TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Appropriate-Ad2175 Archive

View 1 post and 210 comments by Appropriate-Ad2175 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)
77

CMVAppropriate-Ad2175/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/21 09:26 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

That only shows women in their 20s are happier than men in their 20s, not that single women are happier. In fact, research shows quite conclusively that married women are happier than single women.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/21 08:02 PM
0

Your new article is citing the same debunked source, Paul Dolan's misreading of a previous study. There's no study showing single women are happier, such study never existed to begin with.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/21 07:39 PM
-1

The blog you posted is citing a statement Paul Dolan later retracted, as he completely misunderstood the study he was referencing. Turns out he was completely wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/21 07:32 PM
52

Contrary to what some of the gaslighting you're receiving here suggests, people who haven't participated in casual sex do exist. Even among American college students, who are famous for their hookup culture, there's a sizeable minority of around 20% to 40% who have no "hook-up" experience. That number is probably and surprisingly higher nowadays, as the amount of young adults who have casual sex has strongly declined in the last years.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/21 11:30 PM
18

Global STD pandemic
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/21 04:55 PM
1

Men definitely want to have a gf more than women want to have a bf in a more general sense. There's no evidence for this. One of the studies tiposk posted provides evidence against that claim. Table 1 shows that a virtually identical percentage of women and men (69% and 70%) wish there were “more opportunities for finding someone to have a relationship with” at their school, and about the same percentage of women and men (95% and 93% of those not in a relationship) say, “If I met the right perso…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/21 02:06 PM
2

Men age much more quickly in my opinion. Dermatologists disagree.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/21 09:07 PM
2

why is beta-buxxing for single mothers so common? Is it? I rarely see it IRL, it doesn't seem like a common occurrence beyond certain educational attainment.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/21 12:57 PM
6

Considering the majority of marriages fail That's just not true, specially among the college educated, who have a fairly low divorce rate.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/21 10:47 PM
5

marry at 30 or older The optimal age to marry is between your late 20s and early 30s.. Those who tie the knot after their early 30s are now more likely to divorce than those who marry in their late 20s. Past the early 30s, the odds of divorce increase by 5 percent per year of age at marriage—but it's not clear why.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/21 10:41 PM
–

Looks like OP has never heard of the concept of evolution and sexual selection, and thinks what humans perceive as attractive is purely socially conditioned, ignoring pretty much the entirety of scientific research on the subject.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/21 04:00 PM
1

yes because of social conditioning. Pure nonsense. This tabula rasa view of human nature is pseudoscientific drivel, rejected by every relevant field of study. If monogamy and desire for sexual exclusivity were merely product of social conditioning, they wouldn't be as widespread through our species as they are. These mating behaviors are clearly evolutionary adaptive to a large extent.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/21 10:25 AM
1

The people you call "insecure" for desiring sexual exclusivity represent the vast majority of humanity. I would say these far better represent "human nature" than whatever fringe communities you belong to.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/21 10:04 AM
1

Such "communities" have always been on the fringe of society. They do not represent "human nature".
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/21 09:45 AM
2

Monogamy does NOT go against "human nature". Stop saying pseudoscientific nonsense.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/21 09:38 AM
–

The worst thing is that everyone saw this coming
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/21 06:17 PM
1

most surveys say single women are happiest of all categories. Which surveys? Cite them
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/21 02:16 PM
7

You look at the tragedy that's going on in Afghanistan and this is what you think of? Do you really want to reduce such a complex issue to "MEN BAD"? Do you really think you can make absolute generalizations about anthropology, history, psychology and sociology from such a surface understanding of an armed conflict? Absolutely atrocious post.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/21 12:06 PM
2

What an absolute clusterfuck the last few weeks have been
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/21 04:46 AM
2

Right. Peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals are just the work of evil men conspiring to groom women into slavery. Viewing the world this way truly makes sense to any sane mind. Are you afraid of 5G towers too?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/21 08:32 PM
3

You kidding? Imagine a man dating a woman, and telling her that he does not like having sex before emotional commitment that take months to develop, to make the woman think he is a 'serious' man who only looks for 'serious' relationships, only to have other women he fucks at the side, keeping her completely in the dark about this. Is that not manipulative to you?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/21 07:36 PM
3

The behavior I posted is clearly manipulate. Whether you agree with the 'spiteful' qualifier or not is inconsequential.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/21 07:29 PM
3

Do you know what an hyperlink is?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/21 07:16 PM
5

I already explained how FDS seeks to manipulate men, you have provided no rebuttal whatsoever. I've never defended TRP, and I've never said they don't engage in manipulation. What TRP does is ultimately irrelevant to my argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/21 07:06 PM
3

No need to look at your post history, your passive aggressive comments are right in front of me. This whole reply chain started because a user claimed FDS doesn't teach to manipulate men, which is demonstrably false, as I've shown FDS does indeed instruct its followers to manipulate men. Your diatribes were completely unrelated to the argument I was making, and a failed attempt to personally attack me, as I've never been part of TRP or any similar community. You sound upset.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/21 06:58 PM
3

Nobody is bitching and moaning here. I think you're just projecting, judging by your comments in this thread. "But TRP does it too!" is not a counterargument to my point, you should refine your debating skills.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/21 06:45 PM
5

The discussion was about FDS promoting manipulating men as part of its "strategy". What TRP does is irrelevant to the argument. You're taking this too personally instead of following the argument. What FDS does is utterly irrelevant to me on a personal level. I don't live in the anglosphere, the chances of me meeting an FDSer in real life or FDS impacting my personal life on any level are virtually nonexistent, I'm simply criticizing FDS on a debate subreddit that exists for this kind of discuss…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/21 06:29 PM
9

What's the argument you're trying to make here? "But men do it too" would be a tacit admission that FDS does indeed instruct its members to manipulate men.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/21 02:46 PM
11

Is that what you got from my comment or are you being intentionally disingenuous?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/21 05:23 AM
3

The fact that the media puts so much focus on "incel terrorism" when it is an extremely fringe form of violence, with a fraction of the casualties of daily shootings in the U.S., only further strengthens my point that it is an overblown issue. Is "incel terrorism" a bad thing? Absolutely. Should it be stopped? Totally. But in the grand scheme of things, of all the causes of violence and death, it is a negligible problem. Part of being a civilized society is knowing how to prioritize issues to al…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/21 05:21 AM
11

The reason it is 'controversial' is because a lot of women use dates as free meals, and as a result men are wary of such behaviors. Most men won't have any issue with paying for dinner dates for women they already know and have developed feelings for, but FDSers expect even men that they have barely just met to pay for everything, which is not a particularly productive "dating strategy".
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/21 04:49 AM
24

