What’s your opinion of Briffault’s Law?
I’ll briefly explain the law. Briffault’s Law states that women will only associate with a man so long as the man continues to benefit the woman. Once the man proves that he can no longer be of benefit, the woman cuts all association. Just because you have taken care of or nurtured someone does not mean that they will return the favor.
I want an honest, intelligent discussion.
Define “benefit.”
I would not stay in a relationship if I didn’t derive some (possibly emotional) benefit from it; that’s trivial. I’m male. I wouldn’t expect a woman to act differently.
The law focuses on females (not males) determining all the conditions of the animal family.
Benefit (in terms of the law) means that the female will only associate with you if she can get something out of it.
The more benefits the male can give, the more a female gets out of the relationship or the more value said man has, the more love and affection he receives.
I understand that. I contend it’s trivially true even without that distinction.
What constitutes a “benefit?”
Yeah, that’s the real question. I do nothing that doesn’t benefit me in some way, even if it’s just feeling like I did the right thing, or the pleasure of helping someone in need.
I keep in touch with an ex of mine because I like looking at his shirtless FB pictures. Does that count?
According to the law, even if the man provides a benefit, the woman doesn’t feel obligated to return said benefit.
I think the assumption (of the law) is that the man will feel obligated to return the benefit regardless.
If a man or woman offers 0 benefits, no redeemable/attractive qualities at all, why would I want to be around them?
That’s exactly what the law implies. However, the assumption is the man feels obligated to return the favor and the woman doesn’t.
You seem to be suggesting that men are operating in a different universe. Wasn’t all that care and nurturing in return for or in anticipation of some benefit?
Not sure why the law differentiates between men and women. I would argue that neither sex wants to spend time with a person that offers 0 benefits. And by “benefits” it could be as simple as being a good listener or good joke teller.
It’s not my theory. It’s Briffault’s Law. From what I read, the law only focuses on female behavior. And the assumption is that men feel obligated to return favors. Briffault’s Law suggests that women do not feel obligated to return favors.
That’s a good start for the definition of benefits.
For the most part, I agree.
I think it’s a (needlessly) gender specific version of the old debate: “Can humans ever be altruistic?” You’re always going to find people who argue that even self-sacrifice is done only so that the person sacrificing themselves can feel noble or good about themselves somehow. Ergo, no one does *anything *without “benefit”.
Certainly I know many women who are the primary caregivers of men who are incapacitated. I also know men who are the primary caregivers of women who are incapacitated. But the cynic will argue that the caregivers are still deriving “benefit” from these relationships, even if that benefit is internal satisfaction.
I disagree with the assumption that men will feel obligated to return things and women will not. Does Briiffault offer any evidence for his conclusion?
Over-generalization. As said before, what would you consider as “benefit”? Also, why females specifically?
There’s always some sort of motive behind an action, no matter how menial it may seem. It’s the exact same as doing something for some sort of “benefit.”
It sounds like a meaningless generalization written by a jilted man.
How so?
What would you consider benefit?
Why not females?
You don’t know the definition of benefit yet you use it in a sentence? I guess it’s good that you used quotes. I’m confused why you ask for a definition and then you use the term.
I know how to look at a dictionary. That’s not the point. The point is that the law states that females only stay in some sort of relationship with a man given some sort of benefit. What is considered benefit in the female’s perspective? That part doesn’t concern my knowledge of the term.
I might not be using the term correctly here, but I believe “burden of proof” applies? You cannot ask me to prove the lack of something when you cannot provide proof of that something to begin with.