Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 31 of 31
  1. #21

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by TigPlaze View Post
    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.
    Nature predates culture. Human history is comprised of cultural norms, rules, and regulations enacted to mitigate destructive human nature. For example just because men are naturally predisposed to have sex with as many women as possible doesn't mean men would rape every woman they feel the biological urge to have sex with. Women's hypergamous nature was tamed by the cultural norms that existed at the times. They were very hypergamous because they still settles for the highest bidder with the most benefit but the option to monkey branch once the benefits erode was culturally frowned on.

    "I, _____, take thee, _____, to be my wedded wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I pledge thee my faith."
    Last edited by Hedon; November 25, 2021 at 4:28 PM.

  2. #22

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsmith79 View Post
    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.
    Well, if that's how you want to view yourself and your position with respect to women, that's certainly your choice. Just understand, when you tell yourself that women have "all" the power in relationships, and men have "nearly zero," that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You will see yourself as powerless in relation to women.

    You are making yourself powerless. You are giving away the power you do have.

    I agree that there are laws that are biased against men. Everyone knows this; you don't need to point it out; this stuff is recycled endlessly. Biased laws do not mean you are powerless and women hold all the cards. Please! You can still have standards, criteria, and choices.

    When you buy into simplistic (not to mention false) generalizations about human nature, telling yourself that women hold all the power, you disempower yourself. You surrender what power you do have.

  3. #23

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post

    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.
    Let me say this politely and not as any sort of ad hominem. It doesn't matter what "seems wrong" or how one feels about it. Reality is what reality is, not what we want it to be.

    If you have power please explain the power you have in dating, sex, reproduction, the legal system, gynocentric society in general.

    Dating? Sure, you can have standards. Let's say one's standard is no fat chicks and single mothers. The only, and I mean ONLY power one has is to not hit on them, or reject them if they express interest.

    That's it. She either selects you by asking you out or accepting you advances, or doesn't, because she's the selector in dating.

    Of your choices to date, it is 100% the woman that "allows" you to spend your resources on her. You selected nothing other than, as I said earlier, to walk away. Your standards are limited to the women that are interested, and the only ones interested means you passed her selection criteria.

    Sure hers are limited too, but not between 1 and 0 like a man, but between 100 and 90, where they aren't rich enough, tall enough, or whatever her filter is set on. It doesn't matter if you don't select her because she has dozens more to choose from.

    Sex? Nope. She determines that. Sure, you can date a girl and refuse sex with her if you wish, in which case she'll feel rejected and go fuck someone else. You have a long list of girls in your contacts ready to come over at the drop of a hat? If you do, #blessed.

    But she's the one giving the consent. You can play consent games all you want, but she doesn't care, because a) women do not have sex drives like men, and b) she can get laid any time she wants if she is horny that day.

    Reproduction? We can skip this because we all know men have zero power in that. The only thing you can do, again, is not participate, or walk away. You can get a vasectomy, use condoms, or anything else and hope it works, but if she's knocked up, you're on the hook. You decide nothing. You are, in fact, powerless, unless you intend to pursue illegal means.

    Legal system? See reproduction, family courts, and divorce.

    The reality is, women have all the power in these situations. What chick you "select" at the bar or on Tinder is minor compared to all the major issues. Including you having to pay for children that aren't even your own.

    Society? Go slap a woman on a crowded street and see what happens. Have her slap you and see what happens.

    Tell a girl to call 911 and accuse you of rape with zero evidence. See how that goes for you. Also, you c all 911 and do the exact same thing to her. See if the outcomes and process is identical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    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.
    As well you should, always be ready to walk away, which is what I said earlier, your only choice is to walk away, in a previous response, or just not participate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    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.
    As well you should be, but each one of those women you accept or reject, has 1200 others right in front, beside, and behind you. Your high selectivity is great, and everyone should do that, but it doesn't mean she is somehow at zero suitors, and she doesn't have to do any work.

    Your choice is to not participate, her choice is to not participate, "with you".

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    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.
    Again, it doesn't matter how we want reality to be, it's what reality is.

    And it's not weak and powerless, it's just reality. Women are seed selectors, men are seed sprayers. Men chase women, women reject men against their filter criteria. The fact that you don't swipe on the fatties isn't really relevant, because men aren't exactly swiping on them either, but 100 simps still will out of desperation.

