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.
There are a few corollaries I would add:
- Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.
- 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)
- 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.
Corollary 1 is very important for a man to understand. What this means is that a man could do any or all of the following for a woman and it would mean nothing as far as future association goes:
- Paying off her college loans or credit card debt
- Giving her a place to stay
- Taking care of her children
- Helping her with schooling (e.g., tutoring her, doing her homework)
- Nursing her back to health from illness
- Buying food or gifts for her
- Doing errands of any kind
- Fixing things for her (e.g., plumbing, car repair, computer repair)
- Protect her from danger (e.g., fending off an assailant)
- Slaving away at a 9 to 5 job to take care of her
- Even saving her life
Whether you've done 1,000 acts of virtue for a female or just one, it all counts for nothing. There is no cumulative effect. She will not "love" you just because you've provided food and shelter for her for several decades. Once you have outlived your usefulness to a woman, you are gone. Now you know why a woman will often divorce her husband of 30+ years after he becomes disabled.
Briffault's Law is probably one of the most bitter truths about the "fairer sex" that a man can ever accept.