Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24
  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    900
    Reputation
    4682

    BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    From Stickman Weekly: The Rosetta Stone of Women's Behavior, by Old, Fat, and Bald


    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.


    There are a few corollaries I would add:


    1. Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.


    2. 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).





    Let us start by saying much of the discussion on the Stickman site seems to start from the belief that Thai women are somehow different from all other women, both in the good and the bad. And that their actions derive from the cultural milieu in which they were reared; and therefore no western man can really understand their thinking without intensive cross cultural study. I posit that this is BS. No man can ever understand what is going on inside the head of any woman, of any culture, including their own, no matter how much they study. We should not kid ourselves. The best we can hope to do is observe their behaviors and roll with the punches. This is where Briffault’s Law is vital. All women associate with any man only so long as they derive a benefit from the association. This can not be stated too many times.


    A bit of recent data that supports this proposition comes from a recent study done in the UK. The findings were that for a period from the early 1990’s to the early 2000’s, 90% of UK women practiced hypergamy. Hypergamy is a 15 cent (about 7 pence in GBPs) word for marrying up. The hypothesis in the study was; do women exhibit hypergamy, or not. You start with assuming not, and then disprove that. If they do not, then roughly 50% would marry up and 50% would marry down. During the period of the study 90% of UK women married men that made more money than they did, or had greater wealth. The 90% marrying up rate provides ample evidence that the women exhibit hypergamy behavior. These were not poor daughters of Isaan rice farmers. This was not a developing country. This behavior could be observed anywhere in the world and at any time in history.


    Before discovering Briffault’s Law, I came to a similar independent, although not so well or concisely stated, conclusion. A few years ago, while arguing with my six sisters about my intentions to marry a Filipina half my age (marriage number 4 so I am a slow learner), they argued that she was just marrying me to get a better life. After a few seconds of reflection I retorted that this was true for every woman in the world marrying any man. This left them with no response. After all, who among us ever marries to have a worse life? We all hope that it will be an improvement. With women it is doubly so, since they have no intention of actually working to improve their lives.


    So, let’s get to Korski’s question, “Who is a Whore”, and my initial response, “They all are”. By Briffault’s Law if a woman is associating with you (assuming you are a man) then she is doing it because she sees some benefit, either current, or in the future, from that association. How is this different from the bargirl on Soi Cowboy? I think only in the duration of the intended association, the amount of benefit expected, and in the woman’s acceptance of delay in getting that benefit. Guys, let’s get real about this. It is past time to take off the rose colored glasses.


    How does this help? If you know going in that she is there to derive a benefit, then make sure you are willing and able to provide that benefit, that you are willing and able to continue to provide that benefit, and that the cost to you of providing that benefit is worth the benefit you derive from the association. Be fully aware that when the benefit to her stops, the relationship will stop. Have no illusions. This is true in the UK, France, America, Thailand, and everywhere else. So, if you spend every dime in your retirement fund to build her and/or her mother a house (in her name of course), do not expect that the association will continue. You must say no early and often so you preserve your ability to provide a continuing benefit. If you drain all your resources, then you get what you should expect (see corollary 1).


    Keep control of your money, only you will be responsible with it, because you had to earn it. After my first divorce I commiserated with a female secretary that was at least two decades older than me, and who was herself divorced. When I told her that I had let my wife run the family finances (common in 80% of married couples in the USA), and that she had run us deep into debt, she told me, “Any man that turns over his paycheck to a woman is a fool.” I would add that giving any woman every penny you have in the world is just asking her to kick you to the curb and walk away from you.


    Deriving mutual benefits from a relationship is not a bad thing. Where Brokenman and the rest of us men lose the plot is when we expect past benefit provided to the woman to continue generating current or future association (see corollary 1). Loyalty, honor, gratitude, and duty are male values that we men project on women, but which very few, to no, 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 get different indoctrination, so they have different values; mostly, 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 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 my second wife died, her mandatory insurance (free) provided by her teacher’s union covered her funeral expenses. It would have made life much easier if her insurance had paid the over $350,000 my life insurance would have paid.


