TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Archipelagi Archive

View 0 posts and 342 comments by Archipelagi 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)
2

Well, it is a beautiful state. But there's a reason I live in DC.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/14 03:18 PM
9

Fucking horrifying. As a Virginia barred attorney and a feminist, I am whole heartedly in support of seeing the careers of those conducting this travesty being ended. Quickly.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/14 05:05 AM
1

Feminism involves inequalities based on gender, because it involves the social and legal distinctions that are made based on perceived differences in the biological sexes. I'm having a really hard time imagining a philosophy that is totally okay with inequality based on gender, but is concerned solely with inequality based on biological sex. Further it means you could call something "feminism" that starts with the assumption that men are subordinated to women. That doesn't follow from what I sai…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/14 06:00 PM
6

This is what all feminists have in common: Feminists believe that women have been oppressed by men and still are today to some extent. I'm not sure this is a completely accurate assessment. Feminism addresses inequalities based on gender, not inequalities caused by a specific source. Particularly in the modern and western context, it's not about 'oppression by men.' A better description might be, "Feminists believe in legal and social equality of men and women," with a heckuva lot of disagreemen…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/14 02:35 PM
-1

Let me try this different. Disagreements about whether definitions apply to a particular context =/= a definition having no descriptive or consistent value. Similarly, one word being used to define two different concepts = a definition having no descriptive or consistent value. You can discuss racism as a specific type of social institution in which a powerful group of one skin color uses the different skin color of another group as a means of maintaining their power/status. Or you can discuss r…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/14 09:04 PM
1

TRPers aren't using alpha as an ethological concept, and even as an ethological concept you need to have a lot of careful nuance in how you use it in order for it to be a useful way of describing intra species relationships. TRPers mostly use alpha as a term for "things women want", so that they can try and portray their theories has having some sort of categorical validity. If you're arguing that TRPers are meaning to use it in an ethological sense and just mucking it up really bad, well, we'll…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/14 08:42 PM
1

But that's not how most of TRP uses it. If you define a new objective use for it, then yeah, that's objective, but that doesn't mean the way it's used now has any meaning. Also I have no idea what thread you're talking about, but I promise that a bunch of people arguing on the internet didn't cause a sociological concept to no longer have a defined meaning.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/14 08:28 PM
1

No, those words have a firmly established meaning. There are sometimes competing definitions for sociological terms, but in general they have a widely shared understanding that can be objectively defined. Alpha and beta cannot. Is salsa dancing "cool" or is it "lame"? Is salsa dancing "alpha" or is it "beta"?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/14 07:29 PM
2

You're right, I was oversimplifying. Whoever is using the words "alpha" and "beta" can be using them to convey more nuance than strict "good" and "bad." But that isn't the same as having an objective and categorical meaning. The terms have no sociological relevance. It's like "cool" and "lame."
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/14 07:17 PM
3

"Alpha traits" are any traits that TRP feels like labeling as alpha. There is no consistent or objective organization behind the label, other than things the speaker believes to be good = alpha, and things the speaker believes to be bad = beta.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/14 04:10 PM
8

I don't see the logic in foisting all the responsibility on a guy who was just trying to get laid and randomly got hit with something largely out of his control. The logic is that we hold parents responsible for caring for their children. Sometimes people have children when they didn't intend to or didn't want to, but they are still responsible for those children, unless both parents agree to relinquish the child. But if only one parent relinquishes, then both parents are equally responsible, re…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/14 09:18 PM
7

You said that men haven't changed their perceptions. Then you said they haven't changed their positions significantly. And now you're saying that men's perceptions have changed just not as much as women's. But at no stage have you offered any support for these claims. Also, I don't think you understood The Stepford Wives. Also it was satire of a situation that exists 40 years ago, not a description of gender roles in 2014.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/14 08:57 PM
6

Involuntary reproduction is a bad thing. Reducing it to the greatest extent possible would be a fantastic thing for improving our lives, but as long as it exists, the end result is not going to be fair or just to anyone, because all competing interests can't be satisfied. You have the financial and emotional interests of the parents, the biological and physical interests of the mother, the interests of the child, and (in the view of some) the interest of the developing embryo/fetus. Right now, o…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/14 08:45 PM
6

This isn't "people." This is the entire class of people based on biological sex, and not based on anything they believe or have argued. You find it "amusing" to deprive people of a right that you personally seem to find extremely important and fundamental. That is sick.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/14 08:24 PM
9

That's not a pro-life position. That's a pro-misplaced-vengeance position.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/14 08:06 PM
9

I had to read your comment a couple times. I was kind of concerned about what kind of donations the baboon testing needed.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/14 06:02 PM
14

I think that we need to develop a reliable, affordable, convenient, and reversible birth control for both sexes. The best solution for the problem of involuntary reproduction is to make any questions of morality or fairness simply irrelevant, by providing a physical mechanism that prevents the situation from arising in the first place. As a step towards that end, we especially need some kind of birth control for men that -- even if it doesn't meet the effective-affordable-convenient-reversible i…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/14 05:34 PM
7

No, nothing you've said in this comment is true. I can't prove a negative, but if you can find even one peer-reviewed article that supports your claim, then you could prove me wrong. I am very skeptical that you could do so, but even if you did, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of research that has been done shows that in every developed nation (and actually in many developing nations) there have been huge shifts in actual gender roles as well as in perceptions of gender roles. But Ste…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/14 04:51 PM
12

Men haven't changed their perceptions of gender roles in the last 50 years Oh come on. This is contrary to literally every single survey or study that has been done.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/14 04:03 PM
18

It's probably because you're physically attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/14 02:59 AM
6

Okay then, maybe it would help if you explained why it was a bad comparison. Or what exactly I'm misinformed about, because I can't figure that out either.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 05:55 PM
4

I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make here.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 05:51 PM
4

Sometimes there's firm distinction between programs that are solely about increasing contacts/recruitment from different groups and programs that provide an advantage (although often indirect) to particular groups, and sometimes the boundary between the two is a little fuzzy. In general, I have no problem with outreach programs, though. If private industry believes it has a need to engage in that kind of marketing or recruitment, I'm not going to second guess their judgment. Their are a lot of d…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 05:44 PM
3

I think that's a bot. It's insta-responded to me on a couple occasions, in different subs. Last time was when I asked someone "what is being glossed over here?", and it gave a definition of 'glossed over.'
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 05:33 PM
9

Because in the U.S., the most visible and obvious example of a race-based legal regime was one that made distinctions between "blacks" and "whites" -- e.g., people whose skin color lead to assumptions that their ancestry derived from either from sub-Saharan Africa or western Europe, respectively.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 05:29 PM
7

That's a pretty popular opinion, I don't think it makes you an outlier. But 'affirmative action' is used now to describe a pretty broad range of practices, and reasonable minds can disagree on the benefits and detriments of different polices. And outreach programs in particular can have desirable results and not favor/disfavor individuals based on immutable attributes. For instance, we need more nurses; trying to tap into an underutilized source of nurses makes sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 05:26 PM
10

Because applying different laws and standards to individuals based upon statistical differences in groups (whether real or perceived) is an injustice.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 05:11 PM
5

A woman lying about how many partners she's had is a big deal, because it robs men of the sense of genuine achievement that comes from sleeping with a woman with a low partner count. If she's willing to sleep with any guy that comes along, then getting her into bed is, while still another tally mark on the score board, not the triple-mega-touchdown that getting a virgin into bed would be. It doesn't prove you're better than other guys, or that you're really special. So when a woman says she's on…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/14 10:18 PM
13

Because a lot of TRPers are not looking for sex. They're looking for self-validation, and for some kind of meaning in life.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/14 10:02 PM
1

Wait, patience and being true to themselves are not "bad traits", Those are good traits. In what universe are those considered bad traits? Underdogs achieving more than could have been expected is a common narrative theme. But by definition, an underdog is someone who is not expected to succeed. Society does not expect "attractive" people to sleep with "unattractive" people.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/14 05:51 PM
4

So the entire premise of these movies is "this guy never get the girl... but here is the amazing story of how, this time, he does!" So that disprove your point. Society expects these guys to lose, the story is that, weirdly, they don't. But society agrees that this is not the normal course of events.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/14 05:07 PM
1

It's common sense to everyone. No one out there disbelieves this. Also in the movies, it usually turns out that the "unattractive" partner was hot all along, they just needed to take off their glasses/get rid of the goofy haircut. Unless it's a comedy with Ben Stiller, in that case, you're right, the normal rules magically don't apply.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/14 04:53 PM
3

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. Believe what? Regardless, "women irrationally pursue submission" is an objectively false statement. You may choose to believe only your own anecdotal data, but unless your experience with other people is very limited, you should be able to realize this.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 06:17 PM
4

This isn't directed towards you, but I want to dispel the myth that all (most?) red pill men are damaged men who have these psychological issues stemming from a bad experience, and that's why we "hate women". Isn't it accepted by TRP that a lot of their 'converts' come over because of their pain and discontent? And how it is only to be expected, and understandable, that new TRPers go through a phase of anger and lashing out? Objectively, it seems very much like guys join TRP because they have be…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 03:16 PM
6

I wasn't speaking of you personally. I guess I would kind of assume that is not a literal description of your own behavior, but a description of an ideal way to behave, because it comes off more like a stereotype than a real person. (Also, even if you do display those behaviors, it wouldn't necessarily mean that your attachment style is dismissive-avoidant -- just that some of your specific interactions are dismissive-avoidant. Which is true for most people.) But the behaviors you describe, take…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 03:05 PM
6

This could be a really good description of what might be classified as a dismissive-avoidant attachment style. Obviously, things like 'not tolerating bullshit' and 'willingness to be independent' are sound principles, in moderation. But not when they are used as a way to prevent vulnerability, by simply avoiding connections that could result in it.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 02:18 PM
7

Personally, I'm not attracted to dominance as a character trait. I am sure I have been attracted to men who could be described as dominant, but that definitely isn't what attracted me to them. The guy I married has never cared a day in his life about "being dominant," and is the kindest and most intently considerate person I've ever met -- I am very much attracted to that sort of confidence. Most of my friends are also either neutral to, or slightly averse to, "dominant" men. But I do have some …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 01:52 PM
3

Word. I've never understood this "shorter hair is lower maintenance" thing. With short hair, you gotta style that shit and get it cut more than a few times a year.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/14 06:30 PM
8

Let me try a simpler approach: saying "a significant fraction of us feminists aren't feminists" would be a nonsensical statement, and therefore we can assume that's not what /u/angatar_ meant. Also that's not what a predicate nominative is.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/14 06:23 PM
1

Out of curiosity, why don't you identify as feminist? I've only seen your posts on this sub, so that might be misleading, but your comments here have seemed pretty consistent with a feminist viewpoint.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/14 05:22 PM
4

No, you are misreading it. The "us" refers to "be[ing] on /r/TheBluePull," and distinguishing the group labeled "us" from the group labeled "feminists." It doesn't make grammatical (or common) sense to read it your way.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/14 05:20 PM
5

There aren't any strawmen who are members of this sub, so no one will answer yes to this question. Aside from everything else, no two people can be totally identical, and no two groups of people can be totally identical, so it is impossible for female humans and male humans to be identical. But beyond that, the question implies a sort of binary situation that is biologically impossible. Two populations are not either "different" or "identical," as those terms are pretty meaningless when speaking…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/14 05:14 PM
8

A large part of it is undoubtedly that, for non-TRP people, the only stories they are going to see are the ones that are so hilariously and unmistakably false that they get passed around to SRD or TBP, where they are guffawed over. So it's entirely feasible that, for a lot of non-TRP commenters, every TRP story they have seen is false. The other part of it is that a very large number of the stories on TRP are false. It's a sub full of people who are seeking validation and who are pursuing "goals…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/14 07:54 PM
2

That dude happily admits he views women as subhuman, don't engage.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/13 06:46 AM
3

Do you have a link for the article? I can't bring it up on my phone.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/13 04:47 PM
4

Women "value" rape? Rape should be decriminalized?? Holy cow, and you're trying to play the role of the moderate. Also I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually meant battery and not assault, but the idea is still ludicrous. But men and women both can be, and are, victims of rape. Not wanting to be raped is not a gendered phenomenon.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/13 07:01 PM
2

Just like what we knew of non-white people, the demon possessed, and neurology. Yeah, all that stuff we knew had such a fundamental truth.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/13 05:34 PM
6

Saying "rape shouldn't be a crime" is "maybe a true statement"? And you wonder why TRP has such a bad rep?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/13 05:23 PM
4