  4. #24

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    Well, if that's how you want to view yourself and your position with respect to women, that's certainly your choice. Just understand, when you tell yourself that women have "all" the power in relationships, and men have "nearly zero," that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. ... You are making yourself powerless. You are giving away the power you do have.

    Firstly, don't view it as giving up power, view it as a warning. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. You don't give up power when someone tells you to be careful - the reverse is true, you are empowered by the information.

    Secondly, studies have shown that historically more women successfully reproduced than men - in fact from 4,000-8,000 years after agriculture was invented, the ratio was for every one 1 man that successfully passed on his genes, 17 women successfully passed on hers. Throughout history, the global average tends to be 1 man for 4-5 women (source: https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-...uctive-success).

    This means women's mate preferences are overwhelmingly the determining factor while men's preferences are not. Men can have standards, however standards just make it that much harder to obtain reproductive success, given the very low success rate in the average for males (20%), it is actually detrimental for men to have very high standards as that narrows his potential success rate further.

    Women can have standards and still succeed in reproductive success most of the time (as demonstrated historically). This shows women do not suffer any penalties or suffer far fewer penalties for having standards than men do.

    Historically, it isn't an equal 50:50, men and women can have choices and standards, but Women's choices significantly factor more than men's mate choices (on average 4-5x more, and in some cases to 17x more).

    This means that rather than mutual mate choice, it is overwhelmingly Women's Choice. Briffault's Law holds.

  5. #25

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by DangZagnut View Post
    Let me say this politely and not as any sort of ad hominem. It doesn't matter what "seems wrong" or how one feels about it. Reality is what reality is, not what we want it to be.

    If you have power please explain the power you have in dating, sex, reproduction, the legal system, gynocentric society in general.

    Dating? Sure, you can have standards. Let's say one's standard is no fat chicks and single mothers. The only, and I mean ONLY power one has is to not hit on them, or reject them if they express interest.

    That's it. She either selects you by asking you out or accepting you advances, or doesn't, because she's the selector in dating.

    Of your choices to date, it is 100% the woman that "allows" you to spend your resources on her. You selected nothing other than, as I said earlier, to walk away. Your standards are limited to the women that are interested, and the only ones interested means you passed her selection criteria.

    Sure hers are limited too, but not between 1 and 0 like a man, but between 100 and 90, where they aren't rich enough, tall enough, or whatever her filter is set on. It doesn't matter if you don't select her because she has dozens more to choose from.

    Sex? Nope. She determines that. Sure, you can date a girl and refuse sex with her if you wish, in which case she'll feel rejected and go fuck someone else. You have a long list of girls in your contacts ready to come over at the drop of a hat? If you do, #blessed.

    But she's the one giving the consent. You can play consent games all you want, but she doesn't care, because a) women do not have sex drives like men, and b) she can get laid any time she wants if she is horny that day.

    Reproduction? We can skip this because we all know men have zero power in that. The only thing you can do, again, is not participate, or walk away. You can get a vasectomy, use condoms, or anything else and hope it works, but if she's knocked up, you're on the hook. You decide nothing. You are, in fact, powerless, unless you intend to pursue illegal means.

    Legal system? See reproduction, family courts, and divorce.

    The reality is, women have all the power in these situations. What chick you "select" at the bar or on Tinder is minor compared to all the major issues. Including you having to pay for children that aren't even your own.

    Society? Go slap a woman on a crowded street and see what happens. Have her slap you and see what happens.

    Tell a girl to call 911 and accuse you of rape with zero evidence. See how that goes for you. Also, you c all 911 and do the exact same thing to her. See if the outcomes and process is identical.



    As well you should, always be ready to walk away, which is what I said earlier, your only choice is to walk away, in a previous response, or just not participate.




    As well you should be, but each one of those women you accept or reject, has 1200 others right in front, beside, and behind you. Your high selectivity is great, and everyone should do that, but it doesn't mean she is somehow at zero suitors, and she doesn't have to do any work.

    Your choice is to not participate, her choice is to not participate, "with you".



    Again, it doesn't matter how we want reality to be, it's what reality is.

