@ItsComplicatedChannel

Well if you believe that all women are just dating transactionally that opens up an entirely new question: Why does the manosphere care so much about a woman’s genuine burning desire if they believe she’s incapable of love?

Is the controlling of men's sexual drive the key to government stability? #sexuality #government

and that’s basically my point, culture matters more than just biology. Appreciate the loyal support!

You’re setting up a false choice. I don’t have to prove women never behave that way to challenge Briffault’s Law. The claim that women determine the conditions of family relationships is not proven simply because women initiate around 70% of divorces or because some women seek financial benefits. Dowries are a useful counterexample: historically, families in many societies transferred wealth to the bride’s family or the bride herself. If women always determine the conditions based on their own benefit, how do you explain systems where the bride’s family had to provide wealth to secure a marriage? You need to establish that Briffault’s Law is universally or reliably predictive of human behavior, not demand that I prove women never act in accordance with it. That’s your claim to substantiate.

Nobody enters a relationship unless their partner provides some type of value. And if all women are the same because of their female nature, why would men travel overseas to a different culture? Why were women different in the past?

And I asked you if men are gynocentric simps by nature and you deflected.

The point of bringing up dowry was only to prove that women HISTORICALLY didn’t get to just marry for money, according to your previous comment that “women got in relationships for financial benefit.” Women had to bring something to the table and they could only marry within their class.

You’re not even addressing my points in good faith, so why would I even wanna continue to debate?

The dowry is a counterexample to the idea that women inherently determine the conditions of family life. In societies where the bride’s family pays the groom or his family to facilitate a marriage, the financial terms of marriage can be shaped by men and their families. If women inherently controlled the conditions of relationships, how do you explain that? And Buss finding that women, on average, value a man’s financial prospects more than men do in a mate doesn’t prove women control the conditions of relationships. A preference isn’t the same as power. Men have preferences too, and the person who has the most leverage can influence the terms. As for the 70% divorce figure, who initiates a divorce doesn’t automatically tell us who controlled the conditions of the marriage. You’re conflating preferences, bargaining power, and decision-making authority.

It’s not a topic change, it’s just flipping the genders to point out the double standard in your logic. So now men being simps a good thing? Isn’t simping the same mentally that gave women the right to vote, the very thing you think destroyed civilization?

Are men gynocentric simps at their core? If the evidence fits that model, why are we trying to change male nature? Or does the fact that a behavior can be explained by evolution not mean we should accept it as inevitable?

Nobody is arguing that evolution doesn’t apply to humans. The question is whether you’re using evolution to explain behavior or to justify it. An attractive appearance doesn’t automatically mean better genes or greater reproductive fitness, and claiming that dark triad traits evolved for protection doesn’t prove they’re beneficial in modern relationships. Something having an evolutionary explanation doesn’t automatically make it desirable, necessary, or morally justified. That’s called an appeal to nature fallacy.

You’re accusing me of an appeal to authority while appealing to animal behavior to justify a generalization about human relationships. Humans being animals doesn’t prove that human relationships follow the same rules as animal mating behavior. That’s a leap, not evidence.

I’m not arguing that these experiences don’t happen. I’m arguing that experiencing something doesn’t automatically prove Briffault’s Law. You’re using maternity leave as an example, but women quitting after leave could have many explanations. How does that prove the decision was based on whether they were still benefiting from the relationship? And thousands of men sharing similar experiences doesn’t automatically establish a universal law. You’d need to show how common the behavior is, why it’s happening, and whether the same principle applies consistently. My counterargument isn’t that men are lying about what they’ve experienced. It’s that you’re treating your interpretation of those experiences as proof of the theory. If every time a woman leaves, quits, or changes her mind is considered proof of Briffault’s Law, what evidence would ever convince you that the law is wrong?

Personal experience isn’t proof of a universal law. And women taking maternity leave then quitting proves what, exactly? That they make decisions based on their circumstances? Briffault’s Law is supposed to explain female mating behavior, not magically turn every decision a woman makes into evidence that it’s true. If every possible outcome confirms your theory, then your theory isn’t being tested. It’s being protected from criticism.

By that logic, men wanting an attractive partner is a 'transactional law' too. It’s not a secret female code, it's just called having standards, and both genders have them.

Humans being animals doesn’t mean human relationships work exactly like animal mating behavior. Briffault wasn’t arguing that humans aren’t animals. He was distinguishing animal mating behavior from human social institutions. We share biological needs with animals. Does that mean our laws, cultures, and relationships work the same way too?

Why does the manosphere use Briffault’s Law to argue that women are transactional, ignoring the fact that Briffault meant it only for animals? 🤯 #redpill

Incels are more likely to be suicidal than homicidal.

Why does biology justify traditional obligations despite conflicting cultural realities? #biology #traditional