TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Classic_Hippo3602 Archive

View 4 posts and 266 comments by Classic_Hippo3602 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

I’m not sure what current feminism you’ve engaging with, but it is completely out of touch with what’s going on in the movement right now. Dismantling the patriarchy and its norms for both men and women has been a common topic for decades. Current feminist movements work towards reproductive rights, bodily autonomy, preventing gender-based violence, economic justice, understanding intersectionality, etc. To try and boil it down to the Duluth model, which was criticized by feminists, and a non-ex…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/25 07:47 AM
1

“Gynonormativity” sorry I chuckled 😂😂 only on reddit would you hear such pseudoscientific, chronically-online language lmaooo And.. I never said that. Proving yourself of your status should not take over over feelings of closeness and bonding. If it does, that says a lot about your priorities when engaging in sexual activity, lol. One who does put priority over proving their status to the point of overriding or overlooking other emotions probably has a deep insecurity about their status
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/25 07:40 AM
3

Errrr how so?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/25 07:21 AM
1

I’m not sure what feminism you’ve come across, but real feminists work on exactly what it is you’re talking in dismantling patriarchal doctrine for both men and women. And no, none of women’s choices undermine the experience of life pre-feminism. Freedom is priceless. Also, what traditional expectations do women expect from men exactly?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/25 07:21 AM
3

Okay, i understand the part about such data being hard to come across. But why don’t you just focus on women that don’t swoon over that? Idk, in my experience that hasn’t been a common sentiment amongst women so im not sure where you’re coming from with that
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/25 07:16 AM
1

Well, to an extent. When you remove the other emotional aspects of it, like I said, becomes a conquest of proving status. Sure that’s important to men, but it shouldn’t take reign over other more intimate emotions.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/25 07:14 AM
–

How would you say you work on yourself?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/25 12:54 AM
1

Yeah lol But I also know that men and women are perfectly able to have the same relationship desires. As a man, its easier to be lustful and let that drive your reasoning behind getting in relationships. Thats not an excuse to be so easily swayed, though, you must have the self-awareness, introspection, and emotional maturity skills to be a proper partner and man. Its your responsibility to you and your partner to do that
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/25 12:20 AM
1

Self-centered take
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/25 12:09 AM
1

Not really. Those "different perspectives" are fed to you by society, it has nothing to do with biology.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/25 12:07 AM
2

Lol me too. These guys keep shooting themselves in the feet xD
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/25 12:06 AM
1

Wdym by "that dynamic"?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/25 12:02 AM
2

>Women want to uphold gender roles where the men they find acceptable to date earn more, are better educated, taller, stronger and more sociable than they are. If you remind them times have changed and the sort of man they're looking for is part of an ever decreasing minority they'll whine and tell men to "be better" and fix several decades of systemic issues over the course of one weekend. I'd want to earn more for my partner to show that I'm capable of holding down the fort in the case that we…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 11:59 PM
2

Yeah, a crazy lack of regard to their potential future partners insecurities. I guess you're just making the decision making process easier for women by declaring yourself as sexually insecure ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 11:49 PM
1

This is just a crazy take LMAOOO
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 11:46 PM
2

Such as?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 10:00 PM
1

Why don't they fit it?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 10:00 PM
1

I ultimately agree, there is a biology to what roles women and men tend to take on which are still heavily influenced by culture. Also, its not that our genetic impulses aren't "precise", but more that we adapt to the culture around us. Humans are notorious for this. But thats why I'm saying we have so much new access to scientific and cultural data, why not take advantage of that and come to a better consensus or understanding that would benefit both men and women?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 09:48 PM
3

>Dude, i am over 40 and not even i was in a generation of men who were told that this is where our value comes from. Nobody was told that anything they did would "automatically guarantee" them a wife. I'm not denying that this might be your case. But this outdated masculine doctrine has existed from the 1960s and before. The culture is still shifting from that and we have quite a bit, but for those who are finding shit isn't working out for them, its easy to look to the past when men were guaran…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 09:29 PM
1

True that
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 09:12 PM
1

Well, yeah. Modernism is the reason why marriage culture is shifting, as well as birth rates (more to do with education and the economy, but yeah). Not really sure what your point is. Whats feminism got to do with this conversation?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 09:02 PM
1

Everyone without a mental impairment is capable of that (not trying to be mean, just telling you that ur capable). You've recognized step one, so you know what to do... do it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 08:52 PM
2

This kind of makes no sense. I tried reading your replies to other people, and all I can gather is that you think its contradictory that women say "men have it easy" while bashing on men for being easy (?) This is really a non-issue cause its self explanatory. Women tend to be more choosy, but maybe sometimes they wish they weren't so choosy? I don't think they are seriously complaining that men "have it easy" in the dating scene. Its probably more like an "Ugh, I wish I was easy to satisfy". Th…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 08:49 PM
1

What kind of men do women deem "lesser than" exactly?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 08:41 PM
1

Oh brother. Thats why I literally made that point. Just because you RP gets you results in some capacity, doesn't mean its because RP is a successful doctrine.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 08:38 PM
1

What do you mean by "dating down"? I didnt say I necessarily agreed with BP. Im not a piller at all, I think its all kind of silly. But I think BPers have it better than RPers because they value female opinion and don't try and treat women as some sort of "othered" monolith. And lets be honest, RPers are incel-adjacent. I dont think its that BPers think a mans success comes from how many women sleep with him, but I think its just a tactic to call out incel-like ideology (which I agree with doing…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 08:37 PM
2

Many women are actively in the process of dismantling their own patriarchal ideals because of the new wave of feminism. Find yourself a woman who doesn't hold you to those standards if thats what you want. No need to do all that pilled bullshit.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 08:33 PM
1

“Back in the day you didn’t need game or looks, you just had to provide and protect.” That’s not evidence of some sort of timeless masculine truth, it’s evidence of a restricted female restricted choice. In many societies before gender equality was embraced, marriages were often arranged and dictated by family status, land, or alliances. Real attraction between individuals barely mattered because the culture severely limited female choice. Today, women have a lot more agency so, attraction feels…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 08:32 PM
1

Haha, she says thank you!
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 08:23 PM
1

You're overestimating human sexual dimorphism, so it doesn't mean much to how we should operate as humans Women aren't more neurotic? Where is this coming from?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 08:22 PM
2

I understand your perspective, but to say that “classical masculinity and femininity are hardwired into our DNA” doesn’t match historical evidence across various cultures. If those traits were truly locked into biology as you are claiming, they'd be expressed the same way in every culture and every era. But we don’t. In the Mosuo of China, men don’t play the “provider” role at all. It is a society where men contribute to society by putting their energy to the maternal household and maintaining r…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 08:20 PM
3

Like a replier said, women definitely do uphold the patriarchy. Its written about in feminist literature quite often actually, probably more than about how men uphold it. Sounds like to me you'd prefer a woman who is financially successful, which exists! But with the financial independence of women today, there is inevitably the independence of choice. Financially independent women tend to not be impressed easily and prefer men who are emotionally vulnerable, stable, compassionate, etc. Know you…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 08:06 PM
3

^^^^!!
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 08:02 PM
1

Not a new idea perse, but I wanted to apply it specifically to this new dating ideology/culture thats been on the uprise. Also, what kind of update would you suggest? Just curious
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 08:02 PM
1

Not for all men unfortunately, someones gotta suffer in this economy... hence the 11-12% poverty rate. If it were up to me, the system would be changed so every man could live a decent, dignified life and the extra efforts reap extra benefits.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 08:01 PM
4

Selfish, emotionally underdeveloped, and wildly insecure -- yes
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 08:00 PM
1

Literally whats the difference? That doesn't speak to the womans character at all. Shitty women can be virgins and awesome women can have a long sexual history.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 07:59 PM
1

Insecure ass take lmao
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 07:58 PM
1

Limiting things like..?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 07:54 PM
2

Yeah thoughts are involuntary and automatic, but the cool thing about being human is that you can in fact choose which ones you give attention to, which ones you question, and which ones you let go. Without that, we are as impulsive as squirrels
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 07:53 PM
6

That is a hilarious overstatement of how relationships work today. You cannot make a statement like that about relationships when there is not data to support that (without using dating apps, because they dont reflect actual dating trends). All of my female friends that are in relationships arent with guys like that and all the guys I know in relationships aren't like that either. You guys internalize dating app trends wayyy too much
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 07:45 PM
2

Yeah, and you are in control of your own mind. The same way you choose to internalize an insecurity is the same way you can reason yourself out of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 07:42 PM
1

