General Info

[QUOTE=MrEnternational;2445619]Funny how you never get the sob stories when boots are on the ground. Buffalo only die and relatives are only on their death beds in need of you to send money for the cure when you are not around to verify it.[/QUOTE]E,

Don't be too critical of distant benefactors. Quite often they fund and generally enable our guilty pleasures when we are in town. 😁.

Normally I would sign off with 'Enjoy, G' but from your pics and posts it's pretty obvious you are doing just that. I'm getting pretty jealous stuck here. 😥.

Cheers. G.

[QUOTE=RollAides;2445428]Briffault's law, mate.

Women do not engage in reciprocity.[/QUOTE]I looked up some articles about Briffault's law. Interesting reading. While it is true that women may do that calculation, the male also does it. In my case, I stay because I have the freedom to do what I want while enjoying the financial benefit of shared resources.

PP.

[QUOTE=PilotPaul;2445751]While it is true that women may do that calculation, the male also does it.[/QUOTE]Is agree. Let's take an extreme case: the newly minted internet billionaire who dumps the small town high school sweet heart for the Victoria Secret Supermodel. Did she choose or was she chosen?

There are not too many ugly girls on mega yachts. 😁.

Even in out own circle, many mongers have 'chosen' to leave western partners for LBFMs. Most don't regret the decision. Obviously, she has also 'chosen' an opportunity for a better standard of living.

Queue the discussion of limp dicked, septagenarian mongers who can get nothing more than an impoverished rice farmers daughter. Sure there are plenty of these lost causes but I've also met many who are moderately to very successful and just don't want to fit into the text book suburban lifestyle.

Enjoy.

G.

[QUOTE=RollAides;2445428]Briffault's law, mate.

Women do not engage in reciprocity.[/QUOTE]

It says that they do not engage in a relationship unless they get something out of it.

Basically an observation on all human interaction and not only male / female sexual interaction.

I would not be on ISG unless I got something out of it, entertainment, information etc. In exchange for my attention.

ISG would not be running unless Jackson gets something out of it, our attention which he then trades for us reading the advertising that he sales to get money to operate the site and to live on.

I will not go into a store unless I am getting something out of it, an exchange of goods for money. The store will not be open unless they are getting something out of it, exchange of money for goods. The employees will not be there unless they are getting something out of it, an exchange of time for money.

Sounds like just basic marketing theory, you exchange something for something else and hopefully both sides value (or in economist speak give more utility to) what they get more than what they give up.

[URL]https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/machiavellians-gulling-the-rubes/201610/briffaults-law-women-rule[/URL]

Look up what % of western women file for divorces? 80%? Lmao diminishing marginal utility! Aka the plight / bane of too many western mongers LOL.

Not much better than hypergamy lmao.

[QUOTE=DCups;2445402]And your point is? Why do you and reach around even go there if you are so critical of their beautiful, slim bodies and willingness to share? BTW how old are you, train wreck? Would you rather be fucking those two-ton motor mouth tussies of Ozland? Sheeesh.[/QUOTE]Sheeesh. If you dislike Messrs Reacharound's and Trainwreck's creative masterpieces so much, why do you so effortlessly keep falling into their trap? Every single time! Sheeesh. LOL.

Sarcasm, acerbic wit and humor is lost on many mongers. LOL.

[URL]https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-do-life/202004/the-gender-gap-in-empathy[/URL]

[URL]http://www.martynemko.com/articles/men-dont-have-it-easy-either_id1594[/URL]

[QUOTE=PedroMorales;2445641]I can't and won't bail out random cases. I speak to hookers on line and they give me their take. Not all of them ask for money; the Thais mostly don't ask.

To say that there are not a lot of Thai hookers live mouth to mouth (makes no sense. Beach Road always had them and always will.[/QUOTE]You are missing the point. This has nothing to do with Australia. This has nothing to do with Thai hookers asking for money or not. This has everything to do with you saying that you receieved MANY messages of chicks in Pattaya saying they were stuck here not able to go home because they had no money. I said that if someone told you that then they are lying. You reached for and continue to reach for reasons that it had to be true (including their families disowning them).

I am in no way saying people can afford a shiny new Cadillac or even a Wagyu A5 for dinner. All I am saying is they can afford bus fare home had they really wanted to go. At the beginning of the month their share of the rent would have been an absolute minimum of $50, when bus fare up out of here is only $10. (Kind of like people saying they can't afford birth control or an abortion, but they can afford to take care of a baby.)

I was willing to easily disprove those messages by offering them a free ride home and spending money. Instead of allowing them to receive free help from me, you are choosing to let them remain stuck and destitute. I do not think you really believed the statement the first time you made it, yet you continue to fight for its veracity.

So you are swearing that a lion is getting ready to eat some kids. I tell there are no kids in the lion cage, but if there are I have a spare rope right here and I can easily get them to safety at no cost or trouble to you. You continue to stress to everyone about the lion about to eat the kids, but refuse to point me towards the cage so they can be easily saved. You want to pull all the fire alarms and yell fire, fire. But when the firemen arrive, instead of pointing them to the blaze you just continue to yell fire. Make that make sense.