I think that kind of discussion might be more possible if there more TRP 'moderates' involved, but they seem to come and go, and sometimes their voice is not present at all in threads. A large number of the TRP posters are upfront in their position that women are inherently inferior, irrational, and incapable of autonomy in the way males are. And some are upfront about their position that the feel the same way, only about certain races. It's often not possible for any kind of common understandin…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/13 07:42 PM
3

Oh, I've offered up lots of relevant scientific research before. Anything that contradicts TRP is discarded on principal, because TRP 'just works,' and that the lack of external confirmation is not proof that its basis is invalid. But studies done by homeopaths prove that their methods work, too, even if external support somehow never seems to validate it.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/13 06:37 PM
3

If TRP were effective or based on supportable scientific findings, then it would be possible to develop supporting research and data for it. Instead, all we get is "it just works," which is not a valid form of support.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/13 05:52 PM
5

If you are the scientific research, then I am curious how your study managed to account for the placebo effect.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/13 05:45 PM
8

How is the comparison ridiculous? Both are believed by their users to provide specific life benefits, both are enthusiastically claimed to be effective by the anecdotal reports of their users, and neither is supported by independent and reproducible scientific research.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/13 04:05 PM
5

This question isn't comprehensible, that isn't how evolution works.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/13 03:45 PM
10

Lots of people wear magnetic bracelets and believe it improves their joint health. That ain't near enough for me to start wearing them.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/13 02:24 PM
5

simply due to divorce initiation disparity alone, As a strictly logical matter, you realize that 'men aren't offering as much in marriage' would be a more plausible explanation for the scenario you've created, right? A good example of this is that women rarely know how to cook a decent meal today. ... Okay never mind, I'm not touching this conversation.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 09:00 PM
4

I'm not sure I get your argument. If selfishness is noble, and women are more selfish than men, does that mean women are nobler than me?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 08:48 PM
9

It sounds like your definition of 'childish' may encompass situations that others would label 'being upset.' If someone is acting 'childish', to me that means someone who is acting irrationally and inappropriately. You don't engage with that in anyone that is not a literal child, except maybe -- with a friend or partner who you expect this to be effective with -- to give a wry and friendly comment to get them to pause and realize what they are doing. Other than that, you just gtfo and let them c…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 08:40 PM
4

"What is an alpha trait?" --> "A trait that is attractive to women." --> "How do you know if a trait is attractive to women?" --> "Because it is a trait women are attracted to." .... yeah, that's still a circle, even if you leave out the line showing it looping back back to the start.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 04:47 PM
2

You've demonstrated here that you have absolutely no understanding of dread game, so how on earth could you even possibly suggest you know how it's commonly used? I used exactly the description you provided. If my source was inaccurate, I apologize.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 04:36 PM
2

If dread game simply means going to the gym more, then it is stupid to call it 'dread game.' If dread game means what it is usually held to mean -- withholding attention and implying to your partner that you'd be able to get someone else -- then it matches exactly what Gottman describes, and I don't know what else to tell you. Read the studies, if you think I'm reading him wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 04:17 PM
3

I ain't got any requests, but I like the new design. Looking good.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 04:13 PM
1

Gottman's studies show that, using his methodologies, that's how the behaviors you've described would be coded. And Gottman has found those behaviors lead to bad relationship outcomes. So, as I said above, the question is, do you believe Gottman is wrong or do you believe TRP is wrong? I'm assuming Gottman -- so why do you think he is wrong? Not even remotely. You don't have to be distant or unfriendly to start dieting. If that's all you are doing, then obviously not. But if your response to an …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 04:09 PM
1

I can't watch the video right now, so no idea who it's comparing. But I have no doubt the world's strongest woman is not going to land particularly high in the distribution of men. My point was that (1) I know for a fact the '99 percent of men are stronger than 100% of women' number that someone through out above was incorrect, and (2) "the top .1% of women match the 50% percentile for men" claim seems to be a bit extreme and doesn't fit with the general data I've seen -- and the study that prov…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 04:01 PM
4

I'm not implying anything. I'm just confused about where the study is pulling its numbers from, since that paper clearly didn't provide the data it's relying on to reach this figure. Even speaking solely for measures of upper body strength and nothing else, I've never seen another claim to that degree of dimorphism between the sexes, and I'd be curious to see more about how it was reached. The less sexual dimorphism claim between men and women is made on their total mass which is problematic sin…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 03:51 PM
19

Don't you think it's telling that TRP has no sources outside of TRP that support its claims?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 01:19 PM
3

Yeah, but I can, and I'm not. There's no way to say this without sounding conceited, but I am fully aware I'm on the higher end of the female body strength distribution -- but I'm nowhere near that extreme of it. And nothing I've seen in real life experience or peer-reviewed data provides any sort of empirical support that if you take the most average-strength man, he will beat 999 out of 1000 women. /u/namae_nanka has one study that makes something close to that claim, but I can't figure out wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 05:09 AM
4

That study provides no citations for this claim, which is bothering me because I can't find anything else that specifically supports it. That study's assertion is also not based on empirical evidence that 'the average guy is stronger than 99.9% of women,' but instead on data from other studies that show that, for upper body muscle and strength, there is a mean effect size of 3 in comparing men's total upper body muscle mass and strength with women's. But none of the citations the article provide…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 05:00 AM
5

If my husband assumed that I didn't know my own mind, I would leave his ass. And if I believed that my husband didn't know his own mind, I would also leave his ass. And if my husband thought to deliberately make me anxious and worried about the strength of our union, I would triply leave his ass. There is a huge amount of contempt required to believe that your partner's verbalized dissatisfactions are irrelevant, and her belief that she has those concerns is false. It doesn't matter whether or n…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 04:14 AM
3

I cited like four different articles, not sure what in particular you're referring to, but they're all about the same body of research that's been developed over decades. What relationship exist where this doesn't happen? Maybe I'm misinterpreting this statement. It's much more complicated than that simple summary, and the full studies (and especially his pathway models) are definitely worth looking into deeper. It's not a simple negative affect --> negative affect model. It is also about the ra…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 04:05 AM
2

You'd think that's how they'd try to play it off, but it's more often sulking... But that's definitely a self-selection effect, haha. The only time I wind up arm wrestling dudes is when (a) a guy hears one of my friends give an overblown claim about my ability to beat 'any' guy, and (b) he is insecure enough to feel a need to prove it isn't true by showing he can beat a woman. And generally also (c) people are drunk, so they are more dramatic in losing.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 03:42 AM
4

Contempt is putting yourself in a place of superiority and negative judgment over another. Denying a partner's expressed concerns and wants because you consider your partner to be unable to identify what their 'real' concerns are? That is a textbook example of contempt. Stonewalling, as used by Gottman in his studies, is coded as a withdrawal-avoidance behavior that involves showing no affect or engagement in response to a partner's concerns. Also, insisting the problem doesn't exist and refusin…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 03:28 AM
5

The 'needing evidence' part is pretty unhealthy too, though. I mean, since you picked your partner, and you thought he was pretty rad, you can assume other people think the same. Of course I know my husband could be with someone else if he wanted to. And if I was upset about some kind of conflict, and his response was to ignore my concerns and to remind me that he could simply go find someone else if he wanted to -- christ, don't you think that's a really fucked up way of doing things? Also, do …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 03:17 AM
4

I'm sure that happens. But it's just as much an indication of self-esteem issues if someone is aware that their partner feels that way, and they stay with their partner anyway. Healthy relationships are generally not founded upon a lack of other available options.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 02:57 AM
2

I meant I don't really have a more generalized perspective to give. Or rather that I don't believe in any generalized perspective, because there is no sexual dynamic in a void.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 02:48 AM
12

Closest to an answer I can possibly give: Healthy people who want to have long-term, interpersonal, sexual relationships, whether they are straight, gay, old, young, or whatever, want to have those relationships with people they find to be attractive, trustworthy, and compatible with both their personal beliefs and daily habits. Most people who want short-term sexual relationships want to find people who are really attractive and whom having a short-term relationship with is not likely to lead t…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 02:45 AM
6

It's not really an answerable question, though. Generally, if you don't agree with TRP, it's because you believe human interactions of any sort are complex, heavily dependent upon context, cannot be summarized in soundbites, and cannot be generalized into universal pronouncements. People are so different that it is impossible for their to be any unified affirmative theory of sexual dynamics. I could maybe give an answer about sexual dynamics in a typical night club, or sexual dynamics in culture…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 02:37 AM
2

Thrilling? No... I find that a really weird word to use, I have to admit. If you assume your partner is only with you because they don't have the option to be with anyone else they wanted, then it's probably a sign you've got some serious self-esteem and insecurity issues to work on.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 02:30 AM
11

My theory is that any theory that proclaims women to be emotionally stunted children that are incapable of love, honor, loyalty, or rationality is complete and utter bollocks.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 02:14 AM
2

I don't think 'dread game' can really be defined as anything other than a strategy that is designed to cause one's partner to feel anxiety over the possible loss of the relationship -- that's pretty much the only way it's ever referred to in TRP that I've ever seen. And the possibility of other definitions doesn't change the fact that the behaviors /u/redpillschool described are behaviors that are negatively correlated with relationship success in all of Gottman's studies. So either dread game a…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 02:10 AM
6

Using /u/redpillschool's definition of 'dread game' in the comments below, then dread game directly promotes a specific set of behaviors that Gottman has found to correlate with poor relationship outcomes. Maybe his definition doesn't match "the red pill definition," but to me it seemed very similar to the concept of dread game that I usually see promoted by TRP.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 01:22 AM
2

Anecdotally, I'm confident the '99% of men can beat 100% of women' stat is false. I can beat a surprising number of dudes in arm wrestling, and while I'm definitely on the right side of the bell curve when it comes to arm strength in women, there's no way I'm in the 1%. (I don't even lift, bro.) I'd say I can beat around 50% of guys -- stronger than average guys, no, but weaker than average guys, yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 01:11 AM
5

Sure, TRP postulates that, but there's no data to support the conjecture. But TRP also postulates women magically become undateable at X years, which is what the wall is. And it's equally unsupported. The fact that there are fewer "good men" as you get older for the same reason there are fewer "good women" -- most of the potential partners have been married off. There are fewer choices, but both men and women are still selecting in their age cohort when they do pick someone.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 12:47 AM
7

When men were diagnosed with a serious illness, their marriages were four times less likely to experience divorce than were marriages in which no partner had a serious illness. When women were diagnosed with a serious illness, their marriages were almost twice as likely to experience divorce than were marriages in which no partner had a serious illness. Given that women file for divorce around 70% of the time, something is needed to support a hypothesis that all of a sudden men switch roles and …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 12:21 AM
7

I don't think anyone disagrees that the overwhelming majority of people, given the choice of banging a 25 year old or banging an 80 year old, would wanna bang the 25 year old, sight unseen. But it is also fact that most relationships are between people with an age different of between 0-3 years. Most people are choosing a partner that is their own age, whether they are 20 or 40.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 11:49 PM
14

I'm not sure why blue pillers would need to "explain" the existence of men being victims of domestic violence, or what you are trying to imply. Or how this is even a red pill position. Are you trying to imply that being beta results in being a victim of domestic violence? But there is a very real and categorical difference in the types of violence that is being compared here, as the articles you cited all make very clear: Alcohol problems and the differentiation of partner, stranger, and general…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 11:45 PM
7

If concepts cannot be defined, then critical discussion of those concepts is meaningless. And a cat telling a girl that he wants to make love to her on any kind of leather would be more than a little creepy.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 11:04 PM
10

he doesn't understand that her attraction to him isn't rational This is contempt. It's important not to try to "fix" what she says is broken, This is stonewalling. instead you work on your own game and improve your standing in the sexual market. This is disengagement and what Gottman codes as 'turning away'. It can make your mate try harder. This is negative emotional reciprocity. Partner A reacts with withdrawal, and Partner B reacts with anxiety and insecurity. It can make her anxious, she may…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 10:59 PM
5

If I say that 'negging' means to 'give a woman positive attention to make her feel more secure and confident,' does that mean no one can tell me I'm incorrect?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 10:41 PM
3

Jinx. Yeah, I think that has to explain part of the gap. Although I think the "women who wanted to leave but couldn't financially manage it" explanation is a bit more believable than the "men who wanted to become caretakers but couldn't financially manage it" explanation...
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 10:28 PM
5