Tricking men is literally part of their pseudoscientific dogma. No one with a working brain could read a post like this and interpret it as anything else than an spiteful attempt to manipulate unwitting men.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/21 04:28 AM
8

The manosphere is churning out actual terrorists who kill and rape people. This is such an overblown issue. How many mass shoters come from the "manosphere"? How many deaths can be attributed to the "manosphere"? How does it compares to other forms of violence? For reference, over 50 people get shot to death in the U.S. every day. A handful of fringe cases in the span of decades is hardly "churning out" in the grand scheme of things.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/21 04:14 AM
0

I get it, you don't like the fact that research proves your beliefs wrong. No need to burst a blood vessel over it.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/21 11:18 PM
3

I'm honestly surprised how this whole "Chad" meme, that was for years an obscure manosphere/4chan term, suddenly exploded in the mainstream.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/21 12:04 AM
1

You either did not bother reading anything or you're arguing in bad faith. There was no study saying single women are happier to begin with, Dolan made a claim based on a misreading of a study that did not support his thesis.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/21 11:20 PM
1

Considering divorce rates of roughly 50% in the U.S. That's a myth
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/21 06:55 PM
1

Genuinely curious about what confuses you here. Paul Dolan promoted his book, claiming research showed single women are happier than married women This claim got plastered all over the internet, often parroted with dubious intentions (e.g. FDS using it as part of their anti-male dogma) Another researcher showed that Dolan fatally misinterpreted the research, Dolan had to retract (yes, he did, read the Vox article) and edit his book to remove that factually false statement It turns out the academ…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/21 06:43 PM
3

I did not chose to make this post a CMV, a mod did, even though it's discussing studies and not personal views. Ah well.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/21 01:17 PM
4

You sound upset that FDS dogma is hilariously wrong. Did you read the article? Dolan himself had to respond, admit he was mistaken and retract. That's a complete admission his statement about single women was completely wrong. And did you read the second article? It cites papers from peer-reviewed journals showing married women are happier. That's what the actual science says, no matter how upset it makes you.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/21 01:10 PM
2

Shere Hite based those numbers on a sample so biased it's unusable, which is why her research hasn't been replicated in over 30 years.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/21 01:17 AM
3

Again, assuming half of marriages end in divorce Wrong assumption.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/21 01:05 AM
3

So take away women who asked for divorce, the women who are unhappy in their marriages and are you really left with a majority? Yes. Only a small minority of people are unsatisfied with their relationships. 64% of Americans reporting they are "very happy" in their relationship, and just 19% say they're unhappy to some degree
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/21 01:01 AM
3

I'm not scaring anyone here, unless you're scared by studies.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/21 12:48 AM
4

You observe the opposite. I'm talking about what the research observes, not about my own personal observations. They literally had the thing you say makes them happy and chose to be single instead. You're conveniently omitting the fact that nowadays most marriages don't end up in divorce. By your own logic, most women are content with their marriages.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/21 12:35 AM
7

I'm not saying anything about anyone being miserable here, I'm setting the record straight on a debunked claim that has been constantly repeated on the internet.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/21 12:29 AM
2

But most men are shit partners and are looking for a mommy mcbangmaid. If this hypothesis was correct, we would observe single women being happier than married women, but we observe the opposite
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/21 12:26 AM
2

Separated and divorced people tend to fall into a less-happy bucket, while the never-married and widowed fall someplace in between. The divorced are less happy than those who never married to begin with (but both of these groups are less happy than married people), which makes sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/21 11:28 PM
1

Aren’t men the ones complaining about 30% of men being sexless? I've literally never met anyone in real life talking about this. No one in my social circle has problem dating, no guy in my social circle dates down in terms of looks or education. This idea that men have no standards and will take whatever they can matches neither my life experiences nor research in human mating.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/21 04:16 PM
1

If that were true then incels, TRP, and “dUmPsTeR DiViNg” wouldn’t exist. How representative of the general population you think those groups are? I suggest you meet people outside of reddit.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/21 04:00 PM
1

Men in general have options, believe it or not. That's why assortative mating and female intrasexual competition exists. If men in general did not options (which conceptually makes no sense, as humans are mostly monogamous) we would not observe those patterns and behaviors.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/21 03:55 PM
9

Looks like FDS has fried your brain. Men with options have standards, and women compete with each other as well. The idea that selection lies entirely on the woman and that men have no standards is just bizarre wishful thinking from FDS.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/21 03:20 PM
–

Sigma males Oh God, not again...
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/21 06:41 PM
5

Where does the term "n-count" come from? I know "body count" is a common colloquialism in American English, but I've never seen "n-count" used outside this subreddit.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/21 01:52 PM
0

Single women are happier than married women They aren't. OP is wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/21 07:54 PM
2

You fell for debunked pseudoscience.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/21 07:48 PM
0

Why are single women happier than married women? They aren't. You fell for an erroneous statement that was later retracted, but was parroted by unscrupulous journalists not trained in scientific journalism. A new book says married women are miserable. Don’t believe it. ​ Last week, a shocking claim about happiness made the rounds in the press, from the Guardian to Cosmopolitan to Elle to Fox. The claim? Women should be wary of marriage — because while married women say they’re happy, they’re lyi…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/21 01:46 PM
26

This goes well with the findings of Okcupid, where guys here gloated about Okcupid showing that men have more “realistic perception” of female beauty, but ignore that OkCupid found that the majority of male messages disproportionately went to the hottest women. What happened “Watch they do, not what they say”? I guess that stops when it shows men in a bad light. Yeah... no. The fact that guys rated female attractiveness following a normal distribution, which is how a reasonable person would rate…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/21 05:47 PM
3

He built his "brand" using the trust fund set up by his father. His "business" is hemorrhaging money like crazy.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/21 03:57 PM
1

There’s like 0.5% of the female population who uses dating apps as free meals, 'Foodie calls' are a lot more common than you suggest.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/21 03:56 PM
2

No one with a three-digit IQ looks up to Bilzerian.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/21 03:44 PM
7

Only a minority of PPD posters are above 30. It is to be expected most people here don't aim for a partner who is 35+ years old.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/21 02:49 PM
1

Your claims that research about body counts from 20 years ago before OLD and before the acceptance of sexual promiscuity is simply poor critical thinking By 2004 (the date you consider too dated for studies) promiscuity was not taboo in American culture by any stretch of the imagination. Cite research explicitly arguing the introduction of OLD somehow has somehow erased the strong correlation between sociosexuality and extra-pair mating, otherwise your point is merely unsupported conjecture.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/21 01:50 AM
1

Yes, divorce law certainly impacts divorce rate, nothing controversial there. And yes, data from 20 years ago can absolutely matter today. If every study older than 5 years was obsolete, we may as well get rid of the entirety of social sciences.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/21 01:49 AM
1