    And it's not weak and powerless, it's just reality. Women are seed selectors, men are seed sprayers. Men chase women, women reject men against their filter criteria. The fact that you don't swipe on the fatties isn't really relevant, because men aren't exactly swiping on them either, but 100 simps still will out of desperation.
    I think your take on the situation is most accurate. If a man plays the dating and marriage game, almost all the odds are stacked in the woman's favor. The first is that we're the ones who have to pay for all that shit. A date can easily cost $200, and that's being conservative, given the insane demands of women. They want a rich guy. And that want that rich guy to pay out for them. It's greed. It's an ego trip. Even if you comply, the odds are against her selecting you. You could easily have to go on 50 dates before some woman accepts you as her LTR. That's $200 x 50 = $10,000. And that's IF one of them selects you, which is no guarantee. Your dating tab could run up to 20K, 40k, or more. And simpy men with money literally buy into this shit. They basically get into bidding wars. Some dudes don't even have the money and go into credit card debt to do it. Then if you do land one, there's a time period before you're expected to propose, at which time you have to fork over several months salary for one of those ridiculously expensive engagement rings, preferably one with a diamond. If you economize by getting a more affordable cubic zirconia, which look very nice, she'll look down on you as cheap and maybe dump you. There's your 10K, 20K, or more down the drain and you're back at square zero.

    Meanwhile, she's had to pay NOTHING. She may be spinning plates seeing multiple guys, and one of those dudes is probably richer and can outbid you. And I've just described part of the monetary side of dating. She also holds the advantage in society will always see her as right, plus she's a much better manipulator than any man. Women learn that shit growing up, while we as boys never did.

    The only power move we've got is to walk away. LOTS of men are doing that, and not just those who identify as MGTOW. As soon as a man gets stripped of his idealistic, romantic notions, he can see what a scam this is. It's like playing chess but you're not allowed a queen or any rooks while your opponent gets two queens and is allowed to take back up to 5 moves. Any sane person would say, "That's bullshit" and walk away.

    Walking away takes our power back! You get to build your life up on your terms. If you choose to use the services of a sex worker, you have much more power than in dating. You know the exact price and what it will get you. If a sex worker does a lousy job, she's easily replaceable. The the rates are much, much cheaper than dating. That 10K, 20K, or 40K it would have taken to find a girlfriend would pay for a lot of escorts. Plus, you don't have to use sex worker services at all if you don't want to.

    We're not the only dudes sick and tired of the bullshit game. Lots of other are. Many of them have already figured out MGTOW ideals without even have heard about us. If they internet search, they'll easily find us. The whole Reddit purge accomplished NOTHING for the haters. We just regrouped elsewhere.
    Last edited by TigPlaze; November 25, 2021 at 5:46 PM.

  6. #26

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    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.
    Parental investment doesn't matter, all you have to do is look around society where single-motherhood sits very highly on the rungs of the-fucked-up-society-we-in, and where women still initiate 80% of the divorce. I mean...these are facts. It means the parental investment of the men means zero. Briffaults law succinctly explains women to a T, it's irrefutable. So, no, I disagree that humans are the exception here; exceptionalism fails when you strip humans down to their bare biological elements.

    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.
    No, it's not different, as the female will never procreate with a weaker protector. Because her survival is at stake the female must prioritize security which prompts her to select the stronger protector male. Sex must happen first and all protector (stronger or weaker) wants sex, she also wants sex but not as much as she needs security, and she decides who to have sex with as her survival depends on it (I hope to explain this better in following responses). Therefore she would only lay with the stronger protector. She chooses.

    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.
    In the modern world (or worlds in the past for that matter) that's simply not the case. The statistics mentioned above prove women don't really need men in the modern world. Parental investments or not, they've dropped men in droves to latch on to the daddy-government, the ultimate alpha male with all the benefits. I mean...they initiate 80% of the divorce and single-motherhood everywhere high. They left the men, not the other way around.


    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.
    It changed it because it narrows it down to isolated human families and allows you to break down Briffault's law to fit the argument. I believe the term "animal" plays an important role as it explains phenomenon beyond what is restricted to human's artificial rules.

