Post: #1

i've seen this mentioned a few times on the boards, but no thread dedicated to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Brif...lt.27s_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. — Robert Briffault, The Mothers, Vol. I, p. 191

This is the fundamental issue of having a girlfriend, having a wife, having a wife and children.

This is outside of the legal and financial stuff that happens, just the very nature of the relationship.

WIA

Post: #2

Same goes for a man, if a man knows he will get no benefits for sure from a woman, he is not going to communicate with her(although there is a faint possibility, he will do it).
Same with business or a lot of things. Yeah, woman certainly influences the conditions of the family, that is because they make babies and limited eggs. But elite males have a lot of control though.

Post: #3

It's interesting to see this dynamic play out with people who become terminally Ill, become vegetables, or become maimed in some way (Like war vets). I've heard a few stories in my area (a military area) of guys who'd stuck by their wives sides in the darkest of days only for that devotion not to be reciprocated. It sucks when it starts to look like women almost exclusively are driven on base, primal instinct, yet we're suppose to conduct society in a 'civilized' manner where we're all equals and above the animal inside us.

I read a little more about this law, and how he mentions that children were more likely to be raised by uncles than the fathers. I suspect this is due to the fact that when your sister has kids, there is some assured genetic relationship, whereas you might not be related to the offspring of a female you had sex with.

Post: #4

(07-28-2013 06:51 AM)avantgarde Wrote:  Same goes for a man, if a man knows he will get no benefits for sure from a woman, he is not going to communicate with her(although there is a faint possibility, he will do it).

Yes, but with men, sometimes the only benefits they see are sex.

Post: #5

Classic law.

Let's throw in a few corollaries. These are not mine; I can't take credit for them. Bit accurate though. Basically saying - all that matters is what's in the now, they aren't thinking long-term here.
- Past benefit by the male does not provide for future or continued association.
- Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of a future association is null and void as soon as the male provides the benefit.
- 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.

Post: #6

(07-28-2013 11:53 PM)nek Wrote:  It sucks when it starts to look like women almost exclusively are driven on base, primal instinct, yet we're suppose to conduct society in a 'civilized' manner where we're all equals and above the animal inside us.

yeah, it sucks bigtime..and it sucks even more when governmental/legal and societal forces team up to make it easier for women to act on these base primary insticts and at the same time make it incredibly difficult and financially punitive for men to leave marriages, even when they are completely in the right to do so

Post: #7

(07-28-2013 06:51 AM)avantgarde Wrote:  Same goes for a man, if a man knows he will get no benefits for sure from a woman, he is not going to communicate with her(although there is a faint possibility, he will do it).

This is interesting in the case of the beta male. He thinks he'll derive pleasure(sex) from communicating with the woman and he will consistently communicate with her to try to make the fantasy in his head a reality, even though he has no chance of banging. Ha! This philosophy only applies to alpha males.