I think financial ability to leave the marriage undoubtedly explains some of the disparity. More women than men are financially dependent on their spouse; it stands to reason that, for at least some of the women who ended up staying, they would have chosen to leave had they possessed the resources to do so. The reasons you cited also seem likely to have played some part -- along with the fact that women may have had more emotional resources than the men had, or were better able to identify that …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 10:24 PM
13

So basically, dread game is normal game within the context of a relationship. That is part of what I was bringing up for discussion in my post. It's not simply dread game that Gottman's research invalidates, it's the existence of game itself. But Gottman's research is very consistent and very clear when it comes to behaviors like that involved in dread game: responses to a partner's negative emotional affects that (by design or effect) increase anxiety and insecurity are destructive to marital s…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 10:12 PM
15

The idea that women are somehow more incapable of empathy or attachment to a distressed partner doesn't really fit with the fact that women who are sick are seven times more likely to be abandoned by their spouse than are men who are sick.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 09:13 PM
10

How is "covertly communicating that you have options [to leave your partner]" not an example of "disengagement, withdrawal, and a threat of abandonment"? I'm being serious. You must define those words very differently than I do, because, to me, suggesting to your partner that you have the ability to walk and are considering doing so is a perfect example of all three of those things.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 09:08 PM
10

Except that Gottman's predictions were not based on any information concerning frequency of lovemaking or frequency of quarrels, but instead on observations of how couples interacted during the course of a 15-minute discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 09:06 PM
3

Your equation of "dread game" with "boundaries" is ether deliberately disingenuous or a willful misunderstanding of the concept.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 09:03 PM
7

Disengagement, withdrawal, and threats of abandonment are precisely the types of every day behaviors that Gottman is talking about. He emphasizes "the discussions couples don't have" -- when one spouse is made unhappy, in an unhappy couple the other responds with nonverbal displays of disengagement and stonewalling (or verbal displays of contempt, disinterest, or belligerence), while in a happy couple the other responds with nonverbal communications (or verbal but incidental communications) of a…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 09:01 PM
8

Yes, a man's suggestion that he might have an affair is considered in Gottman's coding. Threats of abandonment and emotional withdrawal are negative affects that are correlated with relationship volatility and dissatisfaction. Conflict styles that result (or in this case, are intended) to cause insecurity in a partner are strongly correlated with both divorce and unhappy marriages. This seems to be supportive of Commandment of Poon XV (maintain frame) - just sayin'. There is no damned way that "…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 08:54 PM
9

"Dread game" when used properly isn't actually any different from standing up for yourself in a relationship and setting non-negotiable boundaries that you intend to keep. This isn't dread game. 'Standing up for yourself' and engaging in discussion aimed at resolving marital conflict is the precise opposite of it. Dread game is a deliberate strategy of causing your partner to experience anxiety and insecurity over the stability of the relationships, as a means of inducing desired behavioral modi…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 08:22 PM
7

If TRP has no scientific validity and is nothing but a religious belief among its adherents, then there is no argument that can be made against it. If 'hypergamy' were a real and observable attribute of human nature, evidence of its existence should be able to be observed in repeatable experiments. If that's not the case, then it is nothing more than a superstition. Lots of people believe that sugar makes you hyper, that shaving makes hair grow back darker, and birds will abandon their babies if…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 05:20 PM
8

"Old people are generally considered less attractive than young adults" is a trivially true concept that TRP has turned it into some ridiculous notion that women turn 30 and shrivel into dust like they've chosen the wrong cup in the temple of the sun. (Or when they turn 26, or 36 -- TRP cannot agree when this dramatic and scientific wall occurs). It's just not true. There is no dramatic shifting like TRP is so invested in believing, and there isn't any societal effect like TRP has supposed.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 02:56 PM
8

Do you really need scientific evidence before making decisions in your life? How do you live your life without a scientific study proving that, for example, strawberries are tastier than pineapples? When I'm making a life decision based upon a scientific claim, I need scientific evidence before making that decision. If TRP is a philosophy or a religion, then you're right, the lack of scientific support is irrelevant. But TRP likes to pretend its mythology is actually science, and, as such, the l…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 04:33 AM
3

That link gives you the raw data. You can review it to see what percent of marriages for what specific time period and given demographic had ended by divorce as by the date of the survey. Again, for each specific criteria, the 'how many end in divorce' answer will be different, but it is clearly less than 50%, and largely clusters around the 40-45% number. I will quote the Gottman Institute because, well, it's the closest thing to non-academia but neutral and scholarly-ish source I can find with…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 04:27 AM
6

Actually, it's pretty widely reported among men in TRP and elsewhere that women's attractiveness to them declines considerably through her 30s. Such science. But something declining over an extended period is the exact opposite of what "the wall" alleges to exist. Also most redditors are under 35, and most people find their age to be of greatest interest as a potential match. Very few since 1967, actually. Check out all these sciences.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 03:55 AM
5

The stats are complicated because of the huge number of variables being considered, and the obvious inability to determine how many marriages that occur today (or in the past decade) will ultimately end in divorce. Something around 40-45% is a reasonable figure when considering all marriages, but keep in mind that, if you exclude second + marriages, the percent of marriages never ending in divorce will also go up. (Hence why the number of marriages ending in divorce will always be higher than th…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 03:52 AM
5

Probably a very slim percentage more than report the experience of "the wall." And lots of people report experiencing encounters with squatches, too.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 03:40 AM
7

Which has completely nothing to do with the number of marriages that end in divorce.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 03:38 AM
5

That's crude divorce rate.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 03:32 AM
3

I hypothesize that women are more attractive when their age is an even number than when it is an odd number. What? You don't have any studies that disprove that?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 03:30 AM
2

I couldn't make it all the way through the quiz, but the first comment was hilarious. Dude mentions that just randomly walking away from a conversation is a mild social faux pas, and people freak out. ALPHAS PEE WITHOUT APOLOGY.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 02:27 AM
7

But it is steadily and consistently changing as the rate of gender equality increases. Most people marry people of equal or close to their same economic level and earning potential. Trying to find a non-paywalled article is too annoying on short notice, and I'll try to do so later when I can spend more than a minute finding a source, but the idea of "millionaires marrying broke young baristas" is just not statistically true. In the slightest.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 02:09 AM
7

I object to the "wall", foremost, because of the absurd notion that there is a sudden and dramatic shift at any point in age. That's how you know the wall is a made up concept -- it is against all of biology, sociology, and common sense to think that, post-puberty, any chronological number could be associated with anything more than a gradual shifting of any attribute. Even if it were true, the most you could theoretically expect is a gradual and consistent downward tend, but nothing resembling …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 01:56 AM
7

'Hypergamy' is a 'least arguable truth'? TRP's bizarro hypergamy claims have so scientific support whatsoever, and are nothing more than a concise way of spouting off TRP's "women have no honor and are incapable of love" rhetoric. "The wall" is an absurd metaphor that does not describe any actual sociological phenomenon. I don't actually have a problem with the concept of a 'sexual marketplace,' I just object to the fairy tales that TRP tells itself about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 10:48 PM
4

Ahaha, awesome, thanks!
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 08:39 PM
10

Can blue pillers get dubbed as Agents instead? Y'know, just to keep with the Matrix theme...
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 06:21 PM
2

Wow, just a little cray cray.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 04:08 PM
2

The saddest part is that I don't think that guy was even, strictly speaking, a troll. Or at least not an intentional one. His logic was bizarre, but sincere.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 09:06 PM
3

Mod: "If someone doesn't have a source, you can ask them to provide one." Redblueredblue: "WHY DO I GET IN TROUBLE FOR MAKING UP IMAGINARY SOURCES, THIS IS DISCRIMINATION"
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 06:21 PM
2

You didn't give any sources for me to counter, because you are either a troll or a delusional liar. Let me be more explicit, since my sarcasm failed last time: there is no 'landmark case of Oklahoma v Washburne in the early 1800s.' Oklahoma didn't even exist until the 20th century, and it wasn't a named territory until the last decade of the 19th century. If this were true, women would not receive inheritance, they would receive a stipend of 'support' similar to alimony while the men controlled …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 06:07 PM
6

Actually you'll find that you have no idea what you're talking about. The case I cited involved the Supreme Court affirming the denial a woman's petition to be admitted to the bar. Inheritance laws have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that, and I can't imagine why you think it is relevant to my comment. Moreover, inheritance from a husband involves a situation where the woman's keeper is necessarily out of the picture, and therefore she becomes entitled by default to have certain econom…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 02:42 PM
5

if it is scientifically concluded that they will (not might be) happier Science doesn't make laws, governments do. The government would necessarily be the party determining when science has 'concluded' that a certain class of people will be happier if they are denied equality or rights. Even if there were somehow no scientific disagreement on the point, however, I would still find it abhorrent. Because the fact that I might share a certain attribute (be it sex, race, national origin, or anything…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 04:19 AM
7

In fact, that idea appears in the defining document for our nation as one of our inalienable rights. It then seems curious to me that anyone trying to frame an argument supported by the values our nation stands for would promote an idea that would suppress that value on principle. We are endowed with certain unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's not "life, and restrictions on your freedom that the government believes will make you more happy," it's the liberty to …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 03:39 AM
5

I realize that you're just looking for an excuse to regurgitate your undergrad political philosophy course, Mr. Sunstein, but do keep in mind what this thread is actually discussing. Which is women's rights. You are arguing that, if the government determines that women are happier without equality, then we should bring back coverture, repeal the 19th amendment, or take away whatever other freedoms that are causing women unhappiness. I thought the slavery example might help you realize the absurd…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 03:02 AM
7

Whoooosh, that one went right over, didn't it. Okay, let me break it down for you: The government has no business prohibiting freedoms on the basis of the government's belief that people will be happier if they are not permitted those freedoms. People's happiness is their own business, and if some freedoms would make them unhappier, they are welcome to leave those rights unutilized.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 02:32 AM
6

So, just so I understand you. You would opt to abolish slavery, even if a society with slavery has a higher net happiness than does one without slavery, on principal alone? On what basis is this reasonable?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 02:19 AM
11

140 years ago, and the Supreme Court would've forbidden me from my profession: Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life... The harmony, not to say identity, of interest and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband. There …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 01:46 AM
4

Thanks! Hopefully I will be -- this change will definitely be a risk, but that's preferable to stagnation. Bring on the new slave master!
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 01:15 AM
16

human biodiversity I'd never heard of this before so I just looked it up, and holy cow, I was not expecting that. It is a straight-up racist ideology. With a more benign sounding euphemism than usual. But if we're playing a game of "what do these things have in common," the answer isn't 'things that can only be discussed in a hush hush manner,' it is 'things that are pseudoscience.'
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 09:58 PM
6

You can't take the sky from me.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 08:54 PM
13

Damned right. As someone who handed in her resignation today, I would just like to give a moment of thanks for my freedom to do just that.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 08:48 PM
10

She who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 08:43 PM
9

Freedom is slavery, too many choices and too many responsibilities is doubleplusungood. Slavery is freedom, a woman who stays in the home and lets her husband be her master is free from want or worry, she can has the security of bellyfeeling that she is doing the right thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 08:40 PM
15

We... find[] that the relative decline in women’s well-being is ubiquitous, and holds for both working and stay-at-home mothers, for those married and divorced, for the old and the young, and across the education distribution. The effect found in the study you posted applied without regard to the particular life choices made by the women that were sampled. So how on earth is "women are arguably making poor choices" even remotely relevant to this discussion?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 08:32 PM
6

Freedom is slavery.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 08:26 PM
19

Feminism had the idea of making all the available opportunities open to women as well as to men. What they do with it after is their business. Even if were shown to be indisputable fact that women are happier in a society in which there is no equality, and are unhappier when living in a society with more equality, I wouldn't change a thing about what feminism has accomplished.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 08:23 PM
4

It is also biological nonsense. A capable provider who can successfully rear children is a Darwinian alpha. Selection pressures would strongly favor individuals who choose to have offspring with someone who has proven capable at not only surviving, but also obtaining enough resources to take care of kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 04:54 AM
7

If you take a mundane truth, and add crazy to it, the result has 'some truth' but is also 'problematic.' The 'some truths' TRP has were not invented by nor exclusive to TRP. They've got the standard fare for dating advice ("know what you want, love yourself first, put yourself out there, and don't take shit from nobody") and then they've invented a misogynistic mythology to explain the reason for these rules.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 04:47 AM
13

He is saying that, because your partner's disagreement with your verdict is unreasonable and unwarranted, causing her physical pain to end her objections to your authority is the quickest and most decisive way of ending the conflict. There is no other way of understanding what is being said in this post. Because the woman is incapable of being reasoned with, the appropriate way of responding is to shut down any objections and to avoid any drawn out drama by firmly letting her know that she needs…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 03:35 AM
15

