Natural Freedom

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).

All rules such as these can be bent, broken and if you can stay focused enough; reversed.

This further strenghtens my resolve to never get married.

Alright since it's an exchange of value, and women usually end up getting the better deal. Would being a Man, and I use "Man" in the sense of a true Man (unicorn status), then Would his main value and attraction be his presence as a Man?

I understand some women will value material and money over the above, but if a women is in touch with her essence, then she is naturally drawn to her polar opposite, a true Man.

I'm asking, because if the value I offer is being a true Man, then it takes no work from me other than being myself. If I was rich and a woman's main draw was my money, then I would have to stay rich to be with her.

So simple.

I would say however, that each woman has a list of 'benefits' which are weighted, some count as more than others. Each woman is slightly different, as are men, as are all people.

So do you if you think about it.

If you are a unicorn though, strange things will happen to her list. Things which she will not be able to understand, for the below reason.

The list is not a thought of one, it is a gut one.

Can you clarify? I didn't understand this bit, "the list is not a thought of one...".

It is not a list from her mind, a conscious one.

She may think part of it are, they are not though.

It is deeply ingrained in her, in her genes, in her parents, in her upbringing, in her nature.

In her gut.

'not a thought of one' - not of the conscious mind.

Some of the things will surprise her, when she comes across them.

It is deeply ingrained in her, in her genes, in her parents, in her upbringing, in her nature.

Briffault law maintains that female, not male, determine all conditions of animal family. Where female can derive no benefit from association with male, no such association takes place. Today we would say relationship rather than association. For this bit of wisdom we have Robert Briffault, English surgeon, anthropologist, and author, to thank. I do not present Briffaults law as fact, nor do I dismiss it as fiction. It is something to think about-and Briffault gives us even more to ponder. We already know, of course, that women wield ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men. Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from calculated cost / benefit analysis by women. Will she or wont she acquire net gain from any relationship with a man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and male capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it. Even though a woman has accrued past benefits from her relationship with a man, this is no guarantee of her continuing relationship with him. If a woman promises a man to continue her relationship with him in the future in exchange for benefit received from him today, her promise becomes null and void as soon as benefit is render. Mans promise of future benefit has limited ability to secure a continuing relationship with a woman, and his promise carries weight with her only to the extent that women wait for benefit is short and to the extent that she trust him to keep his promise. In economics there exists a concept of diminishing marginal utility: benefit derived from product lessens with each successive unit consume. Consider the all-you-can-eat buffet. If you arrive hungry, first plate from the buffet provides 100 % utility in satisfying your hunger. The second plate provides less utility, although you still may be a bit hungry when you begin filling the second plate. But by the time youre eaten second plate, you are no longer hungry. If you return to the buffet for the third plate, you will probably feel overstuffed after eating it. In terms of utility you are now in negative territory. If we accept Briffault law at face value, women derive diminishing marginal utility from their relationships with men after acquiring desired benefits.

From : https://plex.page/Robert_Briffault

This article looks at the evolution of sex differences in sexuality in human beings and asks whether evolutionary psychology sometimes exaggerates these differences. According to a common understanding of sexual selection theory, females in most species invest more than males in their offspring, and as a result, males compete for as many mates as possible, whereas females choose from among the competing males. The males-compete/females-choose (MCFC) model applies to many species but is misleading when applied to human beings. This is because males in our species commonly contribute to the rearing of the young, which reduces the sex difference in parental investment. Consequently, sex differences in our species are relatively modest. Rather than males competing and females choosing, humans have a system of mutual courtship: Both sexes are choosy about long-term mates, and both sexes compete for desirable mates. We call this the mutual mate choice (MMC) model. Although much of the evolutionary psychology literature is consistent with the MMC model, the traditional MCFC model exerts a strong influence on the field, distorting the emerging picture of the evolved sexual psychology of Homo sapiens. Specifically, it has led to the exaggeration of the magnitude of human sex differences, an overemphasis on men's short-term mating inclinations, and a relative neglect of male mate choice and female mate competition. We advocate a stronger focus on the MMC model.

A central element of interdependence theory is that people have standards against which they compare their current outcomes, and one ubiquitous standard in the mating domain is the preference for particular attributes in a partner (ideal partner preferences). This article reviews research on the predictive validity of ideal partner preferences and presents a new integrative model that highlights when and why ideals succeed or fail to predict relational outcomes. Section 1 examines predictive validity by reviewing research on sex differences in the preference for physical attractiveness and earning prospects. Men and women reliably differ in the extent to which these qualities affect their romantic evaluations of hypothetical targets. Yet a new meta-analysis spanning the attraction and relationships literatures revealed that physical attractiveness predicted romantic evaluations with a moderate-to-strong effect size for both sexes, and earning prospects predicted romantic evaluations with a small effect size for both sexes. Sex differences in the correlations were small and uniformly nonsignificant.

Men tend to be less selective than women when evaluating and pursuing potential romantic partners. The present experiment employed speed-dating procedures to test a novel explanation for this sex difference: The mere act of physically approaching a potential romantic partner (vs. being approached), a behavior that is more characteristic of men than of women, increases one's attraction to that partner. This hypothesis was supported in a sample of speed daters (N = 350) who attended a heterosexual event where either men (eight events) or women (seven events) rotated from one partner to the next while members of the other sex remained seated. Rotators were significantly less selective than were sitters, which meant that the tendency for men to be less selective than women at events where men rotated disappeared at events where women rotated. These effects were mediated by increased self-confidence among rotators relative to sitters.

EJ Finkel, PW Eastwick. (2009). Arbitrary social norms influence sex differences in romantic selectivity. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9280.2009.02439.x