Divorce in the 60s was far harder due to the fact not a single U.S. had no-fault divorce law.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/21 12:36 AM
1

Notice that this user couldn't make any sound criticism of the methodology of the studies. Sample sizes hundreds and thousands are more than adequate when researching sociosexuality, and this user's argument that these studies should be ignored because they are too old for his arbitrary standards fell apart. His main line of argumentation was not only not sound, but it was outright based on statements that were opposite of observed reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/21 12:07 AM
1

That is utterly unrelated to my argument, that sociosexually unrestricted women have less sexual satisfaction in a committed relationship than sociosexually restricted women, lmao
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/21 12:01 AM
1

approximately half of the men and women in the top (withinsex) quintiles of sociosexuality had been sexually unfaithful to a steady partner; this was more than a tenfold increase over the corresponding rate for people in the bottom quintiles. Sexual infidelity is a common cause of divorce cross-culturally (Buss, 1994) Do individual differences in sociosexuality represent genetic or environmentally contingent strategies? Evidence from the Australian twin registry. J. M. Bailey, K. M. Kirk, G. Zhu…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 11:59 PM
0

Absolutely pathetic. Anyone can read the discussion and see how weak your position is and how hilariously slanted your "summary" is. You're trying really hard to save face, but it's not working. Here's an overview of the studies researching sociosexuality and infidelity for those interested: A truism in psychology is the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. This is no less true with sexual behavior. One of the strongest predictors of marital infidelity is one’s number of prior sex…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 11:56 PM
1

Higher casual sex partners (1970s) -> same level of divorce. We don't have a data point in the mid 70s, we have a data point at 1970 and another at 1980 that shows a significant increase in divorce rates, significantly higher than today's. What could explain this? Marriages that began during the decade started to fail at an increased rate during the late 70s. Why would marriages during the mid 70s show an increase in divorce rate during 1970 (not the 1970s, 1970)? Use your critical thinking skil…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 11:43 PM
1

How is it reaching? What the article you yourself posted shows a strong increase in divorce between 1960 and 1970, and between 1970 and 1980, right during the sexual liberation (and the accompanying promiscuous behavior of the era), and a steady decline of divorce rates since the 80s, right when the promiscuous lifestyle of the 60s and 70s started to die off due to the herpes, and later AIDS, scare. What you posted quite explicitly debunks the argument you're trying to make.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 11:33 PM
0

The study author herself, on the article yourself posted, says sociosexually unrestricted women have lower sexual satisfaction in committed sex. What is your fucking problem dude lmao. Learn to read.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 11:28 PM
1

So yeah - even my own experiences prove you wrong buddy. Great, now sample sizes of 1 are adequate.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 10:59 PM
0

Holy hell, do you have trouble understanding sentences in English? What the author is saying (that some women enjoy casual sex as much as committed sex) is irrelevant to the point I'm making. In fact, your own article confirms the point I've making all along: The more unrestricted they are, the greater orgasmic function they had in casual sex (but also lower sexual satisfaction in committed sex) ​ You, on the other hand, have absolutely nothing that supports your view that promiscuous women will…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 10:56 PM
0

I'm not going to reply to every single comment you make if you make several replies for every comment I make. I already addressed your point: my article uses pretty much the same database, but controls for education, which makes it more useful to us (college-educated individuals).
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 10:56 PM
1

There's no data point for the mid 70s, there's only a data point at 1970 and another at 1980, and there's a notorious increase in divorce rate between these two data points. In fact, the data shows exactly what we would expect if the 70s was a decade of more failed marriages than usual, as marriages usually take a few years to dissolve.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 10:56 PM
0

so claims about past associations from 15-20 years about N count and infidelity or divorce are simply wrong today Under what grounds? Give specific citations, please. If there is less casual sex today, then *you would expect* lower divorce rates today, but causal sex rates were higher in 1970s, and the divorce rate was similar! lol come on man... But we do see that "lol!". The article you cited (now you like IFS? lmao) is called "The U.S. Divorce Rate Has Hit a 50-Year Low", and shows a consiste…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 08:52 PM
0

You don't even understand what the quote you cited is saying. The only thing it is saying is that sociosexually unrestricted women did not have a strong satisfaction penalty in casual sex. It is not saying they enjoy committed sex as much as sociosexually restricted women, because they don't. Results from two separate multiple regression models showed that sociosexuality was negatively related to sexual satisfaction in committed-sex contexts, b = −0.11, t(712) = −5.05, p < .001, rp = −.19 [−.26,…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 08:42 PM
1

I literally quoted excerpts from the study verbatim. What you quoted does not contradict what I'm saying in any way. Read it again. You're the one that's lacking in reading comprehension.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 08:15 PM
0

Lol dude! Come on there was no OLD in 2004, so *ofcourse* number of sex partners amongst people is changing over time (aka going up) - that obviously makes 2021 very different culturally and otherwise from 2021. Young adults are having less casual sex than in the past, each generation since baby boomers has a lower "n-count" than the previous generation. Seems that in every comment you make there's statements that are the opposite of reality. The French et al. paper you just cited says NOTHING a…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 08:14 PM
0

Past partners becomes insignificant to predict infidelity only when the "Attention to x faces" variable is controlled for. Such result is of little applicability in real life, outside of a lab setting, because no one is performing dot probe procedures to control for variables when looking for a partner. To assess participants’ attention to attractive relationship alternatives, we used a dot probe procedure developed and used in prior research (Maner et al., 2007). This procedure operationalizes …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 07:24 PM
0

The orgasm gap refers to the gap between casual vs committed sex. In other words, more promiscuous women find casual sex more satisfying (shocker, I know), but promiscuous women still have significantly less satisfaction in a committed relationship when compared to non-promiscuous women, as the study explicitly states in the snippets I quoted. This completely undoes your argument that supposedly women who have fucked around will have a more satisfying sexual life in a committed relationship (the…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 07:19 PM
1

The IFS uses data from the National Survey of Family Growth. Their own political leanings are irrelevant to the veracity of the data. You're falling for the genetic fallacy by dismissing correlated because they are being reported by the IFS. The "other researchers" link you post is from 2004(!) come on man you *know* sexual history and choices today culturally are far different from what they were back then, so the ability to have a higher N count in 2004 is just not the same as it is today. Now…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 07:19 PM
1

OK so you're not going to pay attention to the fact that a study of 300-1000 people is simply suggestive at best? Several studies in peer-reviewed journals with sample sizes from hundreds to thousands that replicate the same results goes way beyond merely "suggestive". And you're gonna ignore changing sexual/cultural norms to claim somehow that studies from 15 years ago matter? Cultural norms are *critical* to accurate measurements in psychology, especially when sexual partner acceptability has …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 07:19 PM
1