Let's think about this for a moment. What is the purpose of corporal punishment? It is to create physical pain in someone who has done wrong, to help them develop an aversion to the undesired conduct. This is why it is typically used as the most severe form of punishment to deter children from certain behaviors -- if a child tries to run into the road, corporal punishment is a way of making the consequences immediate and very much real to the child, even if they are incapable of understanding th…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 03:27 AM
15

Because in the kinky context, it's just a kink. It isn't a loss of actual autonomy or independence. But as a lifestyle choice, it is quite literally the infantilization of an adult woman -- it is basing an allegedly consensual relationship on control through physical violence. You cannot be an autonomous, independent adult, and also tell someone "you have the power to physically harm me whenever you see it to be necessary, and I cannot resist."
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 01:46 AM
3

What I meant was that this particular study didn't have any findings about whether men (or women) were less concerned or more concerned about their own ability to assess their partner's emotions. The men weren't asked about whether they viewed their accuracy as important to their satisfaction, instead the study independently looked at both their accuracy levels and their satisfaction levels, and compared the two. All of the men could have been extremely concerned about their ability to accuratel…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 09:41 PM
7

From what I recall, the general trend in research on whether men or women are "more emotional" is that men and women demonstrate equal levels of emotional response in the moment of events, but that women have a tendency to be more emotional in their recall of events. That raises the problem, though, of to what degree social influences are affecting how men and women tend to describe their own emotional experiences. If men are conditioned to display less emotional, in recalling emotional events t…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 09:29 PM
5

especially given that women tend to be more emotional overall, which implies an asymmetry of needs and leads to observer/actor situation I commented This wasn't contained in the study at all. The closest the study gets to addressing it was its finding that it was equally important for both men and women that they perceived their partner's attempts to be empathetic. I also always find the lay assumption that women are 'more emotional' to be perplexing. Stereotypes abound concerning male impulsivi…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 09:16 PM
5

What is interesting, in my opinion, is that men seem uninterested in accurately identifying negative emotions in women but require women to accurately identify negative emotions in them. I'm not sure it's entirely fair to say the study found that men were uninterested in accurately identifying their partners' negative emotions. It just found that men's ability in accurately assessing women's negative emotions was not correlated with men's relationship satisfaction. This could be in part because …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 09:05 PM
14

'Hamstering' is obviously a gendered term for TRP, and it is an unquestionably sexist concept. But I mostly just find it fascinating that you can casually read this study and reach the conclusion that a researcher from Harvard Medical School is "hamstering," simply because you disagree with her analysis. It gives an idea, perhaps, of the framework that you're using when analyzing women.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 08:44 PM
10

He interpreted it wrong, the study didn't find anything along those lines. Here's an excerpt summarizing what the study found about female relationship satisfaction, the relevant bit bolded: Moreover, the model shown in Figure 3 suggests that women are more satisfied with their relationships when they accurately read their partners’ negative emotions, when their partners are empathically attuned to their negative emotions, and when they perceive their partners as trying to understand them. In ot…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 08:38 PM
14

Researcher's rationalization (hamster perhaps?): Am I reading this wrong, or are you accusing this researcher's findings of being irrational/illogical ("hamstering") on account of her being a woman?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 08:21 PM
3

Most people, and most women, don't like being bossed around. Some people are into a sub/dom dynamic in their relationships, and that's fine, but I think you should require more evidence before accepting TRP's claim that 'most' women are like that. Why exactly do you believe that women desire to be bullied or have an overbearing partner?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 04:48 PM
3

Fair enough, you don't actually say that you think you're a good guy, yourself. But if you don't think you treat women as equals or that you are a kind person, why are you confident that is a "turn off" for women? You say you're not "blaming" women, because you understand that a "basketball (baseball?) team doesn't want a guy who can't catch." Implying that women don't choose 'alphas' for any reason other than that 'alphas' are inherently what is needed to get the job done. But you describe alph…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 03:24 PM
1

Being someone who treats women as equals and is kind and gentle seems to be a turn off to most women. This is whining. And it's bullshit. "Oh, women don't want a good guy who treats them well, woe is me, I'm just too good of a guy." No, you're not. If you're not getting the ladies, I can guarantee that something else is to blame -- and to take a wild guess, it's probably your attitude. It's also insulting to women. Because who doesn't want an equal that treats them with respect? A crazy messed u…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 02:41 PM
10

No, that's just totally crazy. What the freaking hell. If dudes get a relatively symptom free BC, that is (a) awesome in general, and (b) awesome for women in relationships who do have problems taking BC, because now there's an option for someone else to take it.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 05:48 AM
3

Perceived promiscuity, whether that takes the form of a dress that stops above the knees, living with a partner before marriage, or hooking up with a new dude every week. You asked who is getting slut shamed if most women are not "spend[ing] their college years meeting guys at parties and bars and taking them back for sex." And the answer is that slut shaming is by no means limited to your imaginary army of college party girls, as slut shaming can occurs when a speaker believes that a woman has …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 08:05 PM
3

Don't we already have an animal term for this? I think 'silver fox' does the job nicely. But I'm sure there's gotta be a Lyin' pun to be made here somewhere, too.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 07:58 PM
3

it's hard to find women talking about slut shaming in any context outside of being wildly promiscuous when they're younger and demanding that it mean absolutely nothing in terms of judgements people make about them. If that's the only use of 'slut shaming' you're aware of, then I doubt you're hanging out much in /r/sexpositive or /r/sex. Wikipedia has a good summary definition, if you're honestly curious: "Slut shaming is defined by many as a process in which women are attacked for their transgr…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 07:56 PM
4

Um, I guess maybe if the only place you ever encounter discussions of slut shaming is on /r/theredpill, that might be your perception of it? But... that's not really consistent with reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 07:44 PM
3

You think 'slut shaming' only occurs to women who 'spend their college years meeting guys at parties and bars and taking them back for sex'? Ha. No, slut shaming occurs whenever a woman does something sexual (or even perceived as sexual) that the person doing the slut shaming disapproves of. Studies in this area are obviously imprecise, but the general consensus of almost all of them is that the large majority of college students (around 66%) have between 0 - 5 partners. More than one a year is …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 07:35 PM
4

Yes. It is quite literally true.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 07:15 PM
6

As long as you don't call yourself a "manther" while doing it, because I am completely against the existence of such a stupid word.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 07:13 PM
2

"Most people in the world are fucking terrible, so who the fuck cares about people" is no substitute for genuine confidence, either. You mentioned upthread "all the women on reddit going around telling them that confidence is attractive while they aren't confident feels an awful lot like a fat person hearing that being thin is attractive." But I'm not sure you get what is meant by 'confidence is attractive,' and it seems like you feel perturbed at that advice. At the most basic level, it simply …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 06:12 PM
4

No, this is an absurd apologia for TRP. It may be a realist description of the process that draws people to TRP's philosophy, but it is entirely inconsistent with what that philosophy actually professes. "Hypergamous solipsistic hamster cunts" is the Red Pill's way of saying that women are irrational creatures who are incapable of love. TRP teaches that confidence around women is easy, because women are coin-operated robots and not fully human in the way that men are human. But TRP's version of …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 05:35 PM
7

If that was TRP, then no one would have any issue of it. But that's not TRP. TRP is standard dating advice + the insistence that women are, as someone put it on another thread, 'hypergamous solipsistic hamster cunts.'
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 04:52 PM
5

There isn't a blue pill way to get laid, because being blue pill is called being human, and everyone does it their own way. But here's a basic guide: Step #1: Be presentable and be socially competent. Doesn't matter what the hell "game" you're playing, doesn't matter whether you're blue pill or red pill, take care of this first. Yes, being hot and confident is ideal, but you've got to work with what you have. Find a look that works for you, and make sure you know how to read and respond to socia…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 04:29 PM
2

Alpha can mean "dominant." It can also mean "attractive to women," "masculine," "independent," "rational," or "physically larger." Beta can mean "submissive," but it also means "unattractive to women," "feminine," "dependent," "illogical," or "physically smaller." In short, alpha is anything deemed good, and beta is anything deemed bad. The terms have no greater significance than that, and certainly have no deeper biological or sociological significance.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 03:44 PM
4

TRP is a superstition. As with magnet bracelets and homeopathy, TRP's adherents are convinced that it "just works," and are not bothered by the absence of scientific support. Any successes or benefits that are experienced are attributed to the lucky rabbit's foot, and any failures are either overlooked, forgotten, or attributed to a misapplication of the technique.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 03:39 PM
11

TRP can't even define what alpha and beta mean. So I don't think they care that there is no scientific validity to the concept.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 02:25 AM
7

You realize the only example in the study found stay-at-home moms to be bizarre and a source of gossip? And that they adamantly do not accept differences in "division of labor"? Workplace equality has long been a norm due to communist influences. But Eastern European gender roles aren't somehow "more right" American gender roles; they are simply different and socially less egalitarian, but that doesn't make them more innately true. Different cultures treat gender roles and relations differently …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 02:23 AM
4

This article provided a pretty standard description of people experience culture shock. Your hyperbolic condemnation of American culture is not supported by the article, at all. The "choice to be a stay-at-home mom" was especially not a subject of contention. The article discusses, in fact, how one of the reasons Eastern European women were lukewarm to American-style feminism was that East European women cannot identify with what they perceive to be the goals of liberal feminism -- equal partici…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 10:30 PM
8

Otherkin: doesn't matter whether you're TBP or TRP, that shit is funny.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 07:32 PM
3

There's no information on whether or not she was specifically trying to go to sleep but I think we can assume that she was at some point. That's a really big assumption to make, and it certainly would make the scenario more problematic. (How can Bill genuinely believe Amanda to be playing 'hard to get' if she's shown she wants to sleep instead?) The coercion aspect would be most problematic, though, if it's being done on someone in their own bed or with no other place to escape to. That doesn't …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 05:57 PM
1

You can't be a Christian if you don't believe Jesus is God in a skin suit, and you can't be a red piller if you don't believe that men and women are evomystically distinct beings. Beyond that, agreement may be encouraged, but it is not technically required. Even on the basic shit. That doesn't mean you can't have criticisms of the movement as a whole, though. If one version of Christianity believes you need to wear magic underwear to prevent Native Americans from killing you, the fact that diffe…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 05:42 AM
4

This is a really, really weird definition of feminism. And it doesn't match up with the reality of causes and movements that consider themselves to be feminists. Your description is too vague to be disproved, since when it comes to movements and general philosophies, you can always come up with anecdotes to 'show' that a movement as a whole possesses certain characteristics. But this description really has no connection with what most feminists consider 'feminism' to be, or what they would view …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 03:06 AM
6

A few examples off the top of my head: Preventing someone from sleeping by continually harassing them for sex until they finally give in. Threatening to reveal private information about a person if they do not give in to sexual demands. Telling someone with no means of getting somewhere safer (i.e., stuck in an apartment during a snowstorm, or at 3am in a bad neighborhood, etc.) that they must leave the premises if they do not give in to sexual demands. Note that I'm not suggesting these acts sh…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 02:53 AM
3

It's scary how many batshit educational policies are out there. The fact that this one exists is not evidence of any trend that "people looking to empower [women]" are more likely to deny women equal agency.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 02:35 AM
8

As a purely pragmatic matter: someone who fears false rape accusations shouldn't spend four hours trying to bully someone into sex. But the example given by this policy doesn't represent reality. I've never heard of a situation in which acts like the ones described there (i.e., where there is no question at all of the alleged victim's ability to give consent, or of whether consent was in fact given) results in even an investigation, let alone punishment.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 02:32 AM
1

Things that MUST be accepted in order to be considered a red piller. This is true of every movement, ideology, and philosophy. This is taking it too far; there can still be a "red pill" philosophy, even if there is not 100% agreement behind it. I otherwise agree, however. If TRP is so fractured and diverse that no one can even agree what 'taking the red pill' supposedly opens your eyes to, then its very premise is horseshit.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 02:07 AM
4

For policies enacted by colleges/institutions -- and not by law -- there are legitimate reasons for treating some acts as sexual misconduct, even in cases where 'consent' is present. Specifically, in the case of anti-hazing policies. But the example here is obviously stupid and absurd. It should not, however, be used as some kind of proof that coercing someone into sex -- i.e., using something other than overt physical violence -- is not problematic, or that it can't itself be a criminal act.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 01:57 AM
2

