Briffault's Law

Off Topic
21

[quote]i_am_ketosis wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]i_am_ketosis wrote:
Anyone that thinks there is any law or formula or logic to male/female relationships is full of shit and probably trying to sell you something. If there were a law or formula to it, you would have the ability to predict where every relationship would end up. At every point in every person’s life, they’ve been bat shit googly eyed for someone, and at some point down the road things went south and then you spent the rest of your life wondering what the fuck you were thinking wasting your time with that person. If there were laws to this, the end result could be established beforehand. But it can’t so you can’t say there are any universal truths to male/female relationships.
[/quote]

Statistically you predict where a relationship is going to end up if certain things occur.

For example, a sudden loss in status (i.e. job) leads to a higher divorce rate.

If the man loses his job.

I can also predict that a man with a lot of money is statistically more likely to find a very attractive woman.

Also, your whole premise of their being no laws when it comes to human relationships does not even make me wonder how we made it out of the rainforest, quite frankly it makes me wonder how we ever made it into the rainforest, us being the only species without any instincts governing mating. [/quote]

I don’t doubt that job loss leads to a higher divorce rate. Money is a difficult issue for lots of couples out there. However, that is a variable that cannot be accounted for when men and women begin relationships. No one knows if they will lose their job, so I’d imagine both men and women will just hope for the best. Additionally, if these folks who were masters at pulling women, it only works if they are employed? Oh.

Does someone with a lot of money have a better chance of landing a mate? Probably. Is it a guarantee? Hell no. Countless other variables come into play. He could be disfigured, social inept, have a micro penis, be bat shit crazy, etc.

You miss my points about universal truths in male/female relationships. You are speaking about biology, I’m speaking about psychology. There is a bit of a difference between the two. Dicks fit in vaginas, that’s biology. Men obsess about tits and ass, women obsess about shoes, that’s psychology. We made it in and out of the rainforest because of biology. Psychology will probably take us back to it at some point.
[/quote]

My point is that biology and psychology are not something you can easily separate.

It is true that all that evolutionary psychology provides are “just so” stories.

However, if the theory of evolution is accepted there necessarily must be such stories, at best we can argue whether a specific story is true or not.

I believe that all relationships are conditional.

Given that this is hardly controversial, what are the conditions that have to be met to be a worthy mate for women and what happens if you no longer meet those criteria?

22

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
What a load of drivel. How the author ever found anyone to marry him the first time around is puzzling. No matter how large the bank account or the penis, it could never be enough to listen to that whining garbage day in and day out. Maybe if he tried working on making himself a better person, a better man, he may attract a higher rank in partner.
[/quote]

What I find utterly hilarious is you think he speaketh garbage and yet go on immediately to hand out advice that makes his point.

[/quote]

I find it hilarious that when I say that I look for self esteem and a good attitude and consider that more important than “offerings” that you think I made his point. lol Also, the higher rank in partner is me stating that he focuses too much on how much he thinks women judge him based on HIS rank. If he, himself, attracted a higher caliber (morally) of women, that might not be as much of an issue.

Anyways, my husband knows exactly how to treat a lady and understands that women are malicious but different. I would never leave him because every problem in life has a solution somewhere if both people look for it. All I’m saying is that I go to bed very happy every night and it’s not because of my husbands paycheck or social standing.[/quote]

But then the only source of disagreement is that you define “benefit” rather narrowly.

I dont, if it helps raising the chance of succesful offspring it qualifies no matter what it is. [/quote]

I just noticed that I typed that women “are malicious but different” and, as irony would have it, I meant aren’t malicious but different. I will laugh at my own expense. lol

The reason that I don’t, and can’t, define benefit is because everyone is different and what is beneficial for one wouldn’t be for another.

The article that you originally referred to is very chauvinistic and the author obviously feels the need to blame others for his misfortunes rather than grow a pair and accept his role in his (multiple) marriage fiascoes. Maybe it should occur to him that you attract people of similar moral fiber as yourself. In other words, maybe if he acted like a real man that respected himself and took responsibility for his own actions he might have an easier time with relationships and not find such poor quality women.

