Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42
  1. #1

    Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Good piece from Paul Elam, critiquing Briffault's Law.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMJYYlbHld0


    I always hesitated when I saw Briffault's Law cited. Women "determine ALL the conditions of the family?" Really? I don't know any families like that, except a few really screwed-up ones. "The female only enters an association where she can derive benefit"? Well, naturally -- and the same is true for you and me. We don't enter relationships out of altruistic self-sacrifice. We do it because we think we will benefit.

    I think it's a good critique of a flawed theory. He does take a few pot shots at MGTOW luminaries, but he's pro-MGTOW in general.

    I'll give you a synopsis of his points:

    1. Briffault was the product of a domineering, fundamentalist single mother. That experience shaped his theory.

    2. When applied to humans, Briffault's Law is wrong. "Men compete, women select" is a good description for many animal species in which the male has no parental investment, but it's different for humans. In our species, men are also the selectors. He cites prominent evolutionary psychologists to back this up.

    3. No one does anything without a perceived benefit. That's true for men and women alike.

    4. This "law" is actually simpery in action. It portrays women as dominant and men as powerless. It's harmful to believe this shit.

  2. #2

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    I've seen women behaving exactly like Briffault's Law, meaning they'll invest in a man and "love" him as long as he provides assets, but then they'll drop him in an instant if at any point he's no longer able to provide.

    On the other hand, I've seen women stick with men who get sick. A man and a woman have been married for 30 years, for example, and he comes down with some awful disease like cancer or Alzheimer's or something equally awful. There is such a thing as a woman sticking by her man in bad times. For example, Nancy Reagan stuck with Ronald Reagan when his health was failing from Alzheimer's. Not all women would do that. Some women are shitty human beings who would bail on her husband during tough times. Others are better. I think older generations were better at taking their wedding vows seriously.

    Today's feminists teach women to be despicable human beings who only care about themselves, and that a man is there only to be used. They justify it by the supposed oppression due to the "patriarchy." Of course, that's made-up fiction, but it serves as an excuse for women to never take responsibility for their actions and to treat men like human garbage.

  3. #3
    Member JustaThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2021
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    42
    Reputation
    125
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    4. This "law" is actually simpery in action. It portrays women as dominant and men as powerless. It's harmful to believe this shit.
    I remember being under the influence of feminized ideology for the longest time, I truly believed in this theory of women being the powerful ones and that us men should worship all women and bow to their will just to get to be with them. All of my upbringing reinforced this idea, all media consumed, all the actions of my dad in his marriage, all "healthy" relationships I thought I witnessed when I was young all added to this absolutely wrong idea of how to treat women and how to behave in general. The idea was essentially that you should do everything you can to be with and keep a woman, you sacrifice yourself in all ways possible so that she will choose (because she is the only one who can choose) to be with you.

    After experiencing the real world, real long term relationships, many various women in different situations, I realized that my upbringing did not match up to the way the real world actually works. The idea that women were in control didn't sit well with me and after being slapped around by life awhile I finally figured out that I was the one with power, I am the only one that controls me, women have no power at all without us bowing down and letting them rule. Now with the power found I choose to stay the hell away from the time wasting, stress inducing, mind game playing crazies called women. We get no thanks for our hard work and sacrifice from them as it is simply expected of us, but we start to take that away and everyone starts to worry. They worry if more men realize they actually have power then the feminists on their pedestals who are used to controlling most men will fall down hard. They only remain on their high pedestals because they are propped up by simping men like Briffault and clueless young indoctrinated boys like my former self. I hope that they fall someday, and that the work that we do here helps that along and helps men realize their power in this world.

  4. #4

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    It's very difficult, perhaps impossible, to deny Briffault's law if exceptions aren't made the rule and if biological reality of women is taken into consideration. If you focus on anecdotes of course you'd come up with examples where women's behavior falls out of accordance with briffault's law.

    I always hesitated when I saw Briffault's Law cited. Women "determine ALL the conditions of the family?" Really? I don't know any families like that, except a few really screwed-up ones.
    One word that quote is missing is "animal," which changes its original meaning and allows your definition of it. The biological realities of men and women prove Briffault's law to be very accurate. The female, not the male, determines ALL the conditions of the animal family because they are the desired sex. In the cut-throat game of reproduction and sex-for-resources, men are expendable.

