TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Business_Barber_3611 Archive

View 7 posts and 184 comments by Business_Barber_3611 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

This is a bit more complex than that, but I'm not surprised by this basic response.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 02:35 PM
3

You keep trying to turn this into a question of comparative suffering and motive instead of addressing the actual point. Yes, violence against bi men from men is worse. That was never disputed. The point is that when women reject bi men for reasons rooted in stereotypes about them being less masculine, secretly gay, promiscuous, or untrustworthy, people rush to sanitise that as neutral ‘preference’ instead of recognising the prejudice behind it. A worse form of biphobia existing elsewhere does n…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 02:31 PM
2

True. An exception does not make the rule, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 02:27 PM
2

“Only red pill men say this” is not a rebuttal unfortunately especially when the person making this argument isn't red pill... Try again please. And the claim does not become false because you dislike the people making it. Female biphobia in dating is still real. You are not answering the point. You are just trying to discredit who is allowed to raise it.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 01:42 PM
3

More nonsense. You do not get to spend the entire exchange dragging the discussion away from female biphobia, then pretend you are the one interested in discussing it because you called it biphobia once. You say the label, then immediately minimise it, reroute to male violence, and act like talking about women’s bias in dating is somehow illegitimate unless it is constantly subordinated to something worse. And no, “biphobia is bad regardless of dating” does not help your case. It hurts it. Becau…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 01:37 PM
–

Because I’m allowed to examine why certain preferences exist. Saying “people can’t control it” does not make it immune from criticism, especially when it keeps tracking the same stereotypes. And the Tourette’s comparison is ridiculous. Tourette’s is an involuntary condition. Dating attitudes are not. You’re free to find that offensive though
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 01:34 PM
4

I can’t take this level of bad faith 😆
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 01:33 PM
6

So your argument is that unless every discussion of female biphobia spends half its time focused on male violence, it somehow “erases” male violence? I hope that isn’t your argument, because that would be stupid, though I wouldn’t put it past you. Focusing on one part of a problem does not deny the rest of it. The reason this gets singled out is because male anti-bi violence is already recognised as bigotry, while female biphobia, as shown by plenty of people in this very thread, even if you cla…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 12:17 PM
–

No one is deciding it. We are judging the reason. People do not get a magic shield from criticism by calling prejudice “attraction.” When the drop-off keeps following the same stereotypes about bi men that is bias whether you like the label or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 12:12 PM
–

You can say “I’m just not attracted” about literally any prejudice and hope that ends the conversation. It doesn’t. Bi men are still men. So when their bisexuality alone makes them undateable, people are obviously reacting to what they think bisexuality says about the man. And what it usually says in people’s heads is less masculine, less trustworthy, more likely to cheat, more sexually dirty. Call it preference all you want. The bias is still there.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 12:09 PM
8

Another dodge. People keep bringing this up because male anti-bi violence is already recognised as ugly, while female biphobia still gets babied as “just preference.” Calling everyone who points that out “red pill adjacent” is just a lazy way to avoid the argument. Let's see how many times I will have to re explainn this!
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 11:57 AM
–

No, because hair colour and height are not tied to a whole set of stigma-loaded beliefs. With bi men, the aversion repeatedly tracks ideas like less masculine, more promiscuous, more likely to cheat, secretly gay, or likely to leave for a man which is why this is different. It is not just “I like brunettes” level preference. It is stereotype-driven bias.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 11:54 AM
8

Bunch of bad-faith people here, man. It's getting tiring, but it's also very revealing.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 11:53 AM
7

Typical bad faith deflection. Hilarious you don't have a clue what that means 😂 I didn't say it did. I asked why men on this sub are forever outraged by women not dating bi men but never seem to give a shit about the actual violence bi men experience from other men. It's a really simple question that y'all are having a hell of time trying to answer. Because one gets condemned automatically and the other gets coddled. Male violence against bi men is already recognised as ugly. Female biphobia kee…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 11:51 AM
–

Cop out. Bi men are still men. So for a straight woman, the issue clearly is not sex. The issue is bisexuality itself.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 11:46 AM
7

Another stupid dodge. Nobody said male violence against bi men is not real or not worse. The point is that female biphobia does not stop being biphobia just because it usually comes out as exclusion instead of assault. And the studies in that thread are not just “women said no.” They found heterosexual women rated bisexual men as less sexually attractive, less romantically attractive, less desirable to date, and less masculine than straight men. Women also reported more insecurity about bisexual…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 11:43 AM
12

Maybe because those other men and I are victims of those transgressions from women and don't have those same experiences with men? Any more bad faith questions?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 11:34 AM
8