23

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
What a load of drivel. How the author ever found anyone to marry him the first time around is puzzling. No matter how large the bank account or the penis, it could never be enough to listen to that whining garbage day in and day out. Maybe if he tried working on making himself a better person, a better man, he may attract a higher rank in partner.
[/quote]

What I find utterly hilarious is you think he speaketh garbage and yet go on immediately to hand out advice that makes his point.

[/quote]

I find it hilarious that when I say that I look for self esteem and a good attitude and consider that more important than “offerings” that you think I made his point. lol Also, the higher rank in partner is me stating that he focuses too much on how much he thinks women judge him based on HIS rank. If he, himself, attracted a higher caliber (morally) of women, that might not be as much of an issue.

Anyways, my husband knows exactly how to treat a lady and understands that women are malicious but different. I would never leave him because every problem in life has a solution somewhere if both people look for it. All I’m saying is that I go to bed very happy every night and it’s not because of my husbands paycheck or social standing.[/quote]

But then the only source of disagreement is that you define “benefit” rather narrowly.

I dont, if it helps raising the chance of succesful offspring it qualifies no matter what it is. [/quote]

I just noticed that I typed that women “are malicious but different” and, as irony would have it, I meant aren’t malicious but different. I will laugh at my own expense. lol

The reason that I don’t, and can’t, define benefit is because everyone is different and what is beneficial for one wouldn’t be for another.

The article that you originally referred to is very chauvinistic and the author obviously feels the need to blame others for his misfortunes rather than grow a pair and accept his role in his (multiple) marriage fiascoes. Maybe it should occur to him that you attract people of similar moral fiber as yourself. In other words, maybe if he acted like a real man that respected himself and took responsibility for his own actions he might have an easier time with relationships and not find such poor quality women.[/quote]

And again, Briffault had several marriages, the poster had not, as far as I know.

That does not necessarily mean that much because back then people died or appendicitis.

Also, chauvinistic in and of itself can mean a lot of things, from seriously fucked up to stuff women dont like.

Then, of the things I am circling around here is if the concept of " moral fiber" is a concept applicable to women.

Or, to be more precise, whether this rule is not always true, for all women, but some may rise above it.

To a degree.

Just like some men might rise above their taste for T&A.

To a degree.

But no more.

24

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
What a load of drivel. How the author ever found anyone to marry him the first time around is puzzling. No matter how large the bank account or the penis, it could never be enough to listen to that whining garbage day in and day out. Maybe if he tried working on making himself a better person, a better man, he may attract a higher rank in partner.
[/quote]

What I find utterly hilarious is you think he speaketh garbage and yet go on immediately to hand out advice that makes his point.

[/quote]

I find it hilarious that when I say that I look for self esteem and a good attitude and consider that more important than “offerings” that you think I made his point. lol Also, the higher rank in partner is me stating that he focuses too much on how much he thinks women judge him based on HIS rank. If he, himself, attracted a higher caliber (morally) of women, that might not be as much of an issue.

Anyways, my husband knows exactly how to treat a lady and understands that women are malicious but different. I would never leave him because every problem in life has a solution somewhere if both people look for it. All I’m saying is that I go to bed very happy every night and it’s not because of my husbands paycheck or social standing.[/quote]

But then the only source of disagreement is that you define “benefit” rather narrowly.

I dont, if it helps raising the chance of succesful offspring it qualifies no matter what it is. [/quote]

I just noticed that I typed that women “are malicious but different” and, as irony would have it, I meant aren’t malicious but different. I will laugh at my own expense. lol

The reason that I don’t, and can’t, define benefit is because everyone is different and what is beneficial for one wouldn’t be for another.

The article that you originally referred to is very chauvinistic and the author obviously feels the need to blame others for his misfortunes rather than grow a pair and accept his role in his (multiple) marriage fiascoes. Maybe it should occur to him that you attract people of similar moral fiber as yourself. In other words, maybe if he acted like a real man that respected himself and took responsibility for his own actions he might have an easier time with relationships and not find such poor quality women.[/quote]

And again, Briffault had several marriages, the poster had not, as far as I know.

That does not necessarily mean that much because back then people died or appendicitis.

Also, chauvinistic in and of itself can mean a lot of things, from seriously fucked up to stuff women dont like.

Then, of the things I am circling around here is if the concept of " moral fiber" is a concept applicable to women.