    "The female only enters an association where she can derive benefit"? Well, naturally -- and the same is true for you and me. We don't enter relationships out of altruistic self-sacrifice. We do it because we think we will benefit
    Again, taken in the context of "the animal" it's impossible to deny briffault's law. Yes, all humans are selfish, but with men it's only to a point, and experience bears this out. Men are far more altruistic and perform altruistic acts far more often than women. All you have to do is look around, men put themselves in danger ALL the time to save something or someone without the thought of any gain.
    Last edited by Hedon; November 24, 2021 at 7:44 PM.

  5. #5

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Hedon View Post
    It's very difficult, perhaps impossible, to deny Briffault's law if exceptions aren't made the rule and if biological reality of women is taken into consideration. If you focus on anecdotes of course you'd come up with examples where women's behavior falls out of accordance with briffault's law.

    One word that quote is missing is "animal," which changes its original meaning and allows your definition of it. The biological realities of men and women prove Briffault's law to be very accurate. The female, not the male, determines ALL the conditions of the animal family because they are the desired sex. In the cut-throat game of reproduction and sex-for-resources, men are expendable.

    Again, taken in the context of "the animal" it's impossible to deny briffault's law. Yes, all humans are selfish, but with men it's only to a point, and experience bears this out. Men are far more altruistic and perform altruistic acts far more often than women. All you have to do is look around, men put themselves in danger ALL the time to save something or someone without the thought of any gain.
    Briffault's law does seem to express itself a lot, but how do you account for those times when it doesn't. Some women will stick with their men even after he's no longer able to earn a living. My example before was that Nancy Reagan stuck with Ronald Reagan even after he was really sick with Alzheimer's.

  6. #6
    Senior Member MGTOWFOREVER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,127
    Reputation
    4883
    Type
    Living on my own terms

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    I use to be the ultimate nice guy. I'd help anyone out. Now after being shit on, I tell people to fuck off just like they would me. Women except our moms give a fuck about us. Other women are only around because you are giving something. You could he their emotional tampon either way you are still giving.

  7. #7
    Senior Member mgtower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    4,206
    Reputation
    12409
    Type
    Ghosted by law and order.

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by MGTOWFOREVER View Post
    I use to be the ultimate nice guy. I'd help anyone out. Now after being shit on, I tell people to fuck off just like they would me. Women except our moms give a fuck about us. Other women are only around because you are giving something. You could he their emotional tampon either way you are still giving.
    You're still a nice guy. When you're not a nice guy, you tell them to fuck off AND DIE!
    We'll get every drop of niceness out of you, even if we have to squeeze it out!
    Tower's Book of Survival:

    Rule #401. First you eat the dogs, then you eat the dogfood.

  8. #8

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    I always hesitated when I saw Briffault's Law cited. Women "determine ALL the conditions of the family?" Really? I don't know any families like that, except a few really screwed-up ones.
    Except they do. This shows a lack on knowledge about how women manipulate and how they act in relationships. As they say, "the man is the head of the house, but the woman is the neck."

    It takes zero work for a woman to manipulate a man. That is 100% what they do in all aspects of life. This is why women always win unless you care the least. All simps and pussy worshippers fall. And all trad cucks. They just refuse to be a man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    "The female only enters an association where she can derive benefit"? Well, naturally -- and the same is true for you and me. We don't enter relationships out of altruistic self-sacrifice. We do it because we think we will benefit.
    Except women lie that they don't. I don't give a shit that men do. Men are retarded. But women manipulate to get what they want. There is no gold digger equivalent to men. Men like sex? Of course they do, they have a sex drive, something women lack, which, again, is why women win.

    Women just want your money.

    Men are too fucking stupid to learn to masturbate and google "free porn".

    It's about pointing out women's flaws and lies, not more hate speech against men which has been going on for 150 years.




    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    1. Briffault was the product of a domineering, fundamentalist single mother. That experience shaped his theory.
    That's just ad hominem. His background is irrelevant. That's as stupid as critiquing E=MC2 because Einstein was Jewish. That is literally the worst argument against Briffault and shows a complete ignorance of the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    2. When applied to humans, Briffault's Law is wrong. "Men compete, women select" is a good description for many animal species in which the male has no parental investment, but it's different for humans. In our species, men are also the selectors. He cites prominent evolutionary psychologists to back this up.
    Again, ignorance. This is a true fact throughout the animal kingdom. He is fucking simply stupid is he thinks humans aren't animals.

