Does Briffault’s law mean all women are in essence prostitutes?

[Conker]

Briffault’s law maintains that “ Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” 

So this means all women are prostitutes right? As sex can only be attained if they is something to be gained (probably financial) for her and even then its not guaranteed. Let's be honest how many times have we taken a woman out on expensive dates and got nothing in return, how many of us are in sex less marriages cucking all our money and preforming husbandly duties whereby she fails in her reciprocal wifely duties, how many times has a woman let you buy her expensive drinks all night in a bar knowing full well that sex is never going to be on the cards, how many women marry men just for money...
For me the only difference I see between an escort and a civee is that an escort is more honest about her financial motives and sex is guaranteed.

For me, I'd rather just spend £60 on 30mins with twenty something fittie that Is leagues above me for guaranteed sex with, No nagging, no shit tests, no being left sexualy frustrated.

[Blackpool Rock]

For me the only difference I see between an escort and a civee is that an escort is more honest about her financial motives and sex is guaranteed.

For me, I'd rather just spend £60 on 30mins with twenty something fittie that Is leagues above me for guaranteed sex with, No nagging, no shit tests, no being left sexualy frustrated.

Exactly and I guess most people who punt are probably of the same mindset.
I recall when I was about 19 or 20 making a comment in the office I was working in that "Marriage was just a form of legalised prostitution".
Well fuck me my boss went apeshit and I was hauled over the coals big style, apparently he took this as a personal insult to both himself and his wife etc etc etc.
Funny looking back on it now and at the time a lot of people would have thought / reacted that way but i'm not so sure these days 

Anyway, yeah I think most women are prossies who give shit or no service but would never admit it

[NelsonH]

A very good Portuguese WG once told me that the UK was a good place to work, because British women DON'T LIKE sex.

I quizzed her about this.

She had lived in many places in the world and was definitely of the view that elsewhere more women actually enjoyed sex.

[Hotdogboy88]

Exactly and I guess most people who punt are probably of the same mindset.
I recall when I was about 19 or 20 making a comment in the office I was working in that "Marriage was just a form of legalised prostitution".
Well fuck me my boss went apeshit and I was hauled over the coals big style, apparently he took this as a personal insult to both himself and his wife etc etc etc.
Funny looking back on it now and at the time a lot of people would have thought / reacted that way but i'm not so sure these days 

Anyway, yeah I think most women are prossies who give shit or no service but would never admit it

We should review our WAGS. 
Wait for a big spike in negatives. 

[Derrick101]

In that case, my OH is the most expensive WG that does not offer any services, EVER 

[Woodcutter]

To be blunt I'd say:

'Where an individual can derive no benefit from association with another, no such association takes place.'

Friends & family give us emotional well being, colleagues & employers financial stability, how many people live in communities where they don't know the next door neighbour of their next door neighbour.

If I see an unattractive woman in the supermarket/street I have no desire to get to know her, there's no benefit to me. It's not a gender thing it's a people thing

[Blackpool Rock]

We should review our WAGS. 
Wait for a big spike in negatives. 

There was a thread along those lines a couple of years back, as you say most were Negatives and almost all of these girls were barebackers 

[Autopunter]

Briffault’s law maintains that “ Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” 

So this means all women are prostitutes right? As sex can only be attained if they is something to be gained (probably financial) for her and even then its not guaranteed. Let's be honest how many times have we taken a woman out on expensive dates and got nothing in return, how many of us are in sex less marriages cucking all our money and preforming husbandly duties whereby she fails in her reciprocal wifely duties, how many times has a woman let you buy her expensive drinks all night in a bar knowing full well that sex is never going to be on the cards, how many women marry men just for money...
For me the only difference I see between an escort and a civee is that an escort is more honest about her financial motives and sex is guaranteed.

For me, I'd rather just spend £60 on 30mins with twenty something fittie that Is leagues above me for guaranteed sex with, No nagging, no shit tests, no being left sexualy frustrated.

I agree entirely, but its more complicated than that. Women like sex just fine, but only with what they perceive to be the top, say, 20 percent of guys. It gets even more complicated when you realize that different women have different ideas about what constitutes a 'top guy'; and that over time men and women tend to switch roles - women are pumped full of estrogen, which gradually fades out as they age (ever notice how many women talk about starting to act more aggressively and promiscuously as, ironically, they lose their sexual appeal?) and their testosterone levels increase. Meanwhile men start out as hungry tigers at 14 and turn into tubby house cats by 50. Even funnier is the fact that modern women rarely need physical protection, and have their own resources thanks to a career, but these two things are still what drive their mating instincts when it comes to men (tall men for example, are seen as more attractive then short men, despite the fact that neither will be spearing any saber-tooth tigers or woolly mammoths).