Or, to be more precise, whether this rule is not always true, for all women, but some may rise above it.

To a degree.

Just like some men might rise above their taste for T&A.

To a degree.

But no more.

[/quote]

Oh, well, thank you kindly for making me aware of my full potential!

Yes, Briffault is who I meant (not the author). My apologies as the baby brain fog is on high right now.

I realize that people died younger and of ailments that can be cured more readily today but not everyone during that time frame remarried…nor as often. One would think it would be more common for a widower left with young children to raise though.

Perhaps chauvinistic could depend on the POV, however, I think it’s fairly obvious there is an extreme chauvinist, biased theory here. It would make me leery of a man that didn’t see issue with it.

Anyways, we can agree to disagree but I think that Briffault comes across as a whiny little boy that blames everyone else for his problems and accepts no personal responsibility and makes horrible choices when it comes to women. Having said that, people generally attract about equal in a partner so he should probably look at his own short-comings instead of trying to place women as the root of all of his life’s woe. The issue is not women, it’s HIS CHOICE in women.

25

[quote]orion wrote:

My point is that biology and psychology are not something you can easily separate.

It is true that all that evolutionary psychology provides are “just so” stories.

However, if the theory of evolution is accepted there necessarily must be such stories, at best we can argue whether a specific story is true or not.

I believe that all relationships are conditional.

Given that this is hardly controversial, what are the conditions that have to be met to be a worthy mate for women and what happens if you no longer meet those criteria? [/quote]

You could make the argument that psychology is the offspring of biology. We act certain ways and do things usually because of a biological trigger. I agree with you to some degree here.

Life is conditional. lol I mean, when you boil it down there are conditions to everything. In relationships? Those conditions are very different from person to person, which is why I think it’s very difficult to speak about relationships in general terms. Some women would leave a guy for bringing home weed, some women would leave if the guy didn’t bring home weed. lol That’s a question that is hard to answer, because I don’t think there is a single answer. What I find ideal in a female mate maybe isn’t what you find ideal. Hell, Ct Rockula doesn’t like boobs, which makes him border line gay in my book.

My relationship advice to anyone would be to try and find someone that enjoys the person you are and vice versa. Don’t sacrifice. If you can’t be all in, fold and see what you get dealt the next go around.

26

you can tell her she sucks and get a refund tho…

lol…

27

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]i_am_ketosis wrote:
We made it in and out of the rainforest because of biology. Psychology will probably take us back to it at some point.
[/quote]

What rainforest? I think I’m missing some reference here.[/quote]

We iz rainforest apes.

Indeed we iz.

[/quote]

I don’t think so.

The best theory is that humanity spawned from a bottleneck 200,000 years ago. The survivors of that bottleneck emerged from coastal South Africa, not a rain forest. Now if you propose that humanity came from the rain forest prior to that bottleneck, maybe, but I’m still sticking with not. If you count Neanderthals as human you could say humans colonized Africa, Asia & Europe prior to the bottleneck. That being the case, you could say humans survived everywhere EXCEPT the rainforest over 200,000 years ago. So I would say we are more like Grassland-coastal-forest apes. Or you could just say non-rainforest apes.

28

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
What a load of drivel. How the author ever found anyone to marry him the first time around is puzzling. No matter how large the bank account or the penis, it could never be enough to listen to that whining garbage day in and day out. Maybe if he tried working on making himself a better person, a better man, he may attract a higher rank in partner.
[/quote]

What I find utterly hilarious is you think he speaketh garbage and yet go on immediately to hand out advice that makes his point.

[/quote]

I find it hilarious that when I say that I look for self esteem and a good attitude and consider that more important than “offerings” that you think I made his point. lol Also, the higher rank in partner is me stating that he focuses too much on how much he thinks women judge him based on HIS rank. If he, himself, attracted a higher caliber (morally) of women, that might not be as much of an issue.

Anyways, my husband knows exactly how to treat a lady and understands that women are malicious but different. I would never leave him because every problem in life has a solution somewhere if both people look for it. All I’m saying is that I go to bed very happy every night and it’s not because of my husbands paycheck or social standing.[/quote]

But then the only source of disagreement is that you define “benefit” rather narrowly.

