Briffault's Law

[wonky]

Who’s he when he’s at home?

[Speaker_for_the_Dead]

Categorically, I can state that the law as put forward in the OP is true. Its inverse, Speaker’s Law, states that men will only associate with a woman so long as the woman continues to benefit the man. Once the womman proves that she can no longer be of benefit, the man cuts all association. Just because you have taken care of or nurtured someone does not mean that they will return the favor.

They are equally true, given that the word “benefit” is so vaguely defined.

[Modern_Master]

@Speaker_for_the_Dead

They are equally true, given that the word “benefit” is so vaguely defined.

I agree that the term is vaguely defined (one of my issues with it).

[Modern_Master]

@Altivu

I know how to look at a dictionary. That’s not the point.

And I’m happy that you are able to look up words in a dictionary.

@Altivu

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.

Okay, then. Thanks for answering.

@Altivu

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.

Okay, then.

[wonky]

What a great conversation.

Hey, OP, what do YOU think of this piece of, um, philosophy?

[Modern_Master]

@jsgoddess

What a great conversation.

Hey, OP, what do YOU think of this piece of, um, philosophy?

Yes, and I’m happy to see that you are contributing posts of value to this conversation. Actually, I think it’s anthropology.

@jsgoddess

Who’s he when he’s at home?

Thank you for contributing.

[wonky]

This feels like anthropology as done by Pee Wee Herman.

[Modern_Master]

@jsgoddess

This feels like anthropology as done by Pee Wee Herman.

Fascinating…

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

I’m a man, so of course I have an opinion about this law. I suspect the other main group that’d have an opinion about it are women.

I think it’s misogynistic fuzzyheaded bullshit.

Misogynistic because it implies that women are more self-serving, cynical, and conniving than men.

Fuzzyheaded because the term “benefit” is deliberately left undefined. I might similarly say that wooples are disproportionately frinakatered in the sumbpling and ask folks to discuss it. If you use terms without definitions, language collapses.

Bullshit because there’s no evidence whatsoever proffered to support such a misogynistic “law.”

[wonky]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I might similarly say that wooples are disproportionately frinakatered in the sumbpling

sniff

You would.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

So I googled the term, and the first non-video link is to this winner. A sample:

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.

Of course there’s an alternate explanation: women like to marry men of equal competence, but women and men of equal competence don’t get paid the same amount in the workforce. And there are plenty of other alternate explanations.

Moving on…

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.

Yeah…it certainly sounds like he’s a slow learner. I cannot possibly imagine why a guy who holds women is such low esteem has gotten divorced three times. Again, I can think of an alternate explanation…

I repeat: misogynistic fuzzyheaded bullshit. Apparently the sort held by pitiful misogynistic losers.

Edit: eww. Googled some more, and now I feel like I need to take a shower.

[Modern_Master]

I couldn’t read much on the site because it was a complete eyesore.

[wonky]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Edit: eww. Googled some more, and now I feel like I need to take a shower.

Yeah, I did the same thing. But I was interested if the OP would ever try to do anything other than “I know you are, but what am I?”

[Modern_Master]

@jsgoddess

Yeah, I did the same thing. But I was interested if the OP would ever try to do anything other than “I know you are, but what am I?”

About the law? I think it’s the old “trying-to-find-a-conspiracy-when-there-is-none.” It assumes that all women are sociopaths.

And eh? You weren’t really contributing anything. I made it pretty clear that I wanted to at least keep the conversation somewhat intelligent. I mean, I guess they were knee slappers. You kind of lost me at the Pee Wee Herman knee slap.

However, with this topic, I can see why I expected too much after reading some of the “literature.”

[wonky]

@Modern_Master

About the law? I think it’s the old “trying-to-find-a-conspiracy-when-there-is-none.” It assumes that all women are sociopaths.

Yeah, so where’d you run across it and why did you think it was worth a discussion? And why didn’t you say your opinion of it up front, if that really is your opinion?

[Modern_Master]

@jsgoddess

Yeah, so where’d you run across it and why did you think it was worth a discussion? And why didn’t you say your opinion of it up front, if that really is your opinion?

I wanted to be unbiased.

In my travels?

Why is it not worth a discussion?

[Altivu]

@Modern_Master

I wanted to be unbiased.

You can see how that worked out.

[Maserschmidt]

@Modern_Master

How so?

Semiotics are a waste of my time. I prefer ontology: because it does.

[al27052]

Not all women marry for money or security…and not all women will leave you soon after you lose your job.

But most will, in most societies, I’d wager.

Of course, my wife didn’t marry me for money or security, and I’m quite certain she means to stay with me until I die or leave her. However, she is, I’d say, more the exception.

We are animals, after all. Marriage is just as much about our instinctive, competitive animal aspects as it is about our spiritual and altruistic aspects.

[Kaio]

@Modern_Master

How so?

Uh, because it paints women as callous and men as self-sacrificing? With no evidence to support the assertion that it’s anywhere near as one-sided as it’s claimed to be?

I’ve certainly known men who bailed the second they decided the woman was no longer of benefit to them. There’s no reason to believe this falls along gender lines, or is even a common approach to relationships (unless you want to debate the whole “does altruism really exist” canard).