TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

AestheticAxiom Archive

View 0 posts and 320 comments by AestheticAxiom on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

I don't really see any evidence for this. Nor do I see much evidence that lack of orgasms is a big problem for (most) women in committed relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 04:19 PM
–

Are you saying they really want casual sex even when they think they're only looking for a serious relationship? Because that's what we're discussing - leading women on my dishonestly implying a serious loving LTR might be possible, so you can get laid. In that context, this seems like a very poor excuse.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/24 10:44 AM
–

Fair enough, I take my comment back and apologize. I just got that impression from one of your comments.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/24 11:58 PM
–

What you're describing is deliberately giving someone a false impression, not just "being mysterious"
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/24 11:43 PM
–

You have an unbelievably loose definition of lying.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/24 11:41 PM
–

The sexual revolution is only a few generations old. Being ambiguous about your intentions is at the very least dishonest and manipulative.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/24 11:40 PM
–

Telling someone what they want to hear is unequivocally lying and manipulation, there's no two ways around it
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/24 11:38 PM
10

That is true, but real concern for the women and their wellbeing seems shockingly absent from his post and comments. His argument against dishonesty is that it could cause drama he wants you to avoid.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/24 11:23 PM
15

Ideally because lying and manipulation is wrong, but that's a bit optimistic on my end Also, literally nothing about this is "What people have always done".
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/24 11:20 PM
3

If you're promoting lying and manipulation, at least use straight terminology instead of softening it (I.e. "mystery").
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/24 11:16 PM
17

Probably he wanted more women to say they're okay with something casual, so if all (Or the vast majority) aren't okay with that then it's "not working".
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/24 11:11 PM
13

The reason for honesty is not leading people on, which is way more likely than finding someone who wants something casual but doesn't want to hear it
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/24 11:08 PM
10

That would more than likely be leading on women who are really hoping for something more serious. The "problem" is that the women in question want something serious, so they don't want to date you casually. That's it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/24 10:48 PM
3

The power imbalance stuff is generally bullshit. Just as often the older guy gets played as the younger woman gets taken advantage of. In general we expect older people to be less naive than younger people.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/24 11:08 PM
2

The thing about progressives lifting up (movie) Aragorn as an example of positive masculinity is that (Aside perhaps from the feminist bent they gave Eowyn's story) he's mostly just an example of traditional virtuous masculinity (At least in Christian terms). I mean, he's based on a book character by a decidedly conservative author. So in some sense holding him as an ideal of progressive-friendly masculinity is just going full circle, though I think it's somewhat a case of revealed vs stated pre…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/24 06:19 PM
–

No just somewhat conservative
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/24 09:23 AM
–

Are adult women going to run all their boyfriends by their dad's now and not date whoever he doesn't approve of? Ideally, yes. Unless something is very wrong with the father. It would protect a lot of women from making stupid decisions in the youth.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/24 07:00 AM
–

This argument has been tossed around on this sub for a decade. It's a good one, in principle at least.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/24 06:54 AM
–

"Adult" is polysemous
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/24 06:53 AM
–

That is genuinely awful to hear. Poor girl.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/24 06:36 AM
–

Normal circumstances meaning there isn't something horribly wrong with your family.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/24 06:34 AM
–

Outside of “decent income”, but even then, a young person can be in school or training or have a stable career path and on a reasonably clear track for a decent income. That doesn't help them provide for a family now.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/24 06:34 AM
–

That's a horrible point to debate. Obviously the answer is no, an 18 year old should 100% listen to their family (Assuming normal circumstances).
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/24 06:32 AM
–

The men answering have no daughters but do want to fuck very young women. They’ll say “If he’s a good virtuous man with morals its fine!” Criticizing my reply (Specifically) here instead of replying to me, are you? I am 23 and I'm not looking to "fuck" anyone, much less an 18 year old. I also think there's probably a point at which I would become uncomfortable, though I think it would be more like 40+. I just don't think a 15-17 year old age gap is necessarily bad. What good virtuous man with mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/24 06:29 AM
–

Men and women of different generations absolutely do not. Of course they do. You think this woman is gonna show off or bring her pedo boy friend that’s old enough to be her dad around any of her friends? Probably.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/24 06:22 AM
–

I'm not 35 nor do I plan on dating an 18 year old. I am just not seeing an argument for why the two can have nothing in common.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/24 06:20 AM
–

18 year olds are children now? I still have yet to hear a case for why dating a 10-15 year older man is necessarily bad for an 18 year old.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/24 06:19 AM
–

Unhinged take but okay
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/24 06:15 AM
1

The operating assumption being that this describes the average marriage. This is, of course, anachronistic at any rate.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/24 06:14 AM
–

No, it's obviously untrue. What world do you live in where an 18 year old and a 35 year old can't have the same values, for example?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 10:09 PM
–

Your comment describes bad intentions - the intention of taking advantage of the young person to get "love" (Which is vague but which I guess means sex among other things) without commitment.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 10:06 PM
–

And 18 yo and a 35 yo are going to have very different values, goals, interests, hobbies, worldviews especially, etc. That's definitely, absolutely not true.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 10:04 PM
–

So either your comment doesn't accurately describe your own current intentions, or her parents have some bad ideas about what makes a good relationship, or you're fooling them. I certainly hope it's the first one.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 09:52 PM
–

Goals? An 18 yo and a 35 yo don't have the same goals. Says who? You?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 09:44 PM
–

Forget about angry women, why wouldn't every father in the world want to protect his daughter from someone who admits he's okay taking advantage of her youthful tendency for poor decisionmaking?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 09:40 PM
–

Both of these are wildly incorrect lol
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 09:34 PM
–

Well, okay. Still, my point wasn't that age gaps are bad, my point was that you're defending it poorly by more or less openly saying that young women are better because they make dumb choices. And that's not only because I'm a tradcon who happens to think women demanding commitment is good - if you think women being unmarried at 33 is perfectly good for them then you could still be consistent. The problem is you at least seem to acknowledge that women wasting their 20s on relationships that neve…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 09:30 PM
–

Values, goals, interests, hobbies, worldview, virtues, mutual attraction etc. etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 09:13 PM
–

I didn't say that, though, I just challenged the idea that the original comment could get no honest affirmative answers.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 09:13 PM
–

This is a long list of objections to things I didn't say. I have no problem with age gaps, nor do I think the every guy is a bad guy (Or that the guy is always the bad one). I think you're defending defending age gaps poorly when you advocate men take advantage of young women making poor choices instead of offering them commitment. Honestly it sounds like I may have hit a nerve (Which I honestly wasn't expecting) based on how angry this reply sounds. He’s using her, people use each other to get …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 09:10 PM
–

The US birthrate is also declining last I checked, because people who have children at older ages are way more likely to have one or few children.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 09:06 PM
–

You don't need to speculate to know that women become infertile sooner than men, this is common knowledge.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 09:05 PM
–

That sure is a comparison
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 09:04 PM
–

A healthy baby, yes. Many babies, less likely.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 07:45 PM
–

I've seen this being talked about before, idk what you're talking about. I don't remember criticizing older women having kids either. If women in their 30s I never had kids, I wouldn't have been born.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 07:45 PM
–

No, but it is the guy's fault if he is taking advantage of women in their 20s without ultimately offering them commitment. At that point he is actively participating in creating those conditions.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 07:43 PM
–

That may be true (I haven't looked into it, or fertility in general) but men and women are far from equal in this area.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 07:42 PM
–