    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.
    An alpha (god, I hate using these stupid terms), which is a huge benefit to women on its own, because he's very successful with women, would also think he picks and chooses. Because variety is available to him he'd have the option to pull the plug on relationships but the question is did he really pick, did he really choose? If she didn't want sex to happen under any circumstance it won't, and alpha or beta would just have to live with it. Because the sexual appetite is far more voracious in men than women, her card trumps yours. Because you get your pick you wouldn't think so but it's exactly that. Also, biologically, men are more disposable than women..., the sperm-to-egg ratio thing (I hope I don't have to go explain).

    As far as your last statement I could say you're letting ego cloud your reasoning as well. It's not weakness and powerlessness, it's a biological reality. Men's power comes down to knowing how to wield their power to overcome the reproductive power women have (and yes, women do have the reproductive power). Men's power is not getting married and relinquishing, totally, all obligations of the opposite sex heaped on them. It is important for men to know very well their position in relation to women, to know their own biology as well as women's, to know how women (consciously or unconsciously) view them. This gives men a huge advantage to operate rationally with women and it frees the man from adhering to his illusions about women. It unloads the obligation of prioritizing women and their needs. Men have tremendous power but in the game of reproduction, men are punching up. There's a reason rationality returns after ejaculation.
    Last edited by Hedon; November 25, 2021 at 7:16 PM.

  7. #27

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Hedon View Post
    They left the men, not the other way around.
    MGTOW is just men walking away from a bad deal. Women already left as well. Their true love is money, sexual autonomy, and power. The only reason they were with men in the first place was for those things. They do not require men for this any more, although it is a lot easier to spread your legs rather than become educated and have business acumen, so there are still some that go the gold digger route as that's all they can offer, but nothing has changed. Beta buxx will still find women wiling to settle for him to pay for Chad's kids.

    I think a lot of people think MGTOW is the one's with power. The only power is not to beta buxx. That's it. And if you eschew dating as well, if you go monk like I did when I was done dating, I constantly find fat stacks lying around the house and in various bank accounts I totally forgot about. It's just like a never ending giving tree.

    Pussy is expensive, in so many ways, and I *never* would give women money when dating, and I still have tons of money when not dating. I don't think people really realize, regardless of a 50/50 split, just how much you spend on the ACT of dating. There's so many expenses you pay you don't even realize.
    Last edited by DangZagnut; November 25, 2021 at 5:41 PM.

  8. #28

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    I'd like to summarise, because I think this is vitally important as Briffault's Law is a vital cornerstone of red-pill understanding of the truth regarding men-women relationship dynamics. There have been attempts to attack MGTOW forums (https://www.goingyourownway.com/mgto...-forums-14987/), but this is the first time I've seen such a direct attempt on a key underpinning of red-pill understanding.

    Personally, this attempt to discredit and cast doubt on a key red-pill cornerstone is worrying because it comes from Paul Elam, a prominent figure in the MRM (Men's Rights Movement) and whom we expect should know better. Those who believe Briffault's Law to be a false theory, I sincerely hope you will ponder on the points made by Dangzagnut and Hedon and spend time to reconsider your position. Credit goes to Dangzagnut and Hedon who have made many firm rebuttals to the attempt to discredit Briffault's Law.

    In summary:

    1) Briffault's Law is a historical and current reality, evidenced by genetic studies on mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA which indicates overwhelmingly that Men are under higher selection pressures than Women - ie. Women's mate selection matters more than Men's. To quote Dangzagnut: Men are seed sprayers, Women are seed selectors. Paul Elam is mistaken about Mutual Mate Selection as historical analysis shows that for humans 'Men Compete, Women Select' overwhelmingly applies.

    2) Understanding of Briffault's Law is NOT simpery in action. Knowledge of Briffault's Law empowers men and helps us to wield our power to punch-up against women's reproductive power. As Hedon aptly stated: "It is important for men to know very well their position in relation to women, to know their own biology as well as women's, to know how women (consciously or unconsciously) view them. This gives men a huge advantage to operate rationally with women and it frees the man from adhering to his illusions about women. It unloads the obligation of prioritizing women and their needs. Men have tremendous power but in the game of reproduction, men are punching up."

