Briffault’s Law: Women Rule
Briffault’s law maintains that “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.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”
For this bit of wisdom we have Robert Briffault (1876-1948), an English surgeon, anthropologist, and author, to thank.
I do not present Briffault’s 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 the 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 a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women.
Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the 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 the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Briffault continues with these three corollaries to his law:
- Even though a woman has accrued past benefits from her relationship with a man, this is no guarantee of her continuing the relationship with him. (Translation: What have you done for me lately?)
- If a woman promises a man to continue her relationship with him in the future in exchange for a benefit received from him today, her promise becomes null and void as soon as the benefit is rendered. (“I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.“)
- A man’s promise of a 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 the woman’s wait for the benefit is short and to the extent that she trusts him to keep his promise.
In economics there exists the concept of diminishing marginal utility: The benefit derived from a product lessens with each successive unit consumed.
Consider an all-you-can-eat buffet. If you arrive hungry, the first plate from the buffet provides 100 percent 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 you’re eaten the second plate, you are no longer hungry.
If you return to the buffet for a third plate, you will probably feel overstuffed after eating it. In terms of utility you are now in negative territory.
If we accept Briffault’s law at face value, women derive diminishing marginal utility from their relationships with men after acquiring the desired benefits. That Briffault – what a romantic!
See more here: psychologytoday.com
Header image: IOL
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
itsme
| #
waiting with great anticipation to the comments on this….. ;-(H)…….
Reply
GM
| #
This is another way of saying “whats in it for me” in every relationship. It seems that in places where people think this way (NYC comes to mind), many people live alone. What a shame!
I’m not sure why Principia-Scientific decided to post this article? So many good articles on science that you don’t get elsewhere, and then this?
Reply
Midships
| #
This is a sexist article. The opposite can be said.
Where the MALE can derive no benefit from association with the FEMALE, no such association takes place.
The only benefit for a male is offspring. Period, that’s it. Otherwise there is no benefit to the male. The risks are too high for males, and they are increasingly opting out of marriage. Who would want to get married at the risk of losing half or more of there assets and future earnings in a divorce? If they do have kids, the courts are biased against males.
In today’s society, thanks to the prevalence of feminism, males can easily obtain sex without marriage.
If for some reason they are not successful, they can buy it for pennies on the dollar compared to a relationship.
Reply
Ava
| #
It’s useless for patriarchal men to comment on this because all they are capable of is a weak attack on feminism, which is responsible for everything bad. Honestly, this shows that females should rule in society and not a bunch of goddamned stupid, violent men, which is why the world is a prison, a hellscape when it should very easily be a paradise.
Women do not want this world. Women did not make this world. The world was created to destroy her natural primacy in the human race. Males are small jealous little animals.
Reply
Moffin
| #
Says Ava as Hillary Clinton is proved to have been lying and spying on the then American President. It is called treason.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-probe-accelerated-more-people-cooperating-coming-before-grand-jury
If you ever grow a brain Ava, you will learn to judge people on their individual merits, irrespective of gender.
To deal with the evil you mention, the first step is to drastically reduce the funding that can be expended in political campaigns.
Reply
Midships
| #
You are mistaken, I am not attacking feminism, just making an observation as one of the results of it.
Once men had to court a women, earn her trust or at least put some effort out to obtain sex. Now, it is just swipe on a phone, an exchange. Due to this, many men don’t value women as much as they used to in the past. Since they can get sex with minimal effort, why bother having a relationship? Thus, one of the benefits (sex) of a relationship with a female is removed from the equation. Once this is removed, it really is sobering to men as why the would risk the loss assets, future earnings, if kids are involved the loss of them through divorce, etc. What really is the upside for men (unless they just really want offspring and are willing to gamble the 50% divorce rate)? I guess that is why cohabitation is becoming more prevalent than marriage now. Men are wising up.
I am totally for women’s rights, not just for them to have more rights than men. Should be equal.
Reply
Howdy
| #
It’s all rather quaint isn’t it?
“We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.”
The ultimate in stereotypes, but it works both ways I’m afraid.