Eh, the criticisms against age-gap relationships like generally cast the younger woman as the victim, so this isn't a very strong criticism.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 06:59 PM
–

No one is more in full betabux/goldigger mode and I need guaranteed commitment before love like an unmarried woman 33+. Yeah, because it was a huge mistake for them not to demand commitment in their early 20s. Your argument for dating younger women here is literally that they are more likely to make stupid decisions, so you don't need to commit to them or provide practical things like financial stability. That's a very bad argument in the context of criticizing societal judgement against age gap…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 06:57 PM
–

You don't need to start at 18, sure. Starting after your late 20s as a woman isn't ideal if fertility is the goal.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 06:48 PM
–

He’s interested because dating a woman his own age means she’s two years from becoming geriatric according to an obstetrician. To be fair, there's a significant gap between "18" and "his own age". It's not entirely untrue that most 18 year olds in the modern West are pretty immature and inexperienced.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 06:45 PM
–

What does a 35 yr man have in common with an 18 yr old woman? The same things he might have in common with anyone else?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 06:43 PM
–

Also 18 is v much not your reproductive peak. No, but generally people date for a while before trying for children. You'll also capture more of your best reproductive years by starting slightly before your peak, that's just common sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 06:42 PM
–

You don't think anyone could ever actually be comfortable with their 18 year old daughter dating a guy in his 30s?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 06:36 PM
–

I honestly don't think I'd have a problem with my 18 year old daughter dating a 35 year old man, as long as he was genuinely virtuous, honorable, kind, loving etc. It's hard to say when I don't have a daughter though. Maybe a little as long as she's a literal teenager, but I certainly don't know that I would.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 06:36 PM
1

This seems oversensitive. Criticizing (Rightly or wrongly) some behaviors that are typically more common among men isn't automatically man-hating.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 10:55 AM
1

If you don't know who Gloria Steinem is then you're not very familiar with the feminist movement, or at least its history.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 09:46 AM
1

Identifying a movement by trends among its leaders/thought leaders, celebrities and intellectuals isn't "anecdotal incidents". They actually matter way more than the random, relatively normal woman down the street who identifies as a feminist.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 09:44 AM
1

That's not a fallacy, actually. It's just some random thing Anthony Flew came up with. Or at least, the problem with actual "No true Scotsman" arguments (As they appear in Flew's famous examples) is their ad hoc nature. Just saying that a word has a definition beyond self-identification is not a real informal fallacy by any stretch of the imagination. Admittedly idk what exactly the person here did ofc.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 09:40 AM
1

Do these people even identify as conservative per se? Also, this isn't liberal, it's just pre-Christian morality. Men relieving their excess sexual urges by sleeping with low-status women (Like prostitutes) who they look down on and discarding the children they have with them, has been the norm in many traditional patriarchal societies. Same with polygyny in many cases.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/24 09:29 AM
7

Both of those very clearly happen. In fact "niceness" in general is typically associated with wanting something.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/24 01:09 PM
1

I'm not mad about anything, I'm just incredulous that you can make the fact that men are the ones dying in about women being oppressed.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/24 07:04 AM
-3

Perhaps because you like him or have a history with him? Presumably it would depend on the person's other qualities or circumstances.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/24 09:29 PM
3

That's not true, I have some feminist friends who aren't particularly sexist against men
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/24 09:17 PM
–

This could be said for soooo many of the things someone might contribute with in a two-person relationship. The fact is he's getting up and you aren't (In this scenario), and you wouldn't have anyone to do that for you if he wasn't there. And presumably you want him to get up. The only healthy response to that is some level of appreciation.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/24 09:17 PM
–

The fact that the man in question is doing something for you? (In this case being the tough one who goes to check out a noise while you stay in bed)
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/24 09:00 PM
0

Those are wildly patriarchal societies and have nothing to do with misandry. Both of those countries have deeply rooted traditional gender roles. Don't even get me started on the male on female violence in those countries. Needless to say, this is a system set up by men for men. If you want someone to blame, it's men. Yeah, it's totally oppression of women that leads to men dying in war while women are protected
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/24 08:59 PM
2

Are you incredulous about the prospect of a feminist and antifeminist being (at least) close friends? Really?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/24 08:57 PM
–

Yeah, this isn't a great strategy for a long term relationship either
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/24 08:48 PM
–

This is such an ungrateful response, it just reeks of wanting men to be the strong one in some circumstances without acknowledging or appreciating them for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/24 08:36 PM
–

Men love nurturing femininity, why is it misogyny to love feminine women for being nurturing to us? It isn't, I responded to the vague descriptions of what men provide (An attractive masculine man) with concrete descriptions of what feminine women provide (Housework). Seems like you agree men should be responsible for provision etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/24 08:27 PM
–

Are most of them supporting two or more people on one 50k income, or are most of them dual income households if they have families?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/24 08:23 PM
–

I'm sorry but I really do wonder how many of the men talking about protection/defense or dangerous work on Reddit are actually very realistic about providing that. Like maybe you're the exception but somehow I feel like it's mostly people living comfortable first-world lives for whom the need to protect their family is relatively abstract.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/24 08:21 PM
–

The context here was a post about women becoming somewhat more traditional, so nobody was talking about equality. The comment you responded to was about whether the woman should still do all the housework if the man cannot provide for her. Start instead with the assumption that the man is responsible for providing, and that you as a couple/family might need or want the woman to help with that. That's a more relevant context here. I'm not sure how you purport to objectively determine someone's co…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/24 08:18 PM
1

We're not disagreeing on which laws or norms have existed in history, we're disagreeing about their purpose and (At least in some cases) whether they were entirely without wisdom. For most of history, bans on divorce have been about protecting women from men divorcing them, since that has been the main issue. On that note, the marriages of regular people throughout history need to be understood in the light of very different material conditions. It's not like women's opportunities were lacking j…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/24 08:14 PM
–

Come on, man. Are you really asking women to bring something concrete to the table while insisting that men just need to provide themselves and their good qualities in a vague sense? It's far more stereotypical for women to provide "just themselves".
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/24 08:05 PM
–

This seems unbelievably transactional. If you're more on the cooperation side, it should be more a question of asking "Do we need the extra income and if so, how can we make sure nobody is overworked?".
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/24 06:56 PM
1

Your argument essentially boils down to "Societies before 1900 didn't have modern women's rights, therefore they were awful and treated women like sex slaves." Idk what books you've been reading, but people in the past generally did not describe marriages in terms of women being sex slaves.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/24 12:08 PM
1

Loving history doesn't really prevent you from this vitriolic attitude about the past. That's an ideological thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/24 07:40 AM
0

"Conditional love" and "convenient and easy" aren't synonymous. Is this something you actually believe?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 11:02 PM
-1

Maybe you should wait with the constantly disastrous attempts to get rid of religion until you have an actual half-decent alternative?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 11:01 PM
0

Dude, the “guardrails” existed to prevent women from being financially independent so that men could have sex slaves. There's just no end to the unjustified vitriol modern people have for the past.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 10:42 PM
0

Or that Backstreet Boys were singing about only loving when it's convenient and easy? You think this is the only alternative to unconditional love? Like there are no in-betweens here?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 10:40 PM
-1

It’s not. Religion failed. That’s how we got here. Religion is fundamentally flawed and its flaws are impossible to fix. Man does need a better worldview based on inference from the senses. Yeah, people have been saying this for over two centuries with nothing good to show for it
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 10:38 PM
2

