TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

DepositePirate Archive

View 0 posts and 189 comments by DepositePirate on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

I like that term. The English equivalent would be homo-hostile, then? Yes, that would be the equivalent although it means literally "enemy-ly-ness". I'm also grossed out by people eating cheese in front of me even more than two men kissing. So far they're doing fine haha Yeah they're definitely not disorders. Part of it is certainly a social construct/cultural but there's probably also a biological basis too, as I think this has something to do with bullying which chimps do a lot. Also chimps ar…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 05:00 PM
1

I agree with disgust. But is disgust really fear? To me two men (the more they are masculine) kissing makes me have a slight disgust reaction. But cheese and red wine makes me have a huge disgust reaction. I'm not afraid of red wine and cheese in the sense that I'm going to have a fight or flight response. And neither two men kissing induces a fight or flight response. But since disgust uses pretty much the same brain circuitry as fear we should see what neuroscience has to say about it. Note th…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 02:23 PM
0

The right to vote for someone else to decide for yourself is useless if not outright detrimental to everyone and property which makes capitalism possible is arguably the biggest cause of death ever.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 12:02 PM
5

Nope that's not true, rape is overwhelmingly male on male and happens in prisons.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 11:53 AM
2

But other men are more often the victims of rape than women. Most rapes happen in prisons.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 11:49 AM
2

Or it's mostlikely just a pretext so they have a reason to continue to bully homosexuals and weaker people.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 11:26 AM
3

I think psychoanalysis is pseudo-science. Take for instance "Homophobia". No one actually fears homosexual people. Homosexual people are not known to be especially violent. But we all know that calling someone "gay" as a derogatory term doesn't most of the time mean that they actually have sex with someone of the same sex. Weak, "effeminate" is meant by it. It's verbal taunting, a display of dominance. It makes perfect sense that in a patriarchal/hierarchical culture being weaker is seen as a ba…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 11:20 AM
3

No. Mental disorders aren't things that are considered deviant or things that are out of the norm. Of course the greeks were super mysoginists as pastoralist/agriculturalist/patriarchal/hierarchical cultures most of the time are. I'd say the romans were slightly more though. Muslims pass almost as moderate compared to them. http://discovermagazine.com/2005/aug/desert-people
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 11:02 AM
1

I'm going to leave it based on the extensive number of recent papers I have read on the subject that overwhelmingly point to the opposite of what you claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 09:23 AM
1

lol @ the DNA evidence based on mitochondrial DNA as proof that humans never were monogamous. It's well known that hominids do not evolve and also that there was an adam and eve. Not only you don't understand anything about sexual selection, but you don't understand anything about population genetics. Don't bother sending your outdated papers. http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/29/the-ancient-sexual-revolution-that-may-have-spurred-human-monogamy/
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 09:21 AM
1

No one in ethology/anthropology/evolutionary biology uses your definition of monogamy. Rather they speak of social monogamy, sexual monogamy and genetic monogamy (lifelong monogamy with no cheating). These are the different stages of monogamy on the spectrum. If you had any clue about what you are talking about you'd know this. Apparently the only one who uses wikipedia and without even being fucking able to read is you. All what I am refering to is straight out of scientific journals. Humans do…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 08:20 AM
1

You're definitely sorely uneducated on those matters. Whatever the degree of monogamy it is NOT polyginy. Hadza men have reduced sexual dimorphism and engage in high levels of paternal care unlike neighboring tribes of polygynous agriculturalists/pastoralist which is completely consistent with pair bonding species. Furthermore, how come humans have the neurochemistry of pair-bonding if they "never were monogamous" as you claim? How come they have the lowest SDS of all great apes including bonobo…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 07:52 AM
2

No it isn't, monogamy is on a spectrum, but lifelong monogamy happens too. But they sure as hell make it sure that no males are hoarding the women for themselves. And that is also true of some polygamous south american hunter gatherers. In the Jul'hoansi actually it's usually the parents who decide who their children will marry. The Hadza have no rituals or anything. People just shack up and are considered married. Both Hadza men and women rate fidelity as one of the top criteria for mate choice…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 07:38 AM
2

If I want it to be true and some book not based on actual research just claims it is so, then it must be true. Fact: the Hadza are monogamous, the Jul'hoansi (bushmen) are monogamous, the Baka are monogamous. Some hunter-gatherers of the amazon are not monogamous but it's well known that contrarily to african hunter-gatherers, they only recently went back to foraging because their ancestors fled to the forest to escape colonialism. So they don't count as representative of what hunter gatherers m…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 07:21 AM
1

I would think in fact that most women or men are not hypergamous "by nature" (if "by nature" means genetically inclined) and that it's the switch to agriculture that introduced hypergamy. Capitalism just made it even worse and the red pill is basically capitalism applied to mating. How else would you explain that hunter-gatherers (what humans have been for at least 295,000 years) are typically highly monogamous and egalitarian?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 06:29 AM
1

I guess it needs to be linked until it sinks in
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 04:54 AM
1

The Y chromosome has very few genes and acts mostly as a switch because of the SRY gene. Disable that SRY gene and you've got an individual with an Y chromosome that's phenotypically female but infertile. In some mammals the Y chromosome has disappeared.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 03:04 AM
5

Also they've never heard of assortative mating.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 02:46 AM
1

Maybe. Maybe not. Most people usually do not like typical alpha male behavior, they're only interested in the typical looks which predict such behavior because the western entertainment industry is bombarding with heroes that have those typical looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 02:42 AM
1

Seriously? Marx basically dedicated his whole life to writing economics books against capitalism (one of them is titled "The Communist Manifesto") and there are pro-capitalist marxists? xD I'm doing a screenshot of this and making a meme out of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/17 02:17 AM
1

Nope, the original idea comes from ethology, an alpha is the highest ranking male in a tournament species.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/17 07:56 PM
4