Typical low IQ reasoning. One being more violent does not make the other not prejudice. Women writing bi men off as less masculine, secretly gay, promiscuous, or not real dating material is still biphobia. You just find it easier to excuse because it comes wrapped in “preference.” I hope they pick you man!
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 11:32 AM
13

Don't need "evidence" when many other men and I have experienced it. Cheers.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 11:28 AM
1

Maybe im misunderstanding but are you saying that in order to be in a good relationship you need to be unhappy single?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/26 12:20 PM
7

Yep. It feels personal to them because women decentering men forces them to confront how dependent they are on female validation. That is where the insecurity comes in. And yes, a lot of entitlement is wrapped up in it too. Nobody is owed a relationship or romantic attention.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/26 12:27 PM
9

The problem is that a lot of guys cannot separate wanting relationships from centring their entire identity around women. If your self-worth rises and falls based on female attention, you are not ready for a healthy relationship in the first place. That is exactly why this conversation keeps failing. They hear “decentre women” and interpret it as “hate women” or “give up on relationships,” when the actual point is to stop making women the foundation of your identity and self-worth. A lot of men …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/26 11:55 AM
1

Because they can afford to think that way, but men can't.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/25 12:07 PM
1

The title pretends to be some neutral, balanced “people problem,” but the body immediately narrows its scope to men and then generalises the hell out of them. If you’re going to take a swing at men specifically, just own it in the title instead of hiding behind faux-neutral framing.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/25 12:02 PM
1

Noted. Thanks.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 10:24 AM
1

You say “forcing someone to work in agriculture isn’t comparable to rape.” Sure. But you also ignored the actual point: if your standard is that any system with exploitation makes every participant complicit, then your own day-to-day life makes you complicit in thousands of things you don’t want to think about. You’re just carving out sex as the special exception because it emotionally hits harder. That’s not a logical standard but a moral intuition dressed up as analysis. And your idea that wor…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 04:02 PM
1

That's fair. Not sure any smart man would admit it but yeah.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 03:55 PM
12

You’re mixing up social stigma with personal preference, and pretending they’re the same thing. They’re not. Destigmatising prostitution doesn’t mean everyone suddenly wants to marry a sex worker, just like destigmatising tattoos didn’t mean everyone wanted to date someone with a full sleeve, and destigmatising divorce didn’t mean everyone wanted to marry someone divorced. It means people stop treating sex workers as dirty, subhuman, or morally inferior. “Would you want your daughter to do it?” …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 03:05 PM
0

You keep repeating “my source is data, yours is speculative,” but you’re ignoring that your study is literally built on self-admitted limitations. The authors outright say they can’t separate increased trafficking from increased detection, and they warn the data varies wildly across countries. You’re treating correlation as destiny because it fits your moral stance. Destigmatisation doesn’t magically increase demand — it makes the existing demand safer and more visible. Demand for sex has existe…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 03:03 PM
8

You started of well but you’re leaning really hard into this “men wanting sex = entitlement” framing, and it’s doing way too much work for you. Nothing I said implies men are owed sex, or that women are commodities. I’m talking about consenting adults engaging in a mutually agreed-upon transaction. A lot of you keep trying to turn that into “men exploiting innocent angels,” which tells me you’re still stuck on the idea that no woman could ever choose this work without being stupid, broken, or na…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 02:49 PM
1

Social pressure’ and by that you mean finding someone that wants to have sex with you? Like everyone else. That’s exactly my point though as you’re pretending the only valid path to sex is romance, chemistry, or approval. That’s the cultural framing I’m calling out. Plenty of people buy intimacy for all sorts of reasons: disability, social isolation, trauma recovery, hell, sometimes just preference. Pretending every consensual transaction is a moral failure just reinforces a very narrow idea of …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 02:41 PM
3

If you say so
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 02:36 PM
6

Yes I would be.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 02:35 PM
7

Good for you
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 02:34 PM
3

This is really just one piece of a much bigger picture, and even that paper admits it can’t distinguish reporting increases from actual trafficking increases. Countries that legalise sex work also improve enforcement and monitoring, meaning trafficking becomes more visible, not necessarily more common. That’s why so many human-rights organisations (Amnesty, WHO, UNAIDS, GAATW, Human Rights Watch, ACLU, the UN’s own anti-trafficking guidelines) say the same thing my source says: Criminalisation a…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 02:30 PM
6

And that's your prerogative. As I've pointed out in this thread though this stance doesn't hold up logically.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 02:17 PM
5

From their point of view it’s “logical,” sure, but only because the starting assumption is already loaded: that the worker is automatically a victim and the client is automatically an exploiter. If you begin with that moral framing, the conclusion is already baked in, which is the inconsistency i am pointing out. If you take adult, consensual sex work seriously as labour, then the “forced victim vs. evil client” binary falls apart. It’s just ideology dressed up as moral clarity. And you essentia…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 02:16 PM
1