Gender essentialism at its finest, lol. A "womans" needs aren't your needs not because you're a man, but because you're you. You have to ask yourself why you don't value these things and you can't chalk it up to "because Im a man"
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 07:40 PM
10

Oh please. A script of masculinity is not hardwired into our species. If that were the case, we'd see the masculine script cross-culturally hold up the test of time, which is completely untrue.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 07:37 PM
2

Being emotionally intelligent, genuine, friendly, compassionate, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 07:35 PM
3

True, but that doesn't deny the other male emotions that go into sex. Two things can be true at once.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 07:34 PM
2

Did a woman force fully open your mouth and feed you spoonfuls of insecurity? Get serious. You control your own mindset, and that includes how you internalize the outside world.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 07:33 PM
-1

The idea that “women are hypergamous” is a simple answer for a not-so-simple world. Women’s independence has raised expectations. Like when they can provide for themselves, they don’t need to settle for partners who bring less to the table, which obviously will naturally shifts standards. Reducing it to "hypergamy" completely disregards how much variety there is in what different women value in todays world. For some it might be financial or status markers and for others, especially those who ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 07:32 PM
2

I agree that its an ego issue for sure. Hence why a lot of it clearly stems from a place of insecurity. My point was more to present an idea about where the framework of "redpill" ideas came from. A lot of their doctrine just follows old traditional ideas of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 07:27 PM
0

I don't know what exactly this is supposed to prove? Women being in the house doesn't equal a loss of independence in any capacity. It simply means they want to focus on homemaking, which is completely fine. The point of womens independence is that they have complete authority over what kind of woman they want to be, whether it be a "strong independent woman" or a more "traditional" one.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 07:26 PM
1

Is this a dating-app issue or a women's independence issue though?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 07:23 PM
18

That’s actually the point: redpill culture isn’t just a revival of the “old script”, it’s a reaction to the confusing gap left when the old script was abandoned. The 18–30 crowd didn’t grow up with rigid breadwinner/homemaker norms (sometimes), but they inherited a world where those expectations still linger in the cultural background. The socialized ideas of masculinity that have existed for thousands of years have a solid foundation in our culture and is easier to digest than a new one with a …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 11:59 PM
12

Saying “it can’t be outdated if it gets results” is just using circular logic. A belief system can feel effective to its followers without actually explaining reality well. Astrology “gets results” for people too, it doesn’t make it a sound model of how the world works. The red-pill framework resonates with frustrated men because it offers oversimplified answers to frustration, not because it accurately answers to the complexity of relationships today.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 11:55 PM
8

How do you make a person feel? Valued? Happy? Considered? Heard? What traits do you look for in a friend if a persons value only exists in money, looks, and status?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 11:52 PM
10

Value exists beyond money, looks, and status btw
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 10:16 PM
1

You’re misunderstanding my point. Of course GDP growth alone doesn’t guarantee better wages or affordable housing or healthcare.... which that’s why I specifically pointed to structural policy choices (globalization, deregulation, tax changes, declining unions, stagnant minimum wage) as the real reasons the average worker didn’t reap the benefits of said growth. Also, productivity itself isn’t the problem. Before the 1970s, wages and productivity rose together. Afterward, they diverged because i…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 09:59 PM
2

Whatever, it seems you're not getting it. Have fun being insecure
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 09:19 PM
3

So Chad was a bad partner to her ... and she picked you instead, the better partner
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 09:15 PM
3

Ooooo good idea. Ur invited too, we can all play mariokart
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 09:12 PM
2

If it was so easy for her to get with the Chads, why doesn't she just go back to them. Why is she with you?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 09:10 PM
3

Someone’s past might give context, but it doesn’t define who they are now. People grow, learn, and change every single day until they die. What matters is how they treat you today, not an oversimplified version of their dating history. If you think that is just “being the last resort after their fun,” you’re missing the point that choosing you in the present is deliberate, not settling.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 08:57 PM
5

A persons value isn't in their past, its in their present and what they are intentionally deciding to give to you now. Thats not cuckish, thats basic maturity that most adults understand. I'm starting to question how old you are if this concept is difficult to grasp..
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 08:49 PM
11

Ah, yes. The core hypocrisy of the manosphere. When an issue comes up that actually affects men’s lives in a direct way (like harsher military standards, higher risk of being drafted, or policies that disproportionately put men in harm’s way) the manosphere is complacent or even supportive. Why? Because those issues can’t be weaponized against women. The manosphere was never about helping men as a collective, its strictly about helping men in their sick "conquest" of women. Anything other than t…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 08:46 PM
3

Omg dude You're saying that women with "hoe-phases" fuck around with Chads then want to be with a guy like you for a long-term relationship. And you're saying that this is unacceptable because "(hypothetical women) did not choose you to build a life. (hypothetical women) choose you becasue everyone else rejected her and you have money and stability." I'm telling you that this hypothetical woman did not get rejected by Chads in her life and thats why she chose you. She experimented, like many peo…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 08:40 PM
7

They said yes to casual sex because she said yes to casual sex. There was a mutual agreement for casual sex, meaning she had no intention of a long-term relationship with any of her past partners. This hypothetical woman would've had that intention with you, thats why shes in a relationship with you or is pursuing one. Thats not hard to understand.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 08:34 PM
8

?? ChatGPT where, lmao. I think you're just trying to distract from the validity of my point.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 08:34 PM
2

Great. Explain to me why
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 08:31 PM
5

Did she tell you she chose you cause everyone rejected her? If everyone rejected her, how did she get into her "hoe phase". Doesn't make sense lol. Also, I'm a man thank you very much.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 08:27 PM
2

Okay. So tell me why instead of handwaving
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 08:25 PM
1

It really isn’t that simple. Like I said, 11–12% of Americans live in poverty, and it’s not just because of individual choices or a lack of responsibility. Poverty in the U.S. is shaped by structural factors: wages have stagnated while housing, healthcare, childcare, and education costs have soared. Wealth and opportunity are concentrated at the top, limiting upward mobility. Systemic barriers like discrimination and generational disadvantage keep many families trapped. Most people in poverty do…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 07:43 PM
6

This way of framing relationships is built on your insecurity, not reality. The idea that a woman who dated in her 20s is “passed around” or that choosing a partner after other relationships makes that love invalid ignores how attraction and growth actually work. In the real world, people date, they learn what they want, and then they choose someone they feel is right for them. That doesn’t mean you’re the “last option”... it means you’re the one they chose to build a life with. Also, reducing w…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 07:36 PM
30

Fully agree. In "pill" thinking, sex for men is portrayed as purely physical release, detached from emotion, and a kind of conquest that proves masculine status (proximity to "Chad"). This way of thinking reduces sex to a transactional act that men “take” or "win" rather than something shared between partners. Ultimately, it justifies male promiscuity or infidelity as a natural state of male sexuality, while blaming women for being too emotional or for expecting more from relationships. This nar…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 07:30 PM
4

Be so fucking serious man lmao. Rape is a direct, horrific crime against a human, alcoholism is a personal addiction. I don't need to explain this to you
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 07:12 PM
1

If your “ideal partner” is defined entirely by whether she had a so-called “hoe phase,” you’re already narrowing yourself into bitterness. Not every woman goes through that, and not every relationship with a “Chad” ends in settling: people grow, change, and want different things at different stages of life. Reducing women’s choices to a script of “party with Chads, then settle for stability” is just a caricature, not reality lol. Also, why wouldn't it be a good thing that a woman experienced oth…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 07:11 PM
10

Absolutely.. which is why I think they get the rep of being lonely and isolated, because they somehow don't see the variations of attraction in people, which one would usually gather from consistently interacting with people. Another thing I don't get is why they choose to follow these oppressive rules. If your belief is that most women only care about a guys looks, height, money, etc... then find a woman that doesn't only care about that?? Theres a common theme of "lack of self worth" along wit…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 07:08 PM
20

That’s not hubris, it’s just calling out the clear contradiction. Redpill spaces do encourage swarm thinking. They build rigid hierarchies (Chads, Stacys, betas, looksmatches) and then pressure everyone to see attraction through that lens. Sure, individuals vary, but the ideology pushes people to adopt the same bitter worldview, which is exactly why it feels like a hive mind. This ideology doesn't allow for the truly complex understanding of attraction beyond the hierarchies it adopts.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 07:03 PM
3

This kind of comment just shows how much bitterness is driving the redpill mindset. Equating women who are open about their sexuality with “alcoholics” is not only demeaning, but it completely misses the point. Telling people that settling can sometimes be healthy isn’t about wanting men to have “zero standards”, it’s about recognizing that chasing an unrealistic ideal of a partner can leave people perpetually dissatisfied. Also, women aren’t cycling through endless “Chads” before turning to som…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 06:58 PM
33