For men who care about “virginity” and “n,” their rationale is ego and/or insecurity and/or some obsession with being “the first to pop her cherry” and/or “innate disgust.” It's not just men that care about past sexual history, and, from an evolutionary perspective, it makes perfect sense for a lot of people to not want promiscuous partners. Trying to dismiss perfectly rational sexual preferences as "ego", "insecurity", "obsession" or some other negative qualifier is mistaken. Of course, not eve…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 10:35 AM
0

Dang man, you should actually take the time to read the studies you are citing, and to correctly interpret the tables you're looking at.The study directly contradicts the point you're trying to make: Both studies assessed participants’ tendency to automatically disengage attention from photos of attractive, opposite sex individuals; one study assessed participants’ tendency to devalue those individuals by comparing their attractiveness evaluations to evaluations made by single people, and both s…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 10:23 AM
0

Come now, paywalls are trivial to any tech savvy person. Here's a couple of snippets from the study: We examined the relationship between SOI-R and sexual satisfaction in casual sex to test our third hypothesis (H3), and between SOI-R and sexual satisfaction in committed sex for exploratory purposes (see Table 4). Results from two separate multiple regression models showed that sociosexuality was negatively related to sexual satisfaction in committed-sex contexts, b = −0.11, t(712) = −5.05, p < …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 10:23 AM
0

Yikes. I am just curious if you have read the research that you cite...? Did you? 8 studies, from different researchers, published in peer-reviewed journals, all finding the same results. One of the key aspects of scientific research is replicability, and the observed correlation between promiscuity and infidelity is replicated in pretty much every study. ​ are 14-26 years old research and include only a few thousand people! In a world where sexual norms are vastly different from even 10 years a…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 10:15 AM
3

Awful post. There's overwhelming evidence that more promiscuous individuals (i.e. sociosexually unrestricted) are significantly more likely to cheat and to divorce, which is a sound reason to avoid serious relationships with that type of individual. Given your post history, this should be specially important to you. Besides, promiscuous women aren't the sex goddesses you portray them as. Not only they are likely to have learned bad habits from casual sex (which differs greatly from sex in a comm…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 06:32 AM
7

Barely legal people do not have the life experiences to make decisions that are not out of naivety. I situations without ages gaps that involve barely legal people, often the older person cannot find someone their age who wants the because they have red flags that someone their age won’t accept. There are drastically diminishing returns when it comes to how advantageous experience obtained through age is within a dating context. The experience gap between a 15 years-old and a 20 years-old is con…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/21 07:40 PM
1

Not many. My point is that's mistaken to expect people to change their sociosexuality by simply having more experience. It is also mistaken to equate experience with n-count. Being sociosexually restricted does not mean sexually inexperienced.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/21 02:20 PM
2

Sociosexuality is strongly correlated to experience though. Yes, but the causality is the other way around. It's not experience that makes people more sociosexually unrestricted, it's being sociosexually unrestricted that makes people seek more sex partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/21 02:04 PM
1

It's a minority of men that care about her having a low n-count, especially among men that have had a sexual past themselves. Experienced men are more likely to be put off if she has a lower n-count. You're making a fatal mistake in your argument here. Sociosexuality is not the same as experience, in fact, sociosexuality is a personality trait that remains stable through life, sociosexually restricted people don't become more unrestricted through experience. A sociosexually restricted person wit…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/21 01:52 PM
3

Don't feel bad about it. That's how that place works. Like a cult. Say anything that's not enthusiastically preaching the groupthink and you get instantly permabanned.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/21 12:06 AM
2

What the hell happened there? Half the thread got nuked
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/21 12:00 AM
10

No. Sociosexuality is molded by genetics and non-shared environment (i.e. environment outside the household), shared environment does not have a significant impact on sociosexuality (the so-called 50-0-50 rule): Most relevant, then, were our genetic and environmental analyses. Parameter estimates for shared environment, which social theory predicts should be preeminent, were nonsignificant and, with one exception (for males in the full model), relatively small. This was true despite the fact tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/21 11:02 PM
1

Dumbest analogy I've read in this subreddit. Telling a complete stranger a secret is not an intimate act, anyone can tell a stranger they don't like their earlobe or some other nonsense. It is something completely inconsequential. Spitting secrets on an anonymous chatroom is not a "market of intimacy" or anything comparable to having sex. Get real.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/21 11:08 PM
–

This. Some people (specially people not familiar with muscle building) really overestimate how noticeable natural muscles are with clothes on, mainly due to how common steroid use is among models, actors, and just regular men who want to look big. Pretty much every gym I've been in has several guys clearly on the juice, and buying steroids is trivially easy.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/21 05:42 PM
8

As I've said before, Americans have a completely fucked up dating culture, and this thread is proof of that.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/21 05:35 AM
–

They are claiming to be disgusted by certain types of women (in this case OF) but then they freely masterbate to pictures and videos of these women. How can you possibly know that?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 11:38 PM
3

A concept that comes from evolved behaviors and preferences in humans, that's present across all societies. It's not something that could be explained away as simply being "invented by MEN", implying some sort of malicious intent against women.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 09:36 PM
5

FYI-a woman’s “virtue” is a convenient social construct invented by MEN. Do you have any serious scholarly work that sustains this thesis, or are you just parroting talking points?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 08:49 PM
10

It made me realize Americans have a completely messed up dating culture. Some of the things I read here are just grim.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/21 03:20 PM
–

Social Media addiction is a far more pressing issue, with more harmful consequences for society as a whole, than gaming addiction. Yet we barely see social media addiction being a point of discussion among the usual posters who bring up gaming as a problem. It seems to me some posters complain about men and gaming addiction just to complain about men (because gaming is male-dominated), rather than to genuinely address social issues.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/21 03:08 PM
2

If you want to get needlessly philosophical, you could argue that humans aren't "meant to" anything because there's no telos in nature, and that all human activity is "natural" because it works according to the laws of nature. But that is beside the point. ​ I don't think your argument, that monogamy is somehow artificial and socially constructed in comparison to polygamy, is sound. From an evolutionary perspective, there's a clear trend of human evolving towards more monogamous pairings due to …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/21 01:40 PM
1

Judging by your comment history, garbage subreddits worse than this are par for the course for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 11:40 PM
3

They want to be treated as a man their partner is sexually interested in, not as a man who gets duty sex in exchange for commitment. If their partner didn't make men she was sexually interested in wait in the past, that raises the question in the man's mind: Is she sexually interested in me? Not hard to understand.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 05:20 PM
2