Masculinity is a short hand for tournament species male behavior. And Alpha is the highest ranking male in a tournament species. You should also be aware that marxism = communism.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/17 07:50 PM
1

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-romanceless/
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/17 07:44 PM
1

Criminals are the definition of alpha.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/17 07:36 PM
1

Hunter gatherers are indeed egalitarian and collectivist, but they're mostly monogamous and have all kinds of cultural practices to deal with ambitious individuals so there are no "alphas" there. See the Hadza and others.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/17 07:34 PM
1

I guess that heavily depends on the reasons for a woman to "branch swing". These reasons are going to have very different outcomes in terms of sexual selection. I'm guessing if the "branch swinging" is based on snagging the highest ranking male possible, things are going to end in full-fledged tournament species polyginy and all the wonderful things this brings for females and low ranking males. On the other hand if the "branch swinging" is done because of typical tournament species male behavio…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/17 07:14 PM
1

You've never heard of marriage and "'til death to us part?" and how that has something to do with monogamy as people understand it? And you've also never heard that most people who identify as monogamous when they get into a relationship hope that they have found the right person with which they will spend the rest of their lives? How hypergamy is good for women must be a pretty entertaining narrative which must be the female version of the red pill.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/17 06:43 PM
1

Most people are ignorant. And the person you replied to was clearly using the word monogamy to mean "one for life". People who identify as monogamous usually mean "one for life". Hypergamy is not something that is usually seen as positive.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/17 06:23 PM
1

It's nonsensical to want to define monogamy as "serial monogamy" as monogamy is on a spectrum because there are multiple variants of the vasopressin receptor gene in humans which result in a different quantity of the receptors in the brain. I'm guessing your intent is to willfully misrepresent what monogamy is about because polygamy is seen as the cool thing these days. Males in monogamous species are pretty much all the same and not very different from females so I fail to see what monogamy has…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/17 05:51 PM
1

An ignorant comment like "hypergamy is monogamy" is a good reason enough. There are plenty of humans that mate for life. Owl Monkeys not only mate for life, but are genetically monogamous which means they never cheat. Unlike penguins they're primates which is comparable with humans and humans (some more than others) have the same pair bonding neurochemistry as Owl Monkeys.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/17 05:26 PM
1

If you had any clue about what monogamy is about you would understand.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/17 05:14 PM
1

If homosexuality was an evolutionary dead end it wouldn't exist. But apparently women who have those same genes reproduce more because they are also more attracted to men. Therefore the genes persist in the population. There are many genes that have both and advantage and a disadvantage at the same time.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/17 02:31 PM
1

Tell that to Owl Monkeys.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/17 02:22 PM
1

The insecure thing is pure psychoanalytic nonsense backed by no evidence. When red pillers/traditionalist/conservative/right wingers use the word "masculinity" what they actually mean is tournament species male behavior. Being hostile to homosexuals is consistent with tournament species male behavior. It's dominance. High ranking male chimps mimick sexual intercourse with lower ranking males as a display of dominance. Similarly, in Arab culture only the one who is submissive is homosexual (i.e. …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/17 02:08 PM
1

Probably because most of them don't see it as ideal, but the better/rational choice in a bad situation.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/17 01:45 PM
1

Care to back this up with scientific evidence?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/17 01:35 PM
1

Couldn't agree more. It's difficult to talk of an objective morality because morality is just evolved cooperative behavior. Toddlers have an innate sense of fairness when their brains develop to have theory of mind. Morality is not something that came out of pure abstract thought or some fictitious god. However culture/environment definitely has an influence on it. Species have to evolve cooperativeness before being able to survive in harsher environments and are the most successful species. Gam…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/17 11:00 AM
1

Some people are clearly more talented, better looking, stronger than others. That's a fact. And this is exactly the reason why there should be no top (hierarchy). Power corrupts. Those in power, especially when they want that power, use it to further their own interest. Not the collective interest. Hierarchy has never worked for the collective interest. Nowhere. When those who are more talented, smarter, better looking or stronger are allowed to rule, this is called the law of the jungle. There …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/17 02:39 AM
1

You got it right. That's exactly what I'm saying. And also men and women are far more alike than they think they are. Evolution is a lazy process and doesn't "design" things. It just finds the shortest good enough way for genes to replicate. Most of the red pill evolutionary psychology that is peddled here is wishful thinking, trying to cast current western cultural gender norms as universal and immutable. And when you start digging seriously, it's not supported by hard scientific evidence. You …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/17 05:07 PM
1

I'm not saying that women are not attracted to features in men. I'm saying the features they are attracted to in men and even women (except neoteny) are conditioned by culture and environment. Like people have sexual triggers on things like types of clothing, objects, behaviors associated with sex. Women are not bi in the sense that they are lying to themselves and secretly want to have sex with other women (though they are more likely to). It's just that much like men, they associate a lot of t…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/17 04:42 PM
1

There's plenty of individuals that for who knows what environmental reasons have all sorts of unusual sexual visual triggers i.e. fetishism. And there are many. It can go from shoes to cars. So really attraction visual triggers seem to be very variable. Which would be consistent with the model I propose.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/17 02:03 PM
1

For starters women are all bi. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26501187
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/17 01:36 PM
1

Ok, can't wait for the links to the studies with brain scans that show that this is "all kinds of wrong".
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/17 01:21 PM
1

The pheromone thing is easy to do. It's well understood. Imprinting visual data after birth at different biological stages in the brain is pretty straightforward as well. All sorts of fish and birds have sexual cues with colors. Receiving color data is pretty easy too, you just have a type of photoreceptor cell. I can see how you could have photoreceptor cells that reacts to seamless surfaces and simple things like this. But spawning not just one, but many trained neural networks for complex sha…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/17 01:08 PM
1