    Men ask girls out. Men ask thousands of girls out. Men are seed spreaders and retarded. Women sit on bar stools and select and judge you whether you're worthy to fuck their moist holes. Females who bare young are ALWAYS seed selectors. Men don't select shit. Their only selection system is trying to hit on a chick. A woman SELECTS the male to mate with. he shoots his shot, and she background checks his bank balance. That's why dating is simply a job interview to see if you are good enough to fuck her.

    Men don't select shit. Don't fantasize you do. Very few men are in a position to select the women they're going to fuck, having so many choices. It is extremely rare.

    Women select, men approach, again, because men are retarded.

    Without the female "selecting" species cannot evolve, and will die out as a population. It is the literal biological requirement of females, and the only evolutionary value they have is selecting the best mates.

    Do men select a little bit? Sure. A little bit. If the ugliest pig you've ever seen flirts with you you'll back away, but outside of a 1 or a 2 flirting with you, you'll deeply consider is.

    For women, anything below an 8 is pointless and will pollute their womb. Women will literally become nauseous at the idea of mating with a sub-standard male. Unless there's money of course, their true love. Then they "might" consider it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    3. No one does anything without a perceived benefit. That's true for men and women alike.
    Doesn't matter, this is about women. Women lie and say they don't. #AllWomenLieAllTheTime

    Pointing out men "do it to" is white night simp faggotry. This is about women and their lies and manipulation and making sure they're dragged down to the horrible level of men. They're JUST LIKE MEN, and it needs to be endlessly pointed out because pussy worshipping limp dicks are, again, retarded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    4. This "law" is actually simpery in action. It portrays women as dominant and men as powerless. It's harmful to believe this shit.
    Women are dominant in mate selection for the first quarter century. Then the lose all power.

    Women love money, and most men don't have it until they have something going. Women have 100% advantages with youth. Men have advantage with old age. They have relationship selection, whereas women have sexual selection. Women's primary sexual selection is a health rich male, ie: resources. Then they "settle" more and more out of desperation.

    They'll still happily have a higher selection male to breed with, then have beta buxx provide resources for it.

    These arguments have some validity, insofar as they point out women do the same things as men (except have way more power in that, as they decide who fucks them).

    Power dynamics don't matter, the female has the final say in all manner of reproduction and relationships. Men may be the one to "bend the knee" and offer his assets on a silver platter with a ring, but that's the start and end in his involvement.

    He's a slave, and if really lucky, she may even bare his children, but there's zero guarantee of that. Why else are 100% of women violently opposed to paternity testing with children? Why do feminists endlessly block it? Why do entire countries block it to "protect the family" and fuck over men into paying for a better man's kids?

    That's not simpery, nor is it harmful. It's harmful to believe women don't act in this capacity against men. It's simpery to believe they are some benevolent creature on a pedestal.
    Last edited by DangZagnut; November 25, 2021 at 5:08 AM.

  9. #9

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by TigPlaze View Post
    Briffault's law does seem to express itself a lot, but how do you account for those times when it doesn't. Some women will stick with their men even after he's no longer able to earn a living. My example before was that Nancy Reagan stuck with Ronald Reagan even after he was really sick with Alzheimer's.
    Politics and money. She was a multimillionaire, and dumping his ass would have been a political issue. We're talking people in the public eye who are more than happy to pretend for appearances.

    Bill Clinton is a rapist, and Hilary had zero problem sticking around for the millions and the status.

  10. #10

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    It is just saying women are parasites. And they are.

  11. #11
    Senior Member MGTOWFOREVER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,127
    Reputation
    4883
    Type
    Living on my own terms

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by mgtower View Post
    You're still a nice guy. When you're not a nice guy, you tell them to fuck off AND DIE!
    We'll get every drop of niceness out of you, even if we have to squeeze it out!
    Make me the biggest miserable bastard of all time.

  12. #12

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by TigPlaze View Post
    Briffault's law does seem to express itself a lot, but how do you account for those times when it doesn't. Some women will stick with their men even after he's no longer able to earn a living. My example before was that Nancy Reagan stuck with Ronald Reagan even after he was really sick with Alzheimer's.
    You seriously asked that question? Really? He was the president of the United States, still rich, still had power and prestige, and at an age where she couldn't do any better if she left. Women's loyalty is only as good as the benefits they can derive from the man. It means they have no loyalty, absolutely none. In cases where the woman stays it's very likely she knows she can't do any better than who she's with or better than the situation she's in.