This is my whole problem with "redpill" "dating market" culture. A culture based in some type of pseudoscience created for the sole purpose of validating extremely insecure men who are in constant competition with some imaginary "Chad". Chad is their nightmare fuel and their God. Chad represents both what they deeply fear women want and what they secretly aspire to be. The obsession with "Chad" reveals how much of redpill culture isn’t really about women at all, but about men competing with thei…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 06:48 PM
23

As my girlfriend says, "Just because a man finds it attractive doesn't mean its for men."
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 06:41 PM
1

I think I get what you’re saying. You’re basically drawing a line between how women often talk about attraction (emotional connection, compatibility, shared values, deeper bond) versus how you approach it (being valued for physical traits or sexual appeal, and being fine with that). You’re also pointing out that you’re not looking for friendship or emotional closeness in the same way in a relationship, but more for sexual attraction and validation. I get that you’re okay with being desired mainl…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 06:35 PM
1

I think you might be responding to a different argument than the one I made. My point wasn’t that men should carry a one-sided “provider” burden in modern relationships. In fact, I was arguing the opposite that capitalism distorted what “provisioning” historically meant. For most of human history, provisioning was about reciprocity, cooperation, and shared responsibility within a community, not just one-sided financial support. Men who hoarded or refused to contribute weren’t attractive mates wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 06:27 PM
1

Okay basic economics lesson incoming cause I'm not sure where you got your "basic economics" from; Labor markets don’t operate like a single pie being divided into smaller slices. When more workers enter the labor force, the economy usually expands rather than contracts because additional labor increases overall output. Each new worker produces new goods or services, which grows the total size of the economy instead of dividing up a fixed amount of wealth. A larger workforce allows for greater s…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 06:18 PM
1

It’s true that neuroscience does not yet fully explain the exact “first cause” of a thought firing in the brain. But that uncertainty doesn’t mean we should ground ethical conclusions about abortion in it, because there is so much science that fills those gaps. Conscious thought and neural activity are what we use to distinguish “persons” from simply “biological life.” A fertilized egg or early fetus has no brain activity, no thought, no awareness, no capacity for autonomy. To collapse the compl…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 05:53 PM
1

"Yours is essentially the same argument that was used to enslave and kill millions: “Those humans are not as developed as we, therefore their lives are not worth the same as ours.” What you are describing is a justification of eugenics, which does not relate to actual human development at all. Eugenics was not based in science", it was a false, inhumane justification for racism and mistreatment of fully-developed human beings who already had autonomy and lives outside of others’ bodies To equate…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 05:46 PM
1

Clearly if it were so simple, we wouldn't have these statistics. Nobody wants to be poor.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 04:13 PM
3

I'm not gonna tell you how to live your life, but you may be oversimplifying what attraction is. "...it has nothing to do with sexual attraction or attraction in general" But attraction literally does work that way, even if you don’t acknowledge it. Many people find partners more attractive because of personality, values, or stability. Ignoring that is oversimplifying human connection. Wouldn't you want someone to be attracted to your personality? Wouldn't your potential girlfriend want you to b…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 08:36 AM
1

Blame that on science being male-centered, considering the history of science. Fun fact, the story of the "sperm race" kind of denies the selectivity of the female body: White blood cells in the uterus and cervix essentially "chase" after sperm and destroy many of them to make sure that only the healthiest, most mobile sperm have a chance of reaching the egg They then go to the uterotubal junction, which is very narrow, to ensure that sperm that lack strong swimming ability or proper structure a…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 08:13 AM
10

I dont think they're demonizing your sexual attraction... Its more the fact that you've described absolutely zero about this woman besides her boobs and age. Even in your description of the other women, you seem very shallow and extremely lust-oriented. You want to marry this 20yo for her boobs? That's all thats been gathered from your post
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 07:44 AM
6

Anything you like about the 20yo besides her boobs...?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 07:35 AM
1

Ah... no. This argument is based on the misinformed idea that we do not know when consciousness begins or how to define it. Neuroscience allows us to define it and we know for a fact it begins at birth. How consciousness is experienced in the womb is still debated, but it is accepted that the brain structures that allow for consciousness begin to form during late gestational periods.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 07:21 AM
1

Lol, I feel like you're purposefully missing my point. We know for a fact standard, human sentience begins at birth. Neuroscience suggests it has its beginnings at ~24-28 weeks of gestation. Sentience is what WE sentient individuals know to be "life". Biologically, a fetus is alive, but it is not living a fully-formed human life. It lives a life akin to that of a coral reef and should not be treated as though it is living a life akin to a human.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 07:18 AM
1

This blends two entirely separate issues of when life begins biologically and when sentience (or consciousness) begins neurologically. Biologically, we can pinpoint the beginning of development at conception in terms of a new organism with unique DNA. But the presence of development is not the same as the presence of sentient life. A sperm cell is also “alive” in a biological sense and is also a component of development, but we don’t treat them as a persons. What matters is whether that life has…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 07:14 AM
1

Like I've stated before, scientists have mapped out some key developmental milestones that help narrow down when it likely begins. Consciousness is broken into two components: arousal (wakefulness) and awareness (subjective experience). You need both to experience consciousness, one or the other is not enough. Sentience falls under awareness: the capacity to feel sensations like pain or comfort. While we cannot pinpoint the exact moment awareness “switches on,” neuroscience highly suggests that …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 07:06 AM
1

When someone falls into a coma or is put under anesthesia, they lose consciousness and sentience, but they remain biologically alive with a fully developed body and brain that already had and could potentially regain the capacity for awareness. They also have an established personal identity, history, and legal recognition as a person, which is why killing them would still be homicide. By contrast, a fetus before neurological development has never possessed such sentience in the first place, so …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 06:58 AM
1

Science knows when it begins and ends buddy: a human is considered sentient when they have the capacity for subjective experience; when they can consciously feel sensations such as pain, pleasure, comfort, or distress. Biologically, this requires a functioning nervous system, specifically the cerebral cortex, thalamus, and the connections between them. And I say specifically because these structures allow sensory input to be processed into conscious awareness. With this scientific evidence, neur…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 06:56 AM
1

Everything made up of cells is living. And absolutely sentience is THE criteria of human life in philosophy, biology, neuroscience, and medicine. Show me an example where its not before making such claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 06:43 AM
1

Living --> Yes, as is everything on the planet Human --> only by genus, not by definition of human life (sentience) The offspring of their parents --> Potentially, but not yet as they are not yet neonatal, thus not possessing the criteria to be considered sentient What about this logic isn't clicking?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 06:38 AM
1

Denotation, no detonation. I don't see how this contributes to our conversation. We are talking about biology and scientific terminology. "And no, scientifically speaking zygotes, embryos, and fetuses, do not have “the potential for life”, scientifically speaking, they are living." Absolutely, they are living. Everything on this planet is living in some capacity. But in the conversation of abortion and what human life means, human life is dictated by biological sentience. Zygotes, embryos, and f…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 06:32 AM
1

First of all, snark doesn't get you debate points Second of all, I bring up the definition of developmental stages to point out that your argument for anti-abortion falsely attributes post-neonatal traits to pre-neonatal human development stages. A zygote, an embryo, and a fetus are scientifically distinct from a neonate, infant, child, or adult. Conflating these categories erases crucial biological differences and imposes characteristics on earlier stages of development that they do not yet pos…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 05:18 AM
1

Tell that to the 11% of Americans living in poverty lol. No one wants to live that way, but the way our economic world is set up makes it a lot more difficult to live comfortably compared to most of human existence
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 05:03 AM
1

Human development stages don't care about what your parents call you. A neonate is a neonate, an adolescent is an adolescent, and an adult is an adult. These definitions are based on the concrete biological development of the human. You cannot try and deny these physically varied biological stages by mixing them in a pot and call them "human", in a debate about that very human development. I can't call you a neonate or a zygote, because you are an adult. That is determined by physical developmen…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 04:58 AM
1

Ur confusing species membership definitions with cultural common speech. Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are classified as members of Homo sapiens as they are human organisms in terms of species identity. That’s standard taxonomy. There’s a distinction between species membership and the connotations of “baby,” “child,” or “person.” - In biology, “zygote,” “embryo,” and “fetus” are precise developmental stage terms. - In common speech, “baby” refers to a newborn (a neonate) or sometimes late-term f…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 04:38 AM
1

This is completely untrue. "Feminism" did not take money out of mens pockets with women entering the workforce. In fact, their participation in the workforce actually bolstered the economy. Wage stagnation, dating back to the 1970s, is to be blamed on economic and political shifts. Plus, what is the problem with women having money? It sounds like you hate equality. If you read my post and took away "men need more money" and not that we need better economic stability and emphasis on community, th…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 03:20 AM
1