Men do the same thing. "Men" are half the population. There's massive variability in sexual behavior and attitudes within each gender. There's a lot of men who have no interest in casual sex and aim to have sex within the context of an intimate relationship. It seems you're trying to use a subset of men to claim men as a whole are hypocritical, which is deeply flawed logic. Not all men are engaging in casual sex with women they don't see as relationship material. I don't want to hear any person …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 04:48 PM
5

Men shame women for having high n count. Men shame women for having low n count. Again, hypocrisy. You talk as if men were a monolithic group with homogeneous behaviors and preferences. We aren't. There are plenty of relationship minded men who have absolutely no problems with "low n count" women or women who need to wait to feel comfortable in a relationship before having sex. The problem arises when a woman who has engaged in casual sex and hookups suddenly decides she will make the guy who is…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 02:26 PM
4

? There are already studies like that. There's even a fairly known study of arousal in homophobic men.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/21 01:48 PM
4

I've seen some people on Reddit find the term 'female' offensive or out of place. Why is that? I'm not a native English speaker, and I don't live in the US, so maybe there's some connotation I'm missing here.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/21 01:28 AM
1

First of all, men are NOT the "gatekeepers of relationships". I don't know why anyone thinks this. First of all, the very same people who say this are the people who emphasize that sexual attraction is a given for a relationship to even start in the first place (barring asexual people obviously). Given this truth, if women are the gatekeepers of sex (which they are), then barring the most powerful and high-status guys, men by definition can't be the gatekeepers of relationships. Simplifications …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/21 06:14 PM
2

I don't know how it works in America, but where I live (and the vast majority of the world), dating multiple men at the same time will get you selected against by any self-respecting man. Yes, contrary to what FDS believes, men also participate in sexual selection. To think only women select is to ignore the entirety of modern biology on sexual selection. And you may need to read some anthropology if you think American hookup culture is anything remotely normal in our history as a species.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/21 04:36 PM
3

Why is that a good thing?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/21 04:18 PM
3

According to government data and recent studies both married men and married women live longer than their never-married and divorced counterparts.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/21 02:43 PM
11

I think drugs should be legal. That does not mean I will ever date someone who does drugs. Good analogy. Just because something is legal, or even socially accepted, doesn't mean we have to be ok with our romantic partner doing it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/21 04:18 PM
24

Yes. The most visible impact of aging is on the skin, and it is widely acknowledged by dermatologists that male skin is more resistant to the signs of aging However, she also pointed out that men’s skin is firmer and also around 20 to 30 per cent thicker than women’s skin. This is where one of the biological advantages pertaining to skin ageing that men enjoy lies. The above-mentioned qualities exist alongside higher collagen and elastin levels in their skin, as compared to those found in women’…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/21 08:00 PM
2

Facebook Quite literally.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/21 02:28 PM
3

I would be careful to conclude a single study "debunks" the negative association between promiscuity and mental health, considering the main focus of the study seems to be perceptions of promiscuous individuals more than anything, with the self-esteem data being self-reported. I say this because there is previous research that indeed shows a negative association between promiscuity and mental health. Results from the structural equation model indicated that casual sex was significantly and negat…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/21 03:17 PM
3

I mean what I said: many men will feel you're just settling for them, and that they are not your first choice. Whatever you do with that knowledge is up to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 08:38 PM
3

No, I'm not saying anything remotely close to that.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 08:24 PM
0

A man who is willing to wait months for sex is the kind of man that likely sees sex as an expression of love. The guys that see sex as a mere recreational activity are unlikely to wait for long in a relationship before having sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 08:18 PM
7

You can, but it's very likely he won't feel you truly desire him. He will feel you're just settling for him, and don't feel much sexual attraction towards him. It would be different if you were always someone who required commitment and bonding before having sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 08:14 PM
1

From everything I've read on the subject, the views of that study are the mainstream view among anthropologists. The views often espoused in pop-sci works such as the (regrettably) popular Sex at Dawn that portray monogamy as something recently imposed by society are in the fringe of the field.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 05:18 PM
9

Why would you ever believe a subreddit echochamber is representative of social trends at large? The handful of posts you may find that supposedly support your argument is ultimately inconsequential.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 04:26 PM
7

If a woman prefers monogamy, only one partner at a time, no stranger sex = she's going to be boring in bed. A complete non sequitur. That woman is probably going to be much better at having a satisfying sexual life within the context of a serious, loving relationship than a woman whose sexual life consists mostly of random hookups with strangers. Not to mention unrestricted sociosexuality is strongly correlated with things you definitely do not want in a relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 04:05 PM
111

I have absolutely never in my entire life met a man who thinks he is owed sex for basic displays of courtesy. I'm inclined to believe this is largely a strawman meant to demonize a certain demographic of men. High-school romance movies? I don't remember a single male friend in high-school consuming that content. And harem anime? How many teenage boy watch that stuff? All the guys (and the girls too) who were into anime and manga watched/read shounen (action stuff).
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 02:13 PM
1

That would place monogamy as becoming the majority mating type 10,000 years ago, at the absolute latest, hardly a "recent invention". And it was also a minority practice, at least 86% of societies were polygynous 86% of societies allowed polygyny, but even then in most of these societies the vast majority of pairings were monogamous. Due to our anatomical characteristics, such as our degree of sexual dimorphism and how vulnerable human infants are, it is clear humans diverged from other great ap…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 02:01 PM
1

Citation needed.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 01:18 AM
1

Recent in geological time scales? Sure Recent in human history? No. Monogamy predates written language.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 01:05 AM
3

You clearly don't know what a generalization is.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/21 02:32 PM
2

That's not what the research shows, though. The gap in happiness cannot be explained away as merely a product of differences in income.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/21 02:31 PM
4

Making a reply is not getting offended, Lilith.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/21 02:21 PM
3

So, you agree with the statement that most men are relationship-minded and don't want to date promiscuous women? Good
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/21 02:18 PM
6

You seem really upset at finding out single women aren't the happiest demographic.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/21 02:17 PM
6

I'm sufficiently familiar with FDSers to know you're complaining about men in general. Otherwise, you agree that most men don't aim for promiscuous "bimbos", right?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/21 01:59 PM
5

If men didn’t want whores, they’d stop complaining about them on tinder and Instagram. You're clearly talking about men in general, this "I'm just talking about this subreddit!" is a cop-out and you know it.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/21 01:51 PM
7

Why do I always hear some posters whining that "men go for whores"? You sound eerily similar to the guys who complain that women only date assholes: an oversimplification born out of resentment.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/21 01:40 PM
8

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/captivate-office-pulse-survey-reveals-men-are-happier-than-women-with-their-work-life-balance-129369008.html What's the profile of an unhappy person in the office and at home? She's a 42 year old, unmarried woman with a household income under $100 thousand, working in a professional position (i.e. as a doctor or a lawyer).
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/21 01:36 PM
1