Ahahaha, I just saw where you lied about this discussion in /r/theredpill. That is super cute.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 06:21 AM
8

I don't think any of those stories are complete fabrications. So you mean they're... exaggerations? Which is... just what this entire post was about? But I kid. They're not exaggerations, because they are shit that definitely never happened.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 05:39 AM
9

Go read the posts OP mentioned. And then ask yourself if you can possibly believe any of those stories are true. Because they're not.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 03:39 AM
8

You edited your post, but: When a man in his 30's does decide it's time to settle down, he can select younger women with less total sexual partners, but many aren't settling down at all. There are only 88 males in their 30's available for every 100 single females in their 30's. Women doing what they want = bad for women, whereas men doing what they want = good for women? But the vast majority of people end up married at some point in their lives, so why are you accusing women of "behaving poorly…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 05:48 AM
6

That's essentially correct, So, yeah, all peoples are notorious for having flings with hot people, but when people make lifetime commitments, sanity starts becoming a more important factor. But somehow this makes men and women totally different because of reasons. Reasons that are complicated. And science. You can make up evopsych fancies all you want, but it doesn't change the fact you are contradicting yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 05:43 AM
5

So men who are younger like to chase promiscuous women, even though those bad girls cause them grief. But when those men get older and "would love to see more women become more RPW-like and less promiscuous overall so they can settle down," those men have trouble finding a woman who is more stable. So those men instead just keep banging bad girls, even though all those men really want is a nice girl to settle down with? What am I misunderstanding, exactly? And how are the two scenarios you are d…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 05:18 AM
8

So: (1) TRP chooses women who are not "promiscuous" because those women are likely to have better longterm relationships and marriages, (2) TRP is largely not interested in LTRs or marriage, (3) women like to choose men who are "promiscuous", even though those men are less likely to have better longterm relationships and marriages, and (4) women are primarily interested in LTRs or marriage. Something's not adding up.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 04:59 AM
3

I don't disagree with most of what you've commented on in this post, but I wanted to point out a possible correlation/causation issue this comment might be interpreted as suggesting. People with "high" partner counts, high rates of infidelity, and past failed marriages can indicate someone whose future relationships are not likely to be successful. But it's a big leap to say these actions cause future relationship failure. More likely is that these attributes are often associated with an unstabl…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 04:53 AM
6

But the correlation absolutely exists in men just as it does in women. So why does this correlation not warrant consideration to TRP?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 04:47 AM
3

Yeah, assuming nothing else is going on here, it's not rape. But the guy is unquestionably a scummy jerk for not helping to clean her up after. Ugh.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/13 01:38 AM
5

So even though this is a situation that never existed before, say, 1900, you think there is some sort of evolutionary mandate that makes the stay at home mom model the default? The more a society reduces "outside influences" that mandate certain gender roles, the greater the gender equality to be found in that society. I think that's a pretty clear refutation of the "default model" argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/13 07:40 PM
8

As for the evopsych, TRP assumes that in a world without negative outside influences, most couples would fall in a TRP and RPW lifestyle. I find this a fascinating and curious statement. The 'stay at home' mom is very much a modern concept -- in pre-agricultural societies there couldn't be anything such as a 'stay at home' mom, and in agricultural societies the home generally was the firm, making the idea of a 'stay at home' mom a different concept from how it exists today, and in post-industria…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/13 04:06 PM
2

What other strategies are there, when you're shown with one that helps you getting more control out of your own life ? 'Other strategies' meaning non-redpill approaches to life used by the vast majority of the population. And it seems to work out just fine for most of them. TRP seems in some ways like some of the more culty self-help regimes, or some of the extreme fad diets -- and it seems to attract the same sort of people. People who have something wrong with their lives, and want a single ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/13 08:40 PM
-1

Here's the thing, though: crying is a display of weakness and vulnerability, and can only be used to any sort of personal advantage by someone who is already weak and vulnerable. Someone with power or control cannot use tears strategically, and to the extent there is such a thing as 'strategic crying,' it could only be done by the otherwise powerless. To the extent that there is a female privilege with regards to tears, it is that a woman who cries will have less harm to her reputation than will…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 04:01 PM
2

I'm an attorney... so I am aware my workplace is likely not the norm in terms of workplace compassion. But suffice it to say, there is no circumstance I can imagine where tears could be used to strategic advantage.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 03:48 PM
3

I know the stereotype of it, and I know people believe in the stereotype. This one is just particularly baffling to me because it is so devoid of even anecdotal support in my own life. But you can find people on the internet saying all kinds of crazy things. Linking to crazy things from crazy people of a specific gender, and claiming that entire gender is like that, is not a valid argument. Or do you really think "playing the victim" is not something men do?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 05:49 AM
4

"24. I can use men’s “sheer fear of tears” to my advantage." This one bothers me a lot, on the sheer anecdotal level, because I see it mentioned all the time, and yet have never seen anything in my own life experience to back it up. Does this really happen past the age of 12? For serious? Public tears are generally responded to with discomfort and scorn, no matter the gender. I've personally been 'caught' crying at work once, when a friend died and someone opened my office door without knocking,…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 05:09 AM
12

This post sounds disturbingly like a description of bipolar disorder, more than anything else. What does "alpha" mean to you? Irrational aggressiveness and inflated feelings of self-worth? On a different note, I find it interesting you consider "blue pill" to mean "passive." 'Blue Pill' exists to mock TRP, and has absolutely nothing to do with passiveness. It often seems like anything a speaker personally considers to be 'masculine' to be alpha, and everything else is just a bunch of blue pill b…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 03:12 AM
6

Well the description of the documentary only gives that one example, and that was the only example you mentioned, so it was fair to assume that's what the documentary was about. How about this - how about you cut the bullshit and just be honest. You came here to ridicule the idea of an alpha/beta dichotomy. "LOL those dumb trpers are using a word that only applies to animals!!" My question was completely honest, why do you think it was not? As I stated in my post, I don't believe alpha and beta …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/13 11:01 PM
9

Hey, just a note -- using "bitch" as a synonym for women ain't cool, and derogatory language is not helping the discussion here.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/13 10:27 PM
7

Thanks for sharing. So "alpha" means "being physically bigger"? I've never seen TRP use this definition of alpha. Also, do you have any evidence that women prefer the physically largest men, over other attributes?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/13 10:22 PM
7

You could've provided a summary of the program, which you have watched, and presumably most of the people on this sub have not. That would be making a contribution to the discussion. But instead of offering answers or information, you choose to accuse me of being dishonest and "failing", because I do not have time to watch an hour long show in the middle of a work day. So why won't you share with the thread what the show is about? Or what this PhD's conclusions are? Is there a reason you're tryi…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/13 09:41 PM
6

I think in the future I'm going to have to just disregard any comments that start talking about "alphas" and "betas." Only one person has been willing to even attempt a definition, and that definition was at odds with how TRP uses it. Those words are just too meaningless to be a part of any productive discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/13 06:56 PM
4

Alpha, beta, all the way to omega are terms well known when it comes to wolves. The alpha male and the alpha female are the only one allowed to reproduce within a pack. The beta is the enforcer. The omega, sort of like the scapegoat. I discussed this in my post, but these terms are now completely discredited in wolf ethology, and are recognized to be false descriptions of wolf behavior. Wolf packs are family based, usually headed up by a breeder pair that are the parents or other older generatio…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/13 05:09 PM
6

Here's an explanation from National Geographic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCYVCI9NGUU I don't have time to watch an hour long reality tv show, but if you summarize the points I could respond. From the first two minutes, I saw that "alphas are the biggest guys because male silverback gorillas are also huge." I've never seen this definition of human alphas used before, though, and while it's true for gorillas, I've never heard of evidence that it's true for humans. If these behaviors are happ…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/13 03:39 PM
6

I think they're useful for representing two particular kinds of behaviour, "dominant" and "nurturing". I think this gets at a more basic explanation: "alpha" is used to mean anything that, in the given context, is considered by the speaker to be "masculine", whereas "beta" is used to mean anything that the speaker considers to be "feminine". Nurturing? That's women's shit, so beta. Being dominating? Totes alpha. As Angatar showed in the very comprehensive review above, the only consistency in th…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/13 01:22 AM
1

Goo goo g'joob.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/13 08:15 PM
8

but I also think men and woman should have to qualify under the same standards when trying to join the police, military or become a firefighter. They already do, when the tests measure capabilities required to perform a job. When the tests are intended to assure a certain level of general fitness, however, they are not the same, because having the same fitness test would render the tests meaningless for any purpose. I think some women are naturally submissive, while other women would never consi…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/13 04:42 PM
0

Yeah, no, that would be insane and I don't think anybody would argue in favor of any such system. How do you avoid that? Having the law prevent an otherwise willing parent from being a parent, when no persons with custody are even objecting, would be a really twisted system. Basically, custodial parents who didn't have a 'financial abortion' would be left either not receiving child support from an otherwise involved parent, or else essentially holding their kids for 'ransom' by charging the othe…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 08:26 PM
3

Although I don't think it's a primary consideration, a still significant problem with "financial abortions" is the fact that, after the child is born, a lot of reluctant initially-reluctant dads do end up wanting to have access to their kids. What happens in a case where a "financial abortion" is done? A "financial abortion" law with an "opt-back-in" provision would be unworkable, but otherwise you've got a situation where either (1) a dad that wants to be involved, even if he changes his mind a…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 07:04 PM
1

And still, while there's the question why, one can't argue that male rock stars do have a lot more groupies that female ones. I'm not trying to imply it's the only reason -- it's not -- but it is indisputable that culture (and by extension, money) can provide a huge answer to this question. A male Famous Person having groupies is great for the brand. A female Famous Person having groupies is bad for the brand.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 01:50 AM
2

Well, that can't really be answered in a nutshell, but: The terms 'male' and 'female' simply identify individuals with male gametes and female gametes, respectively -- this is the sole necessary variable that differentiates the categories that we have defined as male and female. For humans, being male typically means having a Y sex chromosome, and being female typically means not having a Y sex chromosome. (For now, I'm treating this as a firm division. But real life isn't actually that tidy, an…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 01:47 AM
1

Saying "men and women are the same" may be true or may be false, depending on what attribute we're talking about. But simply saying "men and women are the same" or "men and women are different" is completely meaningless, without specifying what distinctions are being spoken of.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 12:14 AM
2

My point was that there are differences in populations of men and of women. I'm still not sure what banana's last point was, but overall I think banana was arguing that there is some mystical or platonic ideal of "male" and "female." Which simply isn't true. There's no inherent "maleness" or "femaleness."
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 12:11 AM
3

Yes, but on average straight women will be more attracted to attractive men, first and primarily. Confidence and status are much farther down the totem pole. But do you really think that status and confidence don't play any role for men? Take two women of identical physical attractiveness, one is a famous and charismatic actress and one is just a somewhat withdrawn normal person -- you're telling me guys won't be inclined to bang the famous woman? I'm not arguing that men and women, as collectiv…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 08:20 PM
5

Predictions about what? Because if we're talking about ability to gestate or volume of breast tissue, then you can use sex to make some very good predictions. But once you start talking about more abstract attributes, in most cases sex will be a poor proxy for identifying specific traits.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 04:45 PM
2

I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking about dividing groups based on sex, as opposed to dividing groups based on gender? Because you could use either to categorize the groups, both are just another way of creating categories among people to draw predictions from.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 04:42 PM
2

You're right, that's very much true. I reject the underlying premise of the original argument, but it's also internally inconsistent.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 04:36 PM
7

No, that is not what I said. If you gather a group of people, and divide them so that one group contains only women and the other contains only men, then based upon factors such as the ages of the group and the region the group was drawn from, you can make probabilistic estimate about the frequency of various attributes in each group. But you can do the same exact thing if you divide the group based on any number of variables other than gender, too. The basic humanity of people is not changed si…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 04:33 PM
3

Why are different social classes targeted by different demographics? Why are different ages? Why are different regions? Because in the aggregate, different populations display different trends. Someone from Seattle will almost certainly have different preferences as a consumer than would someone from New Orleans, or Lima, or Ulaanbaatar. But that doesn't make someone from Seattle a different kind of human from the rest.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 04:25 PM
7

Our mating strategies and subsequent behaviors are wildly divergent based on gender. First, humans show more variety in mating rituals, strategies, and behaviors than any other known animal. It is indisputable that culture more strongly influences mating behaviors than does gender -- this is true regardless of whether you believe women and men are also as different as two different species might be. Because culture causes far more dramatic changes in mating behaviors than does simple gender assi…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 04:20 PM
2