    3) What IS harmful to men are clinging to illusions about women while not facing and admitting reality. The reality is women wield significant power in dating, sex, reproduction, the legal system, and in current gynocratic society (reference Dangzagnut's post). Men's power is in walking away, not getting married and relinquishing all obligations of the opposite sex heaped on them.

    Last edited by johnsmith79; November 26, 2021 at 5:07 AM.

  9. #29

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    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.



    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.



    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.
    Dude. You misunderstand what the law is. IT is like energy flows form Hot place to cooler place. It is not about your feeling (as in I have almost always been the one to pull the plug) No, you dont gain anything even if you "put the plug", you just suffer enough and start to leave.
    Women always suck up energy and time from men. It is like the law of thermodynamics. No matter how you view it. IT is just "as is".

  10. #30

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    The only way the law is false is when rape is legal. But it is not.

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Wherever you go, there you are.
    Posts
    2,055
    Reputation
    3478
    Type
    Just Me.

    Re: Paul Elam critiques Briffault's Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Haskell View Post
    Good piece from Paul Elam, critiquing Briffault's Law.
    30 posts so far and no-one deemed it necessary to actually quote what Briffault’s Law states.

    We may all know it, but we have lurkers here that may not be just as au fait.

    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.
    O.K. Eddie, you’ve accused others of not having watched the vid and I’m afraid I too fall in to this category. But it wasn’t for the want of trying.

    Paul Elam? His whole tone is dismissive. Not only of Briffault’s Law, but of the manosphere in general.

    At only 50 seconds in he comes off with the phrase “’Them there’s the rules’ you’ll hear” in an assumed accent meant to imply a lack of education.

    Then he gives some stats. What a joke they are. A whole 67 votes across the range. With 61 of them agreeing with Briffault’s Law (which he states is an impressive percentage) he then goes on to belittle his own petty stats. Not directly, but by attacking those in the manosphere.

    “Stardusk titles a remarkably unremarkable talk”
    “Finally we have Colttaine who expands the definition of Briffault’s Law with the same practiced acumen a feminist employs…”

    He then goes on to say:

    “If you’re too obtuse to see that”
    “Feel free to leave your butt-hurt in the comments”

    I had to stop listening at only 4 minutes 14 seconds in. The guy is a manipulative P.O.S. and I’m sorry you don’t see this.


    But it is good to discuss these things, so here’s my take on Briffault’s Law:

    First off, don’t confuse this with a scientific law that is proven to hold true in all cases. It’s a turn of phrase meant to describe the norm. This is, of course, only my opinion.

    So does it hold water?

    Honestly, with regards the rest of the animal world I don’t have a clue, but while we humans are indeed animals there are some major differences.

    Our societies are MUCH more complex for a variety of reasons and this, to me, is where it applies in a very specific way to us.

    Men have choices? Yeah O.K. maybe we do, but do we really? In our youth we are driven by hormones which are encouraged everywhere we look: You have to seek AND OBTAIN a mate otherwise you have failed in some way. What complete horseshit! Yet that is what we are faced with growing up.

    So, if we’re successful in finding a mate what comes next?

    Oh it’s great for a while. When you socialise you’re proud of your conquest. You’re getting it on and the world is peachy. You start thinking maybe this is the one and perhaps suggest cohabiting / marriage, but did this thought originate from you? But you think it did and you run with it and you shack up in whatever form.

    Then the honeymoon period comes to an end and this is where men begin to see the effects of Briffault’s Law.

    Suddenly she’s choosing your friends, telling you how to dress and planning your future for you. Not all at once of course, but bit by bit often making you think it’s your idea.

    But she’s only trying to improve your lives together, right!

    Shyte!

    It’s the beginning of the rot. Before you know it she’s governing almost every aspect of your lives together right down to what you watch on the telly. We, as men, tend to go along because it seems unimportant in the grander scheme of things, but this IS the grander scheme of things.

    But yes, we as men can put our foot down. We can say: “No! Enough is enough. We aren’t doing it your way anymore.”

    Sometimes she may back down, but only for a while if she thinks she still has something to gain. Eventually she’ll put her foot down and because she has the full weight of the law behind her you’ll be the one out on the street while she has the house, the car and the kids.

    Fuck the animal kingdom. In today’s human world the woman has the upper hand and she knows it.

    Briffault’s Law most definitely applies.


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
  •