    The man could be worse than Hitler, if he holds the most benefit for women they'll stay with him. Women are amoral and hypergamy runs deep, my man.
    Last edited by Hedon; November 25, 2021 at 2:30 PM.

  13. #13
    Senior Member happybachelor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Location
    North UK
    Posts
    587
    Reputation
    665
    Type
    Bachelor, Monk, Enigma

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    When you see yourself as below women, Briffault's Law will tend to be what you experience. Without using the words, you're basically asking/begging them to accept you. So yes they will set all the parameters for that association.

    When you put yourself first - as a highest priority above all others, you'll tend to experience something different. It's classic power dynamics.

    It is normal for men to put themselves below women due to the intentional mind training they receive over their lifetimes by the powers that be. In reality, men are not below women. Look at any indigenous tribe or in very rural setups. Men are more natural, that is to say more masculine, and they provide at least as much benefit to the family as does a woman. Ie they are at least as valuable.

    Man's goal is to realise what he thinks of himself is what he accepted from 'society at large' - which is really not "society's" fault - but those who program us intentionally to mess up natural dynamics. The ones who control what most of us see, hear, think etc as most people are addicted to smartphones and television.

    It is man's goal to see through all this bullshit and never again accept what he does not feel (yes feel) to be true.

    Once he has done that he can more easily have a relationshit if he so desires, because he has a level of personal power which cannot be dominated by any woman.
    Last edited by happybachelor; November 25, 2021 at 10:26 AM.
    Alpha male with a warrior spirit.
    Christ consciousness.
    Anarchist.
    When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing. They then become capable of believing in anything.


  14. #14
    Senior Member mgtower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    4,206
    Reputation
    12409
    Type
    Ghosted by law and order.

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by MGTOWFOREVER View Post
    Make me the biggest miserable bastard of all time.
    Sorry, no-can-do, You'll need a woman to achieve that!
    Tower's Book of Survival:

    Rule #401. First you eat the dogs, then you eat the dogfood.

  15. #15

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Hedon View Post
    You seriously asked that question? Really? He was the president of the United States, still rich, still had power, and at an age where she couldn't do any better if she left. Women's loyalty is only as good as the benefits they can derive from the man. It means they have no loyalty, absolutely none. In cases where the woman stays it's very likely she knows she can't do any better than who she's with or better than the situation she's in.

    The man could be worse than Hitler, if he holds the most benefit for women they'll stay with him. Women are amoral and hypergamy runs deep, my man.
    Reagan isn't the only one, however. I've seen women stick with their man when he gets sick, and they were people who weren't famous political figures or famous in any other way. It tended to be more common with the World War II generation. In fact, I would go so far to say as it's what older people usually do. After the WWII gen, I see women getting greedier and greedier by generation. At this point, if a woman's husband got sick with cancer or stroke or Alzheimer's or whatever, she would probably bail or just put him in a home and go fuck Tyrone. But the WWII generation didn't do that by and large.

  16. #16

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JustaThought View Post
    ...I truly believed in this theory of women being the powerful ones and that us men should worship all women and bow to their will just to get to be with them.... The idea was essentially that you should do everything you can to be with and keep a woman, you sacrifice yourself in all ways possible so that she will choose (because she is the only one who can choose) to be with you.

    After experiencing the real world, real long term relationships, many various women in different situations, I realized that my upbringing did not match up to the way the real world actually works. The idea that women were in control didn't sit well with me and after being slapped around by life awhile I finally figured out that I was the one with power, I am the only one that controls me, women have no power at all without us bowing down and letting them rule. Now with the power found I choose to stay the hell away from the time wasting, stress inducing, mind game playing crazies called women. ... I hope that they fall someday, and that the work that we do here helps that along and helps men realize their power in this world.
    Yup. That's right. I think it's strange that on the one hand, we hear Briffault's Law constantly bandied about, and yet on the other, we also constantly remind ourselves (correctly) that men are the gatekeepers of relationships/commitment (i.e., the choosers). Those two ideas are in direct contradiction. They can't both be true. Either women make all the choices, or we make some of them too.