Why isn't CSI played on Animal Planet? Because the demographics those channels are targeting aren't watching those shows. But your point is irrelevant, because "women's" magazines and "women's" TV channels are not literally "for women." (Actually, is there even a "women's TV channel"? I don't remember one.) The specific genres are for a certain subset of viewers who are interested in whatever makeup crap they talk about, of which the great majority of the viewers are female. But the channels the…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 04:13 PM
1

So sports fans can't understand the minds of people who like cooking? They have their own magazines and TV channels too.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 03:41 PM
2

I responded to a comment of yours before I saw you'd said the same thing in a post, so I'll repeat my comment here: There is nothing to know "about women." There's knowing about being human, full stop. People are people, and you can know as much as any person can know about the mind of another, regardless of gender.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 03:28 PM
2

That's exactly the opposite of my point, though. There is nothing to know "about women." There's knowing about being human, full stop. People are people, and you can know as much as any person can know about the mind of another, regardless of gender.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 03:26 PM
6

I also think that, in the same way TRP has a distorted view of what women want, it also has a distorted view of what men want. Men don't only want physical attractiveness. That's always the most important factor, for casual relationships especially, but personality still comes into play. For both genders. But to hear TRP tell it, men are incapable of any sort of interpersonal connection beyond the purely physical.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 03:25 AM
5

That's exactly what I'm talking about. How? Both men and women experience this. It's a human thing. And it's not about "not knowing" what you're attracted to. To suggest that fat nerds have no problem getting laid just shows that you have absolutely no connection with the outside world, where real guys would completely disagree with you. 1) I never suggested that, so why are you bringing it up? 2) That isn't a monolithic category, some do and some don't. Just like all people. No one is denying t…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 07:33 PM
5

Preferences do not ensure panty-wetting attraction. You can have a man who hits every item on a woman's checklist that doesn't quite do it for her. I'm not sure what relevance this has. Sometimes, the 'chemistry' just ain't there -- even if the person is someone you'd otherwise find physically attractive, or is someone you might be interested in dating but isn't someone you're physically attracted to. But that's not a gendered phenomenon. And re: the comparison, for most straight women, then wit…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 06:49 PM
5

Knowing what you want in a partner is a significant component of being self-aware. Your statement that women "rarely" know what they want in a partner, if accepted, means that women's stated preferences about what they want in a relationship or their opinions on the status of a relationship ought to be disregarded. False. It can easily be falsified: If women started dating fat nerds over built jocks, we could easily falsify the red pill theory. And yet there are plenty of dude nerds out there, o…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 06:23 PM
2

1) I am aware the study had a comparator group that included women, why you keep parroting this is beyond me. 2) My objection was not apparently to the study itself. What I was specifically objecting to was this: Homosexual men prefer younger feminine gay men, and older masculine gay men. This suggests that this gender dichotomy may not be a social construct, but an innate preference for traits that are encompassed by the groups 'feminine' and 'masculine'. It seems like that may have just been y…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 02:00 AM
3

I would kind of hate to see it come to that, because obviously there are many good paywalled articles out there that are relevant to this sub. But I think, practically, that may be the best choice for y'all. Perhaps you can still allow paywall articles in the comments, so that people can cite to interesting stuff that may come up in discussion? That way the lucky people with database access can still share it, but you won't have entire threads dedicated to dissecting gleams of data from an abstr…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 12:36 AM
5

If your big point is that "people want attractive partners," then why is this even posted on this sub? Why is it even posted at all? To my knowledge, no one anywhere in the history of Reddit has ever disagreed that people generally want attractive partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 11:50 PM
4

Women and men having similar dating preferences, and considering attractiveness to be more important than social status? That's "hypergamy" to you? Okay then.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 11:42 PM
2

The first article did not support a conclusion that "age hypergamy" has a biological basis, and found instead it a had cultural-based explanation. /u/PizzaOnEarth's interpretation was that this supports "hypergamy," but the study itself appears to disagree with that conclusion. The second article found that, overall, women and men were more similar than dissimilar in their mate preferences, and that physical attractiveness was a more significant factor than status: Overall, homosexual men and wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 11:28 PM
1

So homosexual males are not males. Got it. The study is (apparently) designating certain gay males as 'honorary females,' and using results concerning their behavior as support for the claim that women engage in "age hypergamy." Edit: I withdraw my objection. After finding slightly more information on the study, it appears that this study concluded that "age hypergamy" was more supported by cultural influences than by biological ones. So basically neither study supports what PizzaOnEarth claims …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 11:16 PM
17

When you completely negate the idea that women are capable of self-awareness, there is no room left for debate. TRP's belief system relies on being unfalsiable. Women only want X, therefore if any woman says she doesn't want X, it is because she lacks knowledge of her own identity.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 10:12 PM
7

No, I didn't state it didn't include women. I know that the study also used a comparator group that included women. That still doesn't address my concern that using data from a male-only sample to support conclusions about female behavior -- apparently by dividing the male sample into "really male" and "really female" groups? -- is problematic.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 07:04 PM
8

First you claimed my comments aren't valid because I remarked on the fact the article is behind a paywall. Then you claimed that my comments aren't valid because I (allegedly) hadn't read the abstract. And now you claim my comments aren't valid because even though I cited a portion of the abstract that directly contradicts your summary of it, I'm not able to read the article, so I have nothing to contribute to the conversation. I think that loops us back to my initial point.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 06:57 PM
3

No, they're not. The abstract says very plainly it is using a concept of "age hypergamy" that is not the same "hypergamy" as you are using the term. Also it says nothing about my criticism that using a study on male behavior to draw sweeping generalizations about female behavior is also questionable.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 06:54 PM
5

Ah, I see. The article you cited to does not appear to support your argument, but your argument is still correct because of reasons. The existence of statistical differences between populations of each sex =/= "hypergamy is real."
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 06:53 PM
3

And yet I did make other critiques. Which you apparently are refusing to consider, simply because I also pointed out that it would be better for you to instead put up for discussion articles that everyone can read.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 06:51 PM
5

The very study you're citing to found that "[o]verall, homosexual men and women have similar mate preferences to heterosexual men and women by showing more dating desire for attractive and high social status persons." How exactly does this support TRP, again?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 06:47 PM
8

I did look, I didn't see anything. If you're aware of an accessible version of the article, then you're being needlessly difficult by refusing to share it. The study is focused solely on what the author has decided to term "age hypergamy." There is a specific hypothetical behavior that the author is examining, and it is simply not the same universalized theory of "hypergamy" that TRP throws around. And also, I reaallly question how exactly "subjects’ gender presentation" was determined. Maybe th…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 06:33 PM
7

Putting up paywalled articles for discussion doesn't do much good. Abstracts typically proclaim a lot more than the data supports, and there's no much discussion to be had on abstracts alone. The first article would be extremely problematic for proving your point. First, it doesn't appear to use TRP's definition of "hypergamy," second, using a study based on male behavior to draw conclusions about female behavior is obviously problematic, and third, the article seems to have conclude that a biol…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 06:13 PM
9

Pipefish. Dance flies. Orange tip butterflies. Common acraea. Spotted hyena. Phalaropes. Agamids. Gobies. I can go on for a while, your claim was bullshit. Not to mention, sexual reproduction isn't restricted to Kingdom Animalia. Among animals, different phyla do have different tendencies towards what you could broadly call "female mate choice" models or "male mate choice" models, but there isn't a neat division between the two. It is more common for both males and females to engage in mate sele…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 06:06 PM
13

Females of all sexual species are "gatekeepers" in that they select from the available males. This isn't even pretendscience anymore. You're just making stuff up because it sounds like it supports your argument, even though it's blatantly false. or subjugation of other males (that is, being an alpha) Can we stop using this term when referencing actual science. The concept of "alphas" was based on really crap ethology. So crap that not only did it seriously impede the understanding of canine beha…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 04:31 PM
6

Except for all the living, walking, breathing pieces of evidence that contradict this fairy tale you've told yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 03:20 AM
14

This statement I don't have to react negatively. and this statement it would probably mean the end of the relationship. are entirely contradictory. And unless you simply break up with a partner every time there occurs even the mildest challenge to your authoritah, there is some give and take going on here. And I think you acknowledged elsewhere (or someone did in these comments) that both you and your partner have input on decisions, and if something makes her unhappy she can push back on it. It…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 11:56 PM
6

It's because the words you use to describe it are a lot more dramatic sounding than what the reality is. It's not really that you get "final say," as you try to describe it. It's a relationship dynamic, not actually you being "in charge" or "giving command." It is understood in your relationship that you will react negatively and cause conflict if your preferences and rationales are not given precedence, and that you do not respect her powers of logical reasoning to the same degree that she is e…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 10:02 PM
8

It's because he wants to say "all women are submissive children who like to be treated like they are 13." Only that's not going to get him very far, so he disguises it by saying "I'm in a relationship where I treat my wife like a child, and we're happy! Therefore a philosophy based on the premise that all women are children is fine!"
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 09:34 PM
6

So was the 'outlier' part. Some women are submissive to the point you desire, as are some men. Most people are not, and your claim that "most" women want to subvert their will to the ultimate guidance of their male benefactor is a joke.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 09:30 PM
4

IRScientist gave solid advice. But perhaps by "take time to think about what you want," for you I might try rephrasing it as "take time to feel what you want." Put aside all the outside influences, ignore all the competing claims about what you "should" want or "should" desire. Simply experience being with her and being her partner. And then see if doing so makes you happy, and if it's something you want to keep doing. That's the whole point of a new relationship, after all. The navel gazing can…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/13 06:21 PM
8

Don't let some internet pickup philosophy interfere with your shot at a meaningful relationship with an equal. Also, don't confuse early-relationship-jitters for being anything more significant. This isn't psychological warfare.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/13 04:14 AM
4

Your height example is absurd. It is possible there is an example where what you are proposing makes sense, but I can't even begin to think of what it might be. I know that you are saying is that "a girl [someone] meets is probably shorter than him. I'm telling him to be prepared for that likelihood." And what I am asking is why this advice would ever be beneficial or appropriate. I make it through the day without responding to people differently based on what gender they are. So I am asking you…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 06:23 PM
6

I ain't got any disagreement with this. People are people, whether they own a mac, were born in Florida, don't like cilantro, or are a man. Those variables may give you probabilities, but none of them affect a person's basic capacity to love or have individual agency. But I also feel like this isn't at all what TRP believes.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 12:50 AM
8

You can't attribute all psychological differences on cultural imprints Well a good thing I didn't, then. Again, nothing you are talking about is addressing my point. Which is that gender is a collection of attributes that appear with greater frequency in one sex or the other. Gender differences in studies (psych studies) are overwhelmingly of small statistical significance. Review this meta study if you want more information on this. For many variables, differences between men and women are cons…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 12:47 AM
6

I have edited the "all," because that wasn't the point of my comment in the slightest. What value is there in treating every woman you meet as if they possess a default set of stereotypical attributes, until that individual woman somehow proves otherwise?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 12:22 AM
3

You're right, I edited my response to clarify the "all" statement. Your hypothetical proves why your premise is absurd, though. If these secret generalizations that you have in mind are so debatable that you can't even confidently say they apply to > 50% of the population, why do you feel justified in assuming that any individual in that category you encounter will have that attribute? If someone is walking around doing things that annoy short people, then he is not going to improve his situatio…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 12:17 AM
5

I asked you a question. You can either answer the question, or you can avoid the question and complain that I'm difficult to have a conversation with. The first option would probably help us more in moving the conversation along.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 10:50 PM
10

Except knowing gender wouldn't tell you any of those facts. Each of those facts provides a lot more information than does merely knowing someone's gender.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 10:43 PM
5

The height example does nothing to prove your point. If you think your argument is valid, find an example that actually demonstrates that. Don't just give me an example that doesn't work, and ask me to pretend that it's an example that actually supports your argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 10:39 PM
6

For things that height matter for, you would not change your interactions with other people based upon their gender. You would change your behavior on the basis of their height. This is actually a perfect example of why trying to interact with people on the basis of gender is inherently absurd.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 10:24 PM
6

Why the heck would you need to assume that all women are short? Like, there are plenty of short dudes out there, and tall women. It would be really, really dumb to do an act that would be obnoxious to tall people, and to always do it around women, simply because you assume they are short. Or vice versa. Your example doesn't help anything, because no one would do this.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 10:17 PM
7