The Victorians were super Christian. Yeah, there are some asterisks to that tbh
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 10:36 PM
2

However some women who criticize the sexual revolution have said things like women have to work but are still expected to do a lot of work in the home, which has added to their labor overall. This is about feminism, not the sexual revolution. There are lots of good criticisms of the sexual revolution from women's perspective, but I don't see this one.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 10:33 PM
-2

You mean the Bright Ages?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 10:32 PM
1

I don't recall Disney or Backstreet Boys explicitly promoting unconditional love
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 10:29 PM
2

It’s hard for me to grasp the concept of unconditional love, because even parental love is reserved for (usually) parents’ biological kids or kids they feel parental responsibility for. So it already has the condition of having parent-child connection. Better examples would actually be, say, people waking up at 5 AM to volunteer in a soup kitchen, or running into a burning building for someone you don't know. You know, people making genuine sacrifices for strangers who won't do anything for them…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 10:23 PM
2

I think it's more because a lot of single men without much experience reek of desperation. So yes, I suppose being more indifferent is an improvement, but the context is very relevant here.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 10:00 PM
2

Yeah this really is just you, dude
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 08:23 PM
1

Lying to get sex is unethical. That's it, that's the refutation.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 08:19 PM
2

Men don't want marriage or serious relationships? Like, what, period? Speak for yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 08:18 PM
2

Based on those things in particular, absolutely. It's hard to say if I'd actually want to live in the early 1900s (Or whatever) as a complete package.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 07:20 PM
1

Maybe you do, but we're talking about generalities. Bringing a person into the world when you are not particularly rich, smart or good looking just so you can feel a personal sense of fulfillment could also be deemed selfish. Bringing a child into the world that will only be needing more from you for years to come is generally not a selfish action, unless you're doing it very wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 04:17 PM
1

"Love" (Not just romantic love) is caring about someone. Willing what's good for them. Empathy is entering into how they're feeling.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 02:37 PM
1

Yeah, you're mocking a position that doesn't exist instead of engaging in anything substantive. Like I said, I don't have the time or energy to continue this particular line of discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 01:33 PM
0

I thought you were discussing definitions? All I said in this convo is that disputing definitions isn't a substantive objection to the OP. I think you're wanting to have some different discussion than that.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 01:23 PM
-1

Yeah, I'm sorry but this doesn't work at all. It's a typical neoliberal dream with no foundation in actual human society. Nations aren't just economic zones and they never will be. You can't just displace people from different cultures and backgrounds all over the world and expect it to work out.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 01:21 PM
1

sigh
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 01:16 PM
-2

Even if you were right, how is the West going through a cataclysmic population collapse while India and the Muslim world keep skyrocketing going to help?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 01:10 PM
1

Your choice. Infatuation doesn't tend to last anyway, and more importantly, strongly desiring someone isn't the same as loving them
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 12:58 PM
1

No, Reddit-atheists who reject unconditional love isn't specifically a thing. I said "Of course someone who rejects unconditional love is also a Reddit-atheist"
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 12:55 PM
1

In the US context, Progressive entails a lot more than just broad social outlook, it's also about what you do about it. What your ideal modes of action are. I'm not a peaceful protest and coffee kind of guy. I'm referring to the social outlook, obviously. In any case, beliefs tend to influence behavior, so if people with your social outlook keep having poor social behavior then something might just be wrong wit hthe outlook. I don't think they're more healthy, just more sustainable. You can live…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 12:53 PM
1

Reddit-atheists? Yes, that's a pretty famous thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 12:51 PM
1

People will say that they believe god exists, but they have no, or terrible reasons for that belief. Of course people who don't believe in unconditional love are also Reddit-atheists lol
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 12:49 PM
0

Yeah, I'm kind of done arguing over the definition. "You're defining unconditional love wrong" isn't a substantive criticism of the OP.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 12:47 PM
1

My impression is actually the opposite. People who have literal arranged marriages often end up healthier over time than people who are too big on the "falling in love" stuff. The modern overemphasis on romantic love seems to correlate with our massive increase in no-fault-divorce rates. I think there are non-insignificant amounts of people who end up getting divorced because they expect the romantic love stuff too much.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 12:46 PM
0

I don't think a couple "not being in love" is a problem. "Being in love" is typically a mix of infatuation and strong desire, neither of which are the primary thing you need to love someone else for years and decades.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 12:35 PM
1

You might be huffing paint if you think secular progressives control society. Public schools, academic institutions and entertainment all tend to be dominated by secular progressive values. In the West, that is. It's been like that for at least decades I can't comment on specific trends going on in America right now, I haven't looked into most of these accusations. Well, I'm not a progressive. I think "Non-progressive communist" is a bit of an oxymoron, but sure, I get you don't have the hedonis…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 12:14 PM
2

"Falling in love" has deceptively little to do with love, at least the kind of love that is actually good for anything. Not nothing, but not as much as modern people are inclined to think.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 12:10 PM
1

That is definitely not true, unless you're a psychological egoist
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 12:08 PM
2

For most people, romantic love remains somewhat conditional but yeah, there's definitely some truth to that.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 12:08 PM
-2

No, non-transactional just means you don't give anything in return. It doesn't really matter, but I think you're being pedantic about the kind of love OP is referring to.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 11:16 AM
-1

No, non-transactional love means non-transactional. It doesn't cover loving people who haven't done anything positive to earn your love. As I said to OP, romantic love is not necessarily transactional, but it always involves the other person having something positive to recommend them. Protecting others you love doesn't necessarily have to mean you stop loving the person who hurt them, it can just mean prioritizing. Just like you probably prioritize your own family over the people down the stree…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 11:10 AM
-2

"Unconditional love" generally means (At least) love that the other person hasn't done anything to specifically earn, and for which you don't expect anything in return. Loving people who have actively given you very good reasons not to love them is for the very few, yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 11:04 AM
1

Not necessarily. If you never love other people (In general, not just romantically) without expecting anything in return, then you're not doing super well.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 11:01 AM
28

That's just not true. Romantic love inherently has a conditional element because we don't choose our partners randomly, or solely based on how much we feel they need us (Although I suppose you can base your partner-choices on unconditional love for future children - i.e. who will be the best father/mother - in principle). If you expect some amount of love in return then it's not unconditional either. In general, I'm not seeing an argument for why love must be unconditional, or why transactional …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 10:59 AM
9

Men good, women bad, eh?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 10:57 AM
0

Are you unironically arguing that men in general only fail to give their female partners love, respect, compassion, understanding etc. because women fail to give it to them? Like are you really under the impression that if women just reciprocated men would be all sunshine and roses?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 09:57 AM
-1

Like the OP, I think you're conflating the term "empathy" with love/altruism. Empathy is in fact about how you feel. It's at least technically possible to do all the altruistic things you describe without ever having an ounce of empathy. Beyond that, some of this is just unironically "Men are wonderful". Most men aren't out there being super loving, altruistic and self-sacrificing either.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 09:50 AM
0

Now you're complementing women, because responding in accordance with the person's objective state is generally better than always entering into their subjective feelings on the matter.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 09:47 AM
1

In general, it seems to me that "empathy" has become a buzzword, often replacing the more old-fashioned word "love".
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 09:45 AM
1

Lots of resources isn't always a benefit, it can make it really hard to figure out who is right and who is wrong. But yes, you should be willing to put your kids first, obviously. You will, however, often have to choose that, not just suddenly find it in your heart.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 09:40 AM
0