Temu and SHEIN aren’t remotely comparable here. Those companies are the abusers. The supply chain itself is built on exploitation. Consumers aren’t running trafficking rings they’re just the end users. The equivalent analogy would be blaming every person who bought a T-shirt, instead of the company using forced labour. Shaming clients doesn’t target the people actually doing the trafficking; it just hits the lowest-leverage group in the chain. Meanwhile the people actually creating the coercion …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 02:12 PM
8

You’re treating “men” like a single hive-mind when the stigma around sex work is coming from multiple directions at once. Yeah, some guys talk trash about women. No dispute there. But pretending male hypocrisy is the only source of stigma is just an easy way to dodge the fact that plenty of anti–sex work rhetoric comes straight out of feminist spaces too. The conveniant thing you're skipping is that sex workers themselves consistently report that the stigma that actually harms them day-to-day is…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 02:06 PM
10

Correct. Doesn't negate my point though. Good talk.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 02:02 PM
2

I simply can’t understand why you think anyone would be this invested in whether you get your dick wet or not. People are invested in redundant shit all the time so it's not the stretch you think it is. And by “controlled” you mean what? That you have to find someone that willingly wants to have sex with you, oh no what a travesty. I support safety of sex workers those who are engaging willingly and those who are not first and foremost. But as they say “be the change you want to see”, if you wer…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 02:00 PM
4

Your perspective is limited and ignorant. Sex workers will also see a number of disabled clients so men who could have no reasonable expectation of anything approaching normal adult sexual experiences. Young men with degenerative muscular dystrophy or other terminal conditions, etc. and i bet often in those cases it was not the clients who hired them, but their caretakers. So there is an element of, "If what I do is wrong, I don't want to be right" here.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 01:54 PM
1

Nice one
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 01:45 PM
9

Like said, I am against marriage and don't care for relationships. Go ask someone who cares for those concepts. Your words are wasted on me.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 01:44 PM
1

I don't want children nor like them. Again wrong person to ask...
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 01:39 PM
4

All available science show that when buying sex is legal and not stigmatised the (voluntary) supply can’t keep up with demand, which results in an increase in human trafficking. I'd like to see said science because that's not what I've seen: Source
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 01:27 PM
9

Good for you. Shaming clients under the guise of protecting workers doesn’t reduce exploitation; it just adds stigma and moral hypocrisy.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 01:22 PM
8

I wouldn't marry a woman/man in general so wrong person to ask.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 01:20 PM
3

Interesting that you see those feminists as an obstacle, but you don't see men and their hate as one. Well I’m addressing a specific ideological inconsistency, not saying men don’t have critiques of sex work. The point is that some feminist narratives actively treat male clients as degenerate while idealising workers, which creates a moral double standard that harms both sides. Men’s hate doesn’t operate under the same pretence of "supporting" workers, so it’s not equivalent.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 01:20 PM
11

Shaming clients of sex work under the guise of regulation directly attacks the legitimacy of the worker’s labour. I just think true support for sex workers means accepting that consenting adults providing a service are entitled to respect, safety, and rights, without moralising the people who use that service.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 01:18 PM
6

Right and I’m not denying that some people enter sex work due to desperation or trauma but reducing the entire industry to that narrative is condescending and dismissive of those who choose it freely. Destigmatising consensual sex work doesn’t erase support for those in vulnerable situations. It just involves acknowledging that not everyone is a victim and that adults can make informed choices about their labour. Treating clients as degenerate only adds unnecessary shame and doesn’t help anyone
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 01:16 PM
3

You can absolutely support workers’ rights and safer conditions without idealising the industry and I’m not saying sex work is without issues. My point is about adult, consensual work and acknowledging it exists as legitimate labour and recognising that clients are part of that ecosystem. Shaming men for participating doesn’t make trafficking disappear; it just adds stigma and moral hypocrisy that hurts both workers and clients. Treating the demand side as inherently degenerate doesn’t solve coe…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 01:13 PM
2

Supporting sex workers doesn’t have to conflict with opposing those things though. The point I’m making is about adult, consensual work and treating it as legitimate labour and accepting that clients are part of that system. Condemning all clients under the guise of protecting workers actually undermines autonomy and reinforces shame, which doesn’t help anyone. You can care about abuse while still acknowledging that normal, consensual sex work is a net positive for both workers (mostly female) a…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 12:52 PM
1

Sorry I'm still confused about what your issue is. Is there a point to this?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/25 08:36 PM
1

I wouldn't be making a statement but starting a discussion. Was that all?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/25 08:26 PM
-1

