Monday, January 23, 2006

Hypergamy and Briffault's Law

I think it’s true that women are hypergamous – in that they always look to “marry up,” or in other words, they are in relationships for the benefits a man confers upon her, thus, Briffault’s Law comes into play as well as its corollaries:

“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.” -- Robert Briffault, The Mothers, I, 191

The Corollaries to Briffault’s Law:

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

2 - 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)

3 - 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).

What this means is that a man cannot simply hand over all the benefits of associating with him over to the woman. He must keep the benefits he bestows upon her under his control, and learn to say no often, as she will naturally try to get him to pass them on to her. No, I won’t spend $100 for roses on Valentine’s Day. No, we’re not going to Hawaii for a vacation (unless you are paying, Toots!) No, you cannot move in with me. No, you cannot move in now that you’ve been evicted – that is what your girlfriend’s couch or your parent’s spare room is for. NO! We won’t get be getting married. No! You are not going on the pill so we can have bareback sex. No. No. No. No! NO! NO!

The man must keep the benefits, or the lure of the benefit, completely under his control. Once they become her domain, it simply doesn’t matter to her and becomes “What have you done for me lately?”

Our culture and its laws have made it very, very difficult for a man to maintain control over the benefits he bestows upon women. No! is the most valuable word a man can learn in a relationship.

And, while it is true that women are quite willing to trade up when it suits them, and while it is also true that women’s “love” for a man is rarely as deep as the man’s love is for her, what a lot of the game community is ignoring is the fact that humans naturally pair-bond.

Yes, it is true, mating behaviour is mediated in the brainstem and spinal cord (the old, or reptile brain) and not the cortex (thinking brain), but what is left out is that humans naturally pair-bond because of our mammalian/middle brain. Now, the mammalian brain (which causes mammals to have emotion) is not as old as the reptilian brain, but the mammalian brain is still a factor in human behaviour – and thus why humans have exhibited pair-bonding for a few hundred thousand years now (lol, however those brilliant Ph D-tards calculate such timing).

Men and women both naturally pair bond. The problem comes in that women’s pair-bonding feature is not for lifetime monogamy, but rather based upon a four year mating cycle called “Rotating Polyandry,” – or serial monogamy - where she seeks a birth-spacing/love cycle of four years (enough time to fall in love, get pregnant, give birth, recuperate, then wean the child until it can walk, talk and feed itself), each time this is complete, she moves on and seeks to pair-bond with a different male to ensure genetic diversity.

But, she still pair bonds. The only thing you have to realize is that her pair-bond is designed to be time-limited. Once the timer runs out, her interest in you becomes dark and sinister. Also, one never falls in love as much as one does the first time. It is like sticky tape – the more you apply it, peel it off, and re-apply it, the less sticky it becomes. (Thus why a man, should he try to marry, ought to choose a virgin or one to two previous partners at the most – and you can never be sure, because women lie as easy as they breathe). A woman who has ridden the cock-carousel with 30 men does not pair-bond very easily anymore, and the time-limit on her relationship with you is drastically shortened.

Once a woman’s time-limit is up and her interest in you becomes dark and sinister, this is when she goes into a “binge and purge cycle.” She starts with-holding sex in order to manipulate you. Lots of husbands fall for this and think she’s not interested in sex anymore – this is not true. What she is doing is starving her own sexual desire in order to drive up her sexual value to manipulate you. (Once a woman starts refusing you sex, it is time to dump her – she does not have pure interests in you anymore). Then, after about a year or so of her denying her own sexual desires, she gets rid of the man (and tries to keep all of his benefits) and THEN goes on a sexual binge where she screws thug after thug, trying to satiate her starving sexual desire. Once she has done this, she again looks for a more suitable long-term mate who confers “benefits” upon her, she pair-bonds again, and the whole cycle starts over again.

It is true that “all women are available” but what is not true is that “all women are available all of the time.” This is why the PUA-sphere (the ones who actually know what they are talking about) are always looking for IOI’s (Indications of Interest). What you want to do, if you are a “player” looking for easy, commitment free sex, is be the second guy to screw her after she splits up with her long-term mate. The first guy is usually an emotional tampon, or an orbiter, who ends up getting royally screwed because he is usually only being used as an emotional sounding board, or as a tool for the woman to gauge her sexual market value. To be a good “player,” you want to be the guy that catches her in the middle of her binge phase. This is the phase where she goes nuts and sucks and fucks up a storm and does things her ex-husband/boyfriend never dreamed she would do. But, it is very time limited. Once her “binge” is done and she has satiated herself, it is back to Briffault’s Law.