Uhhh no. Fetuses are not humans as they cannot survive outside of the womb..
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 03:16 AM
1

Not detrimental meaning suffering, but detrimental meaning detrimental to the formation of healthy communities and relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 03:13 AM
1

While it’s true that compared to hunter-gatherers, most people today have access to a much higher standard of living, the complexity of modern life requires far more financial resources to maintain a desirable lifestyle, especially for a family. The income required to meet basic needs today, such as healthcare, education, housing, transportation, and extracurricular activities, is far greater than what hunter-gatherers ever had to consider. For example, a family living in a good city in the U.S.…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 07:43 AM
1

Yes but the access to resource that will ensure a good life for you and your family is highly limited compared to that of hunter-gatherer societies.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 07:23 AM
1

My point exactly... difference is that, during that time, there weren't only a few guys that were successful. It was highly accessible to be a successful hunter as well as be prosocial.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 07:01 AM
2

Preferences don’t always match reality: most women say they’d prefer a rich, high-status partner, but the majority end up with men of average income. That’s been confirmed in a lot of mate choice studies: expressed preferences are often aspirational, while actual pairings happen within one’s “mating market” level (education, income, attractiveness, etc.). Where I think you go too far is in saying “least capable and desirable men have the largest reproductive success.” That’s not what the data sh…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 07:00 AM
3

I think we actually agree on more than you think. You’re right that pre-agricultural societies depended on redistribution and cooperation. Hunting success was variable, food spoiled quickly, and sharing reduced conflict. Providing wasn’t an individual kind of pursuit; it was deeply social. That’s exactly my point: providing wasn’t just about a man stockpiling resources, it was about being part of a cooperative system where generosity, reliability, and reciprocity enhanced one’s reputation and ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 06:55 AM
1

No, I know my girlfriend was initially attracted to me for all those reasons. That got me in the door, but my personality kept me in the house lol. Both are factors, but good personality in a partner is a marker of a lasting relationship
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 06:51 AM
1

Thats pretty pessimistic, but me and my girlfriend make good money for being childless. And I do want to provide for my girlfriend in the future, what man doesn't?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 05:01 AM
1

I have a girlfriend who loves me dearly and I love her right back! She thinks I'm good looking and loves the partnership we have that is based on emotional reciprocity, understanding, and respect. This is the kind of relationship that persists in the fall of capitalism, not that alpha male nonsense
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 04:52 AM
1

What you're describing isn’t socialism by the way, its communism What these small tribes thrived off of is reciprocity, which is the economic backbone of small-scale societies. Anthropological studies show that members of hunter–gatherers weren’t systemically starving or living in constant scarcity. Rather, resources were shared because survival depended on it. Everyone contributed in some way (hunting, gathering, childcare, tool-making, medicine) and because of that, everyone ate. Yes, chiefs o…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 04:49 AM
0

Oh my bad, I misread. I'll edit that. "the ai ignores how many female dominated fields "example daycare" get funded and how economic shifts + political shifts happened" Can you elaborate on this?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 04:40 AM
0

Our current forms government are in their infancy. I'm thinking in a broader sense of human history, that has outlived our current systems thousands of times over. My goal isn't to prove why socialism works, but to point out why capitalism doesn't work with human nature. Think outside of the confines of current definitions of economy and capital for a sec and expand to the broader history of our existence.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 04:18 AM
1

Yup, I don't disagree with any of this. In today's day and age, any sensible woman would follow the criteria you've listen above as long as he's emotionally mature and caring. I'm speaking in the general sense of capitalism, beyond this day and age, and how it has restructured commonly seen trends in human history (the importance prosocial, accessible provision to humans and how it has been destroyed with our new economic system).
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 04:02 AM
0

Right, right exactly. Which proves my point. If it wasn't so unaccessible/difficult to live very comfortably, a lot more people would. I'm speaking about a hypothetical that exists beyond the current economic system we live in, which is the whole point of this post
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 03:58 AM
-1

Well I asked ChatGPT and this is what it has to say about that (@ conservative men) "1. Historical Context: In the U.S., women entered the workforce in much larger numbers after World War II, especially during the 1960s–1980s, due to both cultural shifts and economic necessity. At the same time, the economy was undergoing massive structural changes—automation, globalization, the decline of unions, deregulation, and rising inequality. Labor Supply and Wages: Standard economics says if labor suppl…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 03:56 AM
1

Premodern life was brutal compared to today. Many people worked themselves to the bone and often died young with little to no access to medicine. But that’s not in conflict with the idea that provisioning and cooperation were central to survival and reproduction for most of human history. The fact that those who could not contribute were “shunned” or left behind actually proves my point: the ability to provide mattered deeply in determining both survival and reproductive success. What has clearl…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 03:43 AM
1

A huge chunk of people who live in poverty are single-mothers, children, and the elderly. Single-mothers don't have time to be truck drivers as they work long hours and children and the elderly shouldn't be working. This is a shitty excuse for allowing these conditions to continue for people who could use some help.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 03:05 AM
0

Elaborate? How does this relate to my post?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 02:44 AM
1

Riiight... welp have fun doing ur other things!
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 02:44 AM
1

If my debate point is "irrelevant", don't try and debate with me? Literally what is ur logic lmao
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 02:40 AM
1

So everyone who is poor is just lazy and stupid and should die off/live an undignified life because of that?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 02:33 AM
2

Lol yeah he was good. But I also don't like to discredit evolutionary psychology as a whole. Yes, its a speculative field, but it is just as speculative as any field that looks for answers to the "big, fundamental questions" like astrophysics, theoretical physics, sociology, and even history. That is why these speculative fields of study are so important as they compile information across data-driven disciplines and look to answer those big questions that we are all looking to answer. Much bette…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 02:33 AM
1

"...a significant minority of the women I know would give up the rights they were afforded if it meant they could just stay home and be a housewife" Thats capitalism's fault, not feminism's. I've also heard my fair share of women being like "I wish we could go back in time and just be housewives, I'm sick of this shit!", but I don't interpret it as "Yuck, get these rights off of meeee!!". Its more like "Abundance of resources is so hard to come by, I'm willing to give up my dignity/freedoms to l…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 02:19 AM
0

Yeah out-marriage vs. in-marriage are often shaped by environmental pressures. Things like population size, resource distribution, or the need to create alliances. I agree with you that we shouldn’t confuse every cultural pattern with a universal biological truth. That said, the fact that environment can shift the expression of a behavior doesn’t mean there’s no evolved baseline driving it (emphasis on driving, not causing). And I don't think its productive to deny the credibility of primatology…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 02:12 AM
2

Fellow anthro enthusiast! Major props, its a cool-ass field. "Our external environmental pressures do a lot to shape culture and behavior, so much that it can be very difficult to recognize.", Agreed! But I think the rest is where we divert. The philosophy of evopsych is that culture/society is created by humans, humans are created by their biology, and their biology is created by natural selection and evolution. So there is a bridge from culture and society to natural selection and evolution. "…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 02:08 AM
1

"We should withhold resources for a dignified life to people because they are useless to society" Did I get that right?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 02:03 AM
1

Agreed on that cultural issue of social status, but the need for social status and following cultural rules is also an evolutionary biology hardwiring (im sure you're tired of this word by now haha). My point is that if you dig deep, you'll find the answer to all the weird cultural patterns we see today, everything comes from somewhere!
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 02:01 AM
3

Why have one guy with muscles when you can have two!!
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:59 AM
6

I guess it'd probably have more to do with economic freedom. Women's livelihood and survival depended almost entirely on men, which was slave-like and dehumanizing. Maybe some big markets backed the feminist movement for the prospect of more wage-slaves, but I won't sit here and deny that feminism has made life undoubtedly better for women. And same, dude. Who wants to work these shitty jobs till we croak. I love my field, but it gets to a point.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:56 AM
1

Thats your experience. There may be some poor people that dig themselves in holes, but that you cannot make a statement about ~38 million Americans (1 in every 9) to justify withholding resources. I knew poor people and families that worked their asses off to live a life that was handed to somebody. I can also acknowledge that not all poor people work their asses off to live a decent life. I will refrain from making blanket morality statements about such a large population, and so should you. Wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:54 AM
1

I actually agree with you that the mid-century American model was cultural, not biological. Where I’d add nuance is that culture and biology are always interacting. As we can explain the mating patterns of a gorilla is the same way we can explain that of humans. Its evolutionary science, not an opinion. The fact that women in almost every society studied (Buss, 1989 with a 37-culture study) show preferences for resource acquisition and prosociality suggests that these aren’t just cultural accide…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:49 AM
0