I'd say Briffault’s law means women's love for men is highly conditional on performance; Mama Nature don't have no love for the slow and the sick! But then no man stays with a woman who won't put out with her pussy either - hence why we have so many married guys on this sub (not judging, I too would be here if I was stuck in a sexless relationship). Nature/evolution is amoral, like gravity. What worries me these days is the ever increasing definition of the word rape, often to include just transactional sex ('because the woman ain't into it'). That's what's going to be used against punters and married men alike IMO, at least if the likes of that cunt Bindel get their way.

[wristjob]

I'm not sure I get your point. OK simplified this would be there is no sex unless there is something to be gained from that. There are a number of things the woman could gain, and some women do actually enjoy sex. I would say ensuring a harmonious existence would be another, and I guess in a way you could stretch that to prove your point maybe.

I was actually thinking about my relationships recently and pretty much all of them were focused on the sex. I don't think there are many women I want to spend that much time with,cede that much control to full stop. Shagging can make it worthwhile for a bit, but eventually the shagging gets less, the other crap gets more. Kids make it complicated but for the life of me I really don't get why guys hang round in sexless marriages without kids or when the kids are grown. Just wired different to me I guess.

[TomTank]

Pay As You Go vs Pay Monthly

[MilleMiglia]

The full version of what the OP refers to:

External Link/Members Only

Well worth a look.

[wristjob]

The full version of what the OP refers to:

External Link/Members Only

Well worth a look.

I'm familiar with the concept. Got a decent grasp on the whole MGTOW thing and I feel that at one point it had some virtue but then kind of went the same way that feminism did. This is a perfect example of that

[timsussex]

Pay As You Go vs Pay Monthly

 

[unclepokey]

In short, answer to OP's question, seems to me we must differentiate currencies. Cash is one. Having your domestic life sorted is another. Yet another (as payer) is lovely holidays and having great kids is yet another.
But then Briffault's law is totally superficial since it makes no recognition of the nature of the currency used for the transactions involved.

We all know what is meant by the OP's post, and we all understand how cash cloaks everything but that men predominately pay both for sex as well as all the other household things (and holidays for the family).

I think Briffault's Law is subject to Uncle Pokey's Conundrum: How can you love your missus yet still need a proper shag once or twice a month?

Oh and I forgot to add:
Who the hell fucking cares?
UP

[Plan R]

The full version of what the OP refers to:
External Link/Members Only
Well worth a look.

Had a look - interesting site.  I sometimes read rational male External Link/Members Only (which the above article references), but the essays are too long for my liking. Black Label Logic looks more readable 

I think Briffault's Law is subject to Uncle Pokey's Conundrum: How can you love your missus yet still need a proper shag once or twice a month?

Because you still posses a *** functioning sex drive. *** and if your 'loving' partner doesn't and decides to pull the plug on sex - how long should you live an involuntarily celibate life?   

[Trenlover]

Briffault’s law is just another way of saying what we already know, I.E. that women do the choosing when it comes to sex and relationships.

We all know the statistic that women end over 70% of marriages and relationships.

Women can be choosy, but men have to accept whatever they can get.

I also agree that white British women are much harder to pull than other races/cultures.

I think that women are still evolutionarily driven to polygamous relationships where a band of women share a top male and the lesser males get nothing. This is the setting where women are most happy.

Women would rather share a top male than be committed to a monogamous relationship ( marriage ) with a lesser male.

[Plan R]

I think that women are still evolutionarily driven to polygamous relationships where a band of women share a top male and the lesser males get nothing. This is the setting where women are most happy.
Women would rather share a top male than be committed to a monogamous relationship ( marriage ) with a lesser male.

Hypergamy in other words.  (Hypergamy = womens preference for mating across and up dominance hierarchies)

Agreed, and all well and good, that is  - while we were living on the Serengeti.
But if you want running water, electricity, law and order..society in other words, then 'Beta' males (80% and therefore most blokes), need to be persuaded not to drop out.
The 80% need to have a reason to actively engage in life, not least - to keep things running!

Hence marriage evolved. Everyone gets some pussy and she is oppressed and does what she is told and is therefore happy.

Enter...feminism in the last 50years that has fucked it all up.
We've not reverted back to the Serengeti yet - but things (women!) are becoming more..ehmm...feral

Here is rationalmale on open hypergamy  (open as in no longer hidden in this day and age) External Link/Members Only

[Squire Haggard]

Briffault’s law is just another way of saying what we already know, I.E. that women do the choosing when it comes to sex and relationships.

We all know the statistic that women end over 70% of marriages and relationships.

Women can be choosy, but men have to accept whatever they can get.

I also agree that white British women are much harder to pull than other races/cultures.

I think that women are still evolutionarily driven to polygamous relationships where a band of women share a top male and the lesser males get nothing. This is the setting where women are most happy.

Women would rather share a top male than be committed to a monogamous relationship ( marriage ) with a lesser male.

Not quite correct about the skanks.

'' The study, based on a survey of over 2000 heterosexual couples, found that women initiated nearly 70% of all divorces. Yet there was no significant difference between the percentage of breakups initiated by women and men in non-marriage relationships.''

External Link/Members Only

[elnukky]

I think this sums it up --> External Link/Members Only