What?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/25 07:46 PM
4

Solid point, and honestly, the whole thing is wildly contradictory to me. A lot of guys love shaming sex work while conveniently ignoring the fact that it’s a service a huge number of men rely on whether they admit it or not. Destigmatising it is actually a net positive for us, but people are too busy moral grandstanding to acknowledge the obvious.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/25 07:25 PM
0

Women add to their life the same amount sex workers do. Don't get it twisted.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/25 07:14 PM
4

Exactly. It's crazy how so many of them conveniently ignore this. I will never take them seriously.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/25 05:35 PM
2

You’re stretching reality to make your point fit. Yes, there were horrible cases where men abused their wives, and laws were often stacked against women. That still doesn’t magically turn marriage into a chattel-slavery system. Husbands weren’t legally empowered to sell their wives on a market, transfer ownership like livestock, or work them to death for profit. Slavery was a full legal and economic framework built on total ownership; misogyny and patriarchal laws, even at their worst, didn’t op…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/25 05:04 PM
2

Missing rights isn’t the same thing as being legally owned, traded, beaten, worked to death, and treated as livestock. Slavery was an industrial system of total dehumanisation. Women’s oppression was serious, but it wasn’t chattel slavery, and pretending they’re basically the same just advertises that you haven’t bothered to learn the difference. This is a common mistake you white women make. Please stop. It's embarrassing.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/25 04:37 PM
2

Nope. This whole narrative is just a way for white women specifically to paint themselves as victims while sidestepping their own role in upholding the same systems they claim to criticise. It doesn’t hold up, and it’s not comparable. Give it a rest.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/25 04:20 PM
3

It is not COMPARABLE to slavery.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/25 04:18 PM
1

Japan and South Korea are two big examples.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/25 04:17 PM
1

It's more of a problem when you look at specific countries. I don't think the west are in too much trouble though.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/25 02:11 PM
4

It was not slavery. It will never be like slavery.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/25 02:06 PM
0

Agian when you make a claim back it up with a source. This is how debates work. If you can't then shut up or state its an opinion...
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 06:00 PM
1

Struck a nerve cause I accurately called you out 😂 Mask off.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 04:22 PM
1

No clue what dakimakura is. Who's the otaku incel?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 04:21 PM
1

Called you out huh. You're not smart as you think you are femcel
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 01:29 PM
1

Right, so I know what I am talking about. Love how you didn't dispute it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 01:28 PM
2

It does
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 09:57 AM
1

They're a trolling femcel. Ignore.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 07:19 AM
0

I like how you're attempting to appear genuine here but it's quite obvious how much you're pretending to believe these things as some weird gatcha. Pathetic.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 07:19 AM
2

Their point stands
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 07:12 AM
-1

Source please. We will wait.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 07:11 AM
-1

Yes. The way debates work is when you make a claim that something's true you provide proof of such...
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 07:11 AM
4

A source would have to be first provided proving it's the same men. We will wait.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 07:08 AM
0

Not a mute statement at all
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/25 02:06 PM
–

The post isn't about heartbreak though...
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/25 02:05 PM
1

What I said yeah
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/25 02:04 PM
1

Not advice. Warning
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/25 08:15 AM
1

Not sure if this is agreeing with me or not but you’re talking about fear of rejection. I’m talking about guys who aren’t afraid of rejection they’re afraid of accepting it. Different problem entirely. Most of these guys aren’t avoiding asking women out. They’ve already asked, already been met with lukewarm interest, and instead of taking the hint they keep throwing effort at someone who’s clearly not into them. That’s not fear, that’s denial. Yeah, rejection is normal. No argument there. What i…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/25 08:15 AM
3

You’re mixing up rejection with mistreatment. Rejection is normal nobody’s denying that. But calling actual disrespect ‘pain that builds character’ is how men train themselves to tolerate rubbish they shouldn’t accept. You don’t need to chase disinterested women to build resilience. That’s just conditioning yourself to low standards. Talk to as many women as you want, sure, but there’s no universe where letting any of them treat you badly is ‘growth.’ That’s just fatalism with a motivational spi…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/25 08:12 AM
3

This is why older women are better. Less games.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/25 08:09 AM
2

Sure. Not too worried about it
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/25 08:08 AM
1

Because it's a self-destructive behaviour I see in many men and that I think is bad.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/25 09:38 PM
15

Their problem
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/25 09:37 PM
2

Leading isn’t the same thing as carrying the entire interaction on your back while she barely lifts a finger. Putting in some initiative early on is normal sure but pretending that excuses her putting in zero effort is exactly how guys end up chasing ghosts. If she can’t manage the bare minimum so replying, showing interest, making plans occasionally then you’re not "leading," you’re dragging a corpse. Men putting in "more effort" at the start doesn’t mean men should tolerate imbalance. Early ef…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/25 09:36 PM
8