You said a "self-focused life," which isn't the same thing as selfish. Yes it is. There are degrees of selfishness, but constantly looking for your own pleasure, comfort, enjoyment etc. without prioritizing others is selfishness. Women don't have children out of fucking altruism, they have them because it's what they want. In many cases, but that's why we are having critically low birth-rates. People who are just focused on serving themselves are rarely going to want to be parents because being …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 09:39 AM
4

Do they when you compare them to women without families?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 09:33 AM
5

Why would we do that when we don't live in a tribe? More complex social structures also means more ways people can contribute in real, tangible ways.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 09:32 AM
2

Yeah, you're never going to have enough people who are just naturally prepared to be great parents. They just have to decide to make those sacrifices.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 09:28 AM
1

Yeah, we've heard that one before
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 09:23 AM
1

I think you conflate empathy with love and care.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 09:17 AM
0

Well, yes, most people in the modern West think the idea that we shouldn't be selfish is bizarre. In part, that's what being rich and comfortable does to you I suppose, and it's a result of our prevailing ideologies. In general, I think you'll find that serving others is a better path to being happy than constantly looking to enjoy yourself as much as possible.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 09:14 AM
1

Incentives can only take you that far. Having children involves sacrifice and that isn't going to change easily. Progressives don't have children because your values just don't fit very well with making those kinds of sacrifices. The fact that conservatives are the ones having families should make you wonder if something is fundamentally wrong with your ideology. And unfortunately, the fact that us horrible religious zealots keep having kids is only going to do so much for us as long as secular …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 08:53 AM
-6

The world isn't overpopulated and Western societies will almost certainly collapse big time if our declining birth rates don't reverse. This take ain't it.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 08:42 AM
0

So do most families. And western societies probably need kids more than they need money. In general it's very hard to deny that modern people's motivation for not having kids is often selfishness. Are childfree women net-positive tax contributors anyway?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 08:38 AM
-1

No, not necessarily. Most people are called to child-rearing as their vocation, and should therefore seek to do it, but some people aren't. The first point isn't true, men don't need children to care about others. The second point is true but doesn't require literally everyone has a moral obligation to have kids. In general, if your alternative to not having children is living a more self-focused life then you're doing something wrong. At least if that's the reason you're not having them.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/24 08:26 AM
1

Well, you said you'll have harmony if you have similar beliefs and empathy, suggesting it's sufficient. Idk how important it is honestly.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 09:28 PM
1

"Submissive" doesn't mean a doormat with no opinion. It just means there's a primary leader in the relationship. Authority and hierarchy isn't bad nor is it necessarily oppressive. In many cases, someone has to have the final word, and I think most people will feel that it's natural for the man to have it unless they've been specifically conditioned to think the opposite.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 08:52 PM
0

but most men don't want a submissive partner either. I'm not sure of that. Only people with control issues want someone genuinely submissive. That is definitely not true. Also, what is non-genuine submission?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 08:47 PM
1

Do women generally want a submissive man, in your opinion?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 08:44 PM
–

If you mean a long-term romantic partner I'm skeptical of that tbh
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 08:38 PM
–

Do you really believe the only reason people struggle finding relationships is that they're "horrible people"?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 08:37 PM
3

Because if you share similar values/beliefs or you can empathize with each then you will have harmony Yeah, that's not true. What is it with this modern enamorment with empathy (In particular) anyway? It's like you actually think it's the only virtue anyone ever needs.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 08:33 PM
2

People here are arguing that men should make their wives' lives less peaceful?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 07:03 PM
5

If many men think it's hard to find a woman who is pleasant to be around, is it possible that the women need to change something?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 06:55 PM
1

Are you arguing that women being picky about who they date is evidence they're narcissistic, entitled, self-entitled and lacking in compassion, empathy and love?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 06:52 PM
3

Yeah, that's not true. I think men are generally better at noticing red flags in men than women are, at least in some cases. In any case, men being bad doesn't mean women aren't.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 06:45 PM
1

I think you might wanna check your eyesight.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 06:41 PM
4

I mean, I don't think we're drowning in loving, compassionate, non-entitled men today either so most of us are getting what we deserve I suppose
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 06:41 PM
9

Could you specify what you're arguing? Your examples are so broad. Are you broadly oppose to the idea that women should try to make their husbands or boyfriends feel at peace? Or that women should try to be pleasant to be around for their husbands or boyfriends?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 06:33 PM
–

Yeah, I agree that some of the "aftercare" stuff is telling. Trauma is probably a factor. There have always been people who are into that kind of stuff, but the rise in popularity might be partly because casual sex is so meaningless now that people need something that feels more exciting or significant. That, and it has been pushed a lot culturally as of late. Surveys suggest that masochistic women tend to interpret it as an act of romantic love (Somehow) while sadistic men generally do not view…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 10:50 AM
–

MMA is violent, yes. What are you even talking about? If you cant engage with this on its terms you'll never understand it. If this means "Always take the word of people who very much want to justify desires that look really bad on face value" then bad idea. You need to start with accepting other people dont have the same relationship with this you do. Why? I assume this isn't the case for the other guy, but the only thing that makes "my relationship" with this different is that I recognize it's…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 10:47 AM
–

This is, for the most part, pure cope. Sadistic men (And it is mostly men) are significantly less safe than men who aren't sadistic. The idea that sadistic men are just like other men personality-wise is also a complete myth. If you get off on physically hurting women, only enjoy it more when they cry or look scared, and (often) only get more excited if they say "Please stop" then you're inherently more dangerous. If we still had a sane society that hadn't been thoroughly propagandized by sexual…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 10:46 AM
–

So aftercare is not what it seems like you think it is. Aftercare is when you are both coming down from a heightened emotional state, a safe space to discuss the scene (what worked what didnt), and help each other move out of sub and dom space. Yeah, no. People in the BDSM community absolutely do aftercare to cope with their feelings of just having done some kindof messed up stuff as well. It can also be a really complex thing where it helps recontextualize traumas. If you really want to learn a…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 10:40 AM
–

Not repressing, suppressing. And the idea we can't or shouldn't deny any of our disordered sexual desires, or that they will "inevitably come out" is just nonsense.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 10:10 AM
–

I don’t judge BDSM or RP or whatever, but things like cuckoldry and race fetishism? Absolutely. There’s not a person on earth that can make me believe that getting off to seeing your wife getting railed isn’t a sign of mental illness. And the race fetishism got out of hand the past few years with IR porn, “BNWO” is some of the wildest shit I have ever seen. Getting off on cuckoldry is mental illness, but getting off on causing people pain isn't? Seems rather arbitrary tbh.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 10:08 AM
–

Tradcon is Redpill, they believe in gender/bio essentialism. That's not the only thing RPers believe
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/24 10:02 AM
1

Well, neither study has good enough sample sizes to draw absolute conclusions, so someone who feels their own experience is sufficiently contradictory could just reject then. Unfortunately I don't have access to either study without purchasing, so unless I missed something I can't actually see the results. And the percentages are what really matters here, since nobody in their right mind would deny that attractiveness plays some role. On the flipside, casual sex vs relationships are a pretty hug…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/24 09:12 AM
2

No, not when it comes to dating either. If you think that, I suspect you're just oblivious to the other side of this coin.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/24 07:48 AM
0