    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. 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 (see corollary 2). (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 my 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.
    Last edited by BeijaFlor; November 7, 2014 at 10:53 PM. Reason: Fix link to original article

  2. #2

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    Years ago I was overwieght and working in Master Control at a TV station. All the pretty young reporter girlies would come in and give me a hug and bring me food and look into my eyes when I talked to them and they would tell me about their day and laugh at all my stupid jokes. Sometimes they would come visit me for no reason just to talk, and one even blew me a kiss across the newsroom in front of everyone, and another would always want back rubs from me. The hot Asian chick would 'accidentally' squish her big boobs up against my arm or the back of my head when I was sitting.

    They would come in there for the aircheck tapes of the newscast so they could copy their reports for their resume tapes, which they needed if they were ever to go to a bigger market. That's what they actually needed from me.

    Once I got promoted to News Production, and no longer had access to the airchecks, all their affections dried up and they would avoid me and wouldn't even look at me when I went to talk to them. Ouch.

    Then I managed to poison myself in a desperate attempt to lose weight so I could curry their favor again and flipped out and had a bunch of panic attacks and lost my job.

    The rest of the story is that's when I stared to look for answers on the internet and came across the 'Nice Guy Syndrome' theory which linked me to the PUA community which finally led me to GMOW. I NEVER want to be such a little whipped bitch again.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,179
    Reputation
    6434
    Type
    Intellectual Ghost

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    TLDR: all women are whores. Women elect to associate with a man because they want some combination of money, power, or offspring. Every twat has a price.

    Cunts are parasites. Interact with them at your own peril.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator Mr Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    4,696
    Reputation
    22874
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    1. Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.
    Aka: "What have you done for me lately?"

  5. #5
    Moderator Chairborne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,285
    Reputation
    7420
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    Excellent summary T.

    The thing is, Briffault's law isn't some arcane secret - it's fucking bragged about. See Janet Jackson's 1986 anthem celebrating the 1st Corollary:

    Who's Chairborne? Office worker & Army Reservist, into electronic music, drummer in a jam band, table-top RPGs, bicycling, X-country skiing, biathlon & marksmanship, TV-free for 15 years.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Octavian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Four Dimensional Spacetime.
    Posts
    1,248
    Reputation
    8571

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    One Amendment should suffice thus:
    Provided a future benefit of great import is removed, her presence will be soon after.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    900
    Reputation
    4682

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    Is there really anything more to add than this?


  8. #8

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    Quote Originally Posted by secularscientist View Post
    TLDR: Cunts are parasites. Interact with them at your own peril.
    secularscientist,

    This profound statement, fathomless in depth, yet so elegant in its brevity, almost brought a tear to this old cynic's eye...

    Bravo, sir. Bravo.

  9. #9
    Senior Member TheRecipe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    684
    Reputation
    2951
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    I truly believe women should not be viewed as human beings as they lack some of the most basic components - empathy, honesty, respect among others. Rather they should be referred to as "it" or "thing".

    Whenever I interact with them, I know they are just calculating my potential worth to them, if it falls below theirs they will show their disgust with abusive shit tests or worse, false rape accusations. This is why I have no problem whatsoever lying about anything and everything to a woman so I can use her for the only thing she is worth.
    Marrying a woman is like taking a shit upside down every day for the rest of your life. Don't do it!

  10. #10
    Moderator Thomas Covenant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Freeedoooom!
    Posts
    1,964
    Reputation
    6794
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    I'm glad you mentioned the huge disparity in life assurance provision, T0000009. I would also extend this to pension provision for retirement.

    This is statistical proof of Briffault's law on a national scale. No samples needed, simply consult the entire life and pensions market or the actuarial tables of any life office.
    I work in financial planning. I am interested in metal (all kinds), miniature painting and PC gaming. I live in Scotland.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    900
    Reputation
    4682

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Covenant View Post
    I'm glad you mentioned the huge disparity in life assurance provision, T0000009. I would also extend this to pension provision for retirement.