How do the "instincts" you are referring to work? It can't be magic, it has to work by the laws of physics. Where and how is the data stored and encoded for those alleged "instincts"? It's well known ducks imprint who is their mother after birth with visual stimuli. Rodents, cats, and many mammals do it with smell, which is easy to encode and pass on. Receptors on cells bind to chemicals we call scent. No need to encode any data in these two examples. Many of the hypothesises here require visual…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/17 12:22 PM
1

I figured you wouldn't be able to tell.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/17 10:52 AM
1

Yeah, DNA produces neurons that act exactly like computer code with pre-programmed neural networks that scan images and then jump to memory addresses in the brain. Seems like whoever designed the Hadza's neural networks left a bug. https://labs.psych.ucsb.edu/roney/james/other%20pdf%20readings/marolow%20ehb.pdf
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/17 10:10 AM
5

Women are most attracted by what their society tells them is attractive, who is like them most (assortative mating) and neoteny. Same for men.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/17 07:11 AM
2

I have no trouble seeing how this is true, because men are always relatively less beautiful. The less neotenic they are the worse they look. Beauty, cute is just another word for neoteny. What is considered desirable in males (when it isn't a neotenic feature such as smooth skin) is a social construct. No one really likes how males look. The only thing that is "hardwired" in anyone is attraction to neoteny and you don't get turned on by it.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/17 02:47 AM
1

I'm wondering if an oxytocin divide might be the reason.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 11:37 PM
1

I agree that's what feminism wants. And that's one major problem I have with it. There shouldn't be any top. It wouldn't be any better if there was an even 50-50 distribution of men an women at the top. As long as there is a top there will be problems. And because of sexual selection it will never happen that there will be a 50-50 distribution of men and women at the top. It's either no top or nothing feminism says it wants to fix will be.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 11:18 PM
1

And chemtrails exist too
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 11:11 PM
1

« Even more interesting were studies where oxytocin (or a control spray) was administered intranasally. In one fun study, couples had to discuss one of their conflicts; oxytocin up their noses, and they’d be rated as communicating more positively and would secrete less stress hormones. Another study suggests that oxytocin unconsciously strengthens the pair-bond. Heterosexual male volunteers, with or without an oxytocin spritz, interacted with an attractive female researcher, doing some nonsense …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 10:50 PM
1

It's a western or more accurately a social construct that is common in hierarchical human societies. I would predict the effect would be stronger in muslims than in westernized human groups. And that is predictable when you actually know something about sexual selection. Non-polyginous species are widely known to have very low sexual dimorphism.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 10:17 PM
1

Men are not a homogeneous group with the same wants/needs and vested interests. And ultimately those who are at fault for all the problems are the men at the very top of the hierarchy who face no problems at all. The problem is feminism either doesn't really want to fix this or is mindblowingly bad at it.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 10:10 PM
1

Yeah, chemtrails do exist as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 10:01 PM
1

It's correlation not necessarily causation.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 10:00 PM
1

"Women did not show such preference" you seem to have missed that part. You missed the part about the other tribes in which neither males or females have a preference for taller men. And you missed the part about actual SDS and prefered SDS. I.e. in the Hadza the actual SDS is as if they had no preference. You also missed the part that 20 years earlier the Hadza had no prefered SDS and that it might be a cultural import. So yes, my TL;DR does say what I think it says you moron.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 09:56 PM
1

No wonder http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 03:08 PM
1

I'm afraid this is a myth http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 03:07 PM
2

Wrong. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280032944_Body_Height_Preferences_and_Actual_Dimorphism_in_Stature_between_Partners_in_Two_Non-Western_Societies_Hadza_and_Tsimane%27 TL;DR "We conclude that patterns of height preferences and choices in the Hadza and Tsimane' are different than those observed in Western societies, and discuss possible causes for the observed differences between non-Western and Western societies."
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 02:19 PM
2

Wrong. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280032944_Body_Height_Preferences_and_Actual_Dimorphism_in_Stature_between_Partners_in_Two_Non-Western_Societies_Hadza_and_Tsimane%27 TL;DR "We conclude that patterns of height preferences and choices in the Hadza and Tsimane' are different than those observed in Western societies, and discuss possible causes for the observed differences between non-Western and Western societies."
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 02:19 PM
1

I'd say that's a "no true scotsman". Some of the more sophisticated and/or fair might not, but many of the "footsoldiers" that can very well be less fair minded do. I think it's fair to say that older women not in positions of power or women that aren't conventionally attractive are right at the bottom of the hierarchy with men that as you say do not "adjust to hegemonic masculinity and fulfill their gender role". But attractive young women are above them, and they often sound like they think th…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 01:25 PM
1

Critical thinking was certainly "taught and encouraged" by school, >so I supposed you're bullshitting me. That wasn't my experience at all. I've never seen so much conformity than at university. And disagreeing or pointing out where some teacher is wrong will definitely get you ostracized in my experience. Having someone lecture you and you being a passive receiver of information is fundamentally against critical thinking. Besides, I believe I'm pretty damn good with critical thinking ability so…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 12:59 PM
4

I think "men" doesn't mean much. While many women have more priviledge overall then men which are not in positions of power, there's a caste of men in positions of power that have more priviledges than both men and women not in positions of power. We do live in a society where the most priviledged are a minority of men. But that doesn't mean that women are automatically at the very bottom of the hierarchy either. Somehow feminism can think only in a binary way on this issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 07:10 AM
1

And yet academia is one mighty echo chamber.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 06:49 AM
1

He's got a point though. There's no social validation by having sex with a prostitute. Little social validation by having a one night stand with someone. While having sex with someone regularly, being seen with them, them taking care of you and having kids with you is perhaps THE highest form of social validation.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 06:18 AM
1

That's one sign of genuine bilingualism, yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 05:54 AM
1

You should ask this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fallon
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 05:42 AM
1

I hope you are considering donating your brain to science. It would be interesting to dissect your brain to understand where your empathy deficit comes from.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 05:12 AM
1