You're going to be reliant on other people no matter what. The only reason you can even pretend you're not is because you live in an exceedingly wealthy society. A husband who (In most circumstances) cares a great deal about you is far from the most dangerous people to depend on. Besides, though it's risky because humans are awful, relying on other humans is a good thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/24 02:25 PM
4

How do you define nagging? If you actually want to change a bad habit, having people continually remind you is annoying but helpful. Also, it's completely ethical for men to break their wedding vows and abandon their family? The idea that people should just abandon their marriages when an issue is important enough is wild.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/24 01:37 PM
2

Do you sincerely think feminists were the only people who wanted looser divorce laws? Afaik, both parties lying in court to get a divorce was a real problem. For the vast majority of human history, strict divorce laws were largely something that protected women. High divorce rates really do fit with boomers' overall behavior profile - on a population level they have a measurable tendency towards selfish behavior.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/24 08:59 AM
1

Yup
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/24 08:57 AM
1

Well, they file the paperwork more at least. It's hard to know how many of the men were in on it. But that's a different problem. We were discussing the risk to _women _. A woman can mitigate the risk of her divorcing by deciding not to divorce (Without exceedingly good cause).
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/24 08:55 AM
2

Women are not living life on tutorial mode. And if you live in a Western country, it's exceedingly unlikely you're living life on "Nintendo Hard". Chances are you're one of the materially richest people to ever live in all of human history, and unless there's some real tragedy in your life your biggest life problem (Aside from spiritual and moral ones) is you don't have enough real problems.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/24 08:53 AM
2

Unless you have kids, you should always prioritize your own life. Lol no
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 11:02 PM
3

Yes but that's not how you really calculate probability in individual circumstances like this. Most men would want their wife to feel they have given them enough evidence to believe they're not going to kill them. Are you really arguing it's healthy for women to worry about their husbands murdering them.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 10:16 PM
6

You ever notice how when women bring a female friend or pepper spray to a date, a lot of men get offended? They say, "Oh, so you're accusing me of being a rapist/murderer? Why are you even with me on this date if you don't trust me?" And then women say, "Oh, it's just for my protection. It's smart not to take any chances." In the same vein, if a man asks his wife/girlfriend for a DNA test to be sure the child is his, then she says "Oh, so you're accusing me of being a cheater? Why are you even w…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 10:06 PM
–

I don't think it's that popular online either, it's just that those voices congregate and (at least to some extent) get amplified. I think a lot of young guys don't understand the difficulty of completely providing for someone (in a financial sense) in the economy that we're in. That's probably true. And also, what if the woman you're providing for starts demanding more out of you? Like an expensive car, large house, multiple vacations per year, and other luxuries? "We can't afford that, honey."…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 09:51 PM
1

Well, no.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 09:42 PM
1

Well, okay. I agree that it's generally not ideal for women not to be productive, and that promoting the "rich idle" version of the "trad" lifestyle has its problems. If that was the specific complaint then maybe I spoke to soon. I would still strongly object to calling rich idle women sex workers, at least if they have a proper long term relationship or ideally a marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 07:52 PM
1

This is such a cynical view of family lives that it's almost unbelievable. All men are never going to respect anything. If "This will work great for everyone" is your standard for being able to say "It's cool that some women are choosing this" then you'll have a hard time.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 07:41 PM
1

Any woman staying home who isn’t a member of the actual capital class is still working all day doing things to enable her husband to spend more time in his job, is making food, cleaning, organizing, planning, paying bills, shopping, and most importantly, taking care of the kids. This is a pretty weak argument. More or less nobody is fully free to "Do whatever they want" or not worry about the daily tasks of living. It's egregiously unnuanced to suggest that the only alternative to being a "Capit…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 07:40 PM
2

I used to be a liberal feminist who wanted a trad girlfriend, actually. Ofc my chances of finding one was basically zero, but I thought it sounded pretty neat. More importantly, I still don't think you're really supporting your negative characterizations of people with traditional beliefs either.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 06:39 PM
1

Probably the one who wants a traditional partner. So what? That doesn't support what you said in any way.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 06:19 PM
2

No
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 05:58 PM
1

"Nice" isn't necessarily a very good compliment, even if in a non-romantic or non-sexual context. If you're not a "fuck boy" then why are you looking to sleep with them after a couple of dates anyway?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 05:34 PM
1

You've driven down and found the problem with essentially all happiness-research. The researchers either have to ask people about their satisfaction (Which seems to be what you condescendingly call "smiley faces") or they have to come up with some random set of criteria that the researchers think are important. Both approaches are deeply flawed. You can't expect a bunch of researchers or leaders to correctly identify the right "metrics" for happiness, nor can you easily get accurate results just…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 05:30 PM
1

Then why would we subject everyone to this supposedly horrible system instead of letting women off? Maybe slow your roll a little before jumping to conclusions, Senator McCarthy. I specifically didn't. I asked you to clarify because a lot of Americans would think Sweden looks pretty socialist. In my estimation it's the most left-wing Scandinavian country in some ways.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 05:19 PM
1

Are you guys actual card-carrying Lenin-defending communists, or are you deeply mistaken about Sweden is like?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 04:39 PM
1

This is such a sneering way to look at people who pursue a different lifestyle from you.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 04:36 PM
1

Yeah, that's the problem with this. There's a reason why marriage was a good idea.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 04:34 PM
0

Yep. Men also shouldn't be allowed to divorce their wives so easily.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 04:32 PM
1

It's sending the wrong message to young girls who are eating this up on social media Why is it the wrong message? That's the thing you're supposed to be arguing. It puts these women in a vulnerable position of being financially dependent on a male. Most likely they'll be fine, though ideally they'd actually be married to him. Most men aren't abusive and it's okay to be vulnerable. It's a major step backwards for women's equality as suggested by Gudrun Schyman (co-founder and former leader of Swe…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 04:31 PM
5

I have never gotten a kick out of criticizing women, nor do I really know any men who seem to.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 04:22 PM
-1

Men don't want kids?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 04:19 PM
1

Age-old tropes typically exist for a reason
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 03:48 PM
3

Confidence is obviously attractive, but in reality it's pretty obviously attractive because it's an indicator of competence (Or other genuinely good qualities). Someone being confident without having anything worth being confident about is thus tricking people around them (Even if unintentionally). I think a DGAF attitude is similar, in that it can kind of look like genuine virtues if you squint hard enough. Caring about fewer things can also just be helpful in getting what you want instrumental…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 03:45 PM
1

The key word there is "Quantifiable". Most people hold other people (In general, not just their romantic partners) to higher standards than themselves in a general sense. Probably not in fitness and wealth.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 03:39 PM
7

You mean others' approval? In quite a lot of cases, "Niceness" means being a pushover, which typically means being weak and timid. Being a "Nice guy" isn't a sign you care about much of anything besides getting what you want while avoiding conflict. I'm sure not caring can be attractive, but I'd be highly surprised if it isn't moreso a matter of not caring about things being instrumentally effective.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 03:35 PM
2

Women are not the only people vulnerable to good-looking, charismatic psychopaths lol "Machiavellianism" is only a term because Machiavelli's approaches are effective (And he didn't write about getting women).
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 03:30 PM
1

Most people hold others to higher standards than ourselves. If there's one thing people are good at, it's making excuses for our own behavior. In this case, however, it's more a case of men and women rightly having different standards. Do you even want a super-assertive woman?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 03:29 PM
1