    This is statistical proof of Briffault's law on a national scale. No samples needed, simply consult the entire life and pensions market or the actuarial tables of any life office.
    It really is quite stunning when you dig a little deeper. Women could care less if you die, even after quite literally giving your entire life of work and effort to them. As long as they have a big check waiting for them upon your demise, then whatever happens to you is of no consequence.

  12. #12

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    Briffault's Law means that as soon as you interact with a woman the meter is ticking - you are losing something. That's not to say that you can't have a favorable exchange. But most women are planning on taking while giving nothing. So don't just hang in there waiting to find out if the interaction will become acceptable. The first thing you should ask a woman is "why should I have anything to do with you?"

    This applies to interactions with some men too, but you rarely know in advance which men. There are some men who take a woman's approach - that is, if you lack power, if they think you can neither do anything for them or against them, they treat you like shit. If at some point they think they can't exploit you anymore, they end ties.

  13. #13

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    Briffault Law = What have you done for me lately. Period. A woman's love is conditional.
    Hypergamy = Trading up. Always looking for the best guy they can get.

    Put together both ideas and you have a clear picture of what a woman is all about. You can buy a woman a car and it will not matter. Because if a millionaire comes along she will take your woman. She will not care that you bought her a car. She is will drop you for the millionaire.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    581
    Reputation
    1697
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    I'm not sure what this guy did for the ban but I warned him about it in his intro.

    He shared some good info and articles. I can guess he's bitter from all the blue-pill stuff he did, but he directs his bitterness towards everyone around him.
    Last edited by Wallabe; November 11, 2014 at 3:58 AM.

  15. #15

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    Wow just noticed the ban. I did enjoy reading some of his posts.

    I will say that I spent a weekend thinking about Briffault’s Law after I found out about it a few months ago. I was then able to see the law at work in my own life and that was pretty disturbing.

    It should be interesting to see the cumulative effect of what happens when the male becomes selfish and no longer provides an external benefit. After all our benefits hold a higher value than most of these so-called associations.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    581
    Reputation
    1697
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    Quote Originally Posted by zero-sum View Post
    Wow just noticed the ban. I did enjoy reading some of his posts.

    I will say that I spent a weekend thinking about Briffault’s Law after I found out about it a few months ago. I was then able to see the law at work in my own life and that was pretty disturbing.

    It should be interesting to see the cumulative effect of what happens when the male becomes selfish and no longer provides an external benefit. After all our benefits hold a higher value than most of these so-called associations.
    I'm already at that stage. I laugh at betas daily, seeing them just spend so much money one someone who doesn't even care about them. Yes, it's women who are the ones hamstering, but betas are the ones who enabled it. Ultimately, it is you, the guy, who allows it to happen. You're the one who is suppose to be in control of your wallet and yourself.

    Actually, a lot of guys think they are alpha because they have a girl who they call a girlfriend, even though they have no idea there are plenty of other guys around who are doing the same thing. All they really are is just betas on hardcore mode. What didn't work before, they now try something different, like going to the gym, pretending to act like a jerk towards girls and guys, etc. They may be doing the right thing like going to the gym to get fit, but it's all for the wrong reason. They're just orbiting harder and faster than before, all for pussies. There's no point in arguing with them, pussies is a religion to them, and they'll do anything to defend it. I'm talking about a lot of guys in the TRP, particularly lots of those in that reddit sub. They keep talking about beta bucks vs alpha fucks, but all they're really doing is trying for beta bucks hardcore mode, getting a bit more action for their effort, and call themselves alpha.

    I do realize everyone is at a different learning stage, and I'm sure I'm not where I should be either. It's so sad almost all of people's financial resources are so misguided and wasteful. No matter if you're a poor man on a Caribbean Island, or you're the CEO of a major corporation who's worth billions, your girlfriend/wife/ex will try to screw you from the start.