I think the problem with conversations is you can only realistically assess an intelligence level similar to your own. If the other person is smarter than you I'm not sure how one can reliably assess this. You could think they are bullshitting you because you don't understand what they are talking about. The other person could be bullshitting you and you wouldn't realize it and think they are smart. Like a lot of people mistake meaningless postmodern sentences for profound wisdom (http://www.wis…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 04:45 AM
1

They definitely were marxist-leninists to some extent with their inevitable personal twists to it. A famous socialist said this: "Communism I abhor, because it is the negation of liberty, and without liberty I cannot imagine anything truly human. I abhor it because it concentrates all the strength of society in the State, and squanders that strength in its service ; because it places all property in the hands of the State, whereas my principle is the abolition of the State itself. I want the org…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 02:20 AM
1

I think conversations, hobbies, grades and chosen path in life is more looking for someone that is similar to oneself than assessing high intelligence. A lot of us do that, including me. I think someone telling you how similar to you they are is like the best aphrodisiac ever. Nothing wrong with it. That's where we disagree. I don't think having a university diploma (I do) makes you smart. I don't think you need to be exceptionally intelligent to go through college. But perhaps yeah some basic l…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 01:54 AM
1

To sum up things. I asked how you assessed intelligence. You replied basically that you do by looking at academic achievement and maths ability. So I then explained why I don't think academic achievement and math ability is a good predictor of intelligence. You still think it is. I still think that what people really want is someone who is similar to them and not really someone that has high intelligence. I think the research on assortative mating is evidence of this. No worries, I'm not taking …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 01:25 AM
1

I can definitely see how it would be a no go for some types of people. But here is the thing: we're not all the same. And when discussing such topics we should always have in mind that humans aren't clones of each other. Neither culturally nor genetically. Sexual reproduction and evolution makes sure of that. So how we personally see things is pretty bad heuristics to predict how others would. That's why I think the post may be legit and she might not be deranged in any meaningful sense of the w…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 01:03 AM
1

Thanks for the article I didn't know the specifics about Einstein. Nevertheless, you can be "bad at maths" in school because you have a bad memory for numbers. Maths test have a limited time to do them. You could actually understand maths just as good or even better than those who remember numbers more easily and fail at maths in school because you don't have enough time to do it. And you could also very well understand relatively complicated abstract ideas such as object oriented programming. T…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/17 12:48 AM
1

The thing is schools have nothing to do with high intelligence. School degrees are about training people to be good slaves. It is more a sign of the ability to conform. Not a sign of critical thinking, thinking out of the box or curiosity. I have never seen so many stupid people that don't question authority than at university. Einstein was bad at school and at maths. And a lot of highly intelligent people are outcasts.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 11:46 PM
3

Anything can be addictive. But if you're not promiscuous to begin with it does nothing for you. I.e. if you have the oxytocin receptor gene variant that predisposes more strongly to pair bonding, odds are prostitution is not going to help you a whole lot.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 11:41 PM
2

Sorry to disappoint you, but while I'm not a marxist, I'm definitely a socialist and as anti-capitalist as you can get. And the greatest reason why I reject liberal prostitution is that it's a capitalist exploitation scheme on the part of the women. She might be a leftist, leftists usually know nothing about socialism, have never read any of it's classical authors just like most christians have never read the bible or self-described capitalists have never read Adam Smith. They're all just virtue…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 11:27 PM
2

She's probably not going to like it, but even if this is true, she might stay with him because she may think being with him is socially validating for her (as long as none of her friends know what he's up to).
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 10:47 PM
7

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Liberal prostitutes make a crap load of money (like at least ten times the minimum wage on average) and work very little hours. And pimps are illegal everywhere.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 10:42 PM
1

I'm curious how you assess intelligence/stupidity.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 10:29 PM
1

While most people may claim to be attracted by intelligence, they aren't and are turned off by it anyway. Intelligence means "similar to myself".
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 10:12 PM
14

It's pretty obvious that males don't go see prostitutes out of desperation. Why else would so many males complain about being single? If the only thing they were interest in was sex, then they would go see prostitutes. It would save them a lot of time, money and effort. The truth is, they are not complaining about not having sex. The very fact that prostitution exists means almost anyone can have sex. They're complaining about not being socially validated by women. It's all the promiscuous males…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 09:55 PM
1

Not really. Because X genes are activated at random in cells, females tend to be average in IQ while males tend to be either really stupid or really smart because they usually have only one X chromosome. This is why male geniuses are more common. Having two X chromosomes makes it less likely to have the full effect of one bad gene variant or the full effect of a good one. This is also why females are less affected by genetic diseases. The X chromosome has a lot of genes related to intelligence.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 09:26 PM
2

I've been to the U.S. many times for months, and I can confirm that there is no way in hell I would ever move to this third world dump.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 02:26 PM
2

They can compete with southern italy probably as far as the standard of living, but even there, I'm pretty sure there aren't as many homeless people and for sure nowhere near as many people in prison, also the italians work far less too.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 02:15 PM
1

As Göbbels understood, it's hard to compete against echo chambers. I fully agree.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 01:26 PM
2

No one needs confidence. Confidence has been shown to correlate with ignorance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316001989_Single_dose_testosterone_administration_impairs_cognitive_reflection_in_men « The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. » — Bertrand Russell « Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 12:47 PM
2

Sexually Coercive Male Chimpanzees Sire More Offspring "Instead, aggression by high-ranking males toward females during their nonswollen periods was positively associated with likelihood of paternity. This indicates that long-term patterns of intimidation allow high-ranking males to increase their reproductive success, supporting the sexual coercion hypothesis." "Although this could indicate female preference for dominant males, the relationship between aggression and paternity in high-ranking m…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 11:37 AM
3

Highest number of nobel prizes per capita in the world, highest average population IQ in the world really sounds like "populated with imbeciles" . Scandinavia has it it all. Deal with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 09:39 AM
1

You don't understand what you are talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 08:21 AM
1

