In response to [Cookiebootz's great thread on the controversial Briffault's Law post on sidebar] (https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3xq47r/briffaults_law_is_false/)

N.B. I think that this is an example of RP heuristics being taken literally as bio-truths, and thus both of these threads may be false flag arguments. But anyway.

Cookie argued

The TRP sidebar includes a link to Briffault’s Law, which is this: “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.” The corollaries aren’t relevant to showing it to be false.

My position is that the actual conditions of association and the animal family are determined by the male or the female based on cost vs benefit calculations. This is true not just for male-female associations but for all associations between animals regardless of sex, age, relatedness, or even species. If either party stops getting a net fitness benefit from the association, then the association will end or coercion will be needed to continue it. This applies to humans too and I think TRP's application of this law is bad in and of itself but that's maybe for another post.

However, they missed out a crucial point:

If either party stops getting a net fitness benefit from the association, then the association will end or coercion will be needed to continue it.

Cookie pointed out numerous aspects of how the male controlled the association, therefore defying Briffault's Law in the animal kingdom, primarily gorillas and chimpanzees…by using coercion. The male always dominated using physical intimidation, aggression and violence to prevent the female from declining mating.

Example 1: Gorillas live in troops of one dominant male (usually) and adult females with their offspring. When different troops encounter each other, females will sometimes try to transfer to another group. This is a benefit to her and a cost to her current dominant male.

If Briffault’s Law held true, dominant males would passively allow females to transfer.

In reality, her current dominant male will try to prevent her transfer with violence or threats of violence. If he successfully interrupts the transfer, which is common, the association continues at a cost to her and a benefit to him. Briffault’s Law is shown to be false.

In human terms we call this rape. [Rape is considered evil.] (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil)

Humans have had concepts of morality and empathy drilled into them from a young age. [We also have evolved aversion to immoral behaviours.] (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/Supplement_2/9015.full) The only people who are cool with rape are the clinically insane, rapists and sociopaths/psychopaths. [Rape is also a crime, a very serious crime.] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape) Even advocating rape is pretty much a crime and this thread, but an intellectual exercise, could get me doxxed.

Yet for Briffault's Law to be proven false, the male must use rape to coerce the female into association past when she seeks to gain benefit from it. We have outlawed this behaviour in the civilised world.

Human civilisation has thus been founded upon the strong favouring of female reproductive strategy to succeed. As Cookie points out, [females are seeking out first healthy mates with good genes to reproduce, then dependable mates who will stick around for parenting-the Good Genes/Good Dad theory] (http://therationalmale.com/2011/08/23/schedules-of-mating/) In much of the animal kingdom, it is the norm for males to impregnate a female and then abandon her during gestation period.

[Yet again, as human beings, we call this 'being a dick'. Specifically, being a deadbeat dad.] (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/88/d8/9f/88d89f297459180567beb2d2a1ca8277.jpg)

Moreover there are laws to ensure that the male continues his association with the female, if only indirectly, well past when he wishes to. We call this child support. [Failure to pay this gets you not only shunned as a sick selfish deadbeat dead] (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elite-daily/a-generation-of-men-unwilling_b_1812232.html) but [a hefty fine and possibly time behind bars.] (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/skip-child-support-go-to-jail-lose-job-repeat.html) And now, [one may even have their DNA recorded] (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3174798/Deadbeat-dads-refuse-pay-offspring-face-DNA-database-checks.html),

Ergo, society itself is offering strong incentives for males to retain association with the female.

Yet if we are to think in purely primitive terms, what has just occurred? Coercion by the female-and other males, and society as a whole in fact-to have the male submit and perpetuate association with the female, past when it will benefit him and his amoral reproductive strategy.

Marriage can also be seen as a means to fulfil female reproductive strategy

Example 1: Chimpanzees live in multimale-multifemale groups and both sexes are promiscuous. This means that sexually receptive females are relatively common and the paternity of any infant is uncertain. When a female is sexually receptive, males tend to group up and follow her for days until she’s no longer receptive. Male-male competition for mating opportunities is fierce. Briffault’s Law would dictate that once a female stops being sexually receptive, one or more of the males (maybe those who mated with her the most) stay with her and provision her with protection and the extra high-quality food she will need to have a healthy pregnancy. One or more of the males would help care for the resulting infant, sharing the huge cost of parenting an altricial infant with a long period of dependency.

In reality, when the female is no longer sexually receptive, these congregations of males dissolve. When the female has a baby, she will bear the majority of the parental care cost. Due to group composition and paternal uncertainty, male chimpanzees are likely to produce more offspring over a given time period if they try to mate with as many females as possible instead of staying to care for the offspring of one female, even if the baby is definitely his. Males end their association with a female once she is no longer sexually receptive in order to maximize their own fitness, regardless of what would benefit hers. Briffault’s Law is shown to be false.

But really, do you see the men from r/deadbedrooms flocking away from their wives? I doubt that that association really benefits them…but then nor does divorce rape.

We even see this coercion from society at large, in men who seek to continue to be polyngous past when it favours women's interests. [I] (http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/06/19/dear-single-men-time-man-figure/) [II] (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704409004576146321725889448) Consider every thread on here about it being laughable for college girls to want to sleep with middle aged men, no matter how rich they are. FI in action.

When pushed, discussion between myself and Cookie degenerated into 'it's not women's responsibility to change our behaviour, [suck it up]' (http://therationalmale.com/2014/01/20/suck-it-up/) Well, we all know that there is no actual elastic counter-argument I can make, given what male reproductive strategy is.

Therefore, I have come to the following conclusions:

Crucially, society does not police methods of female coercion to maintain association past when it benefits the male. There is no crime against [crocodile tears.] (http://therationalmale.com/2013/02/26/the-crying-game/) There is no crime against emotional manipulation, and [plausible deniability for when it occurs.] (http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/09/operative-social-conventions/) The very concepts which enforce the feminine imperative on men-morality, conscience, virtue, being noble, goodness, responsibility, mature, honour-are considered positives.And, a man who subverts these can not only be emotionally condemned (as sinner/deadbeat dad) but materially condemned (child support).

  • Social gender biases also instil a favouring of PI over polygyny, i.e. the feminine imperative over the male reproductive sexual strategy.

  • Compromising PI in favour of polygyny is a threat to our offspring, and thus the human race. This is why we intuitively have an aversion to deadbeat dads.

Ergo, in relation to the human SMP, Briffault's Law prevails as long as morality prevails.

Obligatory disclaimer: I am not endorsing rape or domination of women. This is an intellectual thought exercise to disprove what I believe to be a conclusion coming from a faulty premise. Nothing more.

tl;dr While women don't rape, she and society manipulate us into catering to her reproductive strategy. Why is this not considered coercion?