I agree for sure. Quite sad, but important to point out
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:41 AM
0

I think you’re right that families have historically functioned as units, and that material concerns (land, food security, status) shaped partner choice. But that doesn’t contradict the scientific evidence that mate preferences have genetic and evolved components. Evolutionary psychology and cross-cultural studies (Buss, 1989; Buss et al., 1990, with 37 cultures) show consistent patterns: women prioritize traits linked to resource acquisition and stability more than men, while men prioritize you…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:39 AM
-1

thats great and thats how it should be right now, but there are nuances to that. again, read my post
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:28 AM
1

So usually you don't have to explain a thought experiment is a thought experiment because its pretty darn clear. I don't think you read my original post properly, because I literally did talk about both male success and what they do not have control over.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:26 AM
1

So maybe read my whole original post?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:24 AM
1

Strength and endurance differences mattered in hunting, and pregnancy/lactation constrained women’s participation. Yes. But anthropological studies (Kelly 2013 The Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers) show that women provided the majority of calories (~60-80%) in most forager groups through gathering. Men’s hunting was higher-risk and more variable, but it yielded prestige, meat-sharing, and occasional large surpluses. Meat is highly favored for crucial nutrients, but you could live off of foraged food…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:23 AM
1

I didn't deny that that is a possibility. I just didn't your jaded tone that directed at some imaginary audience of women. Sounded childish
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:10 AM
1

Oh gosh, you've been tapped by the billionaire-cheese touch if you can dehumanize 11.1% of the population to "lazy idiots or criminals". You are closer to being one of them than you are a billionaire, so look out for your fellow neighbor. Economy is ultimate man-made theory, peoples suffering is not.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:08 AM
0

Maybe just be a good partner so you don't have to worry about divorce? lmao
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:06 AM
1

Ever heard of a thought experiment? my point is that under perfect circumstances, people would want to live comfortably WITH their current partners. Why is that so hard to understand
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:05 AM
1

Omg dude, lmao. Ur not listening. People stay with their partners because they like their unique, individual partners. Got that part? Now, if these unique, individual partners had the means to become rich, would the other partner encourage or deny it?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:04 AM
1

Why should people settle for less when we have the resources to ensure that everyone can have access to these things (food, education, healthcare, etc.)?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:00 AM
5

Uhhhh.. no probably not Life for women pre-feminism was undignified and very difficult, so it would make sense that they'd go out of their way to create the movement As for the workforce, yeah, makes sense. But to call it a psyop is OD
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:59 AM
0

I'm not denying that most women aren't dating rich men But if a genie appeared and asked a woman if she'd like her current partner to be rich, she'd say yes in a heartbeat. Just because women are realistic and know that they cannot always date/marry rich doesn't mean they don't want to. And rich in the sense that they'd be guaranteed to live comfortably forever... not billionaire bullshit
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:57 AM
1

Sure, but millions of people want food, education, and healthcare... more than self-driving cars and anti-aging treatment. Medical advancements are great, but how on earth can we put most of our capital investments outside of actual human lives?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:55 AM
1

1) Hunter-gatherer ethnographies (the Hadza in Tanzania, Agta in the Philippines, and Aka in Central Africa) show that while men more often engage in large-game hunting, women do hunt in many foraging societies when childcare and social structure allow it. Agta women, for instance, regularly hunt with dogs and bows, sometimes in mixed-gender groups (Estioko-Griffin & Griffin, 1981; Noss, 2001). 2) Tool use and cooperation often mitigated raw strength differences. Persistence hunting (documented …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:54 AM
1

yes, but who is placing value on the "speeding up" of innovation. To me and you, we'd probably be just fine with technology continuing to be the way it is. This is the sentiment of the average joe. An average joe just wants to live as comfortably as possible, not have the new nano-giga-mind-chip Don't internalize a billionaires interests as your own.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:43 AM
1

Modern capitalism has only existed for a few hundred years.. natural human existence has endured that time of existence 700 times over. I believe in humans!
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:39 AM
1

Poor nations see a huge gender war due to unstable economy exacerbating their gender issues Also, in response to the physical strength thing in hunter-gatherer era, ethnographic data show men’s hunting wasn’t just about strength but also about skill, cooperation, and social sharing. The evolutionary advantage wasn’t simply “I’m strong, I can protect you,” but “I can provide valued, shareable resources and build alliances.” - This the overemphasized importance of strength on male hunter-gatherers…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:37 AM
1

Thats a valid fear, but I find hope in the fact that they are ultimately a minority being ~1% of the population.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:30 AM
1

The logic leap from “scarcity exists” to “the current incentive structure is optimal” isn’t so straightforward. Scarcity is natural, yes, but how we choose to distribute rewards is entirely cultural and political. For example, surgeons are highly rewarded (as they should be), but so are hedge fund managers whose contributions to alleviating scarcity are far less clear. Meanwhile, teachers, caregivers, and agricultural workers all of whom also address scarcity in vital ways are systematically und…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:28 AM
3

I agree with that. However, if there were a way for their current partner to be rich, wouldn't they take it? Literally who wouldn't?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:25 AM
1

I fear this mentally might lead a man to be left behind...
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:16 AM
1

Nope. Nope, nope nope. Mens biological imperative is not to impregnate as many as possible. Their biological imperative (as well as a females) is to ensure fitness. Fitness does just mean the spread of genes, but that those genes will survive successfully. "Impregnating as many women as possible" does not ensure biological fitness because of the altricial nature of human children. It is in both the female and the males best interest to pair bond and put their energy and resources into caring for…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:06 AM
1

True that! Women have come to accept that a mans salary alone cannot equal comfortable living and that he needs to match her emotional & empathy standards, but lots of men have not developed to this understanding. This is where I blame capitalism for conflating "provider-ship" with money and resources rather than prosocial community-building. Had it been hardwired into our minds or out society that providing means both, if not more the prosocial-ness, many men wouldn't be left behind in understa…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:01 AM
2

Although this historical fact that has existed for all of human existence directly shapes the evolution of our hardwiring, sure we can talk about modern examples of this. Lets talk about some common trends in female-female vs. male-male friendships Women’s social networks tend to be more emotionally supportive and interdependent (1); these networks contribute to resilience under stress, emotional health, and connection. Men's social networks tend to be shallow or activity-focused, with less freq…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 11:57 PM
1

What do you think I should say instead? I didn't know the word provider had that much baggage to it lol
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 11:46 PM
1

Biologically and evolutionarily, 100%. Across human history, women’s reproductive success wasn’t just about individual survival but about securing support, protection, and resources from the broader community. Female kin networks are a big part of why prosocial behavior has been so evolutionarily advantageous for women. In many small-scale and traditional societies, women build tight bonds with mothers, sisters, aunts, and other female relatives who help with childcare, food gathering, and prote…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 11:44 PM
1

Ah, okay. Ill copy and paste it here "EDIT: This is probably on me for not being clear, but I want to clear up a common misconception being made here I'm making a statement about how current economic systems mismatch our long-term, evolved biologies. Capitalism changed what it means to provision by making it about resource accumulation rather than resource accumulation WITH prosocial community-building -> this change in expectation does not match how we operate I'm not saying that "all women wan…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 11:39 PM
1

The original stuff isn't edited, I added a new segment to the bottom after "EDIT:..."
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 11:34 PM
1

I see. Do you think my edit to the original post helps?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 11:33 PM
1

To the original post, mb
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 11:33 PM
2

See my edit, let me know if this clears anything up
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 11:30 PM
1

Ehhhhhhhhhhhh. This is quite unfair though, no? This creates a system where not everyone is able to provide something of enough "value", because there is a controlled method of giving value to something. Not everyone can be an OBGYN and live very comfortably, which is a flaw in the system. This is not how humanity has functioned, and it shouldn't be how we continue to live it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 11:30 PM
-1

Well duh people care about looks. You do, I do, everyone does. Its biological. My point isn't to deny that, but to provide evidence that personality matters more than some people think it does
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 11:28 PM
1

See my edit, I think we are agreeing. Let me know if not
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 11:27 PM
-1