It's just an alternative way to do it. If profits have to be shared equally with all the workers, it doesn't matter to whom the means of production belong.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 07:38 AM
1

Socialism isn't owning businesses. It's banning property (i.e. rent, speculation, interest, wage labor, copyright).
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 07:24 AM
2

Anyway, at least for Norway, the government doesn't use the oil money to pay for social programs, it invests it in funds for future generations.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 07:21 AM
5

Switzerland has no ressources and is the 4th happiest country in the world after scandinavian countries.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 06:27 AM
7

'Murica is a third world dump populated with imbeciles compared to Sweden.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/17 06:22 AM
0

Rape is a display of dominance. Dominant male chimps rape females all the time. Dominant male chimps also mimic sexual intercourse with subservient males as a display of dominance. Counter-intuitively, in humans, males are more affected by rape than females, because most rapes occur in prisons full of males on the farther end of sexual dimorphism spectrum. On the other hand rape is clearly the worst thing to do ever for pair bonding. An interesting fact is that there was a study where men and wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/17 10:46 PM
2

While egalitarianism of the sexes is definitely a desirable thing, feminism has a lot of problems. Feminism is tribalistic This is not specifically a problem of feminism as it affects every group in a liberal regime where political parties, subcultures and ethnic groups are lobby groups that compete against each other for cultural and political dominance If some other group they oppose does or supports something they'll most of the time just do or support the opposite If someone happens to be a …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/17 10:11 PM
5

You're going to have to brush up on democratic Athens. Start by the world's greatest specialist that spent thirty years studying it: https://www.amazon.com/Athenian-Democracy-Age-Demosthenes-BCPaperbacks/dp/1853995851/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497342494&sr=8-1&keywords=democracy+demosthenes You're just playing semantic games. I'll repeat it though, since every citizen in a (real) democracy has equal political power, there is no (political) hierarchy. You're right though, the rich had no political …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/17 09:17 AM
1

I'll let the undecided check out Marlowe's studies for themselves and let them decide if "The SMP is basically going to be identical in whatever type of human society that's ever existed" or not. If anyone is interested, I'll provide links to studies about the mating patterns of other hunter gatherers per PM.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/17 11:30 PM
2

Good job looking it up on Google. There is another one about waist-to-hip ratio preference as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/17 09:50 PM
3

Strange that you seem to have missed the papers about Hadza mate preference which date back to 2003 amongst other things.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/17 09:23 PM
2

Because they're the result of high androgen activity, which has been shown to cause increased aggression, impulsivity/risk taking, blocking empathy i.e. things that psychopaths have a lot of. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110209105556.htm https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47790968_Androgen_levels_and_anger_and_impulsivity_measures_as_predictors_of_physical_verbal_and_indirect_aggression_in_boys_and_girls https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150227112757.htm https:…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/17 09:01 PM
9

You have no idea what you are talking about. "Without rulers" can be a democracy like 4th and 5th century B.C. Athens. There was plenty of (collective) coercive force there, but no rulers. Or actually everyone was a equally a ruler there because they all voted the laws and strictly controlled public servants which were chosen by sortition and to a lesser extent election. Therefore there was no hierarchy. There's also plenty of hunter gatherers that have no rulers but do have unwritten rules to k…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/17 08:50 PM
7

I agree that traditional patriarchal societies of which the various fascisms are just modern variants are not individualistic and share this with socialism. But you must have missed the part about the socialist anarchists which aren't authoritarian. Also conservatism shares reactionary thought with fascism. Something like this would be more accurate: traditional patriarchal/fascism - hierarchy, centralism, not-individualistic, male-dominated, reactionary soviet communism - hierarchy, centralism,…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/17 10:18 AM
3

Are you sure you are not confusing anthropology with evolutionary psychology?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/17 08:50 AM
2

You're basically admitting that you have never read any anthropology in your life.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/17 07:18 AM
0

Strong jaw, small eyes with a shorter distance between them, length of face, prominent brow bone, bigger distance between nose and lips.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/17 04:53 AM
0

Prisons are a great place to find such faces. Good choice if you're into domestic violence.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/17 04:21 AM
1

While there are some liberal prostitutes who are poor because they have an expensive drug addiction or because they are not conventionally attractive enough compared to their competitors, those who aren't are very well off and more often than not make ten times more money then the minimum wage while working far less hours than someone with a regular job that requires no diplomas. How is this fair? Suddenly when it's women, capitalism is ok. Also it's simply not reality that the majority of male …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/17 11:42 PM
1

There's nothing in the brain that specifically tells you to "reproduce". There's all sorts of evolved systems like the reward system that will make you behave in ways that make it more likely to happen under some set of circumstances. Usually what we do is outsmart the thing. Using contraception you will still engage in the behavior that usually makes it happen but you'll have none of the consequences you consciously don't want. Like there are a few ways you can outsmart hunger such as by eating…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/17 11:03 PM
1

There's a cocktail of hormones (oxytocin, vasopressin etc.) acting in concert with neurobiology and other factors that strongly compel them to ignore what you are saying. Just like it's hormones (ghrelin) and neurobiology that will make you ignore the rational reasons to not eat.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/17 09:23 PM
1

I think it's comparable. Like when some friend of yours is in some new relationship and you meet their new SO and you can clearly foresee how this relationship isn't going to work. But no matter what you say, how astute your observations are, it's pretty rare that they are going to change their minds about it. They'll come up with all sorts of reasons why "this is different". At some point in time later what you foresaw happens and then your friend tells you they "wish they had listened to you".
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/17 08:42 PM
1

We have some varying degree of control if we are aware of what's going on inside of us. Have you ever tried to not eat when you're hungry? You're constantly coming up with reasons for or against doing it. But often you just give in and go eat something. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/you-have-no-free-will
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/17 07:34 PM
1

