(copy-pasted from various past sources in MGTOW and on the web as there was no point re-inventing the wheel - credits go to the many men who cut open and blazed the trail before me)
.
Nature and evolution have made it such that sperm is cheap and abundant and eggs are expensive.
For mammals, the female also has the added burden of having to carry the foetus to term which drains her of nutrients and energy and makes her less mobile and less able to defend and provide for herself.
Hence the cost of mating that females incur is significantly higher than for males and this leads them to be more selective about mating and mate selection.
.
Thus it was when Robert Briffault, a social anthropologist, was studying the conditions of the animal family, he made an observation that we commonly know today as Briffault's Law:
"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."
[Today we would say 'relationship' rather than 'association' - aka: if a man stops being useful, the woman may freely terminate the relationship.]
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.
.
Briffault continues with these three corollaries to his law:
Corollary 1. 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.
[Aka: What have you done for me lately? Or more specifically a woman has no loyalty for prior services rendered. You could have built her house, saved her life, given her a kidney. It’s all meaningless and will not engender loyalty.]
Corollary 2. 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.
[Aka: A woman's word is worthless once she has obtained her benefit (see Corollary 1) - "We will be together always and I love you, so buy me X or marry me" - Once the item is received all promises are cancelled. Hence marriage vows not enforced by the state are meaningless, a la no fault divorce.]
Corollary 3. 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 [which is not bloody likely].
[Aka: Woman will trust a man only by what he can do for her in the very near, very immediate term. ]
.
Implications of Briffault's Law:
.
Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks (or why nice guys finish last) - Men can make as much cheap sperm as they like, however provision is a more costly endeavor.
As above, many women can secure high value reproductive material from the same man (Alpha) without any degradation of quality of the material.
However, women sharing a provider (Beta) will result in poorer quality and quantity of provision for each woman as this is a zero-sum game as opposed to the reproductive material, which is not a zero-sum game.
From the perspective of Alpha Fucks, this means that once the mother has derived the benefit of his genetics, she can derive no further benefit from this association. The Alphas contribution (genetics) is brief, momentary.
However, the Beta Bucks contribution is running and prolonged.
The Beta's association is prolonged due to the longer period over which provision will be required.
This explains the tendency of females to put off sex with beta males, in order to ensure that a long-term commitment to provide will be forthcoming.
.
Expecting Reciprocity - As men, we were brought up to believe in reciprocity and mutual benefit. This then becomes the foundation stone for our values such as Loyalty, Honor, Gratitude, and Duty.
However it is when we expect past benefits provided to the woman to continue generating future association, that leave us room to be sorely disappointed (see corollary 1).
Reciprocity, loyalty, honor, gratitude, and duty are MALE VALUES THAT WE PROJECT ON TO WOMEN, but which few to none, women actually possess.
We aren’t born with these values; they are drummed into us from the cradle on by society/culture, our families, and most definitely by the women in our lives (sorry, but that includes you too, Mom).
Women have no such illusions; *For a woman, whatever is good for her and her (biological) children is what is best, full stop. *
So, do not expect that the woman in your life will be grateful, and sacrifice for you, when you can no longer provide for her and hers.
And make no mistake, you have never been, and never will be, part of what is hers. What are hers will be first herself, then her (biological) children, then her parents, then her siblings, and then the rest of her blood relatives.
The biological imperative has always been to extend her blood line. It stops there, and it always will. This is true everywhere in the world. Get over it.
.
Men and Women Love Differently - Men love women, but I truly believe that women are incapable of what we men call love.
“Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends.”
How many women are willing to die for their husbands, friends, country, or comrades in arms?
Damn few, if any.
Yet it is commonly expected of men (made compulsory under certain circumstances).
How many men continue on in their marriages, supporting their family and their wife, while the wife is making their life a living hell? Far too many.
How many men choose their wives over their parents and siblings? Most.
Women do not behave like this.
Men take out large insurance policies so their wives and children will be well taken care of should they die.
Even if the wife is making (nearly) as much money as the husband, she will not have insurance.
She sees no reason to reduce her current ability to spend to take care of others after she is dead.
She could care less what happens to the husband, and doesn’t want the husband to be able to spend money on some young bimbo, after she dies.
The life insurance gender statistics are well known, and widely available. None of this should be a shocking revelation.
When does the expectation of mutual benefit in marriage go seriously wrong in the west?
It goes wrong as soon as the “I Dos” are said, or very shortly thereafter.
Why is this so? Because you, the man have just entered into a contract with the state where you have promised that you will provide everything to your bride, and where the bride has promised nothing (see corollary 2).
By the way, the full weight of the law and public opinion will support her stripping you of every thing you have, including your children, and most of what you will ever make in the future, when (not if) she decides to dump you.
Hence, once you enter into the contract you have nothing left to offer her. Everything you have, or will have, is already hers.
Seem like a harsh statement? I thought so too, the first time I heard it, during an argument with my first wife towards the end of our marriage.
She asked me the eternal female question, “What do you do for me?” (i.e. what benefit do I get from associating with you?) I responded, “I pay all your expenses. I feed, clothe, and house you. And, I am paying for your college tuition.”
She told me that all the money I earned was her money and that if she let me have any of it that was pure charity on her part, so I was doing nothing for her. I thought this was unduly harsh. The divorce courts showed me that it was pretty much just a statement of fact.
The wife has it all, and can make her part of the marriage contract, the portion where she is to provide you with companionship, comfort, loyalty, sex, etc., null and void at any time while keeping everything you have/had/will ever have.
She has no need to associate with you further once you are married.
(What is the difference between regular Barbie doll and divorced Barbie doll? Divorced Barbie comes with her stuff and all of Ken’s stuff too.)
This seems a totally destructive state of affairs. Recently many in the western nations have been up in arms over a law passed in, I believe, Saudi Arabia that said if a married woman refuses her husband sex, then he can refuse to feed her. All are screaming it is Islamic misogyny. Seems to me, it is an equal degree of enforcement for both sides of a contract.
.
Presenting Briffault’s Law is a duty I felt I owed to the readership, as a public service. We all need to take off the blinders. You will get from women exactly what you should expect; if you keep Briffault’s Law (and the corollaries) in mind. Knowing this earlier in life would have saved me a lot of pain. I hope it helps some of you out there keep a hand on the reins. All of us, men and women, will be happier if men take charge of their relationships and their finances.
there doesn't seem to be anything here