This is scientifically not a valid statement, sorry. We are species of animals just like any other species. You put monkeys in a new environment they haven't evolved for, they'll retaliate, evolve, die out, etc. For context, I have a degree in human origins, evolution, and behavior. The information I'm providing are what I've gathered and inferred from my academic career. If we can't agree on the agreed scientific basis, we cannot have a debate about it
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 11:26 PM
0

see my edit
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 11:24 PM
0

Good question. I wouldn’t call the dawn of agriculture capitalism in the strict semantic sense. Capitalism by definition is an economic system organized around private ownership of the means of production, wage labor, and the accumulation of capital as the central driver of growth. So considering that, capitalism really emerges in Europe around the 16th–17th centuries with mercantilism, colonial expansion, and the rise of market economies fueled by wage labor, then fully establishes itself in th…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 11:23 PM
0

See my edit to the original post, im realizing I wasn't super clear
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 11:17 PM
0

For sure, this is what I mean in my edit about women gearing towards wanting emotionally intelligent, caring men in this economy. Men are much better able to provide in that arena rather than the physical-resource arena, due to our economic systems. Both have been favored in historically, but the mental, caring providing is becoming more emphasized
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 11:14 PM
1

My opinion, it will fail because it is actively failing. Look into discussions about late-stage capitalism if you're interested. Many predict we will have to find another way and biology highlights this need
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 11:10 PM
6

One of the biggest misconceptions is projecting the rigid breadwinner/housewife model of pre-WWII America backward as if that’s “human tradition.” Anthropological evidence shows that human societies were far more fluid than that. Men weren’t just hunters, they also nurtured children and supported the sick, while women contributed significantly to subsistence through gathering, tool use, and in some societies even hunting. Gender roles weren’t fixed, they were flexible with environment, ecology, …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 10:16 PM
1

I agree that capitalism wasn't a “choice” societies made in a vacuum. It emerged from the broader competition bind, where groups had to maximize material power or risk being dominated by neighbors. But that doesn’t mean capitalism is/was a neutral inevitability; it’s one specific adaptation to that bind, shaped by cultural, historical, and technological contingencies/contexts. Other systems (like state socialism or mixed economies) have also evolved under the same pressures, showing capitalism w…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 10:12 PM
2

You seem like a miserable, woman hater. I don't entertain that bullshit. Have a good day
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 10:09 PM
1

Ur distracting from my ultimate point... The economic system we live in changes what it means to provision from resource reliability and cooperation to wage accumulation and hoarding. This is where capitalism and human desire do not get along.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 10:07 PM
-2

This point denies well-researched, well-accepted evolutionary theory with personal anecdotes. Both can exist at the same time, what I am highlighting, however, exists at a much more consistent rate across human history.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 10:05 PM
1

This is gonna get into a different kind of debate if you don't mind. Muscles would have lost value no matter what once technology advanced. I agree with you there. Where I think capitalism is worth mentioning is that it didn’t just make muscles irrelevant, it redefined the whole concept of provision. Under different systems (that unfortunately do not exist yet), provisioning might still be tied more directly to community, reciprocity, or land stewardship... the way it was previously defined Capi…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 10:03 PM
2

My whole post is trying to explain why its more difficult lol
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 10:00 PM
-1

I genuinely completely agree with that statement. Redpillers are miserable creatures who misdirect their anger of the unfairness of the world to innocent women. They will never succeed in life with that attitude, and that helps me sleep at night I agree with you that in modern contexts, both partners providing in different ways makes sense and it’s absolutely true that “provision” isn’t just about money. But from an evolutionary standpoint, the expectation that men provision didn’t come out of n…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 10:00 PM
-1

Ur letting ur "contempt" cloud your comprehension skills, brother. "Women adapting doesn’t mean abandoning the preference for provision; it means recalibrating toward men who can offer a different kind of stability in a new economic landscape." Read my point again
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:55 PM
1

IMO, thats something for the government to be figuring out however they see fit. They need to focus on economic stability for everyone and providing people with the means to do so instead of hoarding most of the worlds wealth. We all participate here, we all deserve to live with dignity.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:53 PM
1

I think you’re right to highlight evolutionary mismatch as the bigger picture. Our psychology is still calibrated for small, cooperative bands while technology and geopolitics have created environments we weren’t built for. This will probably be the case for a long time. Where I’d adjust your framing is that while technology is the driver of mismatch, our economic systems mediate how that mismatch expresses itself socially and sexually. Agriculture didn’t just introduce new tech -- it completely…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:50 PM
0

I'd argue that the spread of capitalism was exacerbated by technology, which makes them work hand in hand Also, while the brain/muscle gap between sexes is much smaller (or arguably nonexistent) than the physical one, that doesn’t erase evolved preferences or social selection pressures. Historically, physical strength signaled provisioning and protection. However, as labor markets shifted, financial resources and education replaced brute strength as proxies for provision. That’s why mate choice …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:46 PM
5

That's true, but biology absolutely does care about what salary represents, which is access to resources, stability, and the ability to invest in offspring. A temp job may offer more material comfort than 99.9% of our ancestors ever had, but mate preferences didn’t evolve in the last 50 years of modern abundance. They evolved over hundreds of thousands of years in conditions of scarcity. That’s why cross-cultural studies consistently show women prefer partners who can signal resource reliability…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:43 PM
0

Great question. When I say “hardwiring,” I’m not suggesting that human behavior is fixed and unchangeable and I agree that adaptability is absolutely one of our strongest traits. What I’m pointing out is that evolutionary pressures over hundreds of thousands of years shape baseline tendencies and preferences, even if they can be moderated by culture and individual variation. For example, mate preferences for resource reliability in men or youth/health in women show up across cultures and across …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:38 PM
1

Huge bit of redpill culture surrounds the idea that "women only want rich men!1!!1 women are gold digging whores!1!1!!". They themselves are frustrated with the cards they have been dealt as a collective. I'm trying to give some insight to where those frustrations have come from. I'm not speaking for every individual, but a general pattern
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:34 PM
0

Being a sole provider on a middle-class/average income is definitely harder in today’s economy, and dual-income households are now the norm in most societies. But that doesn’t make the provider role “antiquated”. It just changes what that provision looks like. Historically, provision was never about a man single-handedly shouldering all material needs. It was about demonstrating reliability, resource investment, and the ability to contribute to long-term stability. Those traits still matter just…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:32 PM
2

Not stupid at all, I'm 100% with you on that
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:29 PM
2

No they don't lol. And even if they do, we both know thats not true so why believe it?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:29 PM
2

Capitalism, properly defined, is a much more recent development tied to wage labor, capital accumulation, and state-backed market structures. I don’t disagree there. My point wasn’t to collapse all resource-hoarding into “capitalism,” but to show how the transition from small-scale, cooperative provisioning in forager bands to hierarchical, sedentary societies fundamentally shifted how men gained status and reproductive opportunity. Agriculture (~10,000 years ago) didn’t necessarily create capit…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:28 PM
0

Sounds like you have a hatred or disdain towards common female partner choice, which is capitalism's fault, not the females. Provisioning has always been a core part of human mating psychology because it signals reliability, commitment, and cooperative ability. That doesn’t vanish just because capitalism distorted “providing” into wage competition. If anything, modern economic instability is exposing how crucial cooperative, dependable men still are, both as partners and as fathers. Women adapti…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:23 PM
0

I'm not saying they haven't. You’re right that in many hunter-gatherer groups, gathering provided the majority of daily calories, especially plant foods, were collected by women. But that doesn’t make the provisioning role of men irrelevant or my argument moot. Anthropological studies (e.g., Kaplan & Hill, 1985 on the Ache; Hawkes et al., 2001 on the Hadza) show that while gathering supplies for reliable calories was important, hunting contributes high-value, nutrient-dense foods (meat and fat) …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:18 PM
-2

In terms of economic "microhistory", yeah. In terms of the past 99.97% of human existence, we need a whole new system lol
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:12 PM
1

Errr no I'm not trying to say its impossible. Or that male providers don't exist. I'm saying its unnecessarily difficult now compared to then and the methods used to become a provider often dont line up with previously favored provisioning ability. This is what I mean by "hijacking". Our new economic system has disrupted what it previously meant to be a provider and has made it exponentially more difficult.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:08 PM
8

This is true, but doesn't change biological hardwiring for mating preference. This is why we see women always wanting to be with a rich guy, which is universally accepted as a standard. I don't have a problem with it because I understand where it comes from, but why don't we question why rich guys are rich in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:06 PM
4

Yes, but not all men can. Most men cannot provide sufficiently comfortably either. Unless you're upper-middle class+ in a first world country, the systems aren't in your favor. At least not anywhere nearly as favorable as pre-agricultural systems
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:04 PM
1

"What? Women are just as concerned as men with spreading their genes, they just differ in the strategy they use. But that aside, this is incorrectly framed because men are also not concerned with “spreading their genes”, they just like sex. Proximate goal vs ultimate goal." The reason why men "like sex" more than women is quite literally a matter of biology. There is a science to every human instinct and urge. Because reproduction is inexpensive for males, it is sometimes in the males favor to r…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:00 PM
1