The article contains the word relationships a lot, but there is no relationship in such existence. It’s purely using the opposite sex for whatever one can get. Again, working both ways
Reply
Seriously
| #
‘We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.’
Gee, how long has this been true? 50 years? Out of millennia…LOL!
In the bird world, I’ll grant that.
Up to the 1970’s, if your wife/daughter showed to much spirit, intelligence, or just wasn’t doing what was demanded of her, or you just wanted a NEW wife for that matter (minus the divorce), the ‘master’, also known as husband/father, could ship her off to the mental hospital…
Subjugated & marginalized, women were suppressed in ALL ways, just as slaves or any other ‘less than’ demographic, determined throughout history by men, ( pick any country, any time frame you wish) the eugenics purveyors from the beginning, depending on whatever objective was at hand. But women, ALWAYS. Not just in this or that situation, always. I’m sure if women had equal upper body strength, the story would be different.
MSM, regardless of what form that media is, i.e. church, king, or state, has determined what women were allowed to BE. They ran with women’s liberation as if free sex were the whole point. And, sadly, sometimes it feels that way. Near a very popular university this past Saturday, I witnessed 5 females, 2 different groups, one alone, walking down the street in bathing suits – not a pool in site, on a busy road. Complete ass bearing suits, mind you and little material covering the rest. And I thought, really? This is what all those women fought for, thru the last century? All the women who wanted to vote, to be able to choose their own mate, to study, to learn, to excel, to be alone and support themselves if they preferred, to be able to go ANYWHERE they wished, to have sex with anyone they wanted and not be labeled a demeaning name, to be a human with freedom of choice…instead, we have the latest generations believing that their power, their esteem, lies in their sexuality, still. According to the MSM, that bombards women daily thru all media that if they are not beautiful, they are ‘less than’, still in charge of what men think women Should BE. These young women prove that the plan is working for far too many. Still marginalized and still of little value. The business women of Japan are fighting to simply be able to wear comfortable footwear, (!!!) instead of high heels…it’s so ridiculous that they have to wage that fight, in 2022.
Since psychology is definitely Not a science, I’m pretty sure he posted this to get a reaction. A slow news day I guess…slumming down with the big boys of the msm. I mean, really, ‘Freud’, a drug addict, woman bashing prig who bases his theories on his fever dreams, thinks everyone envies his penis, he’s their king, right?…need anything more be said? EVER? LOL😂
Reply
Midships
| #
“MSM, regardless of what form that media is, i.e. church, king, or state, has determined what women were allowed to BE.”
Ok, so all MSM is 100% male trying to keep women suppressed as sex objects? No females are involved in fashion magazines? No women are in journalism? There are no females in Hollywood that promote “if they are not beautiful, they are ‘less than’, still in charge of what men think women Should BE. ” There’s no women in board rooms of major corporations? There’s no women in politics? There’s no women raising little girls to teach them values to discern that their self worth is more than sex? There’s not women raising little boys to teach them that girls have value besides sex? Are there not female teachers in schools to be examples of what women should be?
No, you’re right. It’s all the big bad men.
Sorry, but women are actively involved in promoting this as well. Women play a larger part in promoting this than most people think. I agree it is grotesque and does women harm in the long run. However it can not be laid at the feet of men solely. Women could stand up and not agree to promote their own sexualization in a demeaning way. Why they don’t I can’t understand.
Reply
Midships
| #
MSM, regardless of what form that media is, i.e. church, king, or state, has determined what women were allowed to BE.
Ok, so all MSM is 100% male trying to keep women suppressed as sex objects? No females are involved in fashion magazines? No women are in journalism? There are no females in Hollywood that promote “if they are not beautiful, they are ‘less than’, still in charge of what men think women Should BE. ” There’s no women in board rooms of major corporations? There’s no women in politics? There’s no women raising little girls to teach them values to discern that their self worth is more than sex? There’s not women raising little boys to teach them that girls have value besides sex? Are there not female teachers in schools being an example of what women should be?
Everything can’t be laid at the feet of big bad males. Women play a large part in promoting the sexualization of females to their own demise. I think it is grotesque on both parts, but it is not one sided.