Would you say that a parent<->child relationship is transactional? There is some evidence that pair bonding reuses the same biological mechanisms that make parent<->child attachment possible. There was a study where people were shown pictures of their SOs while doing an FMRI scan. The same brain regions that are activated when you take addictive drugs were lit. We don't really have a choice, we just rationalize "why" after. But what complicates things is that individuals are not equal in this ab…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/17 06:49 PM
1

My reply was implying that relationships (from an evolutionary point of view) aren't transactional (or they aren't relationships).
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/17 11:06 AM
1

Evolutionarily speaking relationships (pair bonds) exists to maximize the chances of the offspring to survive and reproduce by doubling down on the parenting.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/17 05:22 AM
1

I am a heavy non-believer especially in god and karma, but I also had a huge moment of Schadenfreude when I read that in Sapolsky's book.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/17 07:20 PM
2

Robert Sapolsky's kenyan baboons.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/17 10:13 AM
1

Intelligent people behave intelligently. The others behave like men and women.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/15 07:03 AM
3

Marxists advocated sexual liberalism and matriarchy. So "sexual marxism" is certainly not the right word for a fairer sexual market. The only socialist that I know of that was in favor of a fairer "sexual market" was Proudhon. He called prostitution theft. He said that abstinence was revolutionary. That men as a whole should stop being promiscuous and abstain from paying attention to women. At that point the sexual market would turn in their favor as women would be begging for attention and woul…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/15 03:01 PM
1

It isn't seen as cool by left-wing types. But it's seen as cool by right-wing types. Most people are incapable of logical/rational discussion. They've been trained for rhetoric which is taking advantage of emotions and cognitive biases to show dominance. So it's not surprising. TRP is the right wing take on men/women issues and TBP is the left wing take. Both ideologies are on the whole wrong, even if they both selectively use some facts to further their respective agendas. People should get the…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/15 08:41 AM
2

Oh really? Aggression is a completely emotional impulse and it's seen as the quintessence of so-called "manliness" to act out on that.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/15 07:23 AM
1

That might have been somewhat right some years ago. But we've reached a level in knowledge and technology where we can now be in charge of our own evolution.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/15 02:37 AM
1

You believe I am because you are too ignorant to know any better. What I say makes no sense to you because you have no in-depth knowledge of the subject. But anyway thanks for your basic simplistic info. Maybe start by watching this whole semester of Human Behavioral Biology classes to educate yourself and discover there's a whole world of understanding beyond that basic simplistic info. And then maybe you'll be able to better understand what is presently far out of your grasp intellectually. ht…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/15 02:33 AM
1

Here for example http://genderidentitywatch.com/gender-identity-legislation-and-the-erosion-of-sex-based-legal-protections-for-females/
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 01:34 PM
1

That's what TERFs think.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 01:08 PM
1

If you think sex necessarily affects behavior then you can't think that gender is a social construct.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 01:02 PM
1

Ok, then after SRS trans people are real females/males.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 12:52 PM
1

It does cause if there's no binary there possibly can't be such a thing as a "real woman" or a "real man".
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 12:46 PM
1

I think it's crucial that it's on a spectrum, as you can therefore never make any binary assumptions.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 12:41 PM
1

If there is such a thing as immutable, biological categories it's pointless to claim there's such a thing as gender. You have to at least think that sex is on a spectrum, if not gender will arise mechanically with some cultural skewing from these immutable, biological categories. I agree with the last part though. Let's face it, most people be they feminists or LGBTQ folks are ignorant. They have no scientific understanding of sex and gender and often use the words interchangeably.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 12:36 PM
1

Not really, they believe trans people can never be a "real man/woman" and reject them on that basis as being privileged and infiltrators which betrays that they don't really think that gender is a social construct.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 12:20 PM
1

It's glass half full, glass half empty thing. I chose to describe it as serial polygamy because just like (parrallel) polygamy with several mates at the same time, serial polygamy makes a competition possible that skews the 1 to 1 mate ratio. The only real essential difference between the two is the interval of time between different mates. It's not fundamentally different.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 12:16 PM
1

Well I think gender is by definition a social construct because to me gender refers strictly to what is culturally assigned to sexes. Sex refers to the differences that are not cultural. Sex differences can have an influence on behavior but based on what I know, I don't see these influences as necessarily overwhelming. Sex is a spectrum and not a binary.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 11:59 AM
1

If there aren't rules to maintain more or less a 1 to 1 ratio it is not monogamy it is serial polygamy. Well of course for people who aren't monogamous, sex is a good indicator of compatibility because they are primarily driven by lust. Their relationships will almost inevitably fail at some point or another because of this. But not all people are wired like this. From the perspective of a monogamous person it is the exact opposite. The bond is far more important. They would rather learn no know…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 11:43 AM
1

Ah I get it, you mean mathematically equal. Of course that's impossible even two people of the same sex are never going to be equal in that sense. But I don't think that inequality in this sense is a problem. It's a feature that increases our variability as a species and allows us to adapt faster. What we don't need as you say is unnecessary differences that cause more harm than good by causing social strife. There is an explanation to why there are hormone balances, but there isn't a reason (li…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 11:22 AM
1

I don't know why someone would be arguing so vehemently against monogamy as if their lives depended on it and then later try to nag that they can have "sweet, sweet sex" as if that was something so valuable, if their life wasn't centered around it.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 10:33 AM
1

http://tonidorsay.tumblr.com/post/98233027054/what-is-gender-roles-in-relation-to-terf-ideology
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 10:22 AM
1

Nope, for example TERFs.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 09:45 AM
1

I don't see what's so "sweet" about it. Sex is easily obtainable and it quickly becomes boring. You really have to be simple minded to center your life on that.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 09:23 AM
0

Good luck with burying your head in the sand.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 07:53 AM
1

No, I mean equal as in socially equal. If men and women had the same amount of physical strength (this is the case in pair-bonding species) it would change social dynamics beyond recognition. Hormones need receptors, if those receptors have dissapeared hormones are not going to do much. The hormones themselves are just the messengers.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 02:28 AM
0