    It's foolish to give away our power. When we conceive of women as the ones who make all the choices about the start and end of relationships, that's what we do. That's the picture Briffault's Law paints. It's a false and disempowering one.

  17. #17

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    The idea that men gatekeep relationships is a bullshit argument.

    Sure a man can break up with a chick.

    Sure a man “traditionally” decides to commit to a woman (marriage) or not. But women still have all the power. It’s not like women can’t bail on a relationship whenever they want. “At fault” divorce isn’t a thing.

    It doesn’t matter if you see yourself above or below women. Women act how women act. What you view yourself as doesn’t change a thing.

    You didn’t select her and drag her back to your cave whether she wanted it or not.

    She selected you and you choose to give her resources or not. And since men will always pay for pussy one way or another, you pay the price or your don’t. That’s it.

    Women select, then men can choose to participate or not. Women do what they do.

    Fantasizing that women don’t have all the power is ridiculous. That’s just some trad cuck nonsense that still fantasizes men have power.

    Your only power is to walk away.

  18. #18

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by DangZagnut View Post
    Except they do. This shows a lack on knowledge about how women manipulate and how they act in relationships. As they say, "the man is the head of the house, but the woman is the neck."
    You think Paul Elam is unaware of how women manipulate? Or that I am? Please.

    It takes zero work for a woman to manipulate a man. That is 100% what they do in all aspects of life. This is why women always win unless you care the least. All simps and pussy worshippers fall. And all trad cucks. They just refuse to be a man.
    Really? That's "100% of what women do, in all aspects of life"? That's an extremely reductionistic and simplistic stance. "Women always win." Really? Do they? Always?

    That's just ad hominem. His background is irrelevant. That's as stupid as critiquing E=MC2 because Einstein was Jewish. That is literally the worst argument against Briffault and shows a complete ignorance of the point.
    No, it's not ad hominem; it's relevant. It isn't physics; it's a theory of animal/human behavior. Theories of behavior are not like physics; they are often shaped by the background of the theorist and the historical times they emerged in.

    Again, ignorance. This is a true fact throughout the animal kingdom. He is fucking simply stupid is he thinks humans aren't animals.
    Who's doing the ad hominem here, which you just accused him of doing? Besides, your point doesn't even hold. That's not "a true point throughout the animal kingdom," which you'd know if you listened to the video (which I suspect you did not, you're just knee-jerk reacting to my statements). Nor does he state that humans aren't animals (not sure where you got that from).

    Men don't select shit.
    Bullshit. Men have standards. In fact, we object when women screech about our standards. Yet here you are saying men don't select (i.e., have no standards and will just accept any pussy they are able to obtain.)

    This shouldn't need clarifying, but: To say "men select" is not to say "Men always get whoever they want." Men aren't omnipotent. But men do have standards or criteria, which they apply when selecting a mate. That's especially true in committed, long-term relationships.

    Without the female "selecting" species cannot evolve, and will die out as a population. It is the literal biological requirement of females, and the only evolutionary value they have is selecting the best mates.
    I don't have any disagreement with that, except that you are framing things in an absolutist fashion -- black and white, either or, binary. Do you think that it must be either men or women that do the selecting, but it somehow can't be both? Why would that be?

    It seems to me that, just based on common sense observation, you would see that men and women both have criteria and standards that they bring to bear when selecting a mate. I don't know why you can't see that and instead insist on women being the all-powerful and sole selectors.

    Are women more selective than men? Yes, of course -- for the reasons you mentioned. Does that mean men are not selective, too? Of course not, unless you think in binary, all-or-nothing terms. Men can also be selective (i.e., have standards/criteria), albeit fewer than women. Men are less picky than women, but they are not completely indiscriminate -- they do not pair up with just anyone. Men have standards and criteria, too. Not as stringent as women's, but they are clearly there.

    Do men select a little bit? Sure. A little bit.
    Well, you can try to minimize men's choice/power all you like, and then frame it all as about getting your dick wet (which misses the point -- remember, Briffault's Law is not just about having sex; it's about "the conditions of the animal family," i.e., the establishing and breaking of pair bonds).

    I ain't buying it. I think that's a distorted and disempowered view, and it's false besides.

  19. #19

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    .. we also constantly remind ourselves (correctly) that men are the gatekeepers of relationships/commitment (i.e., the choosers). Those two ideas are in direct contradiction. They can't both be true. Either women make all the choices, or we make some of them too.