You’re dressing up masochism as ‘growth.’ There’s a world of difference between learning to handle adversity and deliberately sticking your hand in the fire because you think burning yourself builds character. "Women will treat you badly regardless" is exactly the mindset that keeps men trapped in situations they shouldn’t tolerate in the first place. If your grand strategy for self-improvement is letting uninterested women walk all over you so you can ‘learn from discomfort,’ you’re not develop…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/25 09:34 PM
0

I don't want a woman. Cheers though.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/25 09:33 PM
14

Yes. Stop acting like a woman not texting you back is some heroic trial you’re meant to overcome. That’s not adversity but disinterest. There’s a difference between pushing through a challenge and banging your head against a brick wall because you can’t accept the obvious.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/25 09:32 PM
–

Plenty of men well past 20 haven’t internalised this at all. If they did, half the dating subs wouldn’t be full of lads bending over backwards for women who barely acknowledge their existence. Yeah, unrequited interest is normal. What isn’t normal is turning it into a lifestyle because you’ve convinced yourself persistence magically changes her mind. That’s the bit people don’t grow out of unless someone points it out or they get burned enough times to finally stop touching the stove.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/25 09:31 PM
2

The wording was necessary and appropriate.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/25 09:28 PM
–

Nope. "normal" Hilarious
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/25 09:25 PM
1

Right and that's THEIR problem and THEIR issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/25 06:49 PM
3

True
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 04:27 PM
6

You can, but you lose all credibility.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 04:25 PM
2

I just don’t think it’s reasonable to automatically assume abuse or grooming without any evidence. Guess that’s a controversial take these days..
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 04:24 PM
3

I disagree
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 04:21 PM
1

My post if you didn't read it... It’s especially ridiculous when the women in question are wildly successful in their own right (actors, models, businesswomen). People who clearly have power, money, and control over their own image and life. You can’t seriously claim that a woman running a multi-million-pound brand or headlining films is somehow too naïve to know who she wants to date. Clearly not talking about barely legals here buddy...
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 04:20 PM
3

Assuming someone is “stupid or naive” in order to justify moral judgment is still a form of presuming they can’t make their own choices. That’s the same pattern as assuming abuse as you’re stripping agency based on your discomfort, not evidence. It’s fine to have opinions about dating preferences, but when those opinions consistently frame competent adults as incapable of judgment, it’s exactly the kind of infantilisation I’m pointing out.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 04:19 PM
4

I’m not denying that men behave inappropriately with underage girls of course that happens, and it’s a serious problem. My point is that when adult women’s dating choices are automatically interpreted through that lens, it becomes emotional projection rather than objective evaluation. Acknowledging that some men are predatory doesn’t justify assuming every adult age-gap relationship is exploitative. Adults making informed choices aren’t equivalent to children being groomed, and conflating the tw…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 04:17 PM
4

"I’m not talking about 18-year-olds." - okay, then literally no one, and i mean even online says anything like "predatory" about age gap between 30yo woman and older guy. So my point about mixing topics stands. Wrong. Women in their twenties with older men are also "judged". Take Florence Pugh and Zach Braff, so no topics are being "mixed up" here. Disagree with the rest.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 04:14 PM
11

I did answer your question it just didn't fit your narrative so you rejected it. Most abusive relationships are age gap ones where lots of women end up murdered after trying to leave her older partner Also source please!
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 04:09 PM
2

The analogy doesn't work. And when you assume abuse with no evidence, yes, you objectively are.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 04:08 PM
3

I don't have any hard data You've lost all validity saying this 😂
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 04:04 PM
4

I’m not talking about 18-year-olds. My point was about adult women so women who are successful, established, and clearly capable of making their own choices. That’s very different from someone just entering adulthood with no experience. You can warn people all you want, share experiences, or criticise choices which is fine. What I’m pointing out is when criticism is framed as though these competent adults can’t possibly know what they’re doing, it crosses into infantilisation. Respecting agency …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 04:03 PM
5

Assuming they don't have that knowledge is not giving them agency...
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 04:01 PM
8

I disagree. You and other commenters have made it clear that this is largely an opinion based on some sort of trauma. Like I said, emotional projection.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 04:00 PM
3

Oh lord...
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 03:59 PM
-1

Not PUA or RP, so not sure what you're trying to say here but I’m not denying that societal pressures on women exist. But an adult woman choosing to date an older man isn’t being coerced or manipulated by a system; she’s making her own choice. Your example of societal messaging is a completely different issue. Conflating the two only muddies the discussion and ignores the fact that adult women can and do exercise agency.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 03:59 PM
12

The difference is scale and systemic pressure. Governments using propaganda target impressionable populations in a structured, institutionalised way where refusal can carry real-world consequences. An individual adult relationship between consenting adults doesn’t operate under that same coercive, systemic force. Criticising an age-gap relationship because you personally dislike it is one thing; claiming it’s inherently manipulative or abusive by default ignores the autonomy of the adults involv…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 03:54 PM
1