And n count studies are funded by dweeb men with agendas and not peer reviewed. So, that is what this is all about? Some sort of "gotcha" against men who judge women on the basis of their "n count"? Because studies about sociosexuality and its implications on future behavior are published in actual scientific journals (Biology Letters, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Twin Research and Human Genetics, The Journal of Social Psychology, and …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/21 10:55 PM
4

Jesus, you are still seething about men not wanting to date porn stars? Let it go already, that's not going to change. The reason why the vast majority of men wouldn't date a woman who has participated in porn has little to do with moral outrage regarding porn. The real reason is much simpler: a woman who has participated in pornography has a highly laissez-faire attitude towards sexuality, something which is a massive turn-off for men who want serious relationships. The reason why the consumpti…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/21 06:28 PM
5

You keep avoiding making a real argument instead of throwing insults based on mistaken assumptions. And yes, under the eyes of the overwhelming majority of society, you're wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/21 01:24 AM
4

This is a debate subreddit, replying to your post is not "whining". And yes, you're wrong. The majority of the population (yes, including most women) has consumed porn. Yet, obviously most of the population has no intention of performing in porn. Therefore, normal members of society (outside the FDS echochamber) don't see these two acts as equivalent.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/21 01:07 AM
4

You keep avoiding making a real argument instead of throwing insults based on mistaken assumptions. And yes, under the eyes of the overwhelming majority of society, you're wrong. Also, I think you don't know what an inbox is.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/21 12:53 AM
5

You keep being wrong. Normal people don't see consuming porn and participating in porn anywhere near similar in how "degenerate" such acts are. This will not change. The vast, vast majority of the population, both male and female, would never consider dating a porn star, while the vast majority of the population has no problem with their partner having consumed porn in their past. This is neither good nor bad, it is what it is. Women consume porn too, do you see women who have consumed porn in t…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/21 12:47 AM
7

Not only you're wrong, but also that's not an argument. Men who consume porn are under no obligation to date porn stars or sex workers, and this will never change.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/21 12:33 AM
4

Consuming porn and actually performing in porn will never be equivalent, only a fringe minority disagrees.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/21 12:26 AM
9

But the community from which you get your ideas, FDS, explicitly states all actions in a relationship should benefit the woman, and any mutual benefit is merely a byproduct. How is that not self-centered and hedonistic?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/21 04:44 PM
1

Why are you assuming he is old?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/21 06:24 PM
2

FDSers are known to complain about adult men dating adult women, labeling any age gap their cult doesn't approve as "fantasies of pedophilia" or some other hyperbolic nonsense. So, I would say OP's post is needed these days, where many parrot the "brain doesn't develop until 25" without any critical thinking, and infantilize women they unconsciously feel threatened by.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/21 06:23 PM
4

What a ridiculous strawman
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/21 02:41 PM
2

Quality as a partner as in someone who doesn't cheat on you.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/21 05:41 PM
1

Seriously? You're on PPD, you should be familiar with the huge amount of evidence showing that more promiscuous individuals make worse partners for serious relationships. And attacking IFStudies of being supposedly Christian fundamentalist is ultimately pointless, their data comes from publicly available sources.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/21 04:43 PM
20

How do I treat people differently? You make assumptions about their character based solely on their looks, which inevitably means a different treatment. what is the difference between an excuse and a motivation? I call your argument an excuse because I don't believe it actually explains the reason behind your dating preferences. There's a huge amount of research showing how important physical attractiveness is in dating, and the impact physical appearance makes in the perception of others, the s…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/21 05:27 AM
52

Your whole post is basically you feeling the need to justify your attraction to hot men on the basis that they supposedly treat you better. That's textbook rationalization. Your life experiences made you feel upset at being treated differently because of superficial reasons, but you don't want to accept that you yourself treat people differently based on their looks, so you came up with the convenient excuse that you go for "hot guys" not out superficiality, but because they are supposedly nice …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/21 04:32 AM
55

No, you're supposed to simply call it what it is, physical attraction, instead of pretending there's some deeper, nicer-sounding rationale.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/21 04:01 AM
81

Seems like a really convoluted way of rationalizing your attraction to hot men as driven by anything else other than looks. You're attracted to hot men because they are hot, not because supposedly hot men treat fat women significantly better than non-hot men do, there's no need to overcomplicate things.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/21 12:51 AM
12

The thing with FDS is that their "values" are whatever they perceive helps their self-interest and/or is spiteful towards the men they feel wronged them. One day they will claim men are insecure about the sexual past of their partners and that therefore they should conceal their sexual past, while another day they will remind each other that men should absolutely be judged because of their sexual past. One day they will claim they oppose prostitution on the basis of exploitation in the industry …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/21 06:13 PM
1

"Pick me girl" is such an overused term by FDS that has little to no descriptive power.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/21 02:53 PM
0

Read the paper again. Table 1 in particular, you're confusing λ values with mean values.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/21 12:42 PM
7

There's no way to know for sure, but sociosexuality is a trait that has many correlates with other observable personality traits and behaviors. You can make quite sound inferences about a person's sociosexuality once you get to know them in-depth.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/21 12:15 AM
38

This is a ridiculous argument. Just because we live in a "sexually free" society doesn't mean everyone is promiscuous. A large portion of the population has a restricted sociosexuality, not everyone has a large n-count. In fact, most people are less promiscuous than people generally believe, nowadays young adults are having less casual sex than any period since the sexual revolution. There's no reason why any young man should stop caring about sexual history, given that it's perfectly feasible t…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/21 12:06 AM
3

Dating, pretty much by definition, can never be a perfect market, due the emotional biases involved in it, the enormous switching and transaction costs, and the limited availability of information. Tinder is a terrible example of a perfect market, due to how little information it provides about the "product", unless you're just looking for something really casual. To that add the usual limitations of dating transactions. Every relationship minded woman I've talked to has told me how difficult it…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/21 06:51 PM
2

There's a massive issue with your analysis, though. You're assuming the dating market is a perfect market with fully informed and perfectly rational agents. Of course, the real world is nothing like that. A man getting rejected by a woman he deems unattractive does not necessarily mean she is out of his league, that he is "a bad investment" and that he should lower his standards. There's countless of reasons why he could be getting rejected, due to the complexities of human dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/21 04:42 PM
1

While challenging, our review of the literature offers several key insights. 1) Although polygyny is socially sanctioned in most societies, monogamy is the dominant marriage-type within any one group cross-culturally. 2) Sex outside of marriage occurs across societies, yet human extra pair paternity rates are relatively low when compared to those of socially monogamous birds and mammals. 3) While the timing of the evolution of certain anatomical characteristics is open to debate, human levels of…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 04:43 PM
1