Reply
Seriously
| #
Midships
‘Gee, how long has this been true? 50 years? Out of millennia…LOL’
That was my opening comment. Women are 100% complicit, THIS ERA, the 1st where woman actually have the ability to make any choice they want, live their lives AS they see fit, as individuals…and only in some countries, still. I never said otherwise. Women were not allowed, by society rules ( patriarchal) to work outside the home, as late as the 1940s, but then, needs must, right? Because ‘The Machine’ wanted a world War and needed more bodies to build their new toys of mass destruction. Men have their own little box in these schemes: their blood was required by the boatload to make it happen. Each war they’ve waged, to control more, get more stuff, breaks down the society in which it occurs. In that respect only, woman have 2 wars in particular to thank for their transformation into a freer state of being: world War 1 and world war ll.
There have been women throughout history who have stood up and said ‘No, I won’t ‘ – ‘no’ to the rules of their culture and defied it, sometimes to their dealth. If you are denying the rest of human history has been patriarchal, you are delusional. Yes, there have been women who opened their own business, got a higher education, made great discoveries, aspired to fly. But msm didn’t incourage them to do so – society, culture, determined them outliers, even ‘un-natural’. ‘Should be home making babies’ – that was the acceptable occupation of women. The following reasons were INDOCTRINATED thru msm to men AND women: ‘fragile, too emotional, unable to understand higher learning principles- the list goes on.
None of these, however, has ever, and I mean EVER, been true.
Do I think women would run the world differently? Yes, but in what way? All of our minds have been shaped by our history and that history doesn’t easily fall in line with the present. I know a woman in her 70s that believes it’s her job to take care of her husband’s every need, do all the laundry,
Cleaning, cooking, despite having owned and run a successful business for years. It’s the Era her formative years began that still encompass her mindset- belief system. And few escape the indoctrination in youth that controls each generation.
It’s the persistence of this marginalization that keeps a society in control. It’s deplorable that women participate in this, but what would the expectation be when, for the 1st time ever, inline with what you are learning, thru the msm, thru your education, thru your family, you have some freedom? I hope that they evolve from the ‘survival mode’ they’ve existed in, being under men’s control, for millenia, to realize just how much of a role they have played & are Still playing in their own subjugation. Until they stand up, again, and say ‘NO’ to the belittling names, being used for sexist propaganda in advertising, buy into the myth that they are not attractive enough, strong enough, smart enough to change the future, they never will change anything in a meaningful way.
Reply
Ava
| #
The conditions are nature are reversed under the HUMAN condition of patriarchy. Patriarchy is defined as hierarchical, top down rule by males for the preservation of power and wealth through the male line and governed by male values.
So our world is not operating according to nature and that should be clear. Women were purposely made dependent to reverse their natural primacy.
People need to be aware of the conditions of patriarchy, which do not support but psychologically oppress all humans, not just females.
Reply
Howdy
| #
I basically agree with you Ava, that natural process is messed right up, but the root, and the answer, is far deeper I believe, and patriarchy is just one of the visible results. You can see the other results of nature trying to fight back, (which I won’t state here) everywhere now, and the apparent craziness, and lack of direction of people is part of it. Natural order WILL be restored.
I do not believe Earth is ‘our world’, but that humanity simply populates it. As such, nature can take any and all restorative measures needed to balance the scales, including extinction level events, and other such measures as have occurred in the past. Objections of humanity are of no consequence.
Reply
MIdships
| #
Yes, I agree it would be interesting to see how the human condition would change under a matriarchy instead. However I doubt world peace and harmony would break out. Women are human too.
I do think we should accommodate/promote women to prove their stuff though. Perhaps make all female combat units, all female manned warships, all female flight wings, etc. in the military. Perhaps allow (current US equality laws would not allow it now) the formation of all female corporations, all female construction companies, all female factories, etc. Females already control about 50% of the wealth in the US, so let’s let them actively prove their abilities without the hindrance of males. Why not carve out a 51st state and let it be run solely by females from top to bottom? These are all places to start that could really let females show their natural primacy?
Reply