Why should I believe self-reported "evidence" from incels? You either do or you don't, I don't really give one shit either way, but that doesn't mean that if you tell me to my face that I'm wrong about my own life and experiences I don't get to tell you to bugger off. Simple. Technically you shouldn't. Testimony is never a proof of anything. However depression is testable/observable and doesn't rely on testimony. I'm going to tell you to your face again that your own life experience is irrelevan…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 02:24 AM
1

It was completely called for after your first attempt at a snide comment. Best tactic against rhetoric is rhetoric.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 01:47 AM
1

Some do, some don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 01:44 AM
1

I fully agree.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 01:43 AM
1

You're clearly the one who doesn't understand basic biology and "the way things work".
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 01:32 AM
0

No, I really won't. My experience is as valid as yours or anyone else's (including the incels in the link), I just won't let you tell me what I knew or how I felt. Like I said, you don't know unless I tell you, and I didn't, so you're making shit up that doesn't concern you. Why should I believe you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence I'm not talking about what communism advocates, I'm referring to the system itself (as it would apply to sex or dating). You think everyone should hav…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 05:52 PM
1

Yep, not many primates are pair-bonding and have low sexual dimorphism. Owl Monkeys are pair-bonding for sure. Actually humans have a rather low sexual dimorphism and many characteristics of pair-bonding species. I don't think at all that sexes are the core of the problem. Sex is useful in that it allows genes to be recombined through meiosis which allows greater variation which makes species evolve faster and therefore adapt faster. Males and females in pair-bonding species are pretty much indi…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 05:31 PM
-1

You don't know the circumstances under which it happened any better than you know how I felt about it, or what I knew about it's permanency. Stop projecting and assuming; you don't know anything about me apart from what I tell you, and imagining any different is not only stupid, it's fucking rude. Then refrain from using anecdotal "evidence" such as your own experience. http://cda.morris.umn.edu/~meeklesr/celibacy.html "Also, most celibates appear to feel despair, depression, frustration and a l…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 05:18 PM
1

They weren't.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 04:40 PM
0

Apparently you do not understand the meaning of the word "or".
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 04:35 PM
1

lol @ your urge to justify yourself by telling me about your life which I couldn't care less about. Still, you didn't refute the points made in the excerpt. You just proved that you can do lame mundane rhetoric.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 04:24 PM
1

Primates are not all like baboons. Check out bonobos or owl monkeys for instance. Well let's just say reduced sexual dimorphism like pair-bonding species then. I don't think sex at it's core is a problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 04:23 PM
0

Lack of intimacy can totally cause depression all by itself and usually does. Death is not inevitable but it's orders of magnitude more likely. At the very least least lack of relationship will dramatically shorten one's life span, as it will cause cortisol levels to be abnormally high which then causes premature death. And that's not even counting all the indirect harm that will be caused by how people affected by this will react. The reason why you weren't depressed is because you knew it was …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 04:18 PM
-1

I'm not so sure. Some humans are already far less sexually dimorphic than others. Some human males in some tribes have neither facial nor body hair. East Asians are known to have lower sexual dimorphism too. Why compare humans with baboons? Baboons are a pure tournament species. Humans are a quasi pair-bonding species.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 03:42 PM
1

You don't die from lack of relationship as quickly as with lack of food or water. But you still die from it. It causes depression which eventually causes death. And I'm not speaking of sex, because sex is easily obtainable. At worse you can pay for it. However casual sex does not fix a lack of relationship (which is the same as being regarded as an inferior subhuman by others) which causes depression. No one asks you to fuck someone you don't want to. Chose someone you want to fuck and stick to …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 03:35 PM
2

Well there's those TERF feminists who don't like genderqueer and transsexual people and who do care about gender roles. I don't think they are a negligible minority. Hypermasculine men are definitely worse parents. But of course not all men are worse parents. In a technological society, physical strength should be irrelevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 03:20 PM
1

It will highly reduce the chances of you being hurt. Because it's a fact that the more masculine (sexually dimorphic), the more aggressive males are. Well women should be warned about being attracted to hyper masculine men. But since a patriarchal society is ruled by hyper masculine men it's difficult to get the message across. I'm sorry, but you can't convince hyper masculine men to not behave like hyper masculine men.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 03:13 PM
0

Cause it's well known that species never evolve, right? This could easily be done by having those who are the least sexually dimorphic have more children then the rest. We don't need to get rid of sex, there are plenty of species which have no secundary sexual characteristics. Even among primates. You assumptions about my "women's studies" and "liberal arts degree" are laughable.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 03:08 PM
1

What is the book you're quoting from, an incel manifesto? Oh... it's a novel. A work of fiction. Great. So you think you have a valid argument that refutes what is said in this quote just by using the word "incel" to mock it ? And of course novels never ever deal about anything real right ? If no one slept around, there would be no one to sleep with, so you would have an even harder chance of getting laid, no? You make a lot of assumptions. But that's probably because getting laid is the only th…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 03:01 PM
2

I'm genuinely happy to hear it. You are doing a great service to future generations. However I don't understand the logic of your first sentence.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 02:46 PM
1

I did write "most". At least in scientific circles, gender is not just another word for sex. Gender only refers to cultural differences which are therefore arbitrary. So when I'm saying getting rid of gender, I'm saying getting rid of cultural differences which I think is the same as saying getting rid of gender roles. I even think it would be a good thing if humans had no secondary sex characteristics at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 02:41 PM
-3

You are definitely withholding/taking away from others and causing suffering to others by sleeping around. It's a mathematical fact you can't escape. You just pretend it isn't the case because it is not done directly and because the responsibility for this structural violence is not the result of the behavior of just one individual but the result of the collective behavior of all those who sleep around. You're just choosing to ignore it because you are a relative winner in the sexual market and …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 02:29 PM
5

