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.” -- Robert Briffault,
The Mothers, I, 191
.
The Corollaries to Briffault's law:
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).
.
***
.

Some years ago, through the usual discourse of mindlessly arguing with
people on the internet, I met a woman online who went by the handle of
“Selkie.” I had no idea what a selkie was, so I typed it into Google and
discovered an interesting legend that I believe is directly about human
sexuality.
The mythological
selkie
is similar to a mermaid, except the selkie is a seal which can shed its
skin and transform into a human being. The selkie can be either male or
female, but most are female. Once they are in their human form, if
their seal skin is taken and hidden from them, they are unable to turn
back into a seal and thus cannot return to their home in the sea.
 |
Click for "The Wife of Noble Character" |
Now, as the legend goes, female selkies make great wives when in their
human form and so men would hide the skins of selkies so they would stay
with them - for if she found her skin she would right away put it back
on, abandon her human husband and escape to the sea to seek out her male
selkie lover/husband.
There is an interesting twist though, in that
even after she abandons her human husband she will return from time to
time to visit the children which she had while with him.
 |
Click pic for Roosh V |

The male selkie, according to the legend, has enormous powers of
seduction. His favourite love interests are married women who are
dissatisfied with their marriage, and often he seduces the wives of
fisherman while their husbands are away at sea.
 |
Click Pic for "Sex Sells (Hypergamy Explained)" |
The legend of the selkie seems to be a way of telling about the nature
of human sexuality. The “seal skin” represents human sexuality in its
natural form, as is often discussed within circles of the Manosphere.
The stories have elements of suppressing female sexuality, which makes
for great, reliable wives, but when she is unrestrained with her
sexuality, she instantly uses it and reverts back to her natural state…
and in her natural state as a seal, she seeks out the cad, the male
selkie who is like her, and is a master seducer who plays upon women’s
emotions. This seems very much like the whole concept of “game” when
understanding human sexuality. The male PUA is very much like the female
in the way he seduces women - he understands about women’s emotions and
how to manipulate them for his own benefit - which is very similar to
what women tend to do with their sexuality when relating to men.
In fact, the entire legend of "Don Juan" is about flipping the sexual script! It's us, in the modern day, that has forgotten it.
Because we listened to the words of Eve, we've thrown away the collected wisdom of our ancestors under
the emotional charge of "misogyny!"
There are many myths and legends that discuss the nature of females. I think this is so because women “are” society. What women want, society also
wants. What women find desirable, society finds desirable. What women
frown upon, society frowns upon. Women “are” society with males as mere
interlopers in their midst, doing women’s bidding.
 |
Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Truth" |
Often women are
referred to as having a herd mentality. I agree with this. And what is a
herd made up of? Mostly females with only a few males, or sometimes
just one male. The rest of the males – the outliers, or the betas that
have been rejected by the herd, are always desperately competing to be
let back into the herd though – and that means doing what the herd finds
desirable. But anyway, since women “are” society, and since women
absolutely despise having anything negative about their natures brought
into daylight, they screech and shout and shame such things back into
the deep darkness of the closet, and then society forgets all about them
again as time goes on.


I think many times in the past, men have observed the nature of females
(and males) and it seems to me that there is a consistency in what they
find, and of course, it is very similar to what we have been discovering
over the past years in our discussions of feminism and the destruction
of the family. Every time I see a legend like the selkie one, I think to
myself, “I’ll bet that comes from a man/men who 'figured things out'
and also recognized the only way to send that message forward through
time without being thwarted by the totalitarian nature of females, is to
disguise it in a myth or a legend."
Something that I find interesting about the legend of the selkie though
is how it makes mention that after the selkie abandons her human husband
to go back to the sea, she will return from time to time to visit her
human children. This legend is old, as most myths & legends
obviously are, so of course it comes from a time when father-custody was
the norm. It was not until the 1800’s that presumed father-custody was
undermined, and presumed mother-custody took its place. It was when this change of custody occurred that the divorce
rates began to slowly but steadily increase.
 |
Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Patriarchy" |
There were only a few thousand divorces annually in the
mid-nineteenth century when divorce cost wives their children and Dad’s
paycheck. This family stability began eroding as later nineteenth
century divorce courts, under pressure from the rising feminist
movement, began awarding child custody to mothers. -- Daniel Amneus,
The Case for Father Custody, p360
“Between 1870 and 1920 the divorce rate rose fifteenfold, and by 1924 one marriage out of seven ended in divorce" -- James H. Jones,
Alfred Kinsey: A Public/Private Life (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), p.292.
 |
Click Pic for "The Fraud of Modern Marriage" |
The whole “point” of marriage used to be father-custody. Back before the days of romance, when marriage used to be an
economic
contract, marriage & wedlock birth was all about putting children
into the possession of men. In the rare event of a divorce, the custody
of the child was automatically given to the husband. If the child was
young, the mother would sometimes care for it until around 6 or 7 years
old, and then would be forced to turn over the child to the father for
education and proper discipline. The whole concept of wedlock birth is
to create legitimate, father-custody children. When an “oops-pregnancy”
would occur, the first question out of the woman’s mouth would be “will
you give the child your name?” As in, will you make this child
legitimate, and show it by giving him your name – and not a hyphenated
pseudo name either!
Women don’t actually “need” marriage to have children. They can get
boffed by any number of men through a variety of seductive techniques,
of which I think we are all aware of. Men however, did “need” marriage
to have children, and thus, children born within wedlock are to belong
to the man, while children born out of wedlock are to belong to the
woman.
 |
Click Pic for "Woman: The Most Responsible Teenager in the House?" |
The parts of the selkie legend that discuss how she would come back to
visit her children even after abandoning her husband seems to support
the concept that divorce rates began to increase after presumed custody
was changed from the father to the mother. Also supporting this notion
is the evidence put forth by present day “joint-custody” advocates, who
state that divorce rates significantly drop when sole mother-custody is
not expected. Of course, women file for most of divorces as we all know,
and so not having sole custody of the children significantly deters
them from destroying their families, and rather encourages them to try
harder to make things work.
Sure, one can write this off to saying that removing the financial
incentives will lower the divorce rates, but keep in mind
another thing one will find about women and sexuality throughout history: It has
always been that women have ended relationships
more often than men. It is part of human nature that women do this,
regardless of financial incentives. It seems though that placing the
children in a situation where it is presumed that the father will gain
custody upon the ending of marriage, is enough to encourage women to
over-ride this instinct which they have.
.
.
.