And out of curiosity, what generalized categories, like height, do you feel it is appropriate to assume all to be a default condition for women have? In terms of fundamental character differences, that is, not physical characteristics.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 10:13 PM
6

as a guy, we are playing a numbers game, in a way that you may never be able to understand. See, here's the thing. With the whole 'statistical differences in population' thing, the statement you just made is nonsensical. And it shows that what I am saying is not the same at all as what you have said. There is no most women. There is no "what most women are like," there is no generalized female. These psychological differences you are apparently assuming to exist are not supported by any sort of …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 10:10 PM
3

No two population groups, however selected, can ever be 100% alike. So saying males and females are not 100% alike doesn't state anything meaningful. And differences in average hormone exposure (in utero and during development) is responsible for many statistical differences between men and women. But for any individual person, As I said above, there is no abstract concept of "man" or "woman". The single defining difference between male and female is the presence of sperm cells or egg cells (and…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 10:04 PM
9

Based on past baseball games, there is a 99.999% certainty that will happen. If statistics said the same thing about gender differences, you'd think it wouldn't be hard to find evidence of that. But it simply doesn't exist. If all you know about someone is the state they were born in, then you might be able to make some ballpark guesses about what they might be like. But statistics concerning a group have no impact on any given individual's actual attributes, and the person you meet is not someh…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 08:34 PM
12

I like your post, but one point I wanted to respond to: we can learn how men and women really differ, while also eliminating harmful gender profiling and stereotypes. This assumption that there is some "core difference" in kinds is shouldn't just be presumed. Unless you're talking about a very limited class of issues in which sex is a determinate factor (certain diseases and women's (essentially) exclusive ability to carry a pregnancy), then there isn't some platonic ideal of "male" and "female"…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 07:57 PM
4

I ask women, why do girls flock to this married dude who is known to have cheated on his wife? They respond, "Because he has already been chosen, we know that he must have SOMETHING going for him." Some respond, "Because I like the idea of him choosing me over her." Most respond, "I have no idea what you're talking about, women don't flock towards him." Have you ever literally asked a woman this? There's no way someone actually told you they personally gave you those first two answers. Unless yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 07:26 PM
3

TRP is way more than just game, at least as I understand it. I see game as being a bunch of tricks people think they have discovered, not as a comprehensive philosophical premise about human nature. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that's the distinction I was referring to. But I think you are being very disingenuous if you are claiming that TRP isn't based on the fundamental premise that women have limited cognitive abilities, that they lack the capacity for intellect and human emotion that men …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 06:08 PM
3

Your claim isn't true. If you sleep with a woman who does not objectively seem impaired, it doesn't matter what she wakes up and claims that she was unable to consent, it is not rape. A conviction will never happen there.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 05:15 PM
2

I don't think TRP counts as "game." At least not as I understood your definition. I don't have any problem with GameGame, other than thinking it's pretty stupid. I mean, no matter what someone is doing, if they choose a strategy that actually gets them out there and actually taking chances, then their odds of success are going to increase astronomically. And in the pick up context, gaining some awareness of the social dance of 20-something club-goers who are trying to hookup will inevitably prov…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 04:12 PM
5

So your problem with this topic apparently has absolutely nothing to do with capacity to consent. If evidence is irrelevant, why are you complaining about the legal standard? You can accuse anyone of committing any crime. That doesn't provide any support for a policy of decriminalizing all crimes.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 04:01 PM
2

Precisely! And that's the standard I was trying to describe in my comment, e.g., "[i]f someone objectively would have no reason to subjectively know that their partner could not consent, it's not rape." /r/mensrights would like to have a word They might want to have a word, but they wouldn't actually have anything to say. Because it is not rape to have sex with someone when there isn't any objective indication that they have not consented or lacked the ability to consent.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 03:45 PM
4

Let me ask you a different question. Are you proposing that having sex with someone who is impaired should be fully decriminalized, no matter their level of impairment?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 03:22 PM
2

If you don't want guys raping women, all you have to do is give a clear rule about it. I know you're just being snarky, but that's a troubling statement to make. Here is an actual measurement for you to apply, though: Q: Do I have any reason to believe that this person is so intoxicated that they lack meaningful awareness of their surroundings and are unable to engage in coherent and lucid communication? If no, proceed. If yes, realize that your desire to have sex does not relieve you of your ob…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 03:19 PM
3

The same way they would determine if someone had too much alcohol to enter into a legally binding contract.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 03:14 PM
2

We need to talk about a specific jurisdiction before precise definitions can be applied. But in general, take the sex part out of it. Say that a drunk person agrees to sell you their priceless Picasso painting for a $1 -- if you try to sue them to enforce the agreement, will you win? If they had a glass of scotch while discussing the negotiations, then yes, that is not going to have any affect on the deal. If they were so impaired that they had no idea what they just agreed to, then no, that dea…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 03:12 PM
3

Their "test" for whether or not consent was valid is whether the woman regrets it the next day. I hear this repeated a lot by MRAs/red pillers, but never actually see anyone actually advocating for that standard. That standard would obviously be absurd and unjust, and it's not what anyone here that I've seen has suggested.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 03:04 PM
2

My first response was before the edit. It's clear that this legal minefield that is trying to be set up wants men to avoid women while drinking, but gives a free pass to drinking women who want to find men. I don't get that all from those quotes. Mrsamsa is using "significantly drunk" to refer to "unable to provide consent," the definition of which varies by jurisdiction and does not have a fixed standard, so they couldn't have provided a different answer. But, when speaking in generalities, for…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 02:56 PM
1

But why would you feel obligated to deny advances from someone who can legally consent? I mean, yeah, if that's a purposeful strategy, that is hella skeezy, but we're not talking about skeeziness we're talking about rape. I'm not familiar with mrsamsa, but that comment seems like it's completely common sense. Unless they've said elsewhere that having sex with someone who is buzzed is rape, I'm not sure I see what the issue is?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 02:47 PM
2

That makes game sound very Buddhist. But thanks, I think I get what the quote is supposed to mean now. Although I'm assuming I'm actually misinterpreting it, because I fully agree with the second part, as described here. Being confident, interesting, and having full understanding and acceptance of your own value is indeed going to result in more successful social interactions. ZenGame makes sense, GameGame is awkward pseudoscience.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 02:42 PM
2

I'm not actually seeing a difference, other than the fact it's a bunch of comments from different people, so there are different things being said. What's the 180 difference you're seeing in them?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 02:29 PM
2

You should try reading the rest of the thread. Jacobman's description of the study didn't match either of the studies linked to in the OP, so all I could think of was that maybe a third study had been added to the discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 02:10 PM
2

What state are you in? The legal standards vary by jurisdiction, with some requiring a relatively higher level of observable intoxication before there cannot be consent, with others having a much broader definition of when someone will be presumed to lack the ability to consent. If you tell me what state/country you're talking about, I can give you a more precise standard. So how come I have to sacrifice my desires in order to protect her from herself? How come... you should be expected not to r…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 02:02 PM
1

Females "grade" the results, but you yourself stated that men and society create these tests, and that "Fitness tests are things that males do to advertise their fitness." The example I asked about, and which you have been unable to provide, is a fitness tests which women have agency in creating and which are not dubbed "shit tests." What does all this sound like to you, Archipelagi?? How would you label this exact same conversation if it was between a man and a feminist? If a man was swearing u…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 01:57 PM
3

If women didn't get to choose, then there cannot be any evolved tendency to select for alphaness, which completely obliterates all of TRP theory. The only thing you could expect to find in your scenario is a deeply evolved tendency in women to avoid alphas at all possible costs. Alphas would be genetic death for women. And it doesn't matter if 100% of men were competing to be the 1%, it doesn't change the math.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 12:10 PM
2

Whooaaa. "Pretty much everything is different when a woman is ovulating vs when she's not." You gotta try and make claims backed up by some kind of evidence, dude. You keep throwing out these bombs based on sit com philosophy. And yes, variations based on menstrual cycle is a common theme in psych studies, although their findings are often of dubious or limited significance. But Professor Little is definitely at the extreme end in terms of dedication to this field of research -- that's not an in…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 04:40 AM
5

Study 1 had 97 internet volunteers. Study 2 is the one your article summarized: Seventeen female participants (aged 18-31, mean age = 22.9, SD = 3.4) took part in the study
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 04:31 AM
5

Falsifiability is not one of TRP's strengths.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 03:55 AM
6

Why on earth do you think I'm talking about "the last two hundred years"? Evolution is PURELY about reproduction, nothing other than sexual counts. Are you trying to say only sexual selection is significant? I'm not sure how else to read this, but that doesn't make any sense. Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations seemed to think.... As you said, we're talking about evolutionary considerations that existed thousands of generations ago, not three or four, so what does Adam Smith have to do in this? …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 03:27 AM
3

So. If 1 = 1 and 2 = 2, then 1 = 1 and 2 = 2.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 02:50 AM
2

, the original study we talked about shows that women have a pressure towards having children with the more masculine men and having a ltr with the less masculine men. No. No it didn't. These studies literally have nothing to say about the claims you're attributing to them, and I am really confused about where these conclusions are coming from. Sorry, I'm going to conclude this conversation now, I think I'm out of ways of trying to explain that these studies don't mean what you think they mean.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 02:47 AM
5

I would start with a simpler hypothesis: a psych study of 17 UK college students may not have uncovered any meaningful genetic data.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 02:39 AM
6

Which dude will have a stronger effect on the gene pool, the dude who blasts out 5,000 and only 6 survive, or the dude who marries two women and raises 14 with them? If you make up random numbers, you can make any explanation into a viable strategy. But your example isn't actually viable -- in that hypothetical scenario, selection pressures for women wouldn't allow it. Have 2-5 children, of which 50% die after a huge investment of resources? So only 25% of your children would be surviving males …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 02:36 AM
4

I think you're confusing some vague concept of "masculinity" with "genetically superior." That isn't the case.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 01:37 AM
5

The fact that women (and men) like successful people doesn't provide any support for the claim that women don't want to fuck providers, only "alphas."
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 01:19 AM
4

Yeah, seriously. My biggest problem with this whole theory is that it doesn't make evolutionary sense. If you're making up theories about cavemen, then being a good provider is being genetically desirable. A dude who has a genetic profile that allows him to successfully help raise a kid is about as genetically fit as it is possible to be -- why would women be programmed to have the genetically fit dude not contribute to her offspring's DNA?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 01:14 AM
3

My experience is in being a woman, and my knowledge is that I don't have sex for money. i.e., I am not secretly having sex with "alphas" for free, while making "betas" pay me money to have sex with them.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 12:52 AM
5

With all of those things combined, assuming that attraction leads a higher probability of sex and time together, that would suggest that to some degree it's more likely a woman will have sex with a masculine guy and get pregnant while having a less masculine guy as a partner. Nooo, it doesn't, I promise this isn't any part of the study whatsoever. The study itself defines "long-term partner" as someone you want to move in with, and "short-time partner" as someone you might accept a date with on …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 12:48 AM
4

I linked in another comment below, but I think the study is this one. But the study doesn't say anything about alpha or beta. It examined women's preferences among 10 different body types presented by the researchers. I have no idea which of those 10 are "alpha" and which are "beta," and neither do the researchers. And, again, if you define alpha as "the ones the women wanted more," then your definition is meaningless.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 12:34 AM
5

I believe that the study the article is about is Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & Burriss, R. P. (2007), Preferences for masculinity in male bodies change across the menstrual cycle, Hormones and Behavior, 52, 633–639. It's the right year (2007) and the right "lead researcher" (Anthony Little), but this guy has done a bunch of studies on what dudes women like to look at while they are on the rag.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 12:22 AM
2

Wait, what study? You lost me, what study are we talking about here?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 12:11 AM
4

I can tell you from my substantial experience in being a woman, and of knowing lots of women, that women are not in fact secretly double agent prostitutes, and that "alpha fucks/beta bucks" is not true. The studies you linked to did nothing to disagree with this data, so there isn't really anything more to say about the likelihood of the existence of this undefined phenomenon.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 12:06 AM
2

... but... you... didn't actually list any...??? Okay, I give up on this discussion. I don't know any other words to use to try and convey this concept.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/13 11:58 PM
6

But that doesn't provide a useful definition. If "alphas" are defined as dudes that women are more likely to fuck, then, well, it is necessarily true that women are more likely to want to fuck alphas. But that statement doesn't actually convey any information.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/13 11:51 PM
4

