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).

Let's go through line by line.

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family.

Only when the husbands are weak/passive do the female determine the conditions of the family. There are times when a strong husband is so busy with with work he will allow his wife to manage the household ....but mostly only things like decorating and dealing with appointments for the children.

Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

Relationships of any kind do not happen when only one party gets a benefit ....unless by force. There are no men who will stay with a woman who provides no benefit. There are times when it seems like men will stay with women even if no benefit occurs. Friend-zoned guys get the benefit of thinking they have a chance. Dead bedroom guys till have a wife, she cleans, takes care of the kids etc

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

I would just like to point out the age old tradition of trading up older wives for younger ones. I don't know how RP ignores something so fundamental to male biology. Just because she gave him her youth(the most valuable thing she had) doesn't mean he will stay with her forever.

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)

till death do us part he said. So the wife spends her youthful years having his children ....destroying her body in the process ...only for him to leave. She provided the current benefit of having/raising his kids. But the deal is null and void as soon as he realizes that older ladies don't get his dick as hard.

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).

This a people thing. The more you trust a person who makes the promise the longer you'll wait for them to see that promise through.

CMV: Brilffault's Law(from TRP sidebar) is a people thing not a woman thing