    It's foolish to give away our power. When we conceive of women as the ones who make all the choices about the start and end of relationships, that's what we do. That's the picture Briffault's Law paints. It's a false and disempowering one.
    Respectfully Eddie, in current gynocratic society, the man's choice in the relationship is nearly Zero and every year that passes Laws are being modified / interpreted or changed to reduce a man's choice even further.

    Laws now FORCE commitment (resources) from a man whether he likes it or not. We have cases where men have clearly stated their wish for no strings attached (ie. no commitment) while women have then unilaterally decided otherwise.

    In some cases, women have taken ejaculate from outside of her body and used it to force commitment from men - and the courts have ruled that the man must take responsibility and provide. In other cases, women used the Courts to force commitment by stating that the parties are in a Civil Union - and what's disgusting are that the standards for what constitutes a Civil Union keeps eroding.

    I would say that Briffault's Law (and its corollaries) generally applies - yes there are cases where it does not, however those exceptions are rare and in the majority of the cases, Briffault's Law proves to be true.

    Men have agreed to provide commitment on a women's vows to have and to hold, to stay faithful and loyal in sickness, till death does she part, only to be deprived of sex, treated as a ATM, cuckolded and dumped when he outlives his usefulness.

    I disagree that Briffault's Law disempowers men or is akin to simpery. If anything, it warns men about the nature of women. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

    Attempting to rubbish Briffault's Law is akin to removing that warning and it is poor comfort for the many men who did not want commitment but ended up being forced into one, or who gave benefits to a woman and got broken promises in return to say "Damn! Turns out Briffault's Law is True!".

  20. #20

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Hedon View Post
    It's very difficult, perhaps impossible, to deny Briffault's law if exceptions aren't made the rule and if biological reality of women is taken into consideration.
    It's actually quite easy, and it's very easy once you realize that there are many exceptions to this "law" even in the non-human animal kingdom. And humans are clearly an exception. Evolutionary psychology makes this clear. I think some of the failure to understand this is simply a lack of familiarity with the relevant literature. The video makes reference, but I don't think most people here have actually watched it.

    As I mentioned earlier, the distinction depends on whether the male of the species has a parental investment, and how large that investment is. In species where the male has no parental investment (hit it and quit it), you will see Briffault's Law in full action.

    However, in species that benefit by the male sticking around to help protect the pregnant female or nurture the young (e.g., birds), it's different. Then the male is also a selector, to some degree. This is *especially* the case in species like humans, where not only male parental investment is required, but because of the long period of pregnancy and child dependency, that parental investment is quite high. In those species (i.e., us), the male has also developed (evolutionarily) to be a selector.

    One word that quote is missing is "animal," which changes its original meaning and allows your definition of it. The biological realities of men and women prove Briffault's law to be very accurate.
    I did leave out the word "animal," but it doesn't change the meaning. Humans are animals. Briffault's Law is always applied to humans. When the "Law" gets cited, it certainly is not being applied to dogs and cats.

    The female, not the male, determines ALL the conditions of the animal family because they are the desired sex.
    I'm sorry that is your perspective. It seems both wrong and disabling to me. If you want to view yourself as completely powerless in relation to women, that's your choice, but I disagree.

    I'll just say that in my own relationships, I have almost always been the one to pull the plug. There was only one exception, where I held on too long and in retrospect should've bailed earlier but was stubborn. When I go online to search dating apps, I reject the vast majority of women I see (like 95%). If I were not selective, I could be in tons of relationships. Getting into a relationship is easy. But I am not indiscriminate. I am actually quite picky. In other words, I am a selector.

    I don't understand why you guys feel the need to defend a picture of life that paints you out to be weak and powerless.


Similar Threads

  1. Paul Elam returns to monologs
    By Eddie Haskell in forum For Bachelors
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 17, 2021, 10:46 PM
  2. Don't get Married by Paul Elam
    By Lester Burnham in forum Lounge
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 4, 2016, 7:54 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 9, 2015, 5:48 AM
  4. Buzzfeed article on Paul Elam
    By CrazyCanuck in forum Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 16, 2015, 9:06 AM
  5. Paul Elam at it again
    By CrazyCanuck in forum Lounge
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: February 14, 2015, 6:15 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
  •