The logical conclusion from just that data would be that it would make "cuckholding" more likely to happen. No. This is not at all addressed in the study. It doesn't look at all at patterns of monogamy, and there is nothing in this study that would allow any sort of speculation or conclusions to that end. All it would suggest, assuming everything with the study is legitimate and repeatable, is that, for a small portion of their cycle, some women sometimes prefer beefier dudes than they do at oth…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/13 11:48 PM
6

Ohhh, I get it now. I was trying to read bucks as a verb. In which case, OP is literally asking "why do people find it unlikely that women are all inherently prostitutes"? Hmm. I wonder why.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/13 11:29 PM
4

So the "alpha fucks" part is self-explanatory, then, but I still don't get what "bucks" means in this context... Is that slang for raising kids somehow? I think I get what you're referring to, though, in terms of sexual selection strategy. But taking the first study you linked at face value, all it showed was that at a certain point in women's menstrual cycle (of an undefined but "more fertile" period), some women had a very slightly increased chance (15%) of preferring a beefier dude's body tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/13 10:48 PM
9

Can you give a definition of "alpha fucks/beta bucks"? I must've missed this part of the lingo.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/13 10:18 PM
2

You could've just identified a fitness test that is created by women, and which does not fall under your defined subcategory of "shit test."
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/13 10:16 PM
2

But women aren't individually giving those tests. I'm not confused by the wording, I'm pointing out that it is absolutely true that every example you've had of a shit test is a woman giving the test, and every example of a "fitness test" is someone other than a woman giving the test. Again: the original point was that this is another example of TRP giving gratuitously derogatory names to anything associated with women. But maybe you're not actually trying to contradict that point, that would exp…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/13 09:43 PM
2

You.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/13 08:48 PM
3

By "done" I mean "the test is given by." And all your examples of 'shit tests' were tests given by women, and all your examples of 'fitness tests' were tests or standards given by "society" or "men": Fitness tests are things that males do Society establishes many fitness tests for men. An example of a fitness test that is not communicated verbally by an individual is the expectation that society places on men to have a good job So my original point still stands: this complicated pseudo-biologica…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/13 08:41 PM
5

"If you are not playing the game you are losing...the best game is to have no game." Wait what? Is this a misquote, maybe? I can't make sense of it otherwise. "If you don't play the game, you are losing the game. My advice is to not play the game"? If your woman can't see that you can attract other women, she will likely stop being attracted to you. I don't even know how to respond to this, other than, well, no. Unfortunately, as with everything with TRP, if any woman ever disagrees with anythin…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/13 07:56 PM
26

the correct reading would be men think men and women have different inclinations and motives, whereas otoh the women think 'no they don't' and men's motives are derived from the "absorbing herself in her own thoughts and neuroses and projecting them onto men". This is a good summary of a lot of TRP. Postulate: Women are completely different creatures than men. Conclusion: If women believe, from their own experiences, that they are human just like men are human, it is because women are shallow, s…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/13 07:29 PM
3

I didn't delete any comments? Not sure what you're talking about. Unless a mod deleted a comment or something? But for every single example you have given, a fitness test is only a shit test when it is done by a woman. And the reverse seems to be true too -- if a fitness test is done by a woman, it's a shit test. I've never seen "shit test" used in the TRP universe for anything other than a "fitness test" done by a woman, and while it's possible they're out there, this seems to be the overwhelmi…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/13 05:13 PM
6

A shit test is a fitness test that is used by a woman. If a woman does it, it is by default a Completely Different Thing from something a man does.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/13 04:20 PM
24

I would argue it isn't projection -- they aren't seeing negative attributes in themselves and accusing others of having those attributes to make themselves feel better. They see these attributes as positive for certain kinds (their kind) but as negative attributes in anything not a part of their special club. It's the result of a disordered view of humanity, in which there are WomenPeople and MenPeople, and the two are no more alike than any two mammal species might be. So starting from that vie…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/13 03:37 PM
11

Ah, if life were only so binary. A valid point, but a pity you don't also apply it to the claim that women seek dominance and men seek submissiveness.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/13 03:22 PM
14

Because those don't make women sound as petty and vengeful as "shit test" does.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/13 03:20 PM
24

There are no existing Mozarts, Da Vincis, Aristotles, Newtons or Teslas. Of any gender, race, or species. So what exactly is the significance that there are no women in this category, when there are no men either? What we do know is that there has been an unwavering correlation between increasing equality for women and increasing the number of women represented in fields/positions/skills that were traditionally available only to men. What the gender ratios would be in various fields, absent cult…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/13 03:43 PM
33

Where is the Asian Mozart, Da Vinci, Aristotle, Newton, or Tesla? Where is the Scandinavian Mozart, Da Vinci, Aristotle, Newton, or Tesla? Where is the redheaded Mozart, Da Vinci, Aristotle, Newton, or Tesla? Where is the non-white non-western-European non-relatively-wealthy Mozart, Da Vinci, Aristotle, Newton, or Tesla? Naming a list of famous people from a very specific segment of history does not indicate that they shared any sort of meaningful attribute, other than the fact that they happene…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/13 02:36 AM
6

Also to add in a quick qualification: my post above solely applies to the situation of "I consider you to be categorically different", as stated in your post. If you simply believe that certain qualities are statistically more prevalent in those with an XX chromosome and certain other qualities are statistically more prevalent in an XY chromosome, but that there is a great deal of variation amongst both XY and XX, then that is not a categorical difference, and my comment does not apply.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/13 06:04 PM
5

That's a pretty nuanced question. The short answer is no: you can theoretically believe in categorical differences between men and women without also being a misogynist. But the longer answer is that, at its core, a belief in a categorical difference is also usually a denial of women's equal humanity, and is therefore misogynistic. When someone also holds a belief that people with a certain characteristic (be it race/sex/etc.) are inherently inferior, there must also be a belief in a "categorica…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/13 06:00 PM
8

Except that's not at all what they say. Their core message is, over and over, than men "shouldn't be getting upset at women for doing what women do." Which is, apparently, being hypergamous, materialist, and callous. I'm not sure what you're reading at TRP, but it's not that women 'should' act in a different way. As a random sampling, I went to the comments in the current top post over there: You need to accept that women are not rational, logical creatures. and, This is, at it's heart, A woman …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/13 03:25 AM
6

it's no different than a woman's advice of: "Men are incapable of being trusted/ they will only sleep with you and leave". Yeah that's a deeply misandric position for someone to have, and I don't think anyone has made that anywhere in these subs. I don't know if anyone actually believes that, but I sure as heck don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 08:08 PM
5

I'll rephrase slightly: gender is, by modern usage and definition, a social construct. 'Gender' isn't a biological category, it is the cultural expression of the sex categories of male and female. I'm assuming the argument you are roping in to try and refute is that gender is a wholly cultural construct, i.e., not influenced by biology. That is an extremely rare position, definitely an outlier, and I haven't seen anyone here propose it. There are debates over the degree to which gender is affect…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 08:04 PM
8

Then you don't believe in TRP theory, so at least on this we're not in disagreement.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 06:36 PM
2

You didn't answer my question, though. Do you believe women are incapable of love, yes or no? And if you're trying to imply women as a whole are untrustworthy somehow because women statistically file the divorce petition more often, well, that's not a reasonable conclusion. I don't want to get into it because that's so far afield from this discussion, but (1) in divorces wanted by both parties it is standard for the wife to file, as the husband's attorney will advise him not to be the one to do …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 06:32 PM
3

You're using the phrase "treating someone as an object" to mean "something I interact with to attain a utilitarian goal." That's not objectifying, that's just commerce. And it's not what my comments were directed at. You said it best yourself in a previous comment: when dealing with a cashier, you "treat them with respect" and acknowledge the existence of "the chance of a deeper relationship should we see each other more frequently." That is a good description of how to treat a person as a perso…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 05:23 PM
11

I'm not talking about 'one guy on TRP,' I'm talking about TRP's self-proclaimed core premise. (And also it's all over the place in the comments.) This isn't "locker room talk." It is a philosophy that starts from the explicit premise that women are incapable of love. Not that the legal system is out of whack, not that Western culture stacks the deck against men, but that, as a fundamental biological truth, women are incapable of love. Do you agree with that statement?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 04:56 PM
9

I'm happy to answer: You are allowed to hate. And other people are allowed to object to your asserted reasons for that hatred. And using the word 'misogyny' is just easier to say than "a belief that women are innately inferior or less worthy of respect than men," you may be overthinking that part.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 03:26 PM
1

These are just words with definitions but no meaning. If trust, honor, and love are meaningless, than how can you claim that there can be a male version and a female version of each? Women go to war and do manual labor. I'm not sure what you mean by "men are expected to die for women," unless you mean old notions of "women and children first," but the Titanic sunk before women got the vote, and that is no longer how social relations are viewed. I'm also not sure what this has to do with "honor."…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 03:08 PM
7

To a major extent, if we didn't treat people as objects we wouldn't get anything done. Being treated as an object isn't particularly a bad thing. Yes, it is. Take dUUUUUB's definition below: a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed Things which thoughts or actions are directed to, and which don't have any capability of thought or action of themselves worth taking note of. For all intents and purposes, they are basically a vending machine, but that doesn't mean I don't ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 02:52 PM
12

Viewing some people as some attribute is not misogyny or misandry, because it's viewing people as people. But that's not what the discussion here has been about. TRP claims that women by default are unable to love men for anything but their resources. That is a misogynist claim. TRP doesn't go so far as to claim that men only desire women for sex (TRP believes men are capable of love) but that assertion would be misandry. And viewing someone as beautiful or powerful or successful it simply not t…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 02:48 PM
3

Except I never said that. I asked for evidence of the bizarre claim that honor is a gendered concept. I've never held men and women to different standards of "honor" --or trust, or honesty -- and know no one who does.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 02:43 PM
6

When most men see honor one way and women see honor another way you can realize that there is a generally difference in the way men and women see certain things. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 05:17 AM
5

Any given person's version of honor may not be the same as any other person's version. A person's gender has no bearing on their capability for love, respect, trust, or honor.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 05:07 AM
6

men and women are the same in every aspect Obviously not. and that nothing is unique to either gender? Yes, I do think that. There is so much variation among all humans that it is exceedingly unlikely that any single attribute or characteristic can ever be "unique" to one gender. Attributes can definitely be more prevalent in one sex or the other, however. But having different average ranges for attributes is nothing remotely similar to having qualitatively different subjective experiences of hu…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 04:57 AM
10

See, dude, this is just sad. As a woman, I can know, for absolute empirical certainty, that I am in fact just a regular person. And that all observations indicate my subjective experiences of love, trust, and respect are largely identical to how other humans experience it, whether male or female. And yet you, and most the red pill denizens, are sitting around confidently spouting off bullshit that I (and every other woman) simply know, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, to be hilariously fal…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 04:42 AM
9

Hatred doesn't just mean "I hate your guts and want to see you die." Hatred, in the context of misogyny, or racism, or similar characteristic-based biases, also takes the form of "I see you as less because of this characteristic, and consider you to be categorically different than myself as a result of it. Stop the bullshit and be real for a moment: accusing any person -- let alone whole categories of people -- to be focused primarily on what resources others can provide them IS an accusation th…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 04:11 AM
21

He he see how a lot of women naturally are (as in their desire for a man's resources) This is misogyny, pure and simple. Even if it is gussied up with protests of how "oh but I still like the way those silly greedy little fem brains are! I respect them for their differences." Women are people and men are people. You cannot deny that someone's humanity is equal to yours, and then act shocked when your judgment is taken as offensive and idiotic. How does being a sex object make someone less of a p…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 03:53 AM
7

Child custody issues aren't red pill at all -- more MRA. And venting about not getting laid is understandable and normal, but that's not what TRP proclaims to be. but it expresses helplessness towards an unjust environment. Wait, no it doesn't. Go and check out some of the threads over there, it's not about that. It's about how women are mechanical hamsters without value outside of their vaginas, and how people with penises are the only people capable of rational thought or love. No, really, the…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/13 10:18 PM
6

Except someone on TRP calling a woman a "slut" definitely does mean it in a derogatory fashion. They mean it to be insulting in that sub, they don't make a secret of it, so I'm not sure what your point was.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/13 09:26 PM
10

Are you seriously denying that posters on the /r/theredpill don't habitually refer to women them with various colorful accusations of promiscuity? And do so in a disdainful and insulting manner, designed to show how they are superior to those 'dumb cock carousel riding bitches' who are 'guzzling alpha cum'? Because they really, really do. It's not that people are triggered by TRP, it's that they feel insulted. Because they are, in fact, being purposefully insulted.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/13 08:19 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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