I think you’re drawing an unnecessary line between “immediate needs” and “genetic fitness.” The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Yes, women’s preferences shift depending on context -> during times of resource scarcity, provider qualities are prioritized more, while in short-term mating contexts, traits linked to genetic quality (like physical health or confidence) weigh more heavily. But that flexibility doesn’t mean personality is irrelevant to genetic fitness, which is what you are trying to say…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 08:15 PM
1

I agree, but why does this matter to your case? You said "women make relationship decisions on whims" to disprove that personality matters in the process of relationship-decision making. Of course the honeymoon phase fades eventually, but how does this negate that personality is heavily factored into decision-making?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 08:07 PM
1

Truth! I feel as though a lot of the people with opposing sentiments comes from trying to find logic to an illogical idea of "Women don't care about personality, that's why I don't get attention.. not because I'm unattractive". And a lot of the times these people aren't horribly ugly, they just maybe don't care of their appearance or fitness as properly as they should... and/or are unbearable for women to be around. I know for a fact women would dry up at the idea of a man actively debating bs l…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 07:58 PM
2

Maybe they'll put up with a bad personality or make excuses in the beginning, but that facade doesn't last in the face of a committed relationship. And I'm not denying that physical attractiveness matters for first impressions, it matters for everybody, probably including you. I'm saying that making the claim that "women don't care about personality" at all to cope with not getting that first-hand attraction is silly.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 07:56 PM
1

Blanket statement, but I know many women who would never hook-up with a loser. Of course some women will see past asshole behavior that wouldn't slide in a relationship when looking for hook-ups, but most wouldn't want to have sex with a loser.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 07:53 PM
1

A long-term relationship in my criteria is 1 year+ or so as there is intention for it to continue for a while. Of course, things happen and this isn't always how things go, but if theres an intention for the relationship to continue for years, then I'd consider it long-term for the sake of this conversation. Now, back to my point, if both sexes make their relationship decision-making on whims of "in the moment" how does that explain the existence of relationships that last longer than decision-m…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 07:52 PM
1

Of course women typically need to be attracted to a potential partner to some extent first, I'm not trying to deny that. My point is that personality is heavily factored into longevity of attraction and relationship success
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 07:35 PM
0

Biologically, women tend to be not as concerned with spreading genes as men. Plus, even if they are eliminated from the gene pool, thats their choice And how are women "choosing not to be good enough" or "not good enough"?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 07:32 PM
0

Uhhhh,, no this is an evolutionary biopsychological view, which is well-supported in academia and science. This is not a conscious thought-pattern I think people should adopt or something, its the scientific evidence + reasoning for underlying drivers of behavior. This unconscious pattern of decision making exists in all females across the species and impacts animals as much as it impacts us humans. I'm just explaining to you why this pattern you've noticed of "men aren't good enough as they are…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 11:23 AM
1

Yeah, this is a biology thing. Because it is more energetically expensive and exhausting for a woman to reproduce, she will choose her partner a lot more carefully than a man who reproduces inexpensively. For her own well-being and that of the child she put her energy into, she must ensure her partner will have provide emotional and resource stability for them both. So, she is biologically and psychologically predisposed to find a man who will make that expense of energy (pregnancy, birthgiving,…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 10:47 AM
1

In what way?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 10:12 AM
1

Women don't want to procreate with men with these undesirable traits --> increasingly lower chances of these traits existing in the gene pool --> quickly, this will stop being a problem all together! Hope this helps
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:41 AM
1

I understand what you're saying, but due to the framework of the society we live in, men are much more likely to be socialized to accepting or adopting these traits in themselves and other men. I don't think OP is saying men are inherently evil, but statistically, they tend to cause most harm.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:38 AM
1

Bro is trying intellectualize turning into a "supervillain" for short-term pussy lmaoooo
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:35 AM
1

Subjectivity of attraction to personality is the same as that of physical appearance when taken to an individual level. But across data, there are patterns found in the traits that usually drive both of these attractions. Just as there is a "beauty standard" there is a "behavior standard"
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:30 AM
1

Attractive personality is subjective to the individual as is attractive appearance. I'm not denying that, but when you do try to compile the "average" desirable traits in both fields, you'll see a general pattern. This goes for both personality and looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:23 AM
1

Again, over-generalization. That's a broad, personal-reality driven perspective that isn't held up by data. Even if people may be in poor mental states, that doesn't "skew" or "blind" them to statistically consistently getting into committed relationships with criminals or abusive psychos. Literally wtf is your point bro. Looks gets you in the door, personality keeps you in the room. You have no rebuttal to this and keep bringing up useless anecdotes.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:14 AM
1

Ur not seriously bringing this up in this conversation. Those are statistical outliers. Men have sex with bad women and women have sex with bad men. So what? Doesn't mean shit in successful long-term relationships between two healthy people.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:08 AM
1

Yeah thats true, but I used these as examples of shitty traits that have been proven to be shitty traits through data - (Barelds & Dijkstra 2006; Meltzer 2014) show that selfish or disagreeable behavior steadily predicts lower satisfaction even after factoring attractiveness - (e.g., Amato & Previti, 2003) show that loss of attraction usually tracks back to behavioral issues: infidelity, conflict, selfishness, and lack of commitment. They prove my point that statistically, attraction is strongly…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:01 AM
0

Its not that men are more likely to be violent when they can't get laid. Its that men who cant get laid tend to be more violent. These are two entirely different statements. - Men who tend to be violent usually present anti-social behavior, which is a turn off for women, thus creating that relationship. Its not that men are at a "risk" of being violent if they don't get laid - Women are MOST likely to be harmed by a boyfriend or husband than a stranger, this doesn't mean that there is a statisti…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 08:56 AM
1

Controlling, unempathetic, aggressive, emotionally immature/unstable, unsociable, selfish, unreasonable... these are all agreed upon to be shitty traits. No person with self-respect would remain with a person who has these traits even if they were attractive. Do you agree with that?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 08:47 AM
3

Ur trying to punish someone that was very well interested in you just because ur pressed they didn't want to have sex yet? Had this led to sex, you wouldn't have had any intention of reporting her. You are a fucking jerk.. and an idiot. She was flirting with you, showing that she was interested in you in that. That doesn't mean she planned on having sex with you that night.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 08:38 AM
1

Tell me if I'm getting your point or not. You're saying that people do not get access to long-term relationships if they aren't attractive?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 07:59 AM
1

Yes, attractiveness creates a strong halo effect and that first impressions are hard to shake. Nobody disputes that as it’s a well-established human phenomenon. But here’s the flaw: those studies only measure first impressions or very short-term judgments. Extending that data into claims about long-term relationships is a leap that evidence doesn’t justify, you just misdirected it to a point of your own and twisted it to be evidence of that. The fact that we perceive attractive people as kinder …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 07:55 AM
1

Im saying that how do you determine their short term ability if they've never experience such before? What is criteria for long-term ability versus short-term ability?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 07:17 AM
2

Okay... and? Personality doesn't matter if you're unattractive as attractiveness doesn't matter if you're a shitty person. Whats your point?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 07:04 AM
1

Doesn't make it a good model. The chances of them maintaining them are way lower. Why not just develop the long-term traits. Yeah thats true. Doesn't change my case though; personality is still factored in the equation.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 06:54 AM
1

I'm saying because of your point of "The men your talking to are focused on acquiring a relationship of some kind or some quality. That's it. Everything that comes after is of secondary or tertiary importance" Im responding to this saying that what makes you think you'd be able to "acquire" or get into a relationship if you don't have the traits that prove you'd be able to maintain one
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 06:12 AM
1

Lol this is getting silly, do you want a self-respecting emotionally intelligent woman or not? If not, we can end this debate here
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 05:41 AM
1

Sure you can, but its a shitty car. You want a shitty car, be my guest, but people usually want better ones! Used car = Low quality = the bird-brained woman with no self-respect I described earlier. I never said they were? Not that you explicitly did, but its my response to "If I don't have a car while it would be good to learn about maintenance realistically my main focus will be on acquiring a car and then learning how to maintain it later"... Why not just learn how to maintain the car before …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 05:20 AM
2

That argument completely oversimplifies attraction to the point of being misleading. Yes, your paper shows people adjust to value traits their partners actually demonstrate, and yes, there’s a halo effect where attractive people are assumed to have good personalities. I'm not denying either of those claims. But to leap to “personality is just conflated with looks” is a flawed A + B = C. Scientific/Data-driven flaw - The halo effect you are using that has been studied ONLY tests on first impressi…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 05:17 AM
2