    As for me, I don't pay for anyone's dinner, go dutch, every time. I enjoy my own company, and if whoever wants to join, they may, but they pay for what they order. Lets laugh and play, but you're still paying for your own cost of living. That way, if "we" never see each other again, no matter, everything is already split and fair.

    I suppose a reason why Germans are cautious when doing business and always go dutch, because of bad things happened like war and hyperinflation. They're careful with their money and who they do business with. No one feels guilty for not paying, and no one feels like they have to pull the weight of anyone else.
    Last edited by Wallabe; November 11, 2014 at 11:50 AM.

  17. #17

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    "Yes, it's women who are the ones hamstering, but betas are the ones who enabled it." - Spot on. I was doing some reading the other day and came across the 12 step program which then led into a different discussion on codependency. It was interesting to see the parallels between enablers/people with codependent traits. A lot of that could also be applied to the beta/white knight behaviors.

    In regards to alpha/beta - I think it is a little convoluted. I see a lot of men - trying to act like what they/society think they should be. by virtue of even having that as an option, they probably miss all the real growth opportunities that would make them "men."

    I have seen young guys go through great hardship - they endured it as "boys" and most came out "men" - In my view that growth is only possible when a guy is in a situation not of his choosing and likely has a lot on the line in some form or another.

  18. #18
    Senior Member ATLien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    493
    Reputation
    1526
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    What breaks briffault's law is:
    "no benefit from association with the male"

    in human society, a woman paired with a man almost always receives some benefit with the male. Even if it's a mobile home instead of a mansion, there is 'some' benefit he provides.

    My vote is for hypergamy. What has caused modern women's self control go all berserk is access to a huge number of potential higher class men. Waaay back when, pre-communication tech & transportation, hypergamy was kept in check when communities were isolated. Women just didn't have contact with as many men, no would society let them get away with trading up.... slut shaming worked quite well before it was outlawed.
    My opinions are not necessarily my opinions.

  19. #19

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Joker View Post
    Briffault Law = What have you done for me lately. Period. A woman's love is conditional.
    Hypergamy = Trading up. Always looking for the best guy they can get.

    Put together both ideas and you have a clear picture of what a woman is all about. You can buy a woman a car and it will not matter. Because if a millionaire comes along she will take your woman. She will not care that you bought her a car. She is will drop you for the millionaire.
    I was the author of "The Rosetta Stone of Women's Behavior" in my alter ego as Old, Fat, and Bald (which I still am physically, but have chosen another screen persona). This was written in 2009. Since then there has been many YouTube videos about Briffault's Law. In one there was a corollary that was added that I approve of 100%:

    4) No matter what benefit the woman is receiving from the current association, it will be terminated the instant that the woman finds a greater benefit from another association.

    I think this captures your point well.

  20. #20
    Senior Member BeijaFlor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Chesapeake Bay, USA
    Posts
    4,145
    Reputation
    13154
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: BRIFFAULT’S LAW: Lurkers - Never engage any female

    "The Rosetta Stone of Women's Behavior" is worthy of being named as one of the foundational documents of MGTOW.

    Would you mind if we port it over into our "Red" articles section? Under your present byline, here, of course.
    "The Red Pill is the start of the journey, not the end." - Chairborne

    "Our most dangerous enemies are men who have no loyalty to men." - William Noy

    "I am not going to sacrifice my freedom and wealth for your ideals." - Primus Pilus

    "If you can't be happy on you're own, you can't be happy -- full stop." - Wilfred

    My introduction: I Was MGTOW When MGTOW Wasn't Cool...

    My blog: Beyond The Sunset


Similar Threads

  1. Briffault's Law
    By jagrmeister in forum Best of MGTOW
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: August 18, 2015, 11:17 PM
  2. Replies: 50
    Last Post: February 23, 2015, 12:38 AM
  3. Replies: 35
    Last Post: August 14, 2014, 10:11 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 31, 2014, 2:57 PM
  5. Briffault's Law Contract and Supply and Demand
    By jagrmeister in forum The MGTOW Video Vault
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 2, 2014, 10:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •