:) Briffault's Law

[Maximummax]

Sorry if this topic is already posted. For those of you who haven't read this only

his has been posted a few times, and comes up in comments a lot, but we've got a lot of new users here...

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:

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

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)

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).

 

[Zarky]

meh, it's quoted time after time by MRA turds, but it's not very insightful.

Where the male can derive no benefit from association with the female, no such association takes place.

Either way... animals only associate with other animals who provide benefits. That's what it means to be a living creature. Even plants only stick their roots into soil that provides nutrients. The observation doesn't strike me as surprising or profound in any way.

 

[Boilermaker]

meh, The observation doesn't strike me as surprising or profound in any way.

It *is* a profound observation, and it talks about much more than the human animal -- it is a recognition of the inherent value of the female in animal kingdom, and it's not a social statement.

The MRA turds may have taken it and changed its meaning; but the fact remains that neither those knuckleheads nor you, would have come up with it in a million years until it is discovered and spoon fed to you. Then it becomes Columbus' egg and it's all obvious to every one of you.

The old example goes, while the tribe with a 99 males and 1 female would go extinct in a year, the tribe with 1 male and 99 females would flourish for centuries.

Whether or not that "fact" conforms to your social beliefs, strikes you as a "social philosopher" or rustles your jimmies as an MRA activist is a whole separate issue, that cannot be held against Briffault and his law.

 

[Maximummax]

This is my opinion folks
A female will associate with you only if she has some kind of advantage from you. this applies in dating world and also in work place. In Work place it is also reffered as pair bonding, i too see it in my work place. In dating world you guys might have seen it many times.

 

[AttackFormation]

The old example goes, while the tribe with a 99 males and 1 female would go extinct in a year, the tribe with 1 male and 99 females would flourish for centuries.

Not a valid example. With 1 male and 99 females the offspring would be sterile and debilitated from inbreeding. Even during the time before it's become so bad that they're sterile, that society wouldn't "flourish". It would suffer from disgusting, crippling genetic disabilities.

I can guess where this idea comes from which is speculation presented as fact about evolution, such as "a male wants to spread his seed far and wide". These kinds of ideas only work when they're not examined for their consequences and other things are omitted, like in the example you gave.

 

[Boilermaker]

Not a valid example. With 1 male and 99 females the offspring would be sterile and debilitated from inbreeding

Pfffft. What ?

 

[Boilermaker]

This is my opinion folks

This is not your opinion. This is Briffault's law. And you agree with it / believe in it.

 

[AttackFormation]

Pfffft. What ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_depression

That lone guy's offspring would end up like this.

 

[Boilermaker]

You seem to misunderstand inbreeding.

1-guy inseminating 99 women and producing 99 children is not in-breeding, since they are expanding the numbers and the relative gene pool is expanding. Since theoretically that SAME guy could be inseminating those 99 women MULTIPLE times producing hundreds of children.

A quick analysis shows, 10 children per women will produce a 1000 member family (with completely different genes) which can in turn in breed from the farthest relatives, when the initial breeder dies.

Remember, there once was a Mother of All Mothers (MoM) whose m-DNA we *homo sapiens* all are carrying today.

Plus, 1 vs 99 women is an illustrative example of how much more valuable the female species is, in mammals.

Inbreeding depression (from the article you posted) has nothing to do with a single guys sperm, you seem to have misunderstood it.

 

[sharkbeat]

The 1 man doesn't always have to have babies with all 99 females. He could pick 10. Have his sons do the next 10. And the next 10. And so on.

This, of course, assumes that all 99 women are fertile, and are in different age groups.

 

[Zarky]

It *is* a profound observation, and it talks about much more than the human animal

Umm.. you still haven't explained at all WTF it means. Unless otherwise proven, all it seems to be is a quote from some henpecked beta who's b*tching that women are controlling and greedy. If you can come up with some more scintillating meaning, them I'm all ears.