Agreed. Cheers for the debate
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 03:52 PM
11

Treating every such relationship as predatory or abusive crosses from reasonable caution into baseless moralising. Let's try to be a bit more intelligent and not just constantly project and generalise.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 03:51 PM
0

People can judge and think whatever they want, unless they're trying to ban it there's no autonomy being taken imo. Yep and I am pointing out how that thinking is often flawed which is just as valid
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 03:47 PM
2

Why does it matter?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 03:46 PM
-1

No, the analogy just doesn’t hold. Consenting adults in a relationship aren’t comparable to systemic recruitment tactics designed to manipulate young people. Try again.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 03:44 PM
7

It’s a debate subreddit, not a therapy session. Nobody’s “overreacting.” You’re the one personalising it by assuming criticism of a cultural attitude means emotional investment in some random bloke...
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 03:41 PM
5

But there’s a difference between personal judgment and moral condemnation disguised as social activism. It’s one thing to think, “That’s not for me,” or even “I find that weird.” It’s another to constantly frame the woman as brainwashed or exploited to justify your distaste. That’s the contradiction. People talk about female empowerment until a woman makes a choice they personally wouldn’t, and then suddenly she’s too naive to know better. Selective infantilisation.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 03:39 PM
0

If the concern is grooming, then call out grooming. But if the woman’s an adult, not under anyone’s authority, and made a choice you wouldn’t that’s not predation but autonomy. You can’t conflate the two just because they make you uncomfortable.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 03:38 PM
3

Right, so it's pure emotional projection. Unhealed people only ever see their triggers.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 03:36 PM
6

People treat every older man in an age-gap relationship as if he’s automatically a scammer or predator, without a shred of context is just pathetic moral panic dressed up as “concern.” There’s a massive difference between a genuine predator and an adult man dating another adult woman who happens to be younger. Lumping all those scenarios together dilutes what the word predator even means, and it turns social judgment into a lazy reflex rather than a case-by-case evaluation...
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 03:34 PM
1

Doesn't work sorry. The military is an institution built on recruitment tactics and propaganda designed to influence young people so it’s literally systemic manipulation. An individual relationship between two consenting adults isn’t remotely comparable to that dynamic. People conflate “criticism” with moral policing here. Sure, criticise if you want, but when the criticism repeatedly implies women in those relationships lack the judgment to know what they’re doing, it stops being commentary and…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 03:33 PM
9

And that’s fair in theory, but that’s not how it plays out socially. “Criticism” of age-gap relationships is often framed as though the woman can’t have genuine consent or agency in that situation, which is as you said is infantilising by definition There’s a difference between saying, “I personally wouldn’t date someone that much older,” and implying the woman must be deluded, brainwashed, or taken advantage of. The latter strips her of the very autonomy people claim to respect.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 03:31 PM
5

No, because being around people has been a net negative for me, and I hate socialising. Unfortunately, I'll never be truly alone, so this isn't something I am afraid of as I'll never be able to 'escape' people.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/25 12:52 PM
1

To those with no argument to counter something yes. Again, this is a you issue. Everyone else is actually engaging with my point and arguing it in good faith. Don't know what to tell you.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:55 PM
1

Nope. In the same way, there isn’t documented evidence that most men are sexist assholes, but women can still make that claim freely unchallenged. I don't need a source to make a social observation.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:51 PM
1

Sure, we can call out petty behaviour, everyone acts like an asshole sometimes. The difference is cultural reaction. When a guy does it, it gets dissected as “toxic masculinity” and analysed endlessly. When a woman does the same thing, mocking a man’s sexuality to boost her ego it’s dismissed as “petty” or “banter.” That’s the hypocrisy. The intention to offend doesn’t erase the social pattern or double standard. Idk how you're not getting this. Actually, I do based on your flair, but hey.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:49 PM
1

How would you like me to demonstrate something that isn't measurable?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:47 PM
2

I’m making a social observation, not a research paper. If you’ve seen this pattern firsthand — like many people have you get it. If it challenges certain narratives about gender dynamics, suddenly asking for a “source” becomes your fallback. Funny how you’re the only one asking for it, too.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:41 PM
1

Again, thank you for proving my point so blatantly. Truly embarrassing.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:29 PM
1

Sure. Not in this context though which is the debate...
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:26 PM
2

I don’t need to. Just like women routinely claim that most men are sexist without anyone demanding a “source,” I can make a basic social observation about patterns in behaviour. When people like you have nothing intelligent to add, the go-to is always, “prove it.” Try again.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:26 PM
1

I don't need to explain that as they're not the topic. Good try.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:21 PM
2