Yes, it varies to person, but there are clear, observed distributions and trends in humans. Sociosexuality doesn't follow an uniform distribution, hence not all lifestyles will fit the same amount of people.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 04:22 PM
2

People didn’t evolve to “pair bond”, they evolved to fuck and pass on genes. The idea that humans have evolved to be promiscuous and polyamorous, espoused by works such as Sex at Dawn, has been largely criticized by the scientific community for being against contemporary knowledge in the fields of anthropology and evolutionary biology. It is true that humans are not strictly monogamous, humans have significant variability and adaptability in their mating strategies, but there's a clear trend tow…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 04:07 PM
3

You're an extreme outlier, though. You have a radically unrestricted sociosexuality, and as such your life experiences are of little advice to the vast majority of the population. Pair-bonding is magical thinking not based in reality. Having sex with multiple people does not somehow make a person unable to love someone they care about!! Bonding through sex is an evolved trait that has been critical through our success as a species, due the need of intensive parental investment human infants requ…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 03:24 PM
2

Commitment is significantly negatively correlated with sociosexuality (and thus n-count) though.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/21 02:39 AM
4

You should check OP's first link Those who tie the knot after their early 30s are now more likely to divorce than those who marry in their late 20s. Past the early 30s, the odds of divorce increase by 5 percent per year of age at marriage While marrying too young increases the risk of divorce, so does marrying too old, which is after you early 30s, according to the data.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/21 05:15 AM
9

The study is linked in the article.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/21 04:08 PM
2

Prostitution doesn’t cause the health risks that overuse of porn does. Prostitution carries plenty of health risks. Condoms aren't perfect, and some STDs, such as herpes, can transmit infection from areas condoms don't protect from.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/21 02:44 PM
99

I don't know about prostitution and porn, but there's research suggesting the main reason why women "slut-shame" other women (even to a greater degree than men) has to do with sexual competition Stigmatizing female promiscuity — a.k.a. slut-shaming — has often been blamed on men, who have a Darwinian incentive to discourage their spouses from straying. But they also have a Darwinian incentive to encourage other women to be promiscuous. Dr. Vaillancourt said the experiment and other research sugg…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/21 02:40 PM
10

The funny thing is that it's not even an actual study. An author misinterpreted publicly available data, was called out on it and had to retract his statement. A new book says married women are miserable. Don’t believe it. ​ Last week, a shocking claim about happiness made the rounds in the press, from the Guardian to Cosmopolitan to Elle to Fox. The claim? Women should be wary of marriage — because while married women say they’re happy, they’re lying. According to behavioral scientist Paul Dola…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/21 08:35 PM
3

Should I be bitter and say " you didn't look at me when I was fat so why should I care about you now" ? You shouldn't be bitter, but you would be completely justified in feeling that way and rejecting men who previously ignored you.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/21 06:01 AM
24

It's cited by tons of other studies because it was a great source and stood the test of time, dude. Could you link an actual published study that cites his statement? Because actual studies published in scientific journals directly contradict Dolan's claim. No actual journal cites his claim as factual. What you cited are not studies, one is a blog, the other a tabloid. Just because you don't like the results, doesn't make it "not-science". What makes it non-science is that is not an actual study…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/21 05:48 AM
23

Did you read your own source? Yes, and it completely debunked Dolan's claim, which is the sole source from which you, and the links you know cited, got that claim from. Your "other source" is just a couple of links citing Dolan's fatally flawed statement. There's a reason why you had to delete your first reply, perhaps you should re-read your links. I know FDS likes to parrot Dolan's shoddy book, but his work is not even science, is just a gross misunderstanding of data.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/21 05:35 AM
39

What you're looking for is completely reasonable. In more fancy terms, you're looking for a man with restricted sociosexuality (less willing to have casual sex, requires emotional bonding for sex), which is a rational choice if you want a serious relationship. Now, a trait like that is not overtly visible, so you will have to know the men to gauge their sociosexuality. Perhaps studies like this could help.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/21 05:28 AM
19

actually most research shows that the happiest group of people are single, childless women, women are happiest alone, and without children. Why do people keep repeating that lie? It is simply not true, and goes against academic consensus.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/21 05:01 AM
2

"Rational" decisions? I think the word you're looking for is "superficial". Yes, superficial traits such as looks and wealth are relevant to make a relationship work, but the problem with OLD is that it emphasizes superficial traits above everything else. A truly rational person would recognize that emotional bonding is at least as relevant as the aforementioned superficial traits to have a successful relationship, and it's quite hard to emotional bond through an app where people are portrayed a…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/21 04:33 PM
2

It's scientifically proven that older single women are generally happier than those who are married. Not really. Some places like FDS like to peddle that unsupported claim made by a single author, but the reality is that the scientific consensus points to the other direction, both men and women are happier when married.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/21 04:38 AM
6

i dont beleive a man who went to jail for a DV crime at 19 means anythign about how hell be at 29 You can't seriously believe this.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/21 05:36 PM
8

they are not really related at all They are completely related. A person who is promiscuous while single is a person with unrestricted sociosexuality, which is heavily correlated with negative outcomes in serious relationships.. People don't have a "Single Mode: On" switch that they can flip and suddenly change their learned habits and innate preferences. Sociosexuality is, like most personality traits, very stable through a person's lifetime.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/21 04:46 PM
9

The average n-count of heterosexual men and heterosexual women must be around the same, given that there's a similar amount of heterosexual men and heterosexual women in the general population. It is statistically impossible for the averages to differ meaningfully, due to how averages are calculated. The median, however, can differ substantially, and so can the distribution of n-count between genders.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/21 09:45 PM
14

According to recent research the sexual double standard has mostly evaporated. Nowadays both genders view a person with too many past sexual partners (i.e. a promiscuous person) as a poor choice for long-term relationships. One takeaway is that we can’t always trust widespread views about men and women. A lot of people are convinced that the sexual double standard is alive and well in the Western world. But our study and many others suggest that it’s a lot less common than it used to be. It’s no…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/21 06:10 AM
2

No, it's just echo chamber talk from FDS
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/21 05:40 AM
0

It literally it doesn’t matter. It literally does matter quite a lot.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/21 03:45 PM
7

i think 30 is a kinda normal number for an attractive women in her late 20s It’s definitely not normal according to any study I’ve ever read. In fact, 30 sexual partners would put that woman at least on the top decile when it comes to n-count.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/21 03:33 PM
13