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear BoilerMaker,
The Phaeroes bred incestuously for 1500 years without any problems...Faulty genes aren't just created they had to be there somewhere to start with,of course it can take many generations to show...Not suggesting it as a good idea,but one fertile Woman with 99 potential lovers would seem an excellent basis for genetic diversity,maybe take 120 years to return to the original,but that is a blink of an eye in Mother Natures Plan LOL.

 

[Lexington]

Boilermaker is correct in that, biologically speaking, the egg is far more valuable than sperm. Women are born with every oocyte they'll ever have and at most they have a few hundred. On the other hand, most men produce millions of sperm per day. A man can bust a nut and that's his minimal contribution to reproduction. A woman must carry the offspring for 30-40 weeks at tremendous biological cost to herself.

This is the corollary of Bateman's Principle: in most species, "reproductive variance" is much greater in males than females. Basically, because women must invest much more in reproduction, you could say that they are the "limiting reactant." Thus, males generally compete for females.

This is in fact the basis of our "Patriarchal System" that feminists hate. Men have historically held positions of power because they have had to take far more risks (e.g. fight wars). While some men reap rewards, others are losers. A society that loses 50% of its men can still survive (and things like this have happened historically). On the other hand, a society that loses 50% of its women is in deep sh*t.

This is of course the basis of hypergamy. A man doesn't have to be selective from a purely genetic standpoint. Impregnating as many females as possible gives him the best chance of successfully passing on his genes. A woman must be more selective and this is why most women have a minimal attractiveness threshold below which men are completely invisible. Indeed, polygyny is quite common historically but polyandry is quite rare.

 

[Stagger Lee]

All that matters is whether the female finds you attractive or not. If she finds you attractive, then she will want to continue to associate with you. and you as a man can run the relationship.

Whether a woman finds you attractive is dependent on societal/enviromental conditions. With women being economically independent, men not having any societal value as men, high availability of males etc, the standard that women can hold men to is astronomically high.

 

[Zarky]

This is in fact the basis of our "Patriarchal System" that feminists hate. Men have historically held positions of power because they have had to take far more risks (e.g. fight wars).

I think there's a much simpler answer -- most societies are "partiarchal" simply because men are bigger and stronger than women.

Imagine if chicks were on average 6" taller, stronger, faster, etc. than men... the world would be a much different place.

 

[Lexington]

I think there's a much simpler answer -- most societies are "partiarchal" simply because men are bigger and stronger than women.

Imagine if chicks were on average 6" taller, stronger, faster, etc. than men... the world would be a much different place.

I'm sure that during more primitive times, society was run by the biggest, strongest and fastest. But for at least many centuries now, that hasn't necessarily been the case. At least for the past several centuries, societies have mostly been run by older, wealthy, connected and cunning men.

It's interesting that in most mammalian species, males are larger and stronger than females. Hyenas are a prominent exception to this rule. But by in large, nature has decided that it's better to gamble on males, because they are more expendable (their contribution to the reproductive process is more easily replaced).

 

[( . )( . )]

I think there's a much simpler answer -- most societies are "partiarchal" simply because men are bigger and stronger than women.

Surprise surprise. Our resident feminist leaves out the minor detail that if it was left to women to invent, build and plan we'd still be sh!tting in caves. You forgot intelligence, creativity and drive sweetheart. "Strength" herpitty derrrrr. The one thing hairy lipped femcunts begrudgingly kinda conceded.

Btw stop pretending you even know what a "patriarchal" society is.

 

[VikingKing]

I think there's a much simpler answer -- most societies are "partiarchal" simply because men are bigger and stronger than women.

Imagine if chicks were on average 6" taller, stronger, faster, etc. than men... the world would be a much different place.

Let me point out the reason why comments like these make you look like an idiot.

Women are naturally more emotional/ prone to running on and thinking with there feelings. Men do this less, but can do it to a degree at times.

The less emotional you are, the more logical you are.

Men rule the world and always have/ will because we are far more logical.

 

[JaegerPilot217]

Well women usually have the final say in the beginning, all they have to do is welcome or deny advances

 

[Maximummax]

So ****s post this kind of pics for fun.