I dont, if it helps raising the chance of succesful offspring it qualifies no matter what it is. [/quote]

I just noticed that I typed that women “are malicious but different” and, as irony would have it, I meant aren’t malicious but different. I will laugh at my own expense. lol

The reason that I don’t, and can’t, define benefit is because everyone is different and what is beneficial for one wouldn’t be for another.

The article that you originally referred to is very chauvinistic and the author obviously feels the need to blame others for his misfortunes rather than grow a pair and accept his role in his (multiple) marriage fiascoes. Maybe it should occur to him that you attract people of similar moral fiber as yourself. In other words, maybe if he acted like a real man that respected himself and took responsibility for his own actions he might have an easier time with relationships and not find such poor quality women.[/quote]

And again, Briffault had several marriages, the poster had not, as far as I know.

That does not necessarily mean that much because back then people died or appendicitis.

Also, chauvinistic in and of itself can mean a lot of things, from seriously fucked up to stuff women dont like.

Then, of the things I am circling around here is if the concept of " moral fiber" is a concept applicable to women.

Or, to be more precise, whether this rule is not always true, for all women, but some may rise above it.

To a degree.

Just like some men might rise above their taste for T&A.

To a degree.

But no more.

[/quote]

Oh, well, thank you kindly for making me aware of my full potential![/quote]

If you want to achieve your full potential you do indeed have to take your biological programming into account.

You are welcome.

And I mean it.

29

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
What a load of drivel. How the author ever found anyone to marry him the first time around is puzzling. No matter how large the bank account or the penis, it could never be enough to listen to that whining garbage day in and day out. Maybe if he tried working on making himself a better person, a better man, he may attract a higher rank in partner.
[/quote]

What I find utterly hilarious is you think he speaketh garbage and yet go on immediately to hand out advice that makes his point.

[/quote]

I find it hilarious that when I say that I look for self esteem and a good attitude and consider that more important than “offerings” that you think I made his point. lol Also, the higher rank in partner is me stating that he focuses too much on how much he thinks women judge him based on HIS rank. If he, himself, attracted a higher caliber (morally) of women, that might not be as much of an issue.

Anyways, my husband knows exactly how to treat a lady and understands that women are malicious but different. I would never leave him because every problem in life has a solution somewhere if both people look for it. All I’m saying is that I go to bed very happy every night and it’s not because of my husbands paycheck or social standing.[/quote]

But then the only source of disagreement is that you define “benefit” rather narrowly.

I dont, if it helps raising the chance of succesful offspring it qualifies no matter what it is. [/quote]

I just noticed that I typed that women “are malicious but different” and, as irony would have it, I meant aren’t malicious but different. I will laugh at my own expense. lol

The reason that I don’t, and can’t, define benefit is because everyone is different and what is beneficial for one wouldn’t be for another.

The article that you originally referred to is very chauvinistic and the author obviously feels the need to blame others for his misfortunes rather than grow a pair and accept his role in his (multiple) marriage fiascoes. Maybe it should occur to him that you attract people of similar moral fiber as yourself. In other words, maybe if he acted like a real man that respected himself and took responsibility for his own actions he might have an easier time with relationships and not find such poor quality women.[/quote]

And again, Briffault had several marriages, the poster had not, as far as I know.

That does not necessarily mean that much because back then people died or appendicitis.

Also, chauvinistic in and of itself can mean a lot of things, from seriously fucked up to stuff women dont like.

Then, of the things I am circling around here is if the concept of " moral fiber" is a concept applicable to women.

Or, to be more precise, whether this rule is not always true, for all women, but some may rise above it.

To a degree.

Just like some men might rise above their taste for T&A.

To a degree.

But no more.

[/quote]

Oh, well, thank you kindly for making me aware of my full potential![/quote]

If you want to achieve your full potential you do indeed have to take your biological programming into account.

You are welcome.

And I mean it.[/quote]

Thank you.

And I mean that.

I understand that biology is a big factor. Am I that naive to think that maybe humans are a little more evolved in that even if we feel biological urges that we don’t have to act on them and can use reason, common sense and free will instead of just running around like a bunch of horny apes that have no self control? That was more rhetorical than anything. Maybe I have too much faith in our species.