Recently I happened to come across this principle, and I was immediately enamored with it. It perfectly explains my experiences, giving words to the observations I had made myself (though much more eloquent than I might have put it).

I'm not here to argue about the validity of the concept itself. Rather, I want to talk about several specific conclusions that one might infer from it, and whether they are valid or not, if we presume the law to be true.

Briffault's law basically states that women only associate with men when some kind of practical benefit is in play. Therefore, it is basically saying that women do not value or desire intimate emotional/romantic connections with men. In other words, they won't be with a man because they just like him for who he is. Or in the very least, women value intimate chemistry to such a lesser degree that it is irrelevant to their decisions. Does it not follow, then, that women are sociopaths? After all, under this maxim, they behave in a manner that seems to suggest they don't have emotional or romantic feelings. The pattern of female behavior that the law describes also matches another characteristic of sociopaths: manipulating people for purely self-serving practical purposes.

You could make the counterargument that women only act like sociopaths when dealing with men. I admit that this may be the case. Still, I find this fact rather disconcerting.

You could also say that women DO have these kinds of feelings towards men, but they are vastly weaker than the drive for practical benefit. I also admit that this is possible. Still, this demonstrates that men are more emotional and empathetic than women. (Which, by the way, is backed up by studies.)

Am I the only one who is disturbed by this? We men are told to stifle our emotions and "man up" even though we're actually the more sensitive sex. Meanwhile, women are free to exercise more emotion than is their natural inclination.

And lastly, I find it hilariously (read: infuriatingly) ironic that feminists like to complain about the alleged sexual objectification of women when they're the ones committing actual objectification against men.

Feel free to let me know what you think. I haven't studied psychology or sexuality in great detail, just stating the way it seems to me. If perhaps I have misinterpreted the work of Briffault or have made some kind of erroneous logical error, feel free to let me know what it is that I'm not getting.

EDIT: One poster came up with a great point, which I would've tried to debate politely with them if they hadn't decided to straw man me and argue semantics.

Anyway, the point is that women are capable of raising children and show even more empathy to them than men do (on average, at least.) So perhaps that means that women are only unempathetic to men when it comes to the context of relationships/sex?

I suppose that from a purely evolutionary perspective, this makes sense. Women evolved to be child-rearers and men to seek out relationships with women. Though, I don't see why female empathy towards potential partners would be such an invaluable thing that it would be so heavily selected against. To the contrary, as several posters noted, empathetic relationships can be extremely beneficial. So why don't women value them as much as more physical/practical benefits? How do we resolve this apparent paradox? Food for thought.