"Not necessarily, it just implies that, in the moment, she wants someone who can listen to her. Maybe, in a day or two, she might want someone to have crazy caveman sex with" - Okay, so if this applies to both sexes, how on earth to long-term couples and marriages last? If you can make the general statement that women (and now mens bcs you said it applies to both) partner choices are entirely dictated by immediate needs, how does that explain the consistent existence of long-term bonds?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 05:05 AM
1

Bro what. The only thing the studies says is that people have an unconscious tendency to conflate personality with attractiveness. Nowhere does it make a statement about or test some consistent phenomenon that women will stay with shitty men because they are attractive, which is literally the point you're trying to make. The inferences you're making deviate from the objectivity of the study into a subjective one.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 05:03 AM
2

A women's immediate needs can sometimes be a reflection of a long-term intention. Yeah if a woman is horny in that moment, she may go hook-up with a man. But if a woman wants an emotionally validating partner, this often reflects a long-term intention to be in a relationship. Also, this logic is not specific to females, it applies to both sexes. It doesn't make sense to bring this up as a "womans partner choice" thing and not a thing of both sexes lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:57 AM
0

Ur completely making a subjective opinion an objective statement. This is 98% of peoples problems on here. In my opinion, all of this doesn't halo-effect talk doesn't matter in this conversation. A person with any sort of emotional skills and self-respect wouldn't be stupid enough to let a nice looking boyfriend be an asshole to them just because hes hot... and these people fully exist. You're worried about women with bird-brains who don't respect themselves? Cool, don't date them!
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:54 AM
0

Thats even stupider lol. Proof of being able to maintain a relationship is not strictly developed in a relationship-setting. Traits like sociability, empathy, intelligence, humor, kindness, etc. are developed in many different environments, and people can read whether or not someone has them pretty quickly. This is why people can't "get into" one in the first place. Its unrealistic to think you can acquire the car without proof that you'd be able to maintain it later... a dealership won't sell a…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:50 AM
-2

If you're in a long-term relationship, someone's personality cannot be masked by looks. Halo effect can definitely apply to shorter interactions like the ones you described, but that doesn't say anything about perception of personality in committed relationships
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:40 AM
2

Maybe for some cases. I've definitely heard of women fucking attractive assholes as much as I've heard of women with pretty ugly dudes lol. This doesn't disprove my case though
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:36 AM
1

Genetic fitness does not just mean good genes!!!!! Fitness is the ability to spread your genes successfully. Having desirable/good genes increases your ability to spread your genes (your fitness). Having a good personality, like you said, increases fitness by ensuring offspring survival. "Examples include, "I am horny, I want to fuck a hot guy", and then, afterwards, "I want a boyfriend who can listen to me and validate me". Both of these needs require different types of personalities." What exa…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:33 AM
1

Well, thats a stupid strategy. Why separate the two?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:29 AM
1

In the conversation of academia, that is true. But evo psych is speculative by design as it is searches for the "why" behind these fairly consistent patterns. For this reason, it won't ever be as traditionally "concrete" as any other scientific field, but this doesn't deny its reliability. Denying the reliability evolutionary psychology is like denying the reliability of fields like sociology, philosophy, anthropology, theoretical physics, etc. as they are all just as speculative, being based in…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:27 AM
-1

Eh, this is an over-generalized statement that cannot be accepted as a truth. Now, subjectively speaking, how does this explain highschool sweethearts or virgins who get into relationships?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:16 AM
1

Can you elaborate on this? What are these "immediate short-term needs" that change so frequently? How does this point disprove that women don't screen for personality to weed out genetic dead ends? Also, keep in mind that personality is not a "screen" for good genes, they are literally a factor of genetic fitness beyond good genes.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:14 AM
1

This is a subjective statement. But speaking from personal experience, if someone is kind, it will show in their behavior. Kind gestures, humor, empathy, and attentiveness can be noticeable from a few conversations. And typically, people who get into long-term relationships have known each other prior or have had a "dating stage" where they have the time to gage the existence of these "not immediately observable" traits.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:09 AM
1

I see what you're saying, but how exactly does this relate to my original point?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:06 AM
1

The science I've used is a blend of evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, and genetics.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 03:55 AM
1

Nope! Evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, anthropology, genetics, and neuroscience do not boil down to "asking women what they feel"
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 03:54 AM
1

To an extent, sure? But this is a pretty subjective statement that I cannot necessarily argue for or against with science. Personally, I sort of understand what you mean through my own experience. But this goes into very individualized stuff that varies a lot from person to person. You cannot live your life as though this over-generalized statement is a truth that applies to everyone
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 03:52 AM
1

Oh no that's not what I meant. I'm just prefacing that in case data isn't sufficient that you understand that a lot of the information im putting out is gathered with time and I don't have access/know the sources of that right now
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 03:43 AM
-1

Ur a snarky dude, lol. Answer my question
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 03:41 AM
1

OK, I think I'm starting to understand your point. Can you explain to me the difference between traits that only matter once you get into a relationship vs the ones that matter before you get into a relationship? I don't think there's much of a distinction between them.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 03:36 AM
-2

I'm not really sure what your point is or what you're trying to debate that relates to what I've stated in my original post?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 03:33 AM
-1

Lol, I completely agree. The fixation on looking for 'short-term' is a serious sign of biological unfitness as is the inability to maintain a long-term relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 03:22 AM
1

Well, I'd argue that if you're struggling with maintaining short-term, you're definitely going to struggle with maintaining long-term. Long-term pair bonding is the ultimate indicator of fitness, so why wouldn't you have those conversations? Separating them is kind of silly
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 03:18 AM
3

Yeah, heres a few. Look into the dual mating strategy theory, its quite literally exactly what I'm talking about - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513805000760 - https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1348/000712608X298467 - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/evolution-of-human-mating-tradeoffs-and-strategic-pluralism/915D78A7A9568A17A5F688BC6B3DC1A3 edit: i'd also like to add that I have a degree in human evolutio…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 03:15 AM
3

That’s an oversimplification of biological fitness. Reproducing a lot of children doesn’t guarantee that your genes survive long-term.. what matters is whether those children themselves survive and reproduce. Historically, many of the ‘quantity-over-quality’ strategy men’s offspring had higher mortality rates or weaker long-term success because they lacked consistent, high-quality paternal investment. By contrast, men who invested in fewer partners but supported their children increased the odds…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 03:04 AM
0

Ummm, no thats not really what I'm saying. Sexual attraction is not defined only by physicality for both sexes, but especially so for females. While men tend to weigh visual cues more heavily, women consistently factor in behavioral traits such as confidence, humor, kindness, and emotional stability. These qualities (as stated above) serve as indicators of a partner’s long-term reliability and capacity to invest in offspring, which historically had a direct impact on survival. Personality can am…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 02:58 AM
1

This is a very subjective, anti-intellectual statement. To dismiss evolutionary psychology as ‘speculative by nature’ ignores the fact that it is an extremely rigorous scientific field that uses testable hypotheses, cross-cultural data, and measurable outcomes to explain human behavior. Isolating your evidence to high school dynamics or church groups might give you anecdotal insights, but anecdotes are not evidence of a larger pattern. Evolutionary psychology is a well-respected field in academi…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 02:52 AM
4

If personality were only about ‘beta bucks,’ then agreeable and dependable men wouldn’t be able to maintain long-term relationships or raise families successfully. Yet the evidence shows the complete opposite. Those traits predict relationship satisfaction and lower divorce rates. Men with such behavioral tendencies actually create stable families and pass on their genes more reliably... their biological fitness is higher than a "Chad"
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 02:46 AM
2

Absolutely. That is actually an objectively accurate statement, backed by science.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 02:44 AM
2

You’re right that kindness and generosity may not always be what gets someone a first date. They are emphasized in long-term contexts when people are deciding whether to invest in a committed relationship and/or raise children together. So, personality sometimes won't ‘open the door,’ but it often decides whether someone stays. Additionally, research in psychology and evolutionary biology shows that physical looks are just one part of the equation. Personality traits like charisma, humor, warmth…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 02:40 AM
5

That depends on whether the female is looking for short-term or long-term. If she is looking for long-term, sexual attraction would be more influenced by personality than if she is looking for short-term. Sexual attraction does not exist in a vacuum, it is dependent on context.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 02:34 AM
2

It sounds like you’re focusing on short-term sexual success. Evolutionary psychology suggests that women often value different traits for casual encounters versus choosing a partner to raise kids with. Personality traits like emotional maturity and agreeableness become especially important for the latter.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 02:28 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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