Obviously I agree men do it too and I think it would be great if they were shamed for it. I don't think it's ridiculous and petty, at least not anymore than shaming capitalists who hoard resources. People who sleep around are hoarding too. It’s a fact, I mused to myself, that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, fur…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 01:27 PM
0

There is something you can do something to stop sexual harassment and assault, even domestic violence : avoid fucking hypermasculine men or become a lesbian.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 01:07 PM
4

To have more equality we'd have to get rid of gender. But most feminists do not want that.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 01:03 PM
11

The problem is that they won't care. They can find a new partner at the blink of an eye. If there was enough peer pressure ( "slut shaming" ) then they'd really think twice about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 12:56 PM
0

I'm pretty sure it's mostly because it's a meme and it's acceptable for them to do so. Behaving like your peers helps you be socially integrated. Only the more independent minded of individuals that don't submit easily to peer pressure don't do that. Those who chose to behave differently of the group are seen as a threat.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/15 12:53 AM
1

says "oooh", moves his hands like a woman, moves his hips like a woman when he walks, flutters his eyelashes, talks with an upward inflection If you don't find it attractive, then why do (some of) you (women) do it? If it's silly, it's silly for everyone to do it. P.S.: I can't think of any gendered behavior that is smart anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/15 10:07 PM
1

Marriage was originally founded as a way to give beta men a chance to work towards something and pass on their genes /r/badhistory The blog post shows that it's clearly not bad history. And that marriage is a practice that was indeed put in place to make the dating market fairer.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/15 02:26 PM
2

/r/badhistory oh really? http://magistraetmater.blog.co.uk/2009/02/05/patriarchy-monogamy-and-divorce-5515896/
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/15 01:05 PM
-3

It is tiresome to read mundane platitudes like "adults should be able to do whatever they want". If Adults should be able to do whatever they want, can they rape or kill then? Or is there some magic line to differentiate what kind of anti-social behavior is acceptable or not? Oh I'm guessing the answer is that when a behavior only causes structural violence it's fine because it's easier to get away with it (especially when you're not on the recipient side). Am I right? Or is it that those who ar…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/15 03:41 AM
1

Physically, yes, but evolution takes a lot longer to catch up. Our brains still operate like they did thousands of years ago. I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say "our". Humans are not monolithic and differ widely genetically and culturally. The behavior you're referring to is typical of desert dwellers and their cultural descendants (Mediterraneans (greco-romans)/christianity imported that culture). You'd be hard pressed to find similar behavior with rain forest people like amazon …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/15 03:10 AM
2

Men and women are different. Men's sexual resource are very abundant, women's sexual resources are very scarce and once "used" take 9 months before they can be used again. So of course we are going to view their approaches to sex differently. Women who are not responsible with being careful as to who gets to access their sexual resources are going to be looked down upon. It's irrelevant now that there's birth control. I remember reading a good male equivalent to this: cowardice. We view cowardic…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/15 03:50 AM
4

There should be no alimony. A woman is not a handicapped creature that can't support itself and requires extra monetary help. If parents must pay for their children (in a world with basic income that wouldn't be a problem) then both must pay equally. Besides with a monetary penalty the rich get away with it. Like it's no problem for them to pay for a speeding ticket. Which makes the law irrelevant for them. In a perfect world promiscuity would not exist because we would have become a monogamous …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/15 03:26 AM
1

Are you sure you actually went to Europe?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/15 12:43 AM
1

Nothing new. It's pretty obvious that the majority of humans are mediocre, uneducated primates with a more or less limited ability to think into the future. Their whole life is mostly playing games to grab credits to climb the social hierarchy. Those that can rise above the basic primate behavior are a minority.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/15 12:04 AM
0

If hypermasculine aggressive rapist polygynous bullies who call themselves "alpha males" stopped trying to fuck every female in sight all of a sudden there would be no problem at all because females would have to have realistic expectations. Why blame it on the females? It's those primitive apes that should restrain themselves.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/15 07:39 AM
2

Alphas (hypermasculine) are not kind people by definition. They are aggressive and antisocial and are higher on the autistic spectrum. Aggressive-Antisocial Boys Develop Into Physically Strong Young Men http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/02/25/0956797614567718.abstract Craniofacial Feminization, Social Tolerance, and the Origins of Behavioral Modernity http://people.duke.edu/~rlc26/Cieri%20et%20al.%20-%202014%20-%20Craniofacial%20Feminization,%20Social%20Tolerance,%20and%20the%20Origins%2…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/15 01:24 AM
0

You chose to see just one side of the coin so it fits with an ideology that's just there to whitewash behavior that should be regarded as intolerable and anti-social. Assuming that humans were a true tournament species ( which isn't the case ) you'd die alone anyway because all alpha males in tournament species are sooner or later dethroned by younger and stronger males.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 12:47 AM
1

It's more or less true everywhere in the west. I'd rather fight to change things for a better future, than give in and and go with the flow because like Hawking said it recently, aggression will be the downfall of the Human species.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/15 11:25 PM
1

The Red Pill is wrong because it's tournament species behavior. Check out the difference in behavior between tournament and pair-bonding species of primates and tell me in which kind of society you would rather live? Humans have characteristics of both types of species because they've been transitioning to a pair-bonding species for a while now. RPers long for the good old tournament species days where "men were men".
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/15 10:26 PM
0

Strong men are usually not intelligent.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/15 10:10 PM
2

Apart from Bonobos, there are also pair-bonding primates which have a very different behavior than tournaments species like the Baboons Sapolsky studied. In fact humans are somewhere in the middle between a tournament species and a pair-bonding species. We have a lot of physical characteristics of pair-bonding species. I think within the human species there is some variation and probably some individuals are closer to pair-bonding species than others. It seems to me that RPers just want to behav…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/15 10:00 PM
1

Please clone yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/15 04:30 AM
1

I think you overestimate "men's" desire for sex. Once you know you can get sex easily it totally loses it's appeal for some of us too.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/15 03:55 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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