Just because a word exists doesn’t mean the behaviour is consistently policed or critiqued. Women get called “bitch” occasionally, sure, but casual mockery, weaponising sexuality, or using insults out of wounded pride rarely earns the same cultural scrutiny men face. That’s the double standard. When men do it, its some cultural social issue but when women do it, it's suddenly an individual issue, and suddenly saying "not all women" is valid. Crazy how that works.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:19 PM
1

I disagree. Good talk.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:16 PM
1

Men get dissected for fragile ego all the time. It’s called toxic masculinity in every think-piece, social critique, and article that analyses behaviour patterns. Women do the exact same thing mocking men’s sexuality or masculinity out of wounded pride and it’s shrugged off as “petty” or “banter.” That’s the hypocrisy. Like I said the personal is cultural, whether it’s “teachable” or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:16 PM
8

This proves my point perfectly; the double standard is truly real. Generalisations about men are fine because we’re expected to be grouped in with “bad apples” or things out of our control, but suddenly it’s a problem when applied to women. And seriously, which “men” are we even talking about? Let go of this pathetic apex fallacy; the vast majority of us didn’t write the rulebook, yet we’re held accountable. Why are you so desperate for women to get a free pass?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:14 PM
1

When they use gay as an insult, they also view being gay as an identity as bad. No way around it.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:08 PM
4

You’re missing the point. Of course both sides can act out of ego that’s not in dispute. What I’m saying is that only one side gets cultural analysis and endless think-pieces written about their behaviour, while the other gets a shrug and an excuse. “It only matters when it happens in the workplace” is just a way of ignoring where the hypocrisy shows itself most clearly in day-to-day attitudes. The personal is cultural. That’s how double standards survive.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:06 PM
2

But that’s not really the issue I’m talking about. This isn’t about individuals being “offended” or needing thicker skin. It’s about people who preach empathy and progressiveness using the same shaming tactics they condemn in others. Whether or not the target is personally affected doesn’t change the hypocrisy. You don’t get moral credit for being “woke” if your default reaction under pressure is to mock someone’s sexuality.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:03 PM
3

If only that same energy existed when female assholes do it, maybe I wouldn’t have had to make this post. All good being smug, just make sure there’s a thought behind it next time. Cheers!
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:01 PM
1

I disagree because that is definitely not a woman's intention when using a line like that.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 06:59 PM
1

You can believe that
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 06:58 PM
13

Sounds like you're dismissing female autonomy because... men? Nice try.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 06:58 PM
5

No need for the essay. You've already proven my point. Truly hilarious and pathetic.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 06:56 PM
5

Nah, this is better. They can weasel out of that one too easily.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 06:55 PM
3

Good for you!
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 06:55 PM
2

That’s just a lazy dodge. “Systemic” doesn’t mean “immune to hypocrisy.” You don’t need a global infrastructure of oppression to call out double standards in behaviour. If women use “gay” as an insult to shame men, while preaching tolerance and moral high ground elsewhere, that’s hypocrisy plain and simple. You don’t get to hide behind sociology terms to excuse it. And if you think women are somehow above collective patterns of bias, remember: 52% of white women voted for Trumpv (fact). That alo…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 06:51 PM
2

Yeah, and that’s exactly the problem. When men do it, it’s dissected as “toxic masculinity” or “fragile ego.” When women do it, it’s brushed off as “pitiful and trivial.” The double standard is the point not whether it’s the biggest issue on Earth. If it only “matters” when men do it, that’s not equality, it’s selective morality.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 06:50 PM
-2

Errrr no, I don't? I need those who claim moral superiority to imitate that through their behaviour and practise what they preach. I don’t need to demonstrate a “structural system” to notice a double standard in accountability.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 02:36 PM
4

I never know what people like you think you’re accomplishing with comments like this. Well done? Congrats? The point is that many women would condemn men behaving like you while doing the exact same things themselves.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 02:33 PM
2

What an odd comment. You don't see an issue with weaponised homophobia? I didn't realise the brainwashing was this deep for some of you. Sad.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 02:29 PM
7

If men are held accountable for the misdeeds of “some bad apples,” the same standard should apply when women behave hypocritically. Comments like yours only appear when we point out toxic female behaviours. Never when men are in the conversation. Interesting.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 02:28 PM
12

Exactly and that male delusion is both a benefit and a detriment for women as it protects them from accountability while simultaneously stripping them of agency so they get the comfort of moral superiority without having to reconcile their own behaviour.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 02:25 PM
17

You realise you’ve just demonstrated the behaviour I was describing, right? I criticise how women weaponise homosexuality against men they disagree with, and your response is to imply a man critical of women must be gay. And that’s exactly the problem. Using sexuality to delegitimise a man’s opinion or to pathologise him for not fitting a feminine expectation is not analysis but mockery dressed up as pseudo-psychology. If a man dismissed a woman’s criticism of men by suggesting she just “hasn’t …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 02:23 PM
9