It works just like people being in the market for buying a car. All people are in the market to buy a car… but not all people are in the market to buy a car right now. There is a “buyer’s cycle” that takes a few years. You first buy a new car and are very happy. (You are no longer “in the market’). After a couple of years, you still don’t mind your car, but now it is becoming ho-hum, but it’s still ok. Then after four or five years or so, the new models are out, your “old” model has a few dings and scratches… the ads on TV are starting to attract you… you go to a car dealership after hours to peruse what’s available, and finally you work up the courage to go in during business and take one for a test drive… now you are “in the market” again. To the salesman, you are a “hot prospect.” (And by this time, you are). The same thing goes on with women in the “dating market.” The key is learning how to find the small pool of women who are “in the market right now.”

In the old days, before Father Custody was destroyed in the 1870’s, the principle of Briffault’s Law was enforced and overcome/fulfilled because if a woman left the husband, she lost both her children and access to Dad’s paycheck. Since then, she has been able to use the children as “mutilated beggars” to rob Dad of his paycheck through the courts in order to fund her children. This is where the divorce craze began, not in the 1970’s when No-Fault Divorce was introduced.

”There were only a few thousand divorces annually in the mid-nineteenth century when divorce cost wives their children and Dad’s paycheck. This family stability began eroding as later nineteenth century divorce courts, under pressure from the rising feminist movement, began awarding child custody to mothers”. -- Daniel Amneus, The Case for Father Custody, p360

“Between 1870 and 1920 the divorce rate rose fifteenfold, and by 1924 one marriage out of seven ended in divorce" -- James H. Jones, Alfred Kinsey: A Public/Private Life (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), p.292.
No-fault Divorce in the 1970’s merely simplified things. Before that, it was kind of a joke in that even if there was no “fault,” you could still divorce under the fault of “cruelty,” which could basically be anything, just like “abuse” can be anything today. An argument that makes her cry (He was CRUEL to me), he didn’t do this or that for me (He was CRUEL to me). Even Belfort Bax talks of this being a joke a century ago. So, rather than having to go through the whole ridiculous process of finding fault in “cruelty,” it became “just give her the damn divorce already.” (It wasn’t THAT difficult to divorce before the 1970’s – lol, look at Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe).

What really happened in the 1970’s was that women entered the work-force in large numbers – thus, it further undermined Briffault’s Law (Dad’s paycheck was not as much of a “benefit” as it was before) and also, hypergamy again came into play – a woman making $60,000/yr does not find a man making $40,000/yr to be attractive because of it. She needs to find a man making $100,000/yr to hypergamously “move up.”

Foreign women are indeed a better bet than the typical Ameriskank or Mapleskank (sorry, don’t know what the rest of you guys call your skanks). The reason they are a better bet is because you have better ability to be hypergamously desirable to a larger pool of women – putting you in better control of choosing a suitable, high value mate, and also, you are able to enforce Briffault’s Law and “keep her around” via the “providing a benefit to continue association principle.” Although, if I were to seek out a foreign chick, I would tuck all my money safely away in a numbered account in the Turks and Caicos Islands so it is 100% safe from her being able to get her hands on it – that “benefit” is then securely under your control, and then go abroad and stay there. Once you bring her back to Western Culture, she quickly adopts the attitude of the women around her – no matter her background – go to live in her country and don’t bring her back here.

Previous Index Next
…. \_/...........


Any Gal of Mine


"It is almost a tertiary sexual character of the male, and certainly it acts on the female as such, that she expects from him the interpretation and illumination of her thoughts. It is from this reason that so many girls say that they could only marry, or, at least, only love a man who was cleverer than themselves; that they would be repelled by a man who said that all they thought was right, and did not know better than they did. In short, the woman makes it a criterion of manliness that the man should be superior to herself mentally, that she should be influenced and dominated by the man; and this in itself is enough to ridicule all ideas of sexual equality." -- Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, Male and Female Characteristics