the past few decades.  in the past Game was not needed.  Why?  Because men had power, respect, and were valued by women as protectors and providors. 

What are your thoughts and counter arguments to this?  Do you find this law to be a valid predictor of human behavior?  if so, how can we exploit this principal to improve our approach to success with women?
__________________
Sluts, Beer, and Metal!



My Field Reports:
http://www.rsdnation.com/node/208534/forum

If you are a Newb READ THIS FIRST, THEN GO OUT:
http://www.rsdnation.com/node/170650

Whatever I thought might hold me back, I avoided. I crossed girls off my list, except as tools for my sexual needs." - From the 1977 autobiography "Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder" by Arnold Schwarzenegger
Login or register to post.
#1
reborn09

reborn09

Respected Member

Join Date: 11/04/2009 | Posts: 769

My bad, I thought this was a thread about you being arrested. 
Login or register to post.