The fact that anyone can be shitty isn’t in dispute, but the moral framing around who’s allowed to be. The debate is about how women, as a group, often claim the moral high ground when critiquing male behaviour insisting men take collective responsibility for sexism or toxic masculinity, yet the same collective framing vanishes when women do something comparable so its not “women can be bad too.” but rather “why does one gender’s misconduct spark social accountability campaigns while the other’s…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 02:20 PM
7

Well it’s about a recurring social double standard. When men say something sexist or objectifying, women don’t shrug and go, “Well, there are 4 billion men, some are shitty.” The collective expectation is that men reflect, call it out, and not enable it. That’s what’s meant by accountability. I’m saying the same standard should apply in reverse. And no, “normal women” don’t need to personally apologise for what someone else did, just like men don’t but culturally, when women mock men’s sexuality…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 02:18 PM
1

This isn't a debate-worthy topic, you're aware of that right?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:48 AM
1

This is debate worthy how?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:46 AM
1

No, this is ridiculous. Either all of it’s acceptable or none of it is. This mindset convinces men that male autonomy somehow matters less than female autonomy. How is that acceptable to you? We "lose" that autonomy entirely if men keep taking this lax, apologetic stance. People need to wake up.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/25 07:44 AM
1

By virtue of it being unfair and only acceptable one way makes it wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/25 09:13 PM
1

Exactly but what makes it worse in this context is that men often make those rationalisations for women, and society reinforces it. When a man’s on the receiving end, people rush to excuse the behaviour, joke about it, and trivialise it instead of calling it what it is. That social backing makes it harder for men to draw boundaries without being labelled weak or controlling, which just keeps the cycle going.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 10:43 PM
1

It's rationalised as play fighting. Read the post.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 10:33 PM
–

Great so this post doesn't apply to you. Next
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 03:43 PM
1

Cool but as long as we can agree this is wrong we can actually make progress.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 03:42 PM
1

Elaborate because this seems like another example of a social norm being acceptable because they benefit women.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 02:39 PM
1

Pretty much
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 02:38 PM
1

Said users are easy to deal with so it's a non issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 02:38 PM
2

I mean people are somehow finding a way to disagree with me so there's that...
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 02:34 PM
1

Exactly
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 02:32 PM
1

Right
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 02:32 PM
2

Kind of agree but I'll never excuse an aggressive man/woman. All the blame is on them.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 02:31 PM
1

The point is what men "prefer" is just social brainwashing because they don't think they can have boundaries. Aggressive women are given way too much leeway to be aggressive.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 02:29 PM
2

There we go. Good to see men with backbone.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 02:28 PM
1

I literally wrote it in quotations to imply its not actual play fighting and just an excuse/rationalisation. Reading comprehension.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 02:28 PM
4

Women are given more leeway to act in "bad faith".
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 02:26 PM
3

It’s just a rationalisation for abusive behaviour. Of course it isn't play fighting. The point here is when women are aggressive there's this mass effort to downplay it and trivialise it so they're not held accountable.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 10:39 AM
-4

The stuff I’m talking about isn’t the light, mutual joking you and your husband do. It’s things like slapping, shoving, throwing objects, or even grabbing and dragging hair. I’ve seen it both in real life and all over the internet situations where the “play fighting” is one-sided, unwanted, or persistent and the women are angry. That’s the kind of behaviour that gets excused because “he’s stronger, so it can’t hurt him,” but it’s not harmless. It’s a clear boundary violation, and tolerating it o…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 10:33 AM
1

This misses the point. This isn’t just about immediate pain but about boundaries and respect. Female aggression that’s tolerated when it’s unwanted sets a precedent. The social conditioning that says “women can’t hurt men” makes it easier for them to push limits repeatedly, because the man feels pressure to laugh it off or rationalise it. Social norms shouldn’t dictate who gets to feel safe in their own body; the fact that men are expected to shrug it off is exactly why drawing the line early is…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 10:29 AM
5

Good for you. It doesn't take genius to realise men are far more patient with women than they should be. It's unfortunate.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 10:28 AM
1

Much much higher I reckon
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 10:27 AM
7

Wrong. That’s the exact mindset that lets the behaviour slide until it escalates. Physical aggression isn’t only about who can inflict more damage but about the violation itself. When someone hits, shoves, or throws things at you, they’re signalling that your comfort and autonomy are optional. The danger isn’t just in the force of the act, but in what it normalises. A shove today might not bruise you, but what it does is condition both people to treat that aggression as acceptable. That’s how bo…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 10:26 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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