Yes, men and women are different.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 03:26 PM
2

I think this is a bit oversimplified. There are "Bad boy" traits that seem attractive to some women, particularly young inexperienced women and particularly young women without decent male role models. Also, bad boys aren't the only self-confident men out there. "Nice guys" aren't self-confident because "Niceness" is typically weakness, but "Nice guys" are not-infrequently at least as bad as most bad boys when it comes down to it. The big advantage bad boys have in terms of confidence in the mod…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 03:21 PM
1

I don't understand how this refutes anything I said
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 11:07 AM
1

If you start a sentence with "There is no right and wrong", you're more than likely deeply wrong. I guess I'm just a tradcon though.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/24 10:40 AM
2

You can be left-wing and share my view on kink, sure. I mentioned being trad because OP brought up trad relationships. Though it's certainly less common among progressives who (In the modern day) are hard pressed to ever be "sex negative".
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 06:22 PM
2

He thought it was unnatural. The perverted faculty argument, basically. As for the kink thing, it sounds like you just very strongly believe in the "consenting adults" thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 05:49 PM
2

He thought it was unnatural. The perverted faculty argument, basically. As for the kink thing, it sounds like you just very strongly believe in the "consenting adults" thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 05:49 PM
2

unless you’re Christian, being anti LGBT is an inherently stupid belief that can only be somewhat reasonable if you earnestly believe any sexual preference outside of yours has no right to exist. Not really. You can argue for it being wrong, like Plato did. But yes, I am Christian and definitely wouldn't think homosexuality was wrong if I wasn't. I was raised to think it's good after all. usually when people are extremely anti kink on certain fetishes when you ask them to introspect more deeply …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 05:43 PM
1

You're not sure why human nature isn't infinitely malleable? You can change young men's attitude somewhat, but not by just explaining that they shouldn't think that way. You'll have to actually work with what people are like.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 05:27 PM
4

If I was pro-LGBT I'd still be against several kinks
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 05:17 PM
3

"Human nature isn't infinitely malleable" doesn't mean you can't make any changes to demographics.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 05:12 PM
2

Have they?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 04:51 PM
1

Definitely. It's by no means okay.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 03:56 PM
–

That doesn't mean it came from porn.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 03:13 PM
3

She should have more sex with you, but you also shouldn't just abandon your family and go fornicate instead.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 02:43 PM
10

You should make sex a priority. You also shouldn't up and abandon your children and family because your wife/husband is neglectful in the sexual area. Both can be true at once.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 02:37 PM
9

Yes, changing norms would help. That said, human nature isn't infinitely malleable. You can't just "teach" people to think the "right" way.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 02:36 PM
1

It shouldn't be celebrated if a man leaves his wife for anything at all. Marriages are supposed to be commitments, and they are incredibly important for raising children in good environments. Neither men nor women should just leave because there's stuff they dislike. That completely ruins the point of marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 02:31 PM
–

"It has dragons so it can't communicate any ideas"? Really?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 02:12 PM
–

Female orgasms are an afterthought - a sidequest - on the way to male orgasm Yeah, this isn't because of porn. And I'm the first person to say that porn causes poor perceptions of sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 02:10 PM
9

Are they? I'm against many popular kinks as a more trad person because I think they're either harmful or inherently wrong or both (Like sexual sadism, for example. It's just not good to get off to other people suffering.).
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 01:25 PM
1

It's irrational to think a man is statistically likely to hurt you. It's not irrational to be scared of men (Or bears). It's at least understandable that a bear seems less scary. That just requires having a realistic view of the bear but not of the man. Everyone thinks more statistically about some dangers than about others.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 12:53 PM
1

Love (In the most basic form) is willing the good of the other for the other's sake. Various forms of love, like erotic love or filial love, are variations on that.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 12:48 PM
1

I never said it's rational to think most men will hurt you (Although the vast majority of people are capable of immense evil). In general, though, it's pretty understandable that women are scared of men.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 12:19 PM
10

Single men aren't victims, but I do think you're underestimating how much of a toll modern men's self-esteem takes from not having women who want to sleep with them. A lot of men feel like completely worthless losers if they don't feel like they're sexually desirable.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 12:12 PM
–

You didn't answer the question. How is a woman you didn't choose supposed to steal your sperm?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 12:10 PM
–

The letters are clear, they're just inaccurate
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 12:00 PM
–

It's not actually legal to put a gun to a man's head and demand his sperm. It's also not very common. How is a woman supposed to steal your sperm if you don't let her?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 12:00 PM
–

Blindly trusting anyone is naive. It's still natural to be upset when accused of being potentially immoral by your wife or husband.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 11:53 AM
–

But if there is one ounce of defensiveness, that means that she has something to hide. That should be a signal to men to run for the hills or towards a lawyer. No, it's normal to be defensive about the implicit accusation that you're not trustworthy.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 11:51 AM
1

If they do not "feel" loved by someone dying for them, then they are objectively wrong. They're probably not happy, but that doesn't mean it wasn't love. Finding another man has nothing to do with it, it's perfectly good and cool if a widow finds another man.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 11:01 AM
2

Love isn't something you feel to begin with, not primarily anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 10:18 AM
2

Love isn't something you feel to begin with, not primarily anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 10:17 AM
2

That's bad yk. They should love all women.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 10:17 AM
1

Love isn't a feeling
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 10:15 AM
8

the only reason for a man to commit to a woman is and always has been scarcity of other options. thats why alot of men with high dating market value never commit until they actively decide to want to have children. This would mean that men don't actually love women either.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 10:13 AM
1

Most people aren't very loving but no, women are in fact capable of love and can in fact care about their man's well-being. Everyone loves themselves unless something is deeply wrong. For most people, most of things we do are for own benefit - which is exactly what loving yourself means. The worst port of this post is portraying men as if most of us were altruistic heroes ready to sacrifice ourselves for other people. This is absolutely, categorically not true. Men are not better people than wom…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 10:09 AM
1

There is literally nothing more categorically loving than dying for someone else. That's basically the essence of love - as in, if that's not love then nothing is. If you're a naturalist then everything is just an "Evolutionary benefit".
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 10:05 AM
3

Well it was true before but the modern man don't go to war and we see rare cases where a modern man is ready to die for someone else War has, for most of history, been defined by warriors imposing brutal violence on others. The idea that the average male warrior has typically been some altruistic hero dying for a good cause is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 10:03 AM
1

You remember why most studious males in school were all unattractive? No, actually, I remember several studious and attractive people. At least in high school.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 09:57 AM
1

Well, you don't need to be a genius to have to degrees. Depends on the degree, obviously.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 09:55 AM
1

I mean, most people do actually survive encounters with bears relatively unscathed iirc
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 09:53 AM
1

There's enough blame for both. Nobody's forcing men to contribute to their self-destruction either.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/24 09:50 AM
1

Lol You're the one being pedantic when saying: Yes, I said you're falsely accusing me of making this pedantic point. You really don't read what I write. "Are you suggesting this proves every woman wants to be with them?" Standard absolutism fallacy No, that's not any kind of fallacy. I didn't point to the one exception or anything like that. From this entire society "This society man" isn't an answer. I am disputing that women in general actually claim this. If they do, it's a ridiculously obvio…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 11:13 PM
1

So no, you did not read what I wrote.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 09:52 PM
1

