View Single Post
Old 20th February 2014, 20:08   #22
thinktink
Forum King
 
thinktink's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: On the streets of Kings County, CA.
Posts: 2,970
Send a message via Skype™ to thinktink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Briffault

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.
  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).

Quote:
When does the expectation of mutual benefit in marriage go seriously wrong in the west? It goes wrong as soon as the “I Dos” are said, or very shortly thereafter. Why is this so? Because you, the man have just entered into a contract with the state where you have promised that you will provide everything to your bride, and where the bride has promised nothing. By the way, the full weight of the law and public opinion will support her stripping you of every thing you have, including your children, and most of what you will ever make in the future, when (not if) she decides to dump you. Hence, once you enter into the contract you have nothing left to offer her. Everything you have, or will have, is already hers. Seem like a harsh statement? I thought so too, the first time I heard it, during an argument with my first wife towards the end of our marriage. She asked me the eternal female question, “What do you do for me?” (i.e. what benefit do I get from associating with you?) I responded, “I pay all your expenses. I feed, clothe, and house you. And, I am paying for your college tuition.” She told me that all the money I earned was her money and that if she let me have any of it that was pure charity on her part, so I was doing nothing for her. I thought this was unduly harsh. The divorce courts showed me that it was pretty much just a statement of fact. The wife has it all, and can make her part of the marriage contract, the portion where she is to provide you with companionship, comfort, loyalty, sex, etc., null and void at any time while keeping everything you have/had/will ever have. She has no need to associate with you further once you are married (see corollary 2). (What is the difference between regular Barbie doll and divorced Barbie doll? Divorced Barbie comes with her stuff and all of Ken’s stuff too.) This seems a totally destructive state of affairs. Recently many in the western nations have been up in arms over a law passed in, I believe, Saudi Arabia that said if a married woman refuses her husband sex, then he can refuse to feed her. All are screaming it is Islamic misogyny. Seems to me, it is an equal degree of enforcement for both sides of a contract.
- http://www.stickmanweekly.com/Reader...reader5546.htm

https://www.google.com/#q=Briffault%27s+Law
thinktink is offline   Reply With Quote