[QUOTE=CzarNicholas;2445776][URL]https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/machiavellians-gulling-the-rubes/201610/briffaults-law-women-rule[/URL]

Look up what % of western women file for divorces? 80%? Lmao diminishing marginal utility! Aka the plight / bane of too many western mongers LOL.

Not much better than hypergamy lmao.[/QUOTE]It is the guys' own fault. They beg women to marry them, hand over the keys to the kingdom, then they end up getting put out of the kingdom they built.

American basketball player Stephen Jackson should be a shinning example. He paid $400,000 for a wedding. Him and his bride to be drew up a prenuptial agreement together on how everything would play out if they ever broke up. She put off signing the agreement even up until everyone had showed up at the chapel for the wedding. She had even written in some crazy ass additional stuff in her favor that he never agreed to. The preacher (that she picked out) tried to convince him there was no need for the agreement and everything would be fine with love and god in their lives. He said fuck that bullshit and refused to get married that day.

[QUOTE=PilotPaul;2445751]I looked up some articles about Briffault's law. Interesting reading. While it is true that women may do that calculation, the male also does it. In my case, I stay because I have the freedom to do what I want while enjoying the financial benefit of shared resources.

PP.[/QUOTE]The manosphere has come up with a very important addendum to Briffault's law. The addendum says that what a man gave to or did for a woman, or what a man is giving now or doing now for a woman matters not. Past and present contributions are null and void in the woman's mind. The only thing that matters to a woman is what she can expect to get from a man in the future. This is paramount. Give 1 million to a woman today and you might as well have given her nothing as far as her future behaviour towards you is concerned. FUTURE rewards are all that matter.

Does this also obtain in friendships or business relationships between men (males)? I think not.

[QUOTE=MrEnternational;2445856]It is the guys' own fault. They beg women to marry them, hand over the keys to the kingdom, then they end up getting put out of the kingdom they built.

American basketball player Stephen Jackson should be a shinning example. He paid $400,000 for a wedding. Him and his bride to be drew up a prenuptial agreement together on how everything would play out if they ever broke up. She put off signing the agreement even up until everyone had showed up at the chapel for the wedding. She had even written in some crazy ass additional stuff in her favor that he never agreed to. The preacher (that she picked out) tried to convince him there was no need for the agreement and everything would be fine with love and god in their lives. He said fuck that bullshit and refused to get married that day.[/QUOTE]You left out the best part of the story:

What did he do after paying $400 k for a cancelled wedding? Wheel in the booze, have a kick ass party in the newly available rooms and bang a couple of the Brides Maids for good measure. 😁.

Now that's ballin'.

G.

[QUOTE=XXL;2445864]The manosphere has come up with a very important addendum to Briffault's law. The addendum says that what a man gave to or did for a woman, or what a man is giving now or doing now for a woman matters not. Past and present contributions are null and void in the woman's mind. The only thing that matters to a woman is what she can expect to get from a man in the future. This is paramount. Give 1 million to a woman today and you might as well have given her nothing as far as her future behaviour towards you is concerned. FUTURE rewards are all that matter.

Does this also obtain in friendships or business relationships between men (males)? I think not.[/QUOTE]This is especially true for Filipinas, most of whom, do not love you. They love you because they need you. They do not need you because they love you. Soon as you give the money, etc. It is forgotten. There is no quid pro quo.

Yup, I was specifically referring to a fairly well-known post on Stickman's forums from a while back.

[URL]https://www.stickmanbangkok.com/readers-submissions/2009/11/the-rosetta-stone-of-womens-behavior/[/URL]

As XXL has pointed out, there's a lot more to it than the original formulation by Briffault.

[B]Briffaults Law:[/B]

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.

[B]Corollaries:[/B]

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).

Catch the story from Stephen Jackson's own mouth. [URL]https://youtu.be/mPOdN1F8UCg.[/URL] It looks to me like he just barely escaped a total disaster. Ha Ha. I mean what was he thinking in the first place getting engaged? And take a look at Imani Showalter his once upon a time fiance. Yikes! Apparently he is alright now, but still another casualty of American sexual prison/suffragette. Free your mind of all that feminist crap Stephen and fly to SE Asia or Africa, if you prefer black girls, via private jet as soon as possible. Treat all your sexy new friends nice. You will never look back.

Marriage is a plain vanilla financial contract. Even with the most iron clad prenup it is still a financial arrangement and self inflicted homicide. 555.

On Briffaults Law: I don't subscribe. Take a look at how Lions behave in the wild. The pride is composed of related females and their offspring, but the male Lion is the King. He defends his pride against all and contributes his alpha DNA to future generations. When a male Lion is deposed by another male Lion, the new King kills all the young nursing cubs in the pride so he can begin sowing his seed amongst the females as soon as possible. Were primitive Homo Sapiens significantly different?

[QUOTE=RollAides;2445909][B]Briffaults Law:[/B]

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.[/QUOTE]He should have prefaced it with, "In ordinary circumstances" and then changed "can derive no benefit" to "[B]believes[/B] she can derive no benefit".

I say this because in the cases of pimping and playing you can sell a chick dreams all day long. An extraordinary male can lead the female to believe she can and is deriving benefit, when in actuality she is getting nothing (well nothing tanglible anyway.) Maybe there is some emotional or educational benefit she is receiving.