"Do you mean literally every single woman, out of literally billions of women?" No. What I meant was quite straightforward and pretending it's some pedantic point about "Literally every single woman" is a rhetorical ploy. Women claim that 90+% of their attraction is based on personality while they choose only the top 5% of men on dating apps I have never heard an actual real-life woman claim that 90+% of their attraction is based on personality. Where are you getting this from? I do, interesting…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 09:52 PM
2

Which is why women only choose the top 5% of men on dating apps, and why a thousand women a day match with high value men, despite them openly admitting to being literal "grapists", and "pea doughs", and agree to having sex with those men within literally the first couple of messages, no matter how much those men humiliate them, right? Did you not even read what I wrote?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 08:58 PM
2

Lol This is short for "I don't have a response"? There are decent responses btw, but this isn't one of them. It's an entirely fair comment based on the data you've cited. Combining divorce stats with the stats where women consider 80% of men as below average in terms of attractiveness, clearly shows that their reason for marriage definitely wasn't attraction Women finding 80% of random men below average is also very easily explained by the age-old wisdom that women are generally less interested …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 08:13 PM
1

You seem to have exactly one talking point. Which men, specifically, are these and how does them getting "A thousand women a day" tell us all we need to know about the entire female population? Are you suggesting this proves every woman wants to be with them?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 08:03 PM
1

You seem a bit bitter. Most men I know treat their female partners well. Making fun of someone isn't necessarily ill-intended. It also depends on the recipient. A lot of men especially make fun of each other as a bonding thing. I agree that some men should be more careful about making fun of / complaining about their wives and girlfriends. Doesn't make them bad partners overall though.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 02:32 PM
0

Most men are not in fact like that.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 02:19 PM
1

This is a different topic. I don't think choosing to stay with someone ever makes you at fault, because choosing to stay is almost always a good thing. If your wife would have taken a "No" well, and you still say "Yes", then I can agree that you're somewhat at fault for her nagging you about it. Like the other person said, if I want to change some behavior but is struggling, being nagged politely can be good even if annoying.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 12:08 PM
1

When you put it like this, that sounds somewhat reasonable.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 12:01 PM
1

So the real problem is that the men are weak and can't say "No" when they mean "No". That does actually make a lot of sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 11:20 AM
1

Exactly. Huh? Is he always getting nagged in multiple relationships? Is this exclusively about men who get nagged in multiple relationships? What if a lot of women just have a nagging problem?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 11:13 AM
2

Sure, those men should grow enough of a spine to tell their wives "no".
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 10:25 AM
1

Maybe. I don't see how this has anything to do with what I wrote. I'm by no means allergic to men being the problem. But women undoubtedly sometimes nag when the man isn't the problem. Also, would you flip this around?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 09:57 AM
0

It's very, very rarely better to get divorced. If the woman is making unreasonable requests, or requests she can't just always expect him to acquiesce to, then she should stop nagging him about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 09:53 AM
2

Idk about that. Seems like an oddly specific complaint anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 09:49 AM
1

The sexual revolution and overall degredation of personal morals have been detrimental to society. It would be better for society if conservative men didn't sleep around, much less lying and basically committing fraud to do it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 09:42 AM
1

That doesn't strictly prove anything. It could just be that women are more likely to do the paper work. Assuming both parties knew a divorce was coming, it doesn't directly tell us who actually initiated.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 09:21 AM
1

If it's really unhygienic then that would be an argument for men shaving as well. If it's not a big hygiene issue then OP is wrong and it's really just a preference.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 09:18 AM
2

Even if we assume uniformity among women, a far simpler answer is that the abusive man holds power. The fact that she's free to leave is a lot more abstract than someone exerting power over you right there in your living room. Ofc, the idea that some abusive men use cult-like manipulation tactics is not just some blue-pill lie either.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 09:11 AM
2

Thanks for showing us that many men Many people. Women are not exempt from this.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 09:00 AM
2

He literally says in his flair that he is diagnosed with ASPD. If that's unironic he's not average on the "caring" front. But yes, most people are selfish.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 08:57 AM
2

Tolerating something doesn't mean it's not important
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 08:55 AM
3

Are we presupposing that the requests not being listened to are reasonable ones in the first place? If so, is this really a widespread problem?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 08:51 AM
4

This is a naive view of how people are affected by fiction. People know intellectually that commercials are trying to sell them something but they still affect our perceptions.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 08:36 AM
1

If this is true, he sounds kinda pathetic, at least in this area. Certainly not representative.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 08:16 AM
1

Like I said, I don't think I'd consider morally wrong if my wife did it to me
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/24 08:00 AM
2

It's not a random example because it's very easy to argue that most religious women won't be down for it. If you picked something that doesn't involve a threesome, you'd find more conservative religious women who will do it. In any case, hunger for depraved and kinky sex tends to follow from too much casual sex. Normal conservative people shouldn't necessarily need to desire stuff like that. And, I forgot to mention, you can't find a representative sample of conservative religious women by sleep…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 10:59 PM
1

It's so typical that it's literally a trope. Among whom? No Christian girl will suck her friends cum off your dick and ride you into next week. If good sex = extramarital sex, then I don't want good sex. Fortunately this is not good sex. I've fucked my fair share of them and my anecdotes match the tropes of the world. And as we've established, promiscuity is actually a bad approach for sexual satisfaction. again we aren't talking about promiscuous women. I said conservative women. You literally …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 10:51 PM
2

https://spark.bethel.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=psychology-students https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/138/ Also promiscuity does not equal liberal or conservative. It's more that liberal people are statistically smarter (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/), College-education doesn't equal intelligence. Therefore: Conservative women are statistically dumber and have less sexual satisfaction because the…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 10:38 PM
0

I care what two consenting adults are doing. Also, if you explicitly lie (Which was the topic) it's not exactly even consent. Consent is a terrible standard for ethics anyway. If you push it far enough, almost nothing is entirely consensual.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 10:26 PM
1

If you're a conservative, you should be want it to be hard. It's also not really that hard.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 10:23 PM
1

Lacking in virtue should harm your self-image. Promiscuity, dishonesty and fraud are not virtuous.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 10:22 PM
0

That's not a specifically male POV, it's an "immoral person" POV.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 10:22 PM
1

More importantly, do you as a conservative man believe it's morally okay to lie to get sex?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 10:18 PM
1

You cant have it both ways, you cant have women be this special protected class and fully empowered participants of society at the same time. A scam artist is still guilty of scamming you even if you should've known better.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 10:16 PM
1

I can literally hear their pathetic line of thought right now. "My consent to have sex is conditional on the man viewing like a human being and not supporting rapists trying to take away women's rights. If a man intentionally hides this from me to have sex with me, then it's an act of rape that would cause me lifelong psychological trauma". Well, it's not rape, but it's also not entirely untrue. If you need to lie in order to get laid, then the consent was in fact predicated on that. That's not …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 10:16 PM
1

Lying is a lesser of two evils in this case. Do you sincerely think promiscuous sex (and otherwise compromised personal morals) is what conservatives need to beat the left? Even if utilitarian calculus could justify immediately immoral behavior, this would still just be inaccurate.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 10:08 PM
1

She's right though. Lying about who you are to get laid is pathetic and, at the very least, extremely dodgy behavior. It's essentially being a scam-artist.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 10:04 PM
9

Spoiled or traumatized
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 09:47 PM
1

That depends on the person. For example, I am either autistic or borderline autistic so my ability to improve on picking up ques is likely limited.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 09:43 PM
1