I disagree. I think it’s a combination of sampling bias and confirmation bias. High-n count women are far more adept at using certain forms of social media, and as such they are notoriously over represented when it comes to online visibility. While low-n count women tend to be more reserved in their online presence, due to their more restricted sociosexuality, high-n women like to show themselves. Also, high-n women are far more likely to publicly talk about their sex lives, both offline and onl…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/21 02:59 PM
32

most uncurable infections are not life threatening They may not be life threatening but they can still significantly affect your health and quality of life. Not to mention many people won't date someone with an STI, no matter how asymptomatic or non-threatening it may seem.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/21 05:35 AM
3

Online communities that create echo chambers where an attitude of resentment towards the opposite gender is magnified. Obvious cases would be subreddits like FDS and TRP, but there are worse places around the internet (certain 4chan boards, for example).
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/21 12:44 AM
7

If we go by divorce rate, the optimal age to marry is between your late 20s and early 30s, with a few years of dating before marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/21 04:41 AM
2

I'm not a woman, and past promiscuity should be disclosed as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/21 04:08 PM
6

So tldr is.. if you're an older male virgin and find a girl that seems interested in you it is probably in your best interest to lie and fake it till you make it . It's never a good idea to begin a relationship with a lie. When she inevitably finds out it will be worse.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/21 03:48 PM
2

From what I've seen, most well adjusted adults operate on a don't ask don't tell policy. Depends on their age. Adults dating in their 30s and 40s usually don't select partners based on that criteria, because it's kind of unlikely to have a low n-count at that age, but young adults in their 20s for the most part do care. I don't believe promiscuous people can't find love, and I'm not trying to argue everyone should care about n-count. The reason I made that post is because I often see the "sex-po…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/21 06:09 PM
2

But marriage is down cause of women not men. It takes two to tango.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/21 05:59 PM
3

You're making the assumption that people feel aversion towards promiscuous partners because they read some studies, but you're getting the causation wrong. There's widespread consensus among sociobiologists and anthropologists that aversion towards promiscuous behaviour is an evolutionary adaptation, which is why most people don't want promiscuous partners for a serious relationship. The reason these studies are so widely cited here is because many here on reddit and social media dismiss worryin…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/21 08:54 AM
1

Even thou many people on PPD acknowledge the fact that the 80/20 rule does apply a majority of the time when it comes to sex and relationships. I disagree. The 80/20 rule comes largely from a misunderstanding from a Tinder study, but it does not mean 20% of men are having sex with 80% of men, it just means that in Tinder 20% of the men are receiving likes from 80% of the women on the platform, not that they are actually having sex with them (most Tinder likes don't lead to sex). Promiscuity is n…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/21 08:23 AM
1

You’ve already said a lot about yourself Clearly not enough for you to draw an accurate impression of me. I'm not an incel or a redpiller and for the most part I abhor their mentality. Cling on to those studies that go all over the place but can’t even answer the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that most men, to a greater or lesser degree, care about n-count. The studies I cited and my personal experiences show that. I don't know why (although I suspect it) you're so reluctant to accept the …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/21 02:28 AM
1

You know nothing about me, but I can definitely infer this subject hits too close to home to you. You desperately want to believe only inadequate virgins and evil redpillers care about n-count because that way you can just dismiss that subject, but sadly for you, there's not a shred of evidence or reason to support your fallacious logic.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/21 12:45 AM
1

You seem seriously offended, and too emotionally invested in proving n-count doesn't matter. I suggest you leave your personal issues at the door. Men bitch about paying for dinner with women that aren't promiscuous whilst happily spending money on Onlyfans, porn, escorts and strippers. What made you think this is an argument? There's variability in human behaviour, you know? And men who actually spend money on Onlyfans or are romantically interested in escorts are a tiny portion of the global p…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/21 11:54 PM
1

But all research points to that direction. The reason why most people are surprised of these results is due to availability bias: individuals who have casual sex, who party a lot and who have large social media presence are much more visible than introverted, sexually reserved individuals. That effect is compounded by the fact that casual sex and hookup culture is exaggerated in popular media.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/21 11:00 PM
1

Median literally means that half the people within the US had sex with more than 5 partners and half of them had less than 5. Someone may have had 100 sexual partners and they would still not impact the median, because despite their high count, they would still be counted as one single unit on the median scale. But that's... exactly what I'm saying. And that's exactly why median is a better metric for what kind of person you may find in your day to day life. The few individuals who have a lot of…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/21 10:50 PM
1

It’s hilarious how you call my request ridiculous, yet don’t see the absurdity of what you’re positing. It is a ridiculous request because there's no sound methodology to research something like that, and there's virtually no academic value to such statistic. these studies don’t factor in what people do in the real world. In the real world promiscuous people have a harder time finding a stable marriage. And given that most men don’t ask about body counts, Why do you keep repeating something that…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/21 10:35 PM
0

Median is a better metric in this case, as the average is skewed by individuals who have a lot of partners. Median gives you a better idea of the amount of partners the 'regular' person has. For the distribution of number of lifetime vaginal sex partners, we found similarities across age groups for male and female respondents, with a few minor exceptions. Among 15- to 24-year-olds, sexual activity group 1 (0–1 lifetime sex partners) was the most frequently reported sexual activity group for male…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/21 10:22 PM
1

Show me a study that shows what percentage of people know someone’s body count other than their own. That's a ridiculous request. How common exactly do you think body count discussions are in couples and non-couples? People generally don't ask explicitly. Instead, they gauge their partner's sociosexuality from their behaviour, social circles and intimate conversations that occur within a serious relationship. The men I've explicitly talked this subject with most of the time say they have more or…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/21 10:03 PM
1

You seem to be implying only a minority of men care about n-count, or that women aren't interested in having serious relationships with sexually reserved guys. The reality is that most men (and women) do care about n-count. Not only that, but men aren't attracted to women with high n-count, even if they have shifted to monogamy later in their lives. Study 1 found that women rated male targets with a sexually experienced past with increased desirability for a long-term relationship if they report…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/21 07:55 PM
1

I imagine there's tons of overlap between them and the ones who also worry about body count Maybe among some questionable internet circles, but not among the general population. Most people, male and female, care about body count.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/21 05:40 AM
19

This idea is ridiculously exaggerated around certain circles. While women, on average, do prefer men with some experience, being a virgin is not anywhere near as detrimental as some men believe. In fact, according to research women prefer virgin men over promiscuous (i.e. having had too many sexual partners) men. The aim of this study was to explore how people’s sexual history affects their attractiveness. Using an Internet survey, 188 participants rated their willingness to engage in a relation…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/21 05:25 AM
2

You're significantly overestimating the amount of casual sex the general population has. In the United States the median number of sexual partners for heterosexual people is around 5, and there has been a marked decline in casual sex during the last couple of decades: The decline in casual sex is apparent for both women and men. In 2007, 31 percent of the young unpartnered women reported having sexual intercourse during the past month, but in 2017 only 22 percent did so. The percentage of men wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/21 05:10 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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