Yeah, this is messed up but I also don't think it's representative of the average husband.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 09:38 PM
2

That is true, our society is rapidly morally degenerating. It does, however, still have some leftovers from Christian values.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 09:33 PM
2

Are you sure that you're actually loving your husband in the way he wants to be loved when you get him lots of gifts? That you're not just mirroring how you want to be loved? If not, you may easily be just as inattentive.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 09:30 PM
1

Post-Christian? Men caring for their children is a just a regular Christian value. It's literally in the Law of Moses.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 09:26 PM
1

This clip feels grossly materialistic more than anything. Of course, even if it was true that men are too inattentive, your post also implies that women aren't equally inattentive. I think that last claim, in particular, needs substantiation.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 09:23 PM
1

I think you're actually describing an apolitical woman more than anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 09:19 PM
1

A woman's fist question to a man should be "do you agree to support the child if I get pregnant". Yes. It's a woman's decision to then fuck or not fuck a man if he openly responds by telling her "I don't commit to an agreement to support children if you get pregnant". No, a woman being stupid does not negate a child's right to their father's care. That simply doesn't follow. It's possible for a woman to be irresponsible and blameworthy and for the man to have a responsibility to care for their c…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 09:13 PM
1

I know some really conservative (Non-religious) women who are definitely on the less promiscuous side. In general, if you're super-promiscuous you just shouldn't be labeled a conservative.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 09:09 PM
1

He is mostly describing a caricature of a feminist.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 09:05 PM
1

Meanwhile, progressive women fundamentally despise the male gender as a whole, and view men as essentially defective females. Yeah, this really isn't necessarily true. Just imagine- you're dating a progressive woman and every day she rants about a different feminist topic, Do you know any progressive women in real life? I hate to be the defender of progressives here, but this is just exaggerated to a comical degree. You're describing a right-wing satire, not the average real progressive woman. T…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 09:04 PM
1

This worked in Ancient Greece because people didn't care about low status women/people (Or, for that matter, the children they produced with them). They were happy to make low-class women (And underage boys btw) rape-slaves and then look down on them for it. In a society that recognizes some level of dignity and value among all humans, this system is intolerably hypocritical.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 08:49 PM
1

I guess that could be fine. For example if she was aiming for family instead.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 08:45 PM
1

I already answered that question to the best of my ability. You seem to be looking for an argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 08:39 PM
1

Norah Vincents experiment proves this. As she killed her self after pretending to be a man for 3 months. One woman cannot possibly prove anything about a population of millions.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 08:38 PM
2

Women do not suffer. This is an insane take a starving african kid. Comparing Western men to starving children is one of the most spoiled, entitled things I've ever seen. If you're anyone in a Western country, chances are very high you're one of the most materially privileged people who have ever lived in all of human history.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 08:36 PM
1

Make child support an opt-in contract similar to pre-nuptial agreements. Nah, dude. If you don't want to raise and support a child, you can keep it in your pants.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 08:33 PM
2

I can't imagine myself forcing any kind of sexual attention on my (hypothetical) future wife if she explicitly refused, but I also can't imagine I'd accuse her of sexual assault if she did it to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 08:31 PM
1

This is a fake fallacy
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 08:26 PM
1

Yes, though I'd certainly prefer an educated woman. "Directionless" and "Lack of ambition" might need some clarification though.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 08:16 PM
2

All statistics suggest that promiscuity lowers sexual satisfaction. It's progressives who seek to explain this away, not the other way around.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 05:20 PM
1

I know some pretty outspoken leftist women who are naturally physically attractive tbh
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 05:18 PM
2

We could ban those too.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 05:16 PM
3

Husbands and wives are morally entitled to each other's bodies. As in, husbands and wives are morally obliged to give the other a reasonable amount of sexual attention.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 05:16 PM
1

Husbands and wives should seek to meet each other's needs within reason, yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 05:13 PM
2

Banning divorce means men have to stay with women who don't meet their needs. What are you on about?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 05:13 PM
1

The word "Depraved" inherently implies it's something you shouldn't do.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 05:12 PM
4

This is something you should be able to positively communicate, whereas OP seems to be suggesting that "No touching your wife without positive consent" should be the default assumption. On top of calling it sexual assault.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 05:04 PM
1

Husbands should 100% feel comfortable touching their wives' bodies without asking for or looking for consent (Or vice versa). In a marriage, consent should at the very least be the default assumption unless the wife or husband explicitly says "no". A marriage where the default assumption isn't that you're allowed to touch the other person (Sexually or otherwise) sounds like a nightmare.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 05:00 PM
1

Young and inexperienced people will still make bad decisions.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 04:58 PM
1

Romantic love isn't naturally unconditional.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 04:50 PM
1

But not every woman is emotionally mature or functioning either. Bad personality traits are actually pretty evenly distributed.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 04:45 PM
1

This isn't true. There are male feminists who do in fact believe what they say. I feel like this is projection tbh.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 04:35 PM
3

If testosterone makes you mean or selfish you were probably a bad person to begin with. Then again, most people are bad people to begin with.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 04:25 PM
3

Women who actually dislike being treated well are just damaged in some way. Niceness should be unattractive insofar as it's a sign of weakness.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 04:16 PM
1

Marriage for love has been viewed positively since the middle ages or so, and was certainly popularized by the 1950s. I've actually heard someone argue that romantic love was popularized because the industrial revolution (initially) left women more at their husband's mercy, making it more vital to find a husband who really cared about them. Pre-industrial societies didn't have women (Among common people) just being "domestic servants".
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 04:05 PM
1

No offense but yeah, trad marriages are traditional meaning no promiscuity.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 03:51 PM
1

This isn't really a question of whether you live by the Bible without exceptions, but whether video games/cartoons/Halloween/whatever are opposed to the Bible.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 03:51 PM
1

Eh, a lot of actual traditional (As in old) relationships weren't based primarily on romantic love. It's perfectly traditional to ask whether someone would make a good husband/wife/father/mother before asking whether you like their personality, and being able to provide as a husband/father can be part of that.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 03:46 PM
1

Conservative as in actually conservative? I doubt it. Conservative as in voting for "Conservative" parties? Or maybe "Barstool conservatism"? Maybe. I know lots of attractive left-wing women, though admittedly I'm not American.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 03:36 PM
1

Well, sympathy is better than empathy (Though I'm not entirely sure about how you define them). Empathy is commonly used as a buzzword all around. I feel like progressives in particular have decided to replace "love" (Outside the context of sexuality or romance) with "empathy" in their discourse.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 03:29 PM
1

I doubt that. Upper middle-class Americans (At least) seem to lean liberal. Successful men who sleep around have always supported abortion - they basically invented it.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 03:24 PM
1

As a conservative man I don't think I'd be open to dating a liberal woman. Then again I don't imagine myself cheating on my (hypothetical) wife. A properly conservative man isn't sleeping around and lying about himself to enhance his promiscuity, or at least he shouldn't be.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 03:23 PM
1

Yes. 2-4. Probably not.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 03:22 PM
1

Where are the women celebrating getting the ick from seeing a man chasing a ping pong ball?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 03:19 PM
2

As a man I understand the difference between hating and not wanting to date someone. There are lots of women I positively love but don't want to date. Being a single mother can be something the woman is to blame for, but in general the father (Assuming he's around) carries more of the blame. What you're describing seems more like backpaddling (Or a kind of "Motte an bailey") than not actually not understanding the difference..
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/24 03:12 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter