TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Destinyciello Archive

View 0 posts and 944 comments by Destinyciello 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)
1

Before the Industrial revolution nearly all labor was farm work where men held a gigantic upper hand. The other labor was military or high level science (which only a tiny % ever participated in) also massive advantage for men. See where I'm going? I never proposed a solution. I identified the cause. Yes brutal and completely sex/race blind meritocracy is ideal. We also have to reconsider the whole college to work pipeline. It heavily favors females. But it's also largely unnecessary with modern…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/26 12:10 PM
-1

The presidents and other politicians tend to favor charisma over pure IQ. Though you certainly need some IQ. The problem with our political system is that EVERYONE is allowed to vote. Even if they have no idea what they are voting about. A far better system would limit it to perhaps only people who make $70,000 a year or something. Or give an accurate IQ test and only let top 50% vote. You'd still have plenty of representation but the politicians would have to offer more than a bunch of pleasant…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/26 03:45 PM
-1

How do you think those wealthy guys got wealthy to begin with? By being morons? You need a combination of luck, work ethic, talent and charisma to get places. The more complex the economy becomes the more talent translates to IQ. Back in the day just being a talented swordsman could mean notoriety. Which obviously didn't require a high IQ.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/26 03:02 PM
-4

Or you know society used to reward physical strength and dominance a lot more. And women were certainly not better in that world. Now the world rewards cognitive ability more so than anything. Because the IQ bell curve for women is much taller around the middle. Meaning far less very stupid and far less brilliant women. This "focus on the mediocre" economic model pushed by the socialist type is ideal for women and far less ideal for men. A lower IQ man with big muscles used to have a lot of say …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/26 12:48 PM
0

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. If that was the case. Human males would not have an instinct to deeply bond with their children. It simply would not exist. Human DNA does not change that fast and we only started owning land a couple of 1000 years ago. That would be a monumental shift genetically speaking. It simply doesn't work like that. I don't know who taught you this nonsense. But I do hear a lot of people repeating it. It fails any logic test. As soon as you consider how much DNA would have to ch…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/26 01:42 AM
1

I don't think so. You gotta remember humans are just apes. No matter how much we try to delude ourselves we are instinctual creatures. Especially when it comes to social interactions and sexuality. Promiscuous woman = disgusting But why? Well consider what 99.99% of our history looks like. Say you are a man who wants to find a woman to pair bond with. To have children with. What's going to happen if you pair bond with the whore of the tribe? You're likely going to be raising someone else's kids.…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/26 01:33 AM
3

Best way to improve face for most modern men is just to lose weight. So a 10/10 body would usually lead to an at least above average face unless your genetics are just cursed. Status and money work differently on younger women because social status among teenagers is more animalistic in nature. The arrogant aggressive prick that used to dominate in 10,000 BC when everyone was dirt poor and violence solved most conflicts. Still dominates high school (to some degree). But completely gets obliterat…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/26 12:47 AM
-2

Shit can't answer directly. You must do 4 things precisely 1) Looks max. Which means get in the best shape. Learn how to groom and dress. Don't underestimate the latter 2. 2) Career max. Status and money ABSOLUTELY ATTRACT WOMEN. 3) Geomax. Often times the location you're at sucks for finding women 4) Make sure you socialize and at least have Adequate social skills. You don't need to be some charisma master. Don't listen to the PUA assholes. Don't listen to women who say this is all you need. Th…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/26 12:19 AM
1

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that humans prefer monogamy. We only organized every single society around the planet around it. Regardless of how rich or poor and regardless of which religion.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 02:59 AM
0

Or that mass rape was common. Especially back when we were other animals besides humans. Considering Chimpanzee behavior that theory is far more likely.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 02:58 AM
0

Human instincts evolved over millions of years, Even before we were fully humans. A lot of our instincts remain from our ape like cousins. 4000 years is absolutely nothing in that time frame. Not to mention up until very recently birth control was very crude and highly unreliable. Also are you really going to rely on men to pull out? Giving a creampie is one of the best feelings in the world. I bet if you ask your female friends who had a lot of casual encounters without protection. They'll tell…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 02:11 AM
-1

Humans are a pair bonding species. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10295201/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bond And no a pair bond doesn't have to be for life. It exists to facilitate raising children together. It may only last a short while. Especially if the pair bond fails. If humans didn't pair bond fathers would NEVER get attached to their children. There would be no reason for that instinct to even exist. Nor would anyone ever fall in love. Love is just a pair bonding chemica…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 01:42 AM
-1

I find women having lots of casual sex partners disgusting. That is not natural behavior. Humans evolved in an environment where this was awful behavior because a lot of those encounters would end up with pregnancies. Meaning the child would end up a bastard. Which is rough in todays world but ESPECIALLY rough in the olden times. That is why we innately find it disgusting. Nobody wants to marry the towns whore.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 01:32 AM
-3

It's two completely different frames. Both can be true. A) You wish you were the kind of guy who could get endless casual sex. Which is basically a high value male. B) You generally think it's disgusting self degrading behavior. Both are perfectly consistent views. Just different angles.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 01:29 AM
-2

Most men and a lot of other women as well. Men who get a lot pussy have to work for it or have very good genetics. Any average looking woman can open her legs and get endless dick. It's disgusting. Disgusting for a very simple reason. Females get pregnant males do not. We evolved in an environment where child support and DNA tests didn't exist. If you decided to pair bond with the towns whore you were likely going to be raising children that are not yours. Thus men who were not disgusted by this…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 01:23 AM
-3

How is the ability to behave in a disgusting manner empowering? If we allowed people to shit on the sidewalk is that empowering?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 01:00 AM
1

Me and almost every other man I know. I knew SOME chubby chasers but they are definitely outliers. Most dudes would rather cut their dick off then fuck a land whale.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 05:54 PM
1

Absolutely not. There is genetic variance in everything. Look at how wildly varied people are. Why would you expect their sexual interests to be 100% uniform?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 05:45 PM
1

Averages is what we're talking about. If we asked 10,000 men to rate Jessica Alba versus Honey Boo Boo's mother (look her up she's disgusting). Yes there would be some outliers that genuinely prefer that ugly mess. But the vast majority probably like 99.9% would prefer Jessica Alba. If we did two average looking chicks the split would be a lot closer to 50/50 Averages is all we're talking about. Nobody is disputing that outliers exist. In fact some EXTREME outliers exist. 2-3% of men are attract…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 05:36 PM
1

If some aliens were flying by earth in the 1990s. They would probably think that the average man wanted severely malnourished women. Based on what was being shown on TV as a beauty standard. But that was VERY VERY VERY Far from the truth. The average man wanted healthy looking fit attractive women. Not women that looked like they just crawled out of Auschwitz. In other words... What the fashion may be is not necessarily representative of what men actually want. In fact it can be quite disconnect…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 05:32 PM
1

But not humans. How do you propose we genetically engineer men who are naturally attracted to fat obese women? Only way to do that would be to find a bunch of men who genuinely like them and make sure somehow that they have 1000s of kids. Either through insemination or by fucking a bunch of women in some government lab. I suppose it can be done that way. But yeah...... not exactly a useful idea.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 05:29 PM
1

Absolutely not. It varies to some degree. Some of it due to genetic differences between ethnicities. They are naturally going to want physical features more common in their ethnicities. If some ethnicity has a higher proportion of fat women (like African American for example) then yes those guys are far more likely to be physically attracted to that. Exactly what we observe. It's not all learned. A lot of it is just ingrained nature.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 05:28 PM
1

USAID was basically us stopping support. So we were helping underdeveloped shitholes. The local leaders were pilfering a large chunk of it. So we decided to stop. How do you compare that to USSR getting 1000s of their people killed building shoddy factories. It's also like comparing WW2 losses between US and USSR. Yes technically both had many soldiers die. But the proportions are completely different. The same with factory construction deaths. Soviet leadership fundamentally did not value the l…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 12:09 PM
1

Yeah. Amazing what you can do when worker safety is an absolute afterthought. 1000s died to make those factories come up as fast as they did. But when you're a brutal socialist regime worker deaths are a rounding error. Not to mention everyone was industrializing. They would have industrialized anyway. Likely with far fewer deaths and much better infrastructure to boot. They were basically paying Western companies to build the stuff for them. Instead of innovating on their own. Because a sociali…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 03:48 AM
1

I was born in USSR :) Don't need propaganda at all. I saw it all first hand. Stood in those bread lines. Fantasized about eating bananas. Thought that Finland and Italy were on another planet when I saw how developed they were compared to us. I am the propaganda because I actually lived that shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 03:32 AM
1

That's my point. It's not possible. I don't think you understand why people accept premises like landlords and work and paid hospitals. You're comparing the world to some imaginary utopia where everything is free and abundant. The real world is scarce and this is the only way to address this scarcity. USSR and other shitholes tried the whole "lets just redistribute everything" and those societies were utter misery. So while it's not perfect or even ideal. It's the best we have. meanwhile there i…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 03:08 AM
3

I'm not one of them. Men are way more shallow than women.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 02:22 AM
2

Uhhhh so you want to convince a bunch of men to duty fuck obese women? Well I mean uhhhhhh I suppose you could do that. But uhm. Why? To what end? And again how do you plan on doing that? In my youth I was broke as fuck. You couldn't pay me enough to fuck some fat bitch. I suppose you could force me at the threat of imprisonment. But yeah not sure what kind of insane society you're imagining here lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 02:18 AM
2

Not the same process at all. You have to be ok with landlords because if you're not and you can't afford to buy a house you end up homeless. Paying a landlord is a lot better than being homeless. Paying for medical debt is a lot better than being sick or dying. Working 12 hours a day is a lot better than starving and being homeless. If finding obese women attractive was possible. Don't you think every lonely guy would just start doing it? It's a no brainer solution. Just start liking people who …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 02:10 AM
2

How do you make someone capable of finding obese women attractive? Or how do you make that an idea?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 02:04 AM
2

I don't mean using technology. I mean literally grow wings and fly like birds. If you think you can make the average man want obese women through propaganda or whatever you imagine. Then why not grow wings and fly like birds? If we're going to live in delulu land might as well go all the way.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 01:49 AM
1

Yes it's about 50% nature and 50% nature. Which is why what men prefer does change a little bit with time. Heck it can even change within a lifetime of the same guy. But not to the extreme degree that they go from wanting fit attractive women to wanting disgusting obese whales. That would require an enormous amount of malleability. You may as well think we can grow wings and fly at that point.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 01:44 AM
2

It's the right vs left mentality in a nutshell. Right believes that human nature is somewhat hard coded. That it's somewhat malleable but only to an extent. Left believes that humans are totally malleable and that if you just give them the right set of tools or information. They will behave any which way. Obviously humans are SOMEWHAT malleable. But the idea that you could convince the average guy to covet some obese woman the same way he covets Jessica Alba or Mila Kunis is just laughable. It's…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 01:35 AM
2

I can verify that we didn't want anorexic bitches in 1990. I was there it happened. And I bet in 1000 years someone on 3026 version of reddit will make the same mistake. "Hey look it's what they showed on TV it must be what the guys wanted". In fact I've never met a guy who genuinely prefers anorexic women. I know some genuine chubby chasers. And yet it was all the craze in the 1990s. Just youtube some fashion show. It was horrible. We watched it going "give these bitches a sandwich".
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 01:22 AM
1

We never enjoyed looking at land whales. FOr the vast majority of human history "obese" meant a little bit of extra fat. And yes most guys don't mind and even enjoy a little bit of pudding. But not no god damn modern Obese woman. Yeah and I would be willing to bet any amount of $ that the men of that era (ancient fertility gods era) still found attractive fit women way more attractive than ugly disgusting fat women. We could look at 1990s super models. If we were basing what men found attractive…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 01:14 AM
0

Hard disagree. It is somewhat malleable. But also somewhat hard coded. No amount of brain washing would ever make the average man want obese women. It's impossible. No more than we could convince a bunch of people that eating dog shit is more delicious than fast food. Our brain is simply wired to go "EWW DISGUSTING" to both dog shit and obese women. On average of course. Some people genuinely do find them attractive. I suppose maybe a small % of people also enjoy eating dog shit lol. Maybe a sma…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 01:05 AM
1

We can't bend our genetics to our will. Not yet. If we could genetically engineer humans to behave a certain way. Say we genetically engineered a bunch of dudes that see obese women and go "wow I want that". Then maybe you'd have a point. But we don't have technology for that yet. We don't understand the limbic system and the rest of the brain to ever make such an edit. Even if we could edits genetics enough to do it which we can't either. Our nature remains locked in place to what evolution gen…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 01:03 AM
1

I suppose but honestly it's not a very useful list. You tell some struggling college kid that those are the 3 important things. He's going to be like uhhhhhh I offer plenty of affection and attention they just don't want it. I guess I could take some BJJ classes and get in shape. That would indeed be very useful. But he won't gleam that "you should be a provider" or that "you should be physically appealing" from that at all. It doesn't mention it and it's very important.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 01:00 AM
0

Ahhh so you hate profit. Profit is a measure of efficiency. The more efficient we are as humanity the better we live. That is why the modern American "poor" live better than any king or queen did 200 years ago. Because our societies are IMMENSELY more productive and efficient. Also your arguments makes no sense. Just because we terraform nature to serve our purposes. Doesn't suddenly mean that genetic code stops working. We're still the same carbon robots we've always been. We still have the exa…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 12:58 AM
0

ohhhhhhhhh So then we're not that far off. I said Looks Money and Status. If we add "facial attractiveness" to yours that pretty much is the same list. Since security now covers money, status and physical prowess.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 12:55 AM
4

You really think if she can get Attention Affection and Security from some broke balding Indian janitor she's going to want that? You can get those things from pretty much any man who genuinely likes you. Yet women (and really men too) don't tend to like the vast majority of men who like them. Maybe not "security". If you mean that in a "looks like a dominant male specimen" sense. But attention and affection is very cheap.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 12:53 AM
7

Looks, Money and Status Which translates roughly into Quality Genes + Ability and willingness to take care of her and the babies. With guys its mostly just looks. Because we don't get pregnant and we are the provider. Thus quality of the genes is the highest priority. Which we derive through physical appearance. It's crude but it worked for 1000s of years (really millions when you consider that we likely inherited these senses from our ape like ancestors who existed long before us).
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 12:48 AM
-1

No they haven't. This is Malthusian thinking. Read up on who Malthusian was. Long story short he predicted a major famine in 1798 with just 800 million people on the planet. His numbers were spot on. But the famine never happened, not at the scale he was predicting anyway (many smaller famines happened for other reasons) and now we have 8 billions people and we're better fed than ever. Malthusians mistake was assuming technology would remain stagnant. He couldn't predict industrial revolution an…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 12:45 AM
3

Nature. It's human nature. It's like saying "you're making yourself miserable why are you eating food. Why don't you just starve yourself" to a fat person. "You'd be a lot happier if you just stopped eating for a while". Yeah great advice if you ignore the hunger pangs. Same with this The reason the dating market is organized this way is because a lot of it is just innate instincts. Women want a provider. Men figure out that women want a provider and act the part. On and on.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/26 08:52 PM
1

Why does it matter? well for one the scores of single people struggling would love to know. Married people can give better advice. You can make millions offering services if you knew what to offer. Governments can improve fertility rates if they understood better how mate selection works. Companies can make billions offering correct goods and services.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/26 07:02 PM
1

The subreddit still remains. Even if it was 100% nature. But that is not my assertion. My assertion is that it is 50% nature and 50% nurture. So yes it's malleable and affected by the environment. But even if it was 100% nature the subreddit would still have a reason to exist. We're not trying to change sexuality. We're trying to understand how it works. There is a million different opinions. Some more insightful than others. Also being aware of it doesn't change it. We could be perfectly aware …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/26 06:33 PM
1

I mean I don't really disagree with that assessment. But it's for an incredibly simple reason. OUR ANCESTORS HAD A REASON TO EXIST. Which usually means they either had some massive calamity to attend to. Like World War 2 or a post WW2 rebuild. Or more commonly they had kids to take care of. They had wives and husbands. They had other family members that made their life meaningful. It all goes back to the fertility crisis. It is a massive steaming stinky symptom of the overall problem. Humans are…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/26 06:25 PM
1

What brain dead research said that? You think people were happy burying half of their children. Women dying of childbirth on a regular basis. Constant starvation. Diseases absolutely wrecking your body. No access to dentist. If your tooth starts to hurt you're just fucked until you figure out how to rip it out before it kills you. Yes there are certain structural issues that cause us to become "depressed". Our ancestors were too busy suffering to be depressed. But I assure you it's a lot better …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/26 06:15 PM
2

Let's ask another question. Men often say that a woman in her early 20s just "don't be fat". Basically as long as you're not obese you probably have decent sex appeal. Is that "reasonable"? This is just nature ingrained sexual preference. Something about an obese body screams "low quality partner" and kills our boner. We don't control that. We don't choose that. In fact most men would probably improve their dating prospects if they could simply find obese women attractive. But they just don't. S…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/26 06:08 PM
1

Shoddy housing. Frequent starvation. Practically no medicine. Shoddy clothing. Often a lack of safety. Our ancestors lived in utter misery and 50% of them didn't survive to 5 years old. We live better than most kings and queens did 200+ years ago. By a VERY VERY VERY long shot. Just access to vaccines and antibiotics is enormous.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/26 05:54 PM
2

What does "fair" mean? That is a hell of a semantic leap. Does "fair" basically mean everyone was miserably poor because we were mostly hunters and scavengers. So the overall wealth from person to person largely did not deviate. BECAUSE WE WERE ALL MISERABLY POOR. Yes I suppose that is true. But it tells us nothing. As soon as we started farming and building larger societies. Deep hierarchies emerged. As we would expect from simply observing humans in any group. Bigger groups meant larger hierar…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/26 05:50 PM
1

Not even close. Our dreadful fertility numbers tell us our dating market is fucked and society is mismanaging this critical element. Nevertheless in a lot of other ways this is the most progressive society ever built. Women never had so much economic freedom and political clout. Neither did minorities or generally people of lower castes.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/26 05:47 PM
2

No the hell we did not lol. Human societies have always been deeply hierarchical. What on earth are you talking about? lol Our modern society is significantly more egalitarian than pretty much any scaled society in the past. Heck look no further than ANY GROUP DYNAMIC. Any group you join. Whether a classroom, a club, a sports team, a job, a whatever. We form hierarchies everywhere. It is deeply ingrained in us to form hierarchies. Some are just more obvious and structurual explicit than others. …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/26 05:43 PM
1

Huh? That was true for most of history when having bigger muscles mattered immensely in the economy. Nowadays brain power is all the game. Brain power wise a lot of women run circles around men. The dynamic has shifted. The variability hypothesis states that the IQ distribution for women is a lot taller. Meaning a lot less very talented women but also a let less very stupid women. So really on average women tend to do better in the modern economy at the innate level. The economy in general is pr…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/26 05:37 PM
1

So some cultures have regressive anti-nature positions that actively hurt the male to women relationships. Nothing new here. Look at the dreadful fertility rates. Obviously many societies nowadays are set up in a far from ideal manner for the dating dynamics between sexes. Men not paying for shit is the least of those problems. There are many other structural issues that need to be addressed.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/26 05:34 PM
4

But women are not evaluated on their ability to provide. They are the sex that gets pregnant. They get provided for. That is how our ancient brains evolved. So it's doesn't fucking matter to them. A good looking woman can work at Wendy's and ride a bus to work. A man with testicles WILL NOT GIVE A FUCK. Because a man with testicles is a provider and all he wants from her is her juicy wet coochie. Not her ability to pay for stuff. That's his job.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/26 05:32 PM
4

You have to understand human nature. We are biologic creatures. Humans are just animals. Our sexuality is to some degree innately ingrained into us. How males and females select is different at the biological level. Males select predominantly on physical appearance. Females select on a COMBINATION of looks money and status. Your status used to be determine by caste or birthright. Nowadays it's mostly a shorthand for how much $ you have. Wasn't always the case. The problem with not paying on the …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/26 05:19 PM
3

Impossible to know. Men and women fundamentally select in a different manner. If I suddenly became a woman things that matter greatly to me would suddenly be trivial and vice versa. Me and my wife argue GREATLY about the clothes I wear. I literally couldn't give a fuck. I don't notice what other people are wearing. I can obviously see it. But it almost never leaves any impression on me. Unless they are walking around like a stinky bum or something. It has to be FLAGRANTLY BAD or INSANELY GOOD fo…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/26 01:01 PM
6

oh well why wouldn't you just say that? You're not looking for an exception. You're looking for a hot guy who wants to have a relationship with you. Depending on how hot you are that may or may not be hard to find.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/26 12:36 AM
2

Of what? You're looking for a man without testicles?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/26 12:31 AM
15

The best thing to do is to conduct your own experiments. I observed any couple I saw in public for like 6 months. These were my findings 1) Most couples are looks matched. Major discrepancies were not common at all. 2) When there is a discrepancy usually its the guy who is uglier. 3) Never saw a Chad with an unattractive or even an average looking chick. If a Chad is with a girl she is hot. 4) The biggest overrated facet in online discourse is height. Saw a lot of guys in the 5 foot 6-8 range wi…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 06:36 PM
7

Men who dumpster dive can have plenty of ONS encounters. But most guys don't have the stomach for that. Or just don't get anything out of it. Yes having a bunch of ONS with attractive women is usually reserved for the Chads. Or if you are smart and passport bro.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 05:35 PM
0

nahhhhhh. The proportions were totally different 50 years ago. Most men didn't sit on the computer playing video games instead of socializing. Because there was no video games. They would die of boredom watching 4 walls in their house.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 12:38 PM
1

I'm serious. A lot of men don't realize that appearance matters to women. They observe all day long. So they know to some degree. But they are told their whole life "personality is what matters". So they end up very confused on the matter. Nobody tells them the truth. That it's your appearance, social status and money that matters. What they call "personality" is just ancient markers of high status males such as dominant behavior and competent delivery (aka confidence).
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 01:24 AM
1

A large % of men don't even realize that how attractive you are matters. Gym membership rates would be much higher if they did. So understanding that how you look even matters is an important first step. Understanding how to improve your appearance also matters a ton. See how information can be used to make better decisions? Yes in the moment there probably ain't shit you can do. But over time you can start hitting on chicks more at your league. You can improve your appearance and other facets a…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/26 01:14 AM
1

If you're playing football it helps to understand the rules and which skills you need to work on to improve your game. The same goes for dating. It helps to understand how the dating world works. If you seek to improve your lot in life.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 06:32 PM
2

You're completely missing the point. The guys around her determine how good of a chance you have. If you're dismissing that then I don't k now what to tell you. You live in some fairy tale world not the real world.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 06:28 PM
3

You are competing whether you know it or not. How likely you are to get with a quality partner directly correlates to the quality of the males around you. I'm not saying you guys are literally having some dick measuring duel. More like "the guys she interacts with on a daily basis determine who she will date". Which means that if you're not the highest quality guy she can get with your odds fall off a cliff. That is just how the world works whether you like it or not or consider it weak or pathe…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 06:23 PM
0

Yeah but this argument would have made ZERO sense 50 years ago. Back then just about everyone short of mentally handicapped people had sufficient social skills. Which is all you really need. SUFFICIENT social skills. But now in 2026 when the world has become super comfortable at home. That is indeed a problem and I do suspect a large portion of the problems in the dating market are down precisely to the fact that everyone is living hermitic lifestyles.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 06:19 PM
2

Then you are not living in reality. Humans are constantly competing with each other. Especially for mates.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 06:17 PM
3

You're not competing against Chad who doesn't have to pay. If its between you and Chad you're going to lose no matter what you do. If it's between an average Joe who does pay and a stingy/broke average Joe. Guess who's going to win? The stingy/broke average Joe may as well come to the date without brushing his teeth or smelling like shit. Chad can get away with it because he has elite genes. Most guys can not.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 06:14 PM
3

You're thinking too narrow. Yes of course they usually don't get pregnant on the first date. But their biologic imperatives and drives HAS TO CONSIDER PREGNANCY because they do get pregnant. Where's a male never gets pregnant. Why do you think men are much stronger and more endurant? Do you think it's just an accident?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 05:58 PM
-2

I think we have become WAYYYY too progressive. That idiot ideology basically forgets that we are ultimately just animals. Yes we're very clever animals capable rationalizing just about anything. But the way we behave is really not that hard to predict. The problem with all this "lets make women behave like men" and vice versa is that it creates a dysfunctional society. Case in point our dreadful fertility rates. The insane amount of young people who have never had a partner. Both men and women a…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 04:42 PM
0

Why are they barbaric? You don't decide who turns you on. It's not a voluntary reaction. If men are wired to prefer "pretty" women and women are wired to prefer men capable of taking care of them. Why should we get in the way of that? That's just how the human brain is wired. You can try to force cultural norms that discourage this practice. As we have. But it won't make anyone happier. Just make the dating scene less functional.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 04:16 PM
2

Lots to discuss here. But let's focus on one. Why do men have to pay? The answer is very simple. Human biology. Men do not get pregnant. We are the fighting, hunting and resource gathering sex. Why do you think males are so much more formidable physically? Why are we more aggressive. It's not culture. It's simple genetics. So why do men have to pay? That is our biologic role in our species. To provide for the female and the children. It's the same reason females need to be pretty. That is their …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/26 04:05 PM
–

I've seen plenty of before and after pictures of supposedly "good" surgery. And it's like I can't even tell what changed. They look exactly the same. Some chick went from a 6.1 to a 6.101 and spent $10,000 on that procedure. That made effectively absolutely no difference whatsoever AT BEST. I've also seen a ton of really bad examples of those horrific fish lips or that weird Madonna/Michael Jackson face. They were way better looking before they got a single surgery done.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 10:03 PM
–

No. And mostly because breast implants and nose jobs look FUCKING DREADFUL. Why would I spend $ to make my woman look uglier? That whole industry is a total farce. Best case scenario is that you completely don't notice that she even had surgery. Which means she looks exactly the same as before. As soon as you start to notice it, it universally looks like utter shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 09:49 PM
0

Not in my experience.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 08:27 PM
-1

One man's trash is another man's treasure is an accurate depiction of everything of value including women. We can say the same thing about houses, cars, jobs or really just about anything. Lebron James would think a $1,000,000 a year job is garbage. Most of us would kill for it. There's also another popular saying "show me a hot woman and I'll show you a guy who is tired of fucking her". That tends to be true in many cases as well. When the novelty wears off it's nowhere near as exciting. Men se…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:38 PM
-2

disagree entirely. "want to fuck" = not all that attractive or has some serious defects "gf/marriage material" = attractive with no serious baggage that's it How long she makes him wait on sex. At least in my experience makes no difference whatsoever. And like I said the reason people make this mistaken observation is because a lot of men will gladly fuck women they would never date. So when the relationship turns into used for sex they assume it was because she gave it up too easy. When in real…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:19 PM
1

If she's right in his league. Sleeping with him on the first date will not dissuade him.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:12 PM
3

I don't know too many guys who won't date a hot woman because she gave it up to him too early. I think what really happens is that men will very often not say no to free vagege even if they don't really like the chick. So if some woman is coming on to t hem. Free dick and nothing else is precisely what she will likely get. That gives this impression. But in reality men want easy and quick sex from both parties. They will just develop feelings for the hotter one's.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 07:01 PM
1

You don't choose who and what turns you on. You can't just look at some random homeless fucker turn on some switch and suddenly he's Jessica Alba. It just doesn't work that way. Attraction is involuntary.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/26 01:51 PM
2

You never felt the urge to beat the shit out of someone? Like someone pissed you off or even physically assaulted you?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 05:06 PM
3

All men are tempted to be violent from time to time. Violence is part of our core. If a man never feels the need to be violent he probably has extremely low testosterone. Shit I imagine most women feel the urge to become violent in their lives from time to time.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 04:59 PM
6

Not at all. Understanding your biology and making sure you don't succumb to bad behavior is a major part of being a man. You have to understand that violence was the correct answer to a lot of situations for 99% of our species history. You have to recognize that you live in the 1% era where you should not succumb to that temptation. Knowing and understanding that is far better than whatever nonsense the people who pretend it's not innate suggest.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 04:08 PM
6

Until you realize we see the same exact behavior pretty much everywhere on the planet and that many of our ape like cousins also display this exact same behavior. Must be all culture. It's like the prerogative is to "deny the effect of nature at all costs".
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 02:54 PM
9

The freshman cowering to a male PE teacher is pretty simple to comprehend. The woman teacher can't kick his ass. The male PE teacher can. The authority comes from the capacity from brutality. That is just how ancient ape like brain structure reacting in an innate manner. You can take the ape out of the forest. But you can't take the forest out of the ape. Our environment has changed a lot over the last 2000 years. Genes take a lot longer to adjust.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 12:44 PM
1

Not necessarily. You gotta look at the desired outcome. Let's say an NFL team owner puts his kid in as starting QB. They go 0-16. He had access to much better QBs but decided to play his child who sucks at it. Now yes technically his merit was being his dads son. But the actual merit is QB ability of which he didn't have enough. I think that is the mistake people make in dating. They think desired outcome is "you're dating a nice girl". When in reality most guys want "a woman I enjoy fucking who…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 12:06 PM
1

Men don't either. That is just human nature. God or the Spaghetti monster or random genetic mutations created it. We just exist within it.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 11:06 AM
1

Men do this ALL THE TIME. It is in our nature to lead women on. Just like it is often in women's nature to lead men on. It is normal human behavior. Sometimes these relationships turn into long term commitments. Often they do not. He was probably lonely and would take any kind of company. Even if he didn't really like her that much. Is it justified? I mean ehhhhhhhh isn't that what we tell people to do? The whole "don't judge a book by it's cover" thing. I've done this before. Dated people that …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 06:22 PM
0

They do choose it on meritocratic features. The value is determined by what you bring to the table. If you are genetically good looking. That is all that you need to bring to the table. The thing people are really opposed to is how we select partners naturally. Yes maybe we should select based on good character or whatever. But we don't. We often select on superficial features that have nothing to do with effort and are often not what people THINK we should be selecting based on. Your talent at …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 05:44 PM
1

No. Equality of opportunity and meritocracy are two completely separate concepts. I had the same exact opportunities as Lebron James. But his merit would always be a million times higher than mine because of his genes. No matter how much time I spent practicing basketball. NBA is a near perfect meritocracy and they could give a fuck how much effort you put in. The only thing they care about is can you put the ball in the net and prevent others from doing so.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 05:14 PM
2

Merit is not based on what you earn. It's based on your abilities. Me and Lebron James could spend the same exact time practicing basketball. I was not born a 6 foot 9 gigantic athletic freak. I would never command the same merit on a basketball court that he can. No matter how hard I work. Merit does always mean "more effort". Merit means what you can produce. Lebron James is simply a better basketball player. If your goal is to win basketball games you will take him even if I spent way more ti…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 04:47 PM
1

Wealth, Family connections race and gender holding no weight is a fantasy. They are a part of what you bring to the table. If you're a salesman your connections are a HUGE part of your merit. In fact in the business world as a whole your ability to network is enormous. How can that not be part of it? Gender too. You really think it would be more meritocratic to have women playing in the NBA? They would get obliterated by the worst male players. Merit is not gender neutral. Men are much better at…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 03:36 PM
1

I guess I disagree. Most of the hot women I see would likely be even hotter if they didn't have a pound of make up caked on their face. I do agree that being fat detracts a lot from it. That much is for sure. But even that is genetic to some degree. Overall though the merit aspect is the value you bring. Regardless of whether it's earned or not. Few would argue that a lot of sexual prowess merit is not earned at all but rather gained through genetics.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 03:33 PM
12

I think you meant the exact opposite of meritocracy. Dating is not equitable is what you really wanted to say. I doubt too many people would disagree with that.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 12:44 AM
56

What exactly do you think meritocracy means? Meritocracy implies you are measured by your value. In dating your value is often determined by things that are outside your control. Like your genetics or your parents wealth. But that is meritocracy. It's just that people don't like how the merit is weighed. If a woman is a gigantic piece of shit. Who is an asshole to everyone. Who backstabs all her friends. But happens to be hot. Her merit is her physical appearance. Not all that other shit. Most d…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 11:56 PM
1

There's a ton of evidence that certain sexual behavior is innate and not learned. But I'm not really interested in getting into "my source says this" debate. Cause there's a million different ways to interpret all these studies.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 09:34 PM
1

Yes innately. As in it's wired in their lizard brain somewhere "the better I look the higher quality mate I can attain". That can be over ridden by tribal standards or any number of other things. What is the point of "expressing yourself"? What is the utility behind doing that?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 09:18 PM
3

They already do it innately. They are naturally prone to wearing make up, figuring out what clothes to wear. Why do you think they do that? They don't need to self-improve because they are usually already fine tuned for the dating environment. Which basically means they know how to present themselves.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/26 08:18 PM
1

Not in my experience. I spent months paying attention to real life couples.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 05:39 PM
4

Video Games, Social Media, Netflix etc are also part of the problem. We get flooded with dopamine at home. Why leave the house? Porn is just a part of the bigger problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 02:57 PM
2

Why would any woman worth a shit ever approach a man? She already has 12 of them chasing her and 2-3 of them are decent options. Only way she would ever approach is if something completely out of the ordinary is in her grasp and she feels she has a chance.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 01:37 PM
12

You're missing a big part of that equation Porn + Social isolation. Most couples are looksmatched. But why? Why do people gravitate towards others of the same attractiveness level? Why does that instinct exist? How does that even manifest? Why does that instinct exist? Because if every single person ONLY had interest in the top 5% of the group. Then most people would never procreate. We instinctually "lower our expectations" based on what society gives us as opportunities. How does that even man…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 01:11 PM
1

I would argue that if you're going to show parents and daughters PICTURES. What else are they supposed to rate them on? Cause wasn't the methodology ask first then show them pictures and compare results. What else can they gleam from pictures? Have you ever read a brief description of you? Does that genuinely describe who you are? That is why online dating is extremely lookist. It's fairly decent at portraying information about physical appearance. Which works really well for males. But not part…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 10:51 AM
3

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381730315X this is my favorite study We found that ratings of attractiveness were around 1000 times more sensitive to salary for females rating males, compared to males rating females. 1000 times! not even 10 or 100 times. It's like that information was largely irrelevant to males.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 08:11 PM
8

So you'd fuck a homeless guy that made you laugh? I mean that's possible I suppose but would you say that is the average observation? If we took 1000 women and asked them how many would fuck a homeless guy what would you expect that % to be 1-2%? Yes women do look for money and status. It often presents itself in different ways. For example charisma is a sign of high social status. Talent is a sign of potential to attain money or social status. Ability to lead a group or even be an aggressive ja…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 04:04 PM
8

Have you asked yourself WHY they bring you genuine joy? Would a homeless man bring you genuine joy? It's a shorthand and it's useful. Women look for a combination of 3 things. LOOKS + MONEY + STATUS. Obviously every woman is different. There is all sorts of deviations and exceptions to that rule. But it's still far more useful than pretending it is completely random and impossible to quantify. It may be somewhat random on the individual level but plenty of patterns can be gleamed by looking at l…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 03:30 PM
4

Yes but they like men who have a good combination of looks + money + status. Most people don't even comprehend that a lot of this "good personality" and "charisma" is just short hands for "signs of high social status". A man who is capable of protecting and taking care of the family.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 03:15 PM
8

Both men and women are pretty shit at understanding how each other chooses partners. Women want the guy to love them for "personality" or their "career". When men simply don't select that way. You're either hot or you're not. Everything else is a distant #2. Men want the woman to want to sleep with him on first sight. The way a lot of guys feel about attractive women. The idea that other things get evaluated is lost on them because they don't function that way. So yes a lot of inexperienced guys…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 02:52 PM
5

The whole concept of "settled for" is braindead idioticy. What you really don't want is a partner that is not satisfied with you. That can arise for all sorts of different reasons. If a Chad gets fat and loses his sex appeal. She may have been into him at first. But now she is not satisfied with him. She may have no "settled" for him. But she will cheat on him all the same. Not every relationship where the woman is better looking is her "settling". She might genuinely like the guy. Often due to …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 02:48 PM
1

It's not always the biological parents. People died a lot more often back in the day. But it very often was and still is. We have parental instincts for a reason. Yes some children were raised by other adults in the tribe. No doubt about that. Probably why humans can develop parental like attachment towards non-biologic children. But that is not very common and often nowhere near as profound as the attachment people receive to their biologic children. The Cinderella effect is a very real and stu…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 07:25 PM
2

The most successful men I knew were the biggest misogynist douchebags. They treated the women they were with like absolute dogshit. Obviously it's because they were already good looking and had charisma. So they could get away with it because women were very expendable. But still.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 06:58 PM
2

You did a case study with men here? Found that none of them had satisfactory Money+Status+Looks combinations for the quality of woman they are dating? Would love to see your data. Sounds fascinating.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 06:43 PM
2

Yes because human females select on looks money and status. A lot of men get selected on the latter 2 because they lack the looks. I don't agree with these "women have higher standards" framings. I think society as a whole has produced a situation where women get to pick between being used for sex and not having any options they find attractive. Because we have made it so that women and men have the same social status and make the same $. Men also have out of this world standards because they st…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 06:37 PM
4

If she friendzoned a guy. That means she doesn't want him. They are wrong to suggest that. We don't disagree here. When did I say unattractive and fat women pursued me? Are you sure I'm the right person you are responding to? I mean yeah when I was single that used to happen. Both online and in person. But that was practically a different lifetime at this point (7+ years ago). Race baiting? You mean rage baiting?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 06:33 PM
2

That's not options. I've been married for 7 years. I'm talking about the dating market as a whole. Bad options are not options. You can't just make yourself want someone. It's impossible. That is not how human sexuality works.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 06:29 PM
5

I haven't used a dating site in 7 years. So you think that telling some lonely woman that there is plenty of stank disgusting homeless men would fuck her would be somehow beneficial to her? Do you expect to say "oh no way, shit let me go down to the local dump right now to spread my legs for one of these assholes". And realize the same reason she would never do that is why most men dont want to fuck fat women. BECAUSE ITS FUCKING DISGUSTING hehehe.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 06:28 PM
3

A disgusting option you do not want is not an option. That's like telling some lonely woman "there's plenty of homeless men who haven't showered in a month that would love to fuck you". A lot of good that would do for her.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 06:24 PM
4

ok so what? I also identify as a race realist. You think scary labels have any effect on me? My loyalty is to reality not political correctness.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 06:23 PM
1

Humans have always assisted each other. We still have daycares. We still have k-12 education. But there has always been a primary caregiver just like there is now. If the default for our ancestors was to just dump the children to some communal pile. We wouldn't get so obsessively attached to them. It simply wouldn't exist. There would also be no reason for people to pair bond. There would be no love. There would be no couples. Those things were not invented. It is normal biologically based behav…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 06:22 PM
5

It isn't. I'm not one of those that blames women for this mess. They are just doing what they are programmed to do (through nature). Same as men.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 05:31 PM
4

Useless fat asses are not options for the same reason gay men and inanimate objects like watermelons are not options. Because they are not something anyone actually wants to fuck. The one's who do want to fuck them usually have plenty of options but they are a tiny proportion of the overall male population.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 05:15 PM
4

Where is your source on this? Genuinely curious. Where do you see guys with dozens of options? Are we controlling for useless fat asses and spam bots?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 05:06 PM
1

Completely wrong. This is not biological determinism. This is the intentful introspection of why people do the things they do. Our instincts never went away. Our cognitive abilities far surpass our ancestors but we are largely still the same apes. Just look at the news. Look at the behavior of people around you. Soon as you remove the veil in becomes abundantly clear that we are just very intelligent apes that behave in a predictable ape like manner. If you seek to understand sexuality which is …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 03:42 PM
1

Function and utility are god in my world. Science just happens to be a good tool to accomplish those things in many cases. But this is more of a sociologic subreddit. Why are young people miserable these days? Probably because they are not forming pair bonds. Humans are pair bonding animals and by about 25-30 we are expected to be pair bonded with our own biologic children. Historically that often meant 4-7 children as so many of them died before adulthood. That is science. When you look at HOW …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 03:24 PM
–

Doesn't sound like you have much of an argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 12:40 PM
-5

That is a scientific fact. Human females primary role is to nurture children. If you strip everything down to basic biology. That is what it is. No subjective valuation required. Just good old genetics and nature.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 12:35 PM
4

What you think we did is remove ourselves from our biology. What we really did is just add layers to it. That's the key distinction. People think "well if I'm working on my career I must not be thinking about family". You may not be thinking CONSCIOUSLY about family. But the whole point of you having a career is to help take care of your future family. That is where the instinct to be productive comes from. Apart from the obvious survival instinct where you need to be productive just to stay ali…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 12:17 PM
-2

"A woman's primary role is to be a mother-" no one fucking asked dude. I mean if you're a science guy how can you deny this? The primary role of any human is to be a parent. Without that our species goes extinct. We have the most helpless babies in the mammalian kingdom. They require a tremendous amount of upkeep to bring to adulthood. Why do you think pretty much every society on planet earth regardless of religion or how rich they are obsesses about love, family and child rearing.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 12:07 PM
–

Yes seriously. It's a despicable crime.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 03:20 AM
1

Yes it's like Indians working for American companies because Indian companies can't pay worth a shit compared to Americans. It's geographical arbitrage. You go to a place like Colombia or some shit. Women that would normally never give you the time of day suddenly want to make babies with you. Very smart thing to do if you are a lonely guy.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 06:28 PM
3

So you're saying that physical appearance is the only thing that can make you desire a man? There are some women like that indeed. But those are not the type that are leaving their countries to marry a foreigner. Unless they are the hooker types. Which I specifically call out in my comments. If you go to a country like Colombia, Brazil, Ukraine, Phillipines. You have to have your wits about you. 50% of the women who so called want to date you are going to be visa scammers, regular scammers, hook…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 06:10 PM
2

The rate of divorce is higher in normal American couples. All wives and husbands are capable of cheating.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 06:08 PM
4

They do. Human females select differently form human males. Human females desire THEIR PARTNER. The trick is you have to make sure she is actually partnering up with you. Which means finding a real woman not some instagram whore or party animal. Or even worse prostitute.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 05:55 PM
1

Yes no shit. But that wasn't the original topic. We were discussing Passport Bro tactics. This tendency is precisely why it ends up working out for a lot of men and usually doesn't work out for women. If men and women evaluated in an identical manner then the whole passport bro thing would be worthless. You would indeed just be bringing home a useless long term prostitute who would abandon you the second she finds a better donor. But that's just not the nature of these relationships a lot of the…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 05:49 PM
0

If she is unattractive she has no package. She can't be the "whole package" by definition. The physical attractiveness is the majority of the package to begin with. It's like if I gave you the french fry carton without the french fries and you said "well if you're hungry why don't you just eat the carton".
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 05:44 PM
2

People get called all sorts of IST words when they speak the truth.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 05:38 PM
-1

That ignores human nature. Humans are a pair bonding species. You're painting this as some "hot chick desperate". But a lot of these are just regular women. They have jobs, they have educations, they have friends, they may not even want to leave. Human females select on looks, money and status. Which is basically the equivalent of a fat American woman flying a plane to Brazil and losing 150lbs as soon as she lands. Obviously it doesn't work that way for women because women are primarily selected…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 02:50 PM
4

I believed that for most of my life. But it runs contrary to human nature. It's the grown up equivalent of this. You have Tracy a very sexy slim cheerleader with a pretty face. And Gabby a fat ugly chick with an ugly face and terrible body. But for some reason they are good friends. Tracy starts dating a guy that Gabby also likes. Tracy is so happy talking about their relationship. Of course Gabby the miserable jealous freak is going to say "you know he only wants you for your body, he doesn't c…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 02:12 PM
0

I never understood the whole mail order bride thing. A proper passport bro will move to the country and live there for a while. So that whole mail order thing doesn't make sense at all in that frame.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 02:06 PM
-1

The biggest difference is when a person Passport Bros they are looking for a wife not a hooker. It's simple biologic arbitrage. Males select on physical appearance. Females select on physical appearance + money + status. If you don't have enough physical appearance to get a high quality woman as a male. You're in luck because your money and status can complement for it. That is just how our species select partners. Most males are not attractive enough to attract women with looks alone. That too …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 01:50 PM
1

Because you are male. We enjoy casual sex even if it's not long term. Females are far less likely to enjoy it. Some do but most do not. That is why every Tinder like app is an absolute sausage fest, even if locally the number of singles between males and females is roughly the same. Getting "used" for money is also often sexual in nature. She provides sex and you provide money. But the reason those relationships are often unfulfilling is because a true pair bond doesn't get created. You're just …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 01:39 PM
–

lol no. That is just how human sexuality works. Females get pregnant and males do not. That is why it's always so much easier for the average female to find a sexual partner. There is less of a biologic liability with choosing a bad partner for a male. That doesn't mean that the dating market is great for them btw. Getting used for your vagege is not fun for most females. It's akin to being used for your $ for a male.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 12:50 PM
–

Eugenics implies stopping people from reproducing. This is the opposite. It's preventing people from self eugenics.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 10:30 PM
–

It really boils down to one thing. Society which as you correctly pointed out means government. Has to MASSSSSSSSSSIVELY incentivize getting married and producing biologic children. Yes I know all those piss poor nations like Hungary and Romania already tried it. But I don't mean the pennies they were throwing. I mean massive incentives. Such as for example "zero property and income taxes for all married couples with biologic children under 18". Something like that. Now that would put a dent in …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 09:39 PM
2

lol is it really that hard to comprehend? Most males obsess about sex. That is just how their brain is built. You're basically asking a dog to stop barking. A lot of guys figure out that you don't actually put this on display. Pretend like there are other things that matter, as there often are. But do you want honesty or do you want a performance?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 01:16 PM
12

Yes you absolutely can. If you want to maximize your chances of finding a woman you must do these 4 things. 1) Looks max. Get in the best shape possible (which doesn't mean steroid body builder btw, that's way too much). Learn how to dress and groom yourself. 2) Career/Money max. An important nuance is that unlike males who select almost entirely on looks female select on money and status as well. In fact a large chunk of men are selected this way as most guys tend to be average looking, but som…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 11:39 AM
1

I never said "only want high status men". It's an average preference. Some women ONLY care about status. Some don't care at all. Some don't even want men. Just the average female tends to value looks, money and status. If your goal is to attract women you should focus on those aspects. You keep repeating yourself and I already answered. I agree its 50% nurture and 50% nature. Pointing out further examples of nurture don't actually get us anywhere. I already agree it has influence. The most impor…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 06:34 PM
1

You are giving examples of societal influence. I never argued it had no influence. I am stating that the innate biologic factors are often glossed over. When in reality they account for about 50% of it. What you are giving examples of are usually the other 50%. Which I openly admit exist. Economically independent women is toxic to the dating market. Women are basically selecting the way upper 10% of women selected historically. Because only about the top 10% of women ever had enough status to be…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 05:52 PM
2

What the fuck does foot blinding or lip stretching have to do with it? I never argued that socially reinforced pressures of any kind don't exist. Obviously they do. I am arguing that a lot of what people think is socially conditioned. Is just innate preferences. Like for example skinny/fit women. That is an innate preference. The argument is usually "yeah but look at all those rubenesque women the painters used to pain". You have to ask yourself. Who had the $ to get themselves painted? Was it t…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 05:31 PM
2

Your brain has pre-wired behavioral patterns. That you are born with. Not everyone is the same obvious. But humans have instincts that are fairly common. Such as the male instinct to value fertile tits. Or how about a fertile looking ass. Or how about a pretty feminine face? All of those are wired instincts. Even if you dropped a bunch of young males and females on some deserted island completely separate from society. THey would still develop these patterns once they became of age. Because it's…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 04:54 PM
1

Yes. Staying away from danger. That is what our brains do. There's a reason why men are always the ones doing dumb shit (on average). Women are more risk averse.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 04:40 PM
0

Never said it was. I said it was a characteristic we associate with human males.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 04:38 PM
2

Using their brains. That is how.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 04:37 PM
-2

Yes that is what I mean. When a butch woman acts like she is going to kick your ass. You know in the back of your mind that is akin to a 2 year old threatening you. Unless she has a weapon. I have had at least 2 different butch women threaten me. So yes it still happens even in the modern world.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 04:37 PM
1

I don't think that really matters. We're talking about semantic definitions. Being big and muscular is a human male characteristic and thus considered masculine. The fact that female body builders exist doesn't discount that. Some guys are into that. But that is typically something women want in a partner not men.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 04:31 PM
1

That is most definitely masculine behavior and thought pattern.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 04:28 PM
-2

Human male characteristics. Defined by sexual dimorphism.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 04:28 PM
1

Yes masculinity is often tied to ability or at least the threat of violence.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 04:25 PM
-3

Most Butch women can't back it up. So people just laugh at them behind their back. If push came to shove even most weaker males can easily overpower a typical butch woman. Which is why their tirades are usually looked at more like a 2 year old throwing a fit. Then something to be taken seriously.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 04:15 PM
1

Yes agreed. Me and you see things very differently.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 04:02 PM
0

Equalizing under the law. Human behavior is a totally different ball game. Women don't need money and status. They are only selected on looks and the threshold is much smaller. Yes beneficial to the economy and detrimental to the dating market and nuclear family. You got it. For most of human history economic problems were a far bigger concern than people finding someone to fuck. Rich people problems to some degree, but problems nonetheless.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 04:02 PM
6

Yes but the dating market for women sucks as well. Having a ton of bad options is not a good market. If you went to a gay bar or some nursing home. Where everyone wants to sleep with you. But they were all men or very old women. You would not feel content. If you invite a bunch of sexy women to America on "go get married" visa. You would make the situation even worse for women. I'm not arguing that men have it worse. I'm arguing that women also have it bad. Maybe not as bad because at least they…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 03:40 PM
8

This would trash an already bad dating market for women. Thats the fundamental problem with doing that. Otherwise Western nations would already be doing it. Women are not "punishing" men by not having sex with them. Nature intended men to be selected on either looks or money/status. When you equalize men and women. When there is no obvious status difference. A lot of men seem unappealing. That is a structural flaw that is incredibly difficult to address. Because equalizing men and women has been…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 03:30 PM
0

Climate change will get solved by technology. It's modern day Malthusianism. You're setting people up for failure if you're not teaching them simple shit like "most people will feel their life is meaningless if they don't get married and have kids". Teach them that. If they choose not to do those things. That is entirely on them and they have a right to make that decision.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 03:12 PM
0

Climate change will be solved by technology. Not destroying your own nation and culture. High consumption is the default human behavior. It's not going anywhere until you start genetically engineering some kind of drone humans who act more like worker ants. We should do the exact opposite of what you're saying. Tell young heterosexuals that we are a pair bonding species and that if you don't have kids by 25-35 your life will feel empty and meaningless. Because it happen to be true and telling pe…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/26 02:25 PM
3

I am pleasantly surprised by all the replies. Allow me to double down. It's simple biology. Males don't get pregnant. They have the actual dual mating strategy 1) Fuck a lot of women. Preferably attractive ones. 2) Pair bond with one and raise children together. Both are perfectly viable in the wild where you don't have child support or paternal tests. This is why fathers typically hate when their daughters dress slutty. They innately comprehend this mechanic. This is why men are always chasing …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/26 05:05 PM
0

Trying to introduce logic into an emotionally driven argument will never produce positive results.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/26 03:15 PM
1

Exactly. Which is why we are a pair bonding species. A man gets attached first to the mother. Then once the babies are born to the babies. Then he sticks around for a while. For nature it's preferably until the children can fend for themselves. Obviously that doesn't always happen. Or sometimes the attachment lasts a lifetime. But the general mechanics are pretty easy to understand. Flood the human male brain with attachment chemicals. He will stick around and help with the kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/26 03:34 PM
1

Dude, you said they would 'leave'. What would they leave? The tribe? That's being excluded, that's a death sentence. Fair enough. Leave the non existent relationship. Not the tribe. I suppose leave is not the right word. More like there would be no relationship to begin with. No. Both males and females have children with other partners before their children reach sexual maturity. Reaching sexual maturity is very long time for humans. Sometimes. Not always. Usually when the pair bond breaks with …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 09:11 PM
1

Why would they be excluded for behaving like every other guy? I agree yes we pair bond. Sometimes for a short period, sometimes for life. Nature intended us to pair bond long enough for children to become mature and self sufficient. But that doesn't always happen. Yes the community helps. It does and and it did before. But you always have and had a primary care giver. Females get attached to their children because without that they would die. The human race would have went extinct a long time ag…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 09:01 PM
1

You're clearly not reading the other stuff I said.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:54 PM
1

You're misreading If we weren't pair bonding. Males would nutt inside the vagina and leave. Maybe come back to nutt some more. But there would be no coupling. The coupling exists to specifically to keep parents together raising children together. It's that way for every other animal why it would be any different for humans I don't know. Females would still get attached to their children.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:52 PM
1

I was explaining the dual mating strategy that males display 1) fuck fuck fuck 2) Pair bond with one and sire many children Both are perfectly viable. Yes sometimes the pair bond falls apart well before their children age sexual maturity. Definitely happens. Never argued otherwise. You're assuming a pair bond HAS TO last a certain amount of time. When it is obviously highly variable.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:43 PM
1

The same way that we raise our children is how we always have. The other humans in the community help now too. A large % of the time children spend in day care, k-12 schools, with their grandparents, aunts etc. But there has always been the primary caregivers which is usually their biologic parents. I did pick one. Humans are pair bonding creatures. Both the male and the female are capable of getting attached to their biologic children. If we weren't pair bonding only the females would get attac…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:39 PM
1

pair bonding doesn't have to be for life. Not sure why you think that. In fact human pair bonds sometimes last days. Sometimes last a lifetime. I never said that you couldn't have one without the other. But the attachment itself exists to facilitate child rearing. Nobody who studies human psychology would argue against that.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:24 PM
1

Huh? What do you mean why? For the same exact reasons. They get attached to their children because if they didn't they would die. They get attached to their partner because the partner helps them raise children. If there was no pair bonding. There would be no attachment. There are many species like this. The guy delivers his nutt and walks off forever.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:23 PM
2

Again like I said. If what you were saying was true. Human males would never develop significant attachments towards their partners or their own children.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:19 PM
1

We are pair bonding animals. Human males would never get attached to their children or their partners if we were not.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 08:08 PM
1

You can be certain if you're the only one fucking her. Why do you think males are naturally disgusted by sluts. Even if they are attractive. That mechanism exists for that exact reason. Cause if you date some whole. Unless she is with you 24/7 you can't know if the kids she carries in your belly are yours. But yes our ancestors had concepts of trust just like we do now. You didn't need a paternity test if your pair bonded partner was a trustworthy person not a trashy whore.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 07:37 PM
1

I disagree. Both human males and human females are extremely jealous innately. To the point where they are willing to get violent. SO yeah monogamy is kind of baked into it. Particularly for males. If a male was fine with raising other males children all the time. Their genes would die. Cucks naturally breed them selves out of the selection pool. Which is why they tend to be outliers nowadays. Most men want to raise THEIR OWN children.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 07:11 PM
0

I am saying they do. Not sure how you got that from what I said. Humans pair bond. Sometimes for life. Sometimes for a short bit. Their pair bond for the same reasons every other species does it. To raise children together. Our children require a gigantic amount of time to become adults. Thus our pair bonds tend to be longer.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 07:07 PM
1

Males have a dual mating strategy. In fact males are the only one's that do 1) fuck fuck fuck 2) Pair bond with one and sire many children raising them together. If males didn't pair bond. Our species males would no give a flying fuck about their children. We do see that a lot in the animal kingdom. The sort of obsessive attachment male fathers display towards their biologic children suggests that this is not the case at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 07:00 PM
0

That sounds like complete nonsense. I'm sure some animals do this. But this kind of behavior would have led to our species dying out a long time ago. A man doesn't want to raise someone else's children. Even now they often react violently despite knowing they will end up in prison. Imagine how they took it when there was no law enforcement. Yes some males do cheat on their female. But again if this was "normal" most of our children would be bastards and it is extremely difficult to survive in th…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 06:57 PM
11

No it's not. Humans are pair bonding creatures. You're effectively abusing your womans trust if you do that. You're ultimately setting everyone up for failure including yourself by behaving that way.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 04:39 PM
2

And your best example of that is someone popping a balloon? What crime was committed there? We have almost 2,000,000 people in American prisons and jails. Obviously people who actually act out get punished for it all the time. So I'm really not sure what on earth you're trying to say.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 04:18 PM
2

Does the red pill argue that prisons don't exist? Or that breaking the law will not cause you to end up in prison?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 02:50 PM
2

Yeah we have prisons for that 😄
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 02:46 PM
–

The fundamental problem for people like LillthOfBabylon is that they fail to comprehend that there is a wide gap between HOW THE WORLD REALLY IS and HOW WE WANT THE WORLD TO BE. People like that genuinely believe that the only reason we don't live in the world we want to be in. Is because people choose it to be this way. The idea that scarcity is a thing kind completely boggles their mind. Male human instincts are built around scarcity. Scarcity of food, scarcity of safety, scarcity of provision…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 02:07 PM
3

Yes. And in case you can't tell I'm trying to convert them to more pragmatic ways of looking at things. If you've ever seen pictures of these so called incels. Most of them are just average looking dudes who have no idea what is really going on in the dating market.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 01:50 PM
5

I mean...... It's easy to understand language. A Chad is a good looking guy who usually has it pretty easy with women. All he really needs is to have some social skills and get out there. A normie is an average "ok" looking guy. They can do well sometimes. But you have actually pay attention to what the one's who do well are doing. Before you can really figure it out. It's really just a quick shorthand. What term would you prefer? I say normie on this board everyone instantly understands what I …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 01:09 PM
1

Well... It helped me piece it together. There's gotta be some cognitive dissonance for a lot of these more hardcore black pill type guys between the fact that Chads are maybe 5-10% of the male population and yet 60-70% of the male population end up married and with kids. That helped me figure out what nature was actually doing. When it comes to Chad. That screams "high quality genes". The rules for them are very relaxed. They almost have to red flag themselves out. But what about normies? We see…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 01:02 PM
2

Agreed and you got me there 👍
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 12:58 PM
4

hahaha. So not wanting a man in your line up is being a bigot? hot take. But not surprising from lillthofbabylon. What do you think a woman would do if they put some stinky homeless guy with missing teeth in the lineup? That's the comparable effect. There's a difference between tolerating the LGBT and some asshole producers putting a guy in your lineup. One is cool the other is a straight up insult. Whoever is teaching you ain't teaching you common sense either 😛
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 12:58 PM
4

The bag of gifts was the interesting take. It took me a while to piece it together. Women get hit on by chads and normies all the time. A chad can turn them on by just being Chad. But if only Chads turned women on our species would have fucking died out by now. She is describing the way a normie can get in her pants. But in a way that doesn't make it sound bad. She is literally saying "him doing that makes me wet". Something most guys can not comprehend because a woman giving us gifts will not p…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 12:53 PM
12

Didn't we already go over this lol. Because most men realize that putting a man in a straight mans lineup is going to piss them off. They see this as a normal reaction. If a normal reaction makes women like you less then oh fucking well. I think they do realize that some cohort of women don't comprehend that men are insulted by the insinuation that they are gay. But they just don't give a shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 12:48 PM
7

You don't need introspection to vet out the shitty one's. You need logical deduction sure. But introspection deals with understanding your own motivations. Figuring out that Chad is selling you lies is a separate skill. That yes a lot of women do tend to develop over time.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 12:45 PM
8

Sexual attraction is a hard gateway. Everything else happens after the "is she sexy" evaluation. Thus as a woman if you seek to maximize your sexual market value. You really only need to focus on your appearance. Everything else is in a distant 2nd place to that. Yes men are "shallow". That is how a large % of us are programmed to select sexual/relationship partners. Doesn't mean other things don't matter. Obviously they do. Nobody wants to date some Shanene with 5 baby daddys or some psycopath …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 12:43 PM
-1

I'm not saying you shouldn't listen to women. Shit I went on dates for a year before I found my wife. One of the first things you learn is learn how to listen and compliment. It doesn't mean you have to take it as gospel. But you should listen. It goes a long way. What I'm really saying is. Listening to women is not going to help you figure out what is going on. In fact the most I ever learned was by listening to what my wife and her friends talk about once they started drinking. Before we ever …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 12:37 PM
8

They don't need to understand what makes them like a certain guy. With men it's very simple. Is she pretty or not? Any male with 2 functioning brain cells can easily figure out what he likes in women. For women it's a more complex issue. But one they don't need to understand fully in order to find mates. Mates come to them asking for their hand. They just need to select. In most cases they select on vibes and emotions. Not logic and reasoning. That's not a knock on them. That is how a lot of peo…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 12:33 PM
5

I agree that a lot of Red Pill influencers sell bullshit. So we don't really disagree. But you should listen to people who actually know how its done. Not the fish themselves. And yes I get that fishing is not exactly comparable since we're killing and eating the fish. But it's an easy way to explain that point. That women are not the best arbiters of what gets a larger amount of women into a guy.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 12:18 PM
10

Most women don't need any introspection whatsoever to find viable mates. SO they don't really practice it. The answer to "what kind of man do you want" lacks any nuance or serious examination. Just whatever comes to her head in the moment. Aka it's not because they are stupid. It's not something they genuinely spend a lot of time thinking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 12:11 PM
15

If you want to learn how to fish. Ask the fisherman not the fish. All pills have some truths to them. Red pill tends to be the one most grounded in reality for most situations. And really it depends on which flavor and interpretation of the red pill.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 12:09 PM
1

Nah. Just need our politicians to stop pandering to the left so damn much. They are fundamentally anti pragmatic anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/26 12:55 AM
7

1) the fact that some people engage in shitty behavior even when they have kids or grand kids. Doesn't discount the fact that the proportions are totally different. Also you said "grand dad". I was a junky and when I had kids I made a deal with myself that I would stay completely drug free until my youngest child turns 18 (which is now 16.5 years away). SO maybe he made the same deal lol. 2) no that's not the argument. The argument is how can we structure the incentives in society to produce mor…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 10:45 AM
8

Good question. For a few reasons 1) Women are also significantly increasing in singledom rates. A lot more women don't get married or have children. That is utterly detrimental to their wellbeing. Humans are pair bonding creatures and if we fail to pair bond in our fertile years we get into shit like drugs and other destructive behavior. Simply because we have no reason not to. The family structure prevents a lot of apathy and bad behavior. 2) Nothing is more dangerous than a large group of men …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 10:21 AM
2

But why can't you be factual. Obviously women who are VERY ATTRACTIVE are way above them on the dating market value. You have to be a moron to believe otherwise. I agree with your initial premise. That is quite hypocritical. But it's also true. Those women are literally superior to them in that frame. That man simping for them will literally never in his life have the same sex appeal. Even if he was a billionaire.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/26 01:51 AM
1

Very simple. The simple act of insinuating that someone is gay is a MASSIVE INSULT in many cultures and societies. Even in United States. You putting a trans person in that lineup. Effectively a guy with a dick. Is the same as saying "hey we thought maybe you were gay". Him popping that balloon was basically saying "what the fuck are yall assholes thinking".
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 09:32 PM
1

So we're not that far apart. The difference between me and you is your idea on why these men obsess over women. You think it's some conscious choice they are making. I think it's no different from a hungry person obsessing over food. They can't control it anymore than someone can control hunger. But as far as advice. We're almost neck in neck.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 11:39 PM
1

Frame that in terms of dating. What are you really suggesting? Here's what I suggest. Get in good shape. Make more $. Move to another country or at least somewhere else if you have to. Work on your social skills. Figure out where you stand on the pecking order. There that's the actual framing. Don't try to do stupid shit like "dont go out chasing vagege" or "stop putting women on pedestal". Acknowledge that you are insufficient and do things to become sufficient.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 06:40 PM
2

And that is a bad approach as well. A far better approach is to help them find food. Because just belittling them and minimizing what they are feeling. Is completely useless. That is why guys like Tate and others are easily recruiting people into their pipelines. Because the alternative is dysfunctional and useless. Your framing "Do something you are incapable of doing because it sounds good". Correct framing "Do something to help you accomplish the thing you want to do. Instead of wallowing in …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 06:31 PM
2

Again what is the point of telling people who are very hungry to stop focusing on food? That is what people are doing with this whole "don't put women on a pedestal" regardation (with a t). THEY CANT. Anymore than you could stop thinking about food if you didn't eat for a few days. You can think about better approaches to getting food. But at some point you're not going to be able to just turn hunger off. It's not something you control. Otherwise there would be no fat people. Or very few of them…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 06:21 PM
1

This is how men behave when they are very hungry. Try not eating for 2 days and see how much you put "food on a pedestal". Obviously you can survive much longer without sex and companionship. But the longing mechanism is very similar.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 05:54 PM
1

It is also impossible to stop wanting food. Which is kind of the point. You can do more productive things to attain food. Which is what the Red Pill is or at least should be about. But you'll never make yourself stop wanting food. Unless you castrate yourself or some shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 05:45 PM
1

And also possibly that he sees women as though they're superior to him. On pedestals, if you will. Such that if not corrected he'll still have issues inspiring attraction in them even after he gets his shit together. They are though. He is observing reality correctly. A woman is the one that decides whether you get to hit it. Chances are if you're hitting on her you decided a long time ago. There are many ways in which guys are superior. Where guys hold an advantage. This ain't one of them. It's…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 05:44 PM
2

I mean it's a black guy acting out because he feels disrespected. Not sure what country you grew up in. That is totally normal behavior. for them I don't see that as disrespectful. I see what the TV producers did as massively disrespectful. If the women got upset about it. That is also the TV producers fault. They set him up for failure.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 04:06 PM
4

You seem to want to repeat yourself. Without actually addressing anything I say. Politics are largely tangential to most relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 03:50 PM
2

I think humans making relationships about them is a very normal behavior that affects all walks of life not just TRP men. You have to learn how to even want to be a productive member of a relationship. TRP doesn't focus on that because most men can't get into a relationship in the first place. Those are rich people problems for them.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 03:48 PM
4

Someone who is starving will eventually resort to begging and flailing. The problem here is not that you're hungry. The problem is that you have no idea how to get food in the first place. Some fat guy who spends every waking moment playing video games when he's not working. His problem is not that he obsesses about pussy and gets nervous anytime he is around women. His problem is that he is a fucking mess and needs to get his shit together. If he gets in shape and starts socializing. He will ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 03:45 PM
5

Yeah and I vehemently disagree with that aspect of it. Men put women on a pedestal because we are humans which are animals. Men have dicks and brains. Both are wired through evolution to seek reproductive success. Telling men not to put women on a pedestal is like telling hungry people to think about something other than food. It's pointless. Even if you make them hate the food. They are still going to seek it out. Because our brains are wired that way. I feel like that would be a FAR MORE accur…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 03:20 PM
5

So this is what a man with functioning brain cells would do. THEY WOULDNT TALK ABOUT IT AROUND WOMEN. Because you have to be an idiot to bring up trans related issues on a first date anyway. That is the sort of thing you talk about maybe once you're boning already. In fact most guys already understand this. Political beliefs are largely tangential but can really fuck you up if you bring them up. So don't. Leave it alone. Just nod in agreeance if she brings it up. It's mostly noise anyway. Me and…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 02:45 PM
4

What you seem to be missing is that there is a gigantic disconnect between saying "yeah I don't blame that guy" and actually being disrespectful towards women. You don't have to pretend like you don't understand why a man would get upset about seeing a trans person in his lineup. To be respectful towards women. Being disrespectful TOWARDS SOMEONE is actively being disrespectful towards them. If I come up to a woman and say "hey bitch you got some nice titties". That is very disrespectful. What i…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 02:31 PM
8

Again this has absolutely nothing to do with how you treat women. A guy getting upset because a bunch of TV directors decided to personally insult him. Has absolutely nothing to do with the price of tea in China. In fact it shows the gigantic disconnect between reality and these silly narratives.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 02:16 PM
10

Well yeah. He's pissed that they would even put a Trans person in the lineup. That is a massive insult to him as a person. Not even the Trans person's fault. The people who were in charge and did that bullshit should have known better. Do you guys not understand why a man would get upset at a trans person even being in the lineup? You're effective calling him gay. Not only that you're putting it on blast in the most public way possible. Furthermore this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with being re…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 01:12 PM
21

The problem is most of these dudes were already respectful. It makes practically no difference in sexual selection. It's like telling people to brush their teeth. Yes technically if your breath smells like a dumpster truck that will fuck up your odds of finding a partner. But most people already do that. Telling people who already brush their teeth to brush their teeth doesn't accomplish much. That is where the red pill shines. They propose actual ideas that actually work. They add a lot of unne…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 01:05 PM
3

We always have to some degree. Why do you think nearly every single society across the planet is shaped around the nuclear family. Because our ancestors understood what the modern elite seem to have forgotten. That family is what makes your life matter. Family is what makes people get up in the morning. Not your hobbies. Not even your friends. Your family.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/26 11:30 PM
10

Humans are pair bonding species. If you don't pair bond you feel like shit. You feel worthless. These are innate instincts not learned behaviors. Therefore having all sorts of friends and having a vibrant career. Is not going to make someone not feel like there is a part of them missing. A lot of these lonely guys have friends and have things to do. They have hobbies. But what they don't have is a family. Which is really what people mean when they say "I am lonely". They don't mean lonely in a p…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/26 11:17 PM
–

The argument with looks to some degree is "you don't control your looks. Some people are just born attractive and all they have to do is not get fat". Dark triad works the same way to some degree. Maybe being a douchy machevilian scumbag does appeal to some women. But it's not like you can make yourself a psycopath. You're born with it as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/26 10:53 AM
–

The argument is also partly nurture vs nature. When we talk about dark triad traits. Are we talking about innate stuff like psycopathy. Or learned behaviors. Because one thing you'll see is that guys are sick of being told that it's something that they know it's not. Even if dark triad traits work. You can't exactly develop them. Even if you try to act like a psycho. You will probably fail in the long run because they are genuinely wired differently. They think and behave differently. So you're …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/26 10:26 AM
1

Nah... Humans also innately pair bond. If he treats you well. He likely genuinely cares about you. In fact he thinks of you as his family. The act of sex further strengthens the pair bond. I wouldn't get too caught up in all this objectify and sexualize mess. It's too reductive.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/26 07:52 PM
0

I think human males naturally both sexualize and objectify human females. It's some kind of primordial innate brain wiring. I think the real question is how you go about it. There are respectful ways to admire and disrespectful ways. For women to think that this is some choice that men make is deeply misguided. We all do it all the time. Often without even realizing it.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/26 07:45 PM
-3

He can find dozens of women that look better than Megs at any local mall. Or really anywhere where there are women who are not old as fuck. She is so ugly. Yes obviously an incredibly rich guy who happens to be extremely athletic. Can date 10s all day long. Why he would date a 5 is beyond me. But it doesn't really prove anything. I mean was there really anyone contending that NBA players cant get endless women? Of any pill?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 02:06 AM
34

It's simple human nature. We're all just hairless apes at the end of the day. The fact is MEN CANT decouple their desires from women. At least a large chunk of them. It's not voluntary. Just like you can't select and choose who you find attractive. You can't turn off the feeling that "if nobody wants my body it must be useless". That is how your brain is programmed to interpret things from birth. This is why red pill ideas are ultimately often more effective. They don't try to teach people to do…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/26 10:24 AM
-2

I think the whole "beta buxx" thing is a misunderstanding of human nature. AKA it's wrong to even label it that way. I moved to Ukraine and my ability to get women absolutely skyrocketed. Could be because class plays a bigger role than raw $. Could be the women you are around. Lots of different variables. I met many other passport bros. They all had real wives (who actually love them) and children. The one I stayed in touch with they are still together, they have 4 kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/26 01:14 PM
-3

There’s also conflicting messages like when they tell men to get their money up but then complain about gold diggers. If you use your financial status as a way to attract women, which type of women will you actually attract? All women are partially attracted to social status. The gold diggers are basically prostitutes who will fuck guys they have no actual interest in. So to answer your question "If you use your financial status as a way to attract women, what type of women?". Any type of woman.…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/26 01:02 PM
1

It's a joke. You'd have to be a moron to actually do that. And the "slap you or get police called on you" is far more likely than anything good happening.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/26 01:48 AM
-1

You need to be a man. You need to look her in the eye when you're alone and say "you're going to give me that ass tonight and that's final". If she responds by slapping you or calling the police. Then you know she's not the one and you just move on to the next one. Best of luck.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/26 01:33 AM
1

Here's the advice I give. 1) Socialize a lot. Leave the house to find pussy if you must. You'll have a hard time finding a partner with underdeveloped social skills. 2) Looks max. Get in good shape. Fix your teeth. Figure out which clothes look good on you. Get a tan in some cases. Figure out which hair cut and other grooming looks good on you. 3) Career and money max. 4) Geomax. Incredibly underrated. Moving even within United States can yield massive results. Moving abroad is down right a chea…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 02:18 AM
2

You keep repeating that. I wonder if you're even a man to begin with. I have actually lived the life of someone looking for a partner as a male. Desperation makes no fucking difference whatsoever. Most women can't even tell you're desperate. Nor do they even care if they can. It's some stupid shit that people repeat over and over. Without giving it much thought. There was 2 types of women when I was out there looking for women. 1) Women that liked me. That I did not like back because they were t…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 01:53 AM
2

Your advice is horseshit too. "Add some more unnecessary layers to your wish list. So that you will absolutely never find anyone who meets the criteria". That is just wonderful. Oh and the best "don't seek a relationship if your life sucks without one. Just let your life keep sucking. Try to fill it with video games and shit instead". Precisely what I did.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 01:40 AM
2

I'm married with kids. Was single for like 8 years listening to this "just be yourself and wait for it to come to you" horseshit. Me being myself translated into me sitting at home and click clacking away on Dota 2. Nothing ever came to me. Because that is not how the world actually works. And no not every woman has a fucking perfect spidey sense that knows exactly what you're thinking at all times. In my experience it's the opposite. They are quite naive and easy to manipulate. If you're upset …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 01:37 AM
2

lol you're saying it yourself. "Just be single". That's great advice for someone miserable because they are not pair bonding with anyone. Right up there with "just stop eating so fucking much" for an obese person. Or "just go get a job you fool" to a homeless bum. This is why the red pill is so popular among men. Because the Blue Pill is fucking useless. I actually agree with some of the stuff Blue Pill says. But the advice is just HORRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIBLE. It's complete fucking garbage.…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 01:29 AM
1

Being desperate doesn't play a role at all. It's another one of those stupid pieces of advice that have no actionable solution whatsoever. You either are desperate or not. You can't control it. It's not a choice. Noone would ever be desperate if they could choose it. Furthermore not everyone has perfect spidey senses and can sense it. In fact most people can not. So it's practically irrelevant whether you are desperate or not. Nor can you control it anyway. On top of all that. If you make your s…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 01:26 AM
2

It's fairly simple logic. If you already have a hard time finding someone with the absolute bare minimum. It wont make it easier to add more layers. On top of that unnecessary layers. Like I'm looking to hire someone. I already can't find someone who has 1 year of experience and knows how to turn a computer on. If I start adding all sorts of other requirements. I may never find anyone. You're the one with the false premise. That this somehow affects the pool of choices. Nobody said you advertise…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 01:17 AM
2

That treating women as interchangeable makes them less likely to want to date you. But it doesn't change the facts. We're talking about facts not perceptions. That's not lowering your standards. That is the standard. The very minimum standard. The problem with all these lines of reasoning is that there is no actionable advice here. What is a guy supposed to do? 1) Make a list of needs that will make him single permanently 2) Lower his standards for looks beyond what he can tolerate and date peop…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 12:14 AM
2

I mean what does that matter though? It doesn't change the fact. You can't make something non negotiable negotiable on a whim. I can't just make myself like people I don't like. So it's either that or absolutely nothing. It's a numbers game. 1 and 2 is already like 1/10,000 women. You add another layer and your odds just get worse.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 11:47 PM
3

Like I used to tell people back when I was single. I want two things 1) Attractive 2) Likes me back That is it. Even that is very hard to find. If I start adding additional layers then I'll be single forever. And both of those are completely unnegotiable. I've tried dating women I wasn't really all that attracted to. It was miserable for both of us. And unfortunately dated plenty that were obviously not that into me. was also fucking miserable. So maybe in some perfect world where we all have a …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 11:31 PM
2

I also believe that's innate. Meaning we evolved to look down on men who are incapable of attracting women. There are a lot of innate high value and low value signals. A man who can't get a woman is a low value signal.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 12:10 PM
3

You can both significantly incentivize marriage and having kids. Without repealing the right to vote. Those are not necessarily together. Yeah I get that is probably their fear. But letting people suffer because some asswads fear something that will never happen is not a good idea either. And it will never happen because it would absolutely nuke the economy.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 01:46 AM
4

I prefer open dialogue. I only have like 1 hour to myself these days. If you want to discuss it fine. But don't expect to read some long winded essay. You can use one as a source to explain your own thoughts. I never said depression was ONLY caused by lack of pair bonding. That would be nonsense. It is a very common reason these days.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 01:32 AM
11

Yes I get it. We only pair bond for a time. Sometimes long time. Sometimes not so long. Pair bonding exists to keep two biological parents together long enough to raise kids. As long as possible. It doesn't have to be a lifetime. Even 10-15 years was fantastic in the wild. If you don't accomplish that your own brain starts fucking with you. Starts telling you "you are not worthy of anything because you are incapable of reproducing and your genome will be annihilated once you're gone". This happe…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 01:25 AM
7

Being honest about it would be a great start. Acknowledge that many people feel like shit if they don't pair bond. Start making all sorts of programs to help people meet. Encourage with carrots for people to get married and have children together. All perfectly ethical. No need to force women into marriage slavery or back in the kitchen. That would be catastrophic for society anyway. Women produce way too much value in the workplace.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 01:18 AM
23

You are depressed precisely because you're failing to pair bond. Humans are wired to seek pair bonding. Saying that finding a partner won't cure that depression is like saying eating won't fix starvation. Of course it will. It's why you're hungry in the first place. All this shit was common knowledge for most of human history. Only lately have we decided to pretend otherwise because we don't want to offend the small minority of people that this doesn't apply to.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 01:00 AM
-1

Ahhh the battle of the studies. Ok how did they arrive at the idea that men actually give a shit about earning power? I mean when me and my boys go to a strip club. It's not because the strippers make a lot of money. They could be dead broke and it wouldn't make a lick of a difference. Nor would it really matter if we wanted to date one of them. But most of us are not that desperate. Anyway. I couldn't open the study. How did they arrive at the idea that men care at all about earning? Sounds lik…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 11:01 PM
-1

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381730315X In this study women were found to be 1000 times more sensitive to salary information about a potential partner vs men. Which is exactly what I have observed as well. Men really don't care that much about how much a woman makes. If she's hot she can work at a Wendy's. She is still hot. Like the other poster said. Speed dating is naturally going to diverge into lookism. Any quick sorting mechanism will. If you have to sort qui…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 11:19 AM
11

The peak means your peak attractiveness. You don't get to decide when you are the most attractive. The world as a whole does. The world as a whole has decided that peak attractiveness by some GRAND COINCIDENCE also coincides with peak fertility. I mean who would have thought that our brains would be wired this way. Total coincidence. No really I'm joking. This is evolution 101. Human females are the most physically attractive when they are most fertile. Which is around 20-25 for most females. Yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 02:37 AM
1

Once you've been around enough gay men. It's very easy to tell. Straight men behave a certain way that gay men do not. Even if they are in the closet. There's a reason the "gaydar" is a term. For example the average straight man will get obsessive over pussy. Gay men obviously will not. Straight men like things like strip clubs and straight porn. Gay men will not. Straight men will turn around to check out a womans ass. Gay men will not. Even if they are pretending to be straight. They don't hav…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 06:41 PM
1

Well that's even worse. You're being very hyper selective. Out of the 1000s of men on dating apps. You pick out the exact kind that reach out to you. Talk about nit picking. How would I know? Been around a lot of gay and straight men. The gay guys would tell you straight up "I've been this way since as long as I can remember". After a while it's really not that hard to tell which is which. Meaning who is gay and who is straight.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 06:01 PM
2

It sounds like your social circle gives you a skewed view of reality. Most people are not bisexual. But yes a lot of bisexual people stay in the closet. So if you tend to congregate around a lot of bisexuals. You would observe what you are describing.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 05:53 PM
2

I guess I sort of did. I didn't outwardly say "I am gay". I just agreed with shit and generally played the part. They sort of assumed I was gay based on what I was saying. It was never announced in any meaningful way. Like for instance the chicks would talk about a guy they find attractive. And I would interject and tell them about someone I found attractive. Doesn't say "I'm gay". But you're at a gay night club talking about a guy you found hot. What else could it possibly mean. But I'm talking…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 05:43 PM
1

Like I always say. We have to tell people over and over and over again that fat people are attractive. That its on the inside what matters. You never have to convince anyone to like pretty fit model looking chicks. Because they are already wired to prefer them. And most of those guys never end up liking fat women. Some things are innate. Some things they have to drill in your head. Being straight is not something you have to drill into a persons head. Anymore than you could drill being straight …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 05:26 PM
0

It's the fashionable thing. Even I pretended to be gay at one point because I wanted in on some social circles. The social circles I wanted to be in on was TO FUCK THEIR WOMEN lol. There is a lot of gay circles that have tons of women in them. I used to go to a gay bar and hit on the lesbian/straight women there. Also there is this theory that women are somewhat primed to be concubines through evolutionary pressures. Which would explain why a larger % of them are open to same sex relationships. …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 05:22 PM
2

It's not particularly enforced. Most kids grow up in high school wanting the opposite sex. Even when they are told not to engage in it. They still do. Nobody has to talk them out of gay relationships unless they were already born gay. Yes the majority of people find members of the same sex attractive from time to time. But nowhere near enough to act on it. And still find the opposite sex far more appealing. That is indeed the norm.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 05:20 PM
5

Human nature is heterosexual by default. All sorts of deviations exist. But they are not the norm. It's pretty simple to comprehend why. We need a female and a male copulating to continue the species. If that wasn't the norm. Our species would have died a very long time ago. No need for social pressure when your brain is already wired that way.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 04:38 PM
4

Sure and I can even see the necessity to shoot down men gently even being an evolved trait. Guys are bigger and often more aggressive. You shoot down a dude with honesty and they might hit you with a club upside your head.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 07:42 PM
-4

I'm sure it happens from time to time. But for every one of those legit "I'm not ready". There is 100 "I am ready just not with you and will never be ready with you". That's the real message behind what I'm saying.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 07:41 PM
1

That's probably where the disconnect comes from. Most men will just not hit on women they marginally like. And nobody ever hits on them. So this whole "I'd date you under different circumstances" thing never really happens to us.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 07:40 PM
-4

Unless you actually like the guy.... Then it's not a problem at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 07:17 PM
–

You could have summarized it by saying. "If a woman tells you she is not ready for a relationship. What that really means is she is not INTERESTED in a relationship WITH YOU." This is a well known fact. It's just a way for them to shoot you down gently.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/26 07:15 PM
1

Sounds like bullshit to be honest. Sure there are some men who completely have no self respect. Or the cuck type. But they are not that common at all. It's like being a very fat woman and hedging your bets on the very few men who actually like fatties.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/26 11:05 PM
-1

It's not about the men. It's disgusting for the women. They end up used up. Nobody wants them afterwards. They get treated like utter dogshit the entire time. It's not about easy access to sex for the men. It's the horrific mental anguish the women have to carry later.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/26 10:53 PM
6

US was not built on the backs of sex workers. The hell are you talking about? It was built on the backs of European settlers. Who built this system and the economy behind it. It is a very old profession. Probably because it was an easy way to get fed back when damn near everyone was starving. But that hardly justifies it. Slavery was also profoundly widespread up until 200 years ago. For a lot of the same scarcity related reasons. I am the kind of men that hired hookers. I sure as fuck wouldn't …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/26 09:54 PM
0

That is a major problem. But not the only one. Depression and drug use are very common among sex workers. Even women who just do porn. For this very reason. A large % of people in your life just treat you as disposable dirt. That is bound to have an effect on a persons psyche.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/26 09:28 PM
4

Its not like "any other". Most jobs don't drain you this way. They don't make society view you as a piece of used up garbage. They don't force you to constantly interact with the criminal underworld and to operate outside of the law. Even most desperate men would pass on dating a hooker. Let alone men these women would actually want to date. How many other jobs have qualities like that? Sex is different. It's a very unique thing that is unlike anything else. We need to stop pretending otherwise.…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/26 09:25 PM
3

Nordic Nations also have DREADFUL fertility rates. Which is bad for both parties. I'm not saying that nurture plays no role. It obviously does. But men select differently no matter what the location or situation is. This is due to genes and nature. Even our ape cousins select different between male and female. We need to stop pushing this false narrative that men and women are alike. When it comes to sexual selection we are quite different. On average of course.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/26 12:02 AM
3

Ok ChatGPT what do you actually think? I spent way too much time working with ChatGPT not to recognize the speaking pattern. A whole bunch of word slop that doesn't make any point whatsoever. "Well it's not like everyone. and it doesn't really mean it's nature". If it was 2 times more. Maybe it's nurture. If it was 10 times more.... I suppose maybe there is still a chance it's nurture. If it was 100 times more we would know it's nature. BUT ITS NOT EVEN 100 TIMES. ITS A THOUSAND FUCKING TIMES. T…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/26 11:14 PM
6

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381730315X Women were found to be A THOUSAND TIMES more responsive to information about salary. Not 10 times. Not even 100 times. 1000 times. That's nature. That is not nurture. Men just don't give a shit about those things. You're either hot or you're not. Women are far more compartmentalized. And this comes directly from the fact that women physically bear the cost of pregnancy. It's also why human males are stronger and more enduran…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/26 10:44 PM
0

It's just human nature. Males: Select females primarily on physical appearance. Females: Select males on a combination of looks, money and status. The difference stems from the fact that females get pregnant and get stuck with the baby no matter.what. So a woman testing to see if your broke ass can afford a $5 date is just a very simple filtration method. If you can't even do that. You are probably worthless. Unless you're very good looking and then they won't even bother with that test lol. Thi…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/26 10:23 PM
1

What ends up happening is that its actually MEN who have dual mating strategy 1) Inseminate a bunch of women. Don't invest into most of them. Maybe have one main girl. 2) Have one main girl. Sire several children with her. If a guy is capable of doing #1. Which most guys are not. He can hold a lot of women hostage. Which prevents them from dating other guys. So again this is just sexual selection at work. It's not like women are "naturally hypergamus". Men would also fuck better looking women if…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/26 04:15 PM
4

The reason is because hypergamy is woefully mis framed. It is framed as "women always want someone better looking or richer than them". When in reality all humans are this way. Women are just more capable of achieving it. So in practice they are "hypergamous". But in reality all humans are this way. Sexual selection in general works with this principle.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/26 04:03 PM
2

The survival rate of people flying in a plane with a well trained female pilot is probably a million times better. If we're going to use logic then we have to apply it here as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/26 12:59 AM
–

Have you ever actually seen any of these "Milfs". Vast majority of them are mid to late 20s. They are not 40 year old nasty wenches. Now consider who is the biggest consumer of porn.... Young men. Often underage. Which is quite sickening but it also happens to be true. So yes younger guys often like to bate to mid to late 20s women. No shocker there. The Leonardo DiCaprio curve is likely the most representative of what the average male actually prefers in terms of eye candy.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/26 06:03 PM
1

I was just giving an example. Not me in particular.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/26 12:14 PM
2

The market as a whole. I may think I'm the hottest guy alive. But if only 1/1000 women are even remotely interested in me. I'm probably delusional.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/26 11:23 AM
0

Well I mean we do hold them accountable. If they rape or abuse they can go to prison. But cheating and generally treating people like shit is not illegal. Not to mention if you're doing things that constantly put you in harms way then maybe you shouldn't do that.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/26 12:29 AM
4

Sure. Very attractive women. A lot of those actually end up in the same predicament. Because they usually only want to date very attractive guys. But very attractive guys are willing to stick their dick in a much broader range of women. So they are having to compete a lot more.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 10:07 PM
4

Then it's a terrible analogy. Because most men are not cheaters and abusers. Just like most women are not narcissistic runts (with a c). But some certainly are.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 10:05 PM
1

Moral is a very relative statement. Cheating is fun when you can get away with it. But at some point you realize you get caught a lot. So you stop cheating. Did you become more moral? Or did you just stop doing a destructive thing because it bit you in the ass too many times?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 10:00 PM
4

She should probably stop shopping in that store. They are selling some bunk ass shit!
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 09:58 PM
10

Stop trying to get with men way out of their league. That is the overall message.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 09:55 PM
5

I never said that. A 7/10 woman is a "pretty girl". But if she only has the hots for 9/10 and above guys. She may find out the hard way why that is not a good idea. She needs to be dating other 7s.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 09:54 PM
1

The issue is incentive. You take some ugly guy. He treats a couple of women like shit. Then he sits at home and jacks off for a while. Because for an ugly dude just getting with a woman is often a challenge. Next time he is more careful. Some good looking guy who treats women like shit. A) Has fun doing it B) Doesn't really suffer any repercussions. As long as he doesn't get them pregnant. Long as he doesn't get fat or something the stream of women doesn't dry up.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 09:49 PM
2

I mean if you recognize that the reason you're being treated like shit is because of your mate choices. Obviously adjust the mate choices. And no that doesn't mean "date me instead". It means recognize that your standards don't merit your appearance. This is a very important advice to both men and women. But get framed differently because they show up differently. A woman with very high standards will get used and abused by Chad. A man with very high standards will just be alone all the damn tim…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 09:32 PM
1

An ugly man is only going to be able to bang ugly women. At best he's getting a small handful of women interested in him per year. So even if he is cheating on all of them. His blast radius is rather small. A Chad will only DATE pretty women. He won't show his face with something that is way below him. But when he gets drunk at a night club. The beer goggles come on. And he is taking home the best option available which isn't always high quality.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 09:20 PM
1

To herself. To society. Basically own the fact that the decision making process that leads you to these men is part of the algo.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 09:16 PM
4

Not at all. But those are not the guys women complain about either. A good looking guy can GET AWAY with it much easier. Doesn't mean all good looking guys are this way.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 09:15 PM
6

It's like... If I tell you to not walk around the hood with $100 bills strapped to you with a sign that says "rob me". I'm not saying that robbing people is fine. I'm saying that this behavior is going to lead you to getting robbed. Both are bad behaviors.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 08:56 PM
1

Just because there are no studies on this. Doesn't mean it's not true. It's simple to comprehend. A good looking guy that can get with a lot of women. Is A) More likely to get away with it forever. Since our society is not so interlocked anymore. You can jump from woman to woman without them knowing about how you treated the last one. B) More likely to affect more women. If you have some average looking guy who treats women like shit. Chances are unless he's dumpster diving he ain't getting with…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 08:55 PM
2

No I don't think so. There are certainly some good looking guys there. But that is not what typically lands you in prison. Prisons are filled with psycopaths, sociopaths, low IQ people, high aggression wired people and just general fuckwads.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 08:54 PM
-3

No lol. I doubt they do too many "what proportions of each look class are cheaters and abusers". Studies I meant to say studies
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 08:40 PM
0

They can. But statistically a Chad is far more likely to be a cheater and abuser. Because a Chad can get away with it perpetually. The only way an average looking guy can behave like Chad is if he dumpster dives. Which I have seen before. I'm sure they get talked about in a lot of the same ways.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 08:30 PM
8

What? I was just describing what they are talking about. The fact that you're not like that at all has nothing to do with it. I never said every woman does this.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 08:24 PM
6

Actually no. Most men can have sex. Most men are NOT CHAD. The Chad concept is just statistical outlier men who can get with a lot of women. It couldn't be a statistical outlier if it encompassed 60+% of men or whatever is the proportion of people who just "have sex".
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 07:28 PM
5

Good looking man in this frame. Someone who has enough physical appearance where they can get women with very little effort. It can mean a lot of things which is why you get so many definitions. Within this context we're talking about a dude who is hot. He probably has some people skills and some charisma. But that is easy to develop when you are very good looking.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 07:27 PM
32

Here is an example. Some pretty chick only dates Chads. Every Chad she dates ends up treating her like dog shit. Cheats on her with other women. Generally disrespects her and treats her like disposable. Why does Chad do this? Well because he can. Women are disposable for him. He can find a new one tonight at a nightclub or anywhere women hang out and are open to being approached. Sooner or later a woman like this will utter the words "all men are trash". Taking accountability in that frame refer…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/26 07:12 PM
23

I think the whole af/bb thing is completely misframed. Women all want someone to settle down with them. They always shoot for the moon at first. Not realizing that a lot of men will just use them for sex. Then they gradually work down to their real level. That is a normal transition that happens to a lot of people whether male or female. It just looks different for the sexes because males are very open to casual sex with random women even if they are below them in looks while women are typically…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/26 12:59 AM
2

Yes pretty much. Therefore as I originally said. If you tell a man "don't leave the house just to find vagege" you may as well be saying "don't leave the house". Chances are they have no reason to leave the house otherwise. Most of their friends are online and on discord. They can play video games and watch netflix non stop.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/26 06:32 PM
2

I already addressed that in another post. Going to your buddies house to play some Madden is socializing and leaving the house. But you're not going to find a girlfriend doing that. If you want to find a girlfriend. You have to force yourself to do a bunch of social activities you would never want to do otherwise. Or just get fucked up and go to the club. Though the club is a terrible place to meet women and if the only place you go to where it is even possible to find a mate is the club then th…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/26 06:19 PM
1

Yes of course. But how do you pair that with "well just leave the house for sake of leaving house" when you're not there with your partner. The partner is what makes it enjoyable in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/26 06:11 PM
1

You might enjoy coming to your buddies house to play some Madden. But you're not going to find a girlfriend doing that. If you want to find a girlfriend you need to be around a lot of people a lot of the time. Big difference between that and just some Madden with one or 2 friends.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/26 06:08 PM
1

Without a relationship that is what they choose to do. In a relationship the dynamics change a lot. You can't just sit at home all day if you have a wife and kids. Still perfectly consistent.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/26 06:03 PM
0

Ohhh ok I see what you're saying. Having friends != Having a girlfriend/wife Two totally different things in the mind of a man. Or really any human. We are a pair bonding species. At a certain age a large % of us seek to pair bond with the member of the opposite sex. So that we can have children and raise those children together. You can have endless friends and a rich social life. If you don't have a wife and kids. You're going to feel like something is very empty. Just innately how our brains …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/26 05:26 PM
-2

I did. They are being misled. They are told "wait for it to come to you" "don't leave the house with the sole purpose of finding vagege" "don't go to the gym just to get better looking for women" etc etc etc. A bunch of terrible advice that they unfortunately take in. Which translates to. Don't better yourself. Don't socialize. Don't take initiative. Shocker people who do those things don't find women and end up scorned. See you think they are not socializing because despite it being fun for the…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/26 05:16 PM
1

I think there is a problem of framing. Men are told "Don't leave the house just to chase vagege". Which translates into their speak "Don't leave the house". Which they never do. A better framing would be "It's ok to leave the house chasing vagege. In fact you will never get vagege if you never leave the house. Chad is not just good looking he is probably very gregarious. You can't make yourself Chad in looks but at least you can emulate his social competence which does matter to an extent". See …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/26 05:08 PM
-5

Exactly. Most women don't even comprehend that men would just be happy to sit at home and do nothing if they weren't out there chasing vagege. They actually enjoy socializing. Many of us do not unless we're drunk or trying to get some poon tang (usually need both).
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/26 05:03 PM
18

You have to define Chad for her. She probably has no idea what that even means.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/26 11:38 AM
1

By your logic Isaac Newton, Nikola Tesla, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Jane Austen, Emily Dickinson, Florence Nightingale, Gregor Mendel, Susan B. Anthony, Joan of Arc, Mother Teresa, and the Wright brother were all mentally ill. Google all of them. Incredibly talented people are well known to be fucking looney. Nikola Tesla fell in love with pigeons. I wouldn't be surprised if every single one of those was a certified nutt. Not the best examples lol. One is self-destruction, the other is se…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/26 12:23 AM
1

Not wanting children is a form of a mental disorder. Sometimes its something people are born with. A lot of the times it's due to trauma. Similar to how when people want to commit suicide. We consider it a mental disorder. Because it is. Same with wanting to get wiped out genetically which is largely the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/26 12:14 AM
1

This framing is the problem. Your purpose doesn't come from you. It comes from millions of years of evolution. Your brain is this way due to genes. Not your own personal choices. Yes there are some outlier weirdos and people who suffered trauma. For whom having children is not "the purpose". But they are few relative to the vast number of the population for whom it is. We've decided to kamikazee the entire society to placate the small % of people who are offended by reality and the truth.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 11:22 PM
1

Building, creating, serving, teaching, leading, loving all do that too. We do all those things to survive. You can not survive without reproducing. Reproducing is order of magnitude more effective at creating purpose and value for a person. Yes people can find meaning in those things. But not nearly as easily and as readily as just getting married and popping out kids. This whole argument sounds like: “I drive a Ford Escape. It’s the only valid car. If you’re unhappy, it’s because you didn’t buy…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 11:19 PM
1

Hunger is wired too, but overeating doesn’t cure depression. Biology creates impulses, not purpose. It explains why every country with an abundance of food is struggling with obesity. We are wired to overeat. Just like low fertility explains why so many struggle with depression/anxiety/drug addiction etc. You’re still mixing correlation with causation. Nordic countries report more depression because people can actually admit they’re struggling. That doesn’t mean “no kids causes depression.” Your…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 11:42 AM
1

Again ask a large % of depressed people why they feel depressed. They will say they feel a lack of purpose. The average person derives purpose from their family. Which is usually a wife/husband and children. Not the most complex topic. Reddit is not a particularly good way to gauge this. If there was more anti-vax subreddits than polio subreddits does that mean we should stop vaccinating?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 11:37 AM
1

Yes absolutely. Due to human nature. Females evolved this way because of pregnancy. It's not because "you are taught to look". It is because millions of years of evolution primed our brain to sexually select in this manner.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 01:56 AM
1

They can't "look past a womans looks". It's like trying to convince a child to prefer some food they hate over chocolate and ice cream. It is not in our nature. For the same reason it's stupid to be mad at women's standards. Having higher standards is in womens nature due to pregnancy. You know how gay men don't CHOOSE to be attracted to men. That's just how they are born. The same way goes for men being primarily focused on physical appearance. It's how our ape brains evolved.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 01:55 AM
1

That is not how our brains function. If you're not attractive enough your personality is completely irrelevant. It just doesn't even compute. You can make yourself like women who were previously "not pretty enough for you". It's impossible to make us like women for personality alone. Anymore than we can convince ourselves to like dogs or to prefer eating rocks. Just in our nature.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 01:51 AM
1

You are right about one thing. If men knew how to lower their standards. They would be a hell of a lot better off. Most incel types are average looking guys who want a 7-8/10 and therefore end up perpetually alone. But noone actually teaches them HOW TO lower standards. What worked for me. 1) Masturbating much less 2) Exercising 3) Spending a lot of time around a lot of women. Like purposely so. The whole "don't go out just looking for pussy" is utterly horrible advice for someone struggling wit…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 01:41 AM
1

Yes men can get very desperate for vagege. No argument there. Yes if men raised their standards. That's a major fucking if. How exactly do you "raise your standard". You can't control who turns you on. I'm not asking women to lower their standards.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 01:39 AM
1

But that makes absolutely no sense. 50% of humans did not live past 5 years old. Does that mean that you would expect only about 50% of us to be concerned with life after 5 years old or so? Of course not. 100% of us have an instinct to survive. Even if brutal ass nature only allowed 50% to do so until very recently. The same goes for reproduction. Just because only a certain % of people reproduced doesn't mean that a large % are not wired to reproduce. Means they just didn't live long enough, di…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 01:36 AM
1

Looks functions like a gateway. If you're not attractive enough none of your other features are even judged. Where's with a female a guy with sufficient status and money can make up for looks. A lot more than a woman can anyway. There's a limit to it as well though. See men don't give a shit if you're financially stable. Are you good looking? Everything else is secondary.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 01:33 AM
1

I mean 50% of humans didn't survive past the age of 5 just 200-300 years ago. Would you say that it's unfair to expect most people to want to live past 5? This argument makes no sense. Nature is brutal. Just because a large % didn't reproduce. Doesn't mean a large % didn't want to reproduce.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 01:28 AM
1

I said males only look at looks. I said women look at looks, money and status. These are average observations. There are plenty of people who don't fit that mold. But on average that tends to be the case.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 01:27 AM
1

Yes and the people who don't reproduce are often utterly miserable. Which is the whole point of pointing this out to people. Yes some people are asexual or just wired differently. But those are outliers. The average person needs their own family to feel whole and like their life actually matters.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 01:22 AM
0

Yes for both males and females having kids and pair bonding is of utmost importance. Difference is females are only judged on looks. Your degree and your ability to bring $ does not make you more attractive. You are at your most attractive in your early 20s and having a career does nothing for your attractiveness. Meanwhile a male is judged on looks, money and status. Most guys are not good looking enough to just use looks. Therefore it makes sense to focus on your career. You are improving your…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 01:21 AM
1

NO WAY!. Shit that totally discombobulates everything. I must rewire my entire existence. No seriously.. Yes obviously women can be both. It's a matter of where you put your priorities. Women should focus on family first. Career later. As family is far more important. Your best most fertile and most attractive years are in your early 20s. Even if you don't like hearing that. It is factually true. You'll have an entire life time to perfect your TPS report abilities. You have a smaller window to f…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 12:12 AM
1

I looked at some pictures from Quora. A bunch of them were fat or old. Of course it's disgusting. Nobody wants to see that shit. Obviously not ANY photo of a naked woman turns a man on. She has to be at least moderately attractive. Seeing a fat disgusting woman naked is just that disgusting. Yes one photo or even a glance is more than enough to get an average male interested. Why do you think strip clubs are so much more popular among the male demographics. Go to Miami. There is 50 strip clubs t…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/26 09:53 PM
-1

If humans were not wired to pair bond and procreate. Our species would have went extinct a long time ago. Our babies are the most fragile babies in the mammal kingdom. What's the depression rates like in Norway and Denmark? https://www.afterbabel.com/p/international-mental-illness-part-two Shocker.....
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/26 09:18 PM
-6

Yeah but we're talking about how our brains are wired. You can run from your nature. But you can't hide from it. Look at the correlation between people not having kids. Failing to pair bond (aka get married or just couple up). ANd the gigantic explosion in anxiety and depression. You ask the average depressed person what they think is wrong and by far the most common answer is "I feel a sense of purposeless". Gee I wonder why. The human brain has been designed with the thought in mind "by 25-30 …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/26 03:14 AM
-12

It is the greatest achievement. Just like being a father is the greatest achievement. Except the father is the bread winner he needs to be out there hunting and protecting. A woman needs to nurture. Nobody lays on the death bed wishing they did some more TPS reports.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/26 02:40 AM
5

It's far more about getting your foot in the door than maintaining a long term relationship. Most guys who are in the RP can't even get to the relationship part. In fact a lot of RP stuff actually works against your long term relationship viability. You actually do want some softer traits to make a long term rel work. You want to listen. You want to be more down to earth. You want to be interesting and you have no choice but to be yourself. It's impossible to put up a facade for a long time. RP …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/26 03:23 PM
–

The reason is pretty simple. We see this with every social justice movement. In the beginning there was real misogyny. Like actual systemic barriers put in place to prevent women from getting an education from becoming certain professions. These were real issues. They were really not allowed to vote. So when feminists fought for rights. They were actually fighting for something. And a lot of people made a lot of money advocating for these things. An entire industry was built around it. The troub…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/26 12:00 AM
1

I'm an anti-feminist like you. But I think you're more radical than me. I've had these arguments on reddit before. Where I was on the side of "let the men opt out". Making the same arguments you are suggesting. Just give them a time frame. But all of that really falls apart rather quickly. Men often don't know. They might not know till the baby is due. Or they can lie and say they didn't know. What do you create some sort of system where they get subpoenad by a court and have to give an official…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/26 09:06 PM
1

There's no unconditional anything on the planet. You love your children "unconditionally" because you are innately wired to be obsessive about their safety. A very good looking woman has a ton of "unearned desire". She doesn't need to do anything to have dudes wanting her. Just existing and not becoming fat. Maybe very basic self hygiene. You guys are taking that word way too seriously and interpreting it way too narrowing ly.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/26 01:05 PM
6

Well.... Yes obviously. Unconditional means..... you didn't have to do anything to earn it. For example a really hot chick can make me horny. Even if she has no personal skills. Even if she can't make me laugh. I mean I don't even have to speak her language. That's what "unconditional" means. Just innate raw attraction. At least in that frame.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/26 10:45 PM
13

They are obsessed with the idea that women would want them no matter how they behave. Like the good looking guys in question. They don't necessarily want to behave like fuckwads. They just want unconditional desire.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/26 10:37 PM
0

The way our society is structured you couldn't do it. You can't both have child support and an easy way out of it. In reality since you want my opinion. Society should be structured to massively and I mean MASSIVELY incentivize having children in wedlock in good safe homes with 2 loving parents. And by doing so disincentivizing this "fuck random dudes then force some guy to pay child support" trashy shit. Not having a husband to raise your kids should be such a liability that women practically n…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/26 08:48 PM
7

What do you think happens when a woman decides she's going to not name father and gives the kid up for adoption or leaves it at a fire station? Whose paying child support in those instances? I imagine nobody. Who would they force to pay? The dude at the fire station? What if the dude doesn't know? That would create all sorts of perverse incentives. If a woman is cheating on a dude and knows he has 10 weeks or whatever to opt out. She would wait till week 11 to make sure he didn't opt out. Guys w…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/26 08:18 PM
5

This topic comes up all the time on reddit. When it comes to pragmatism. If we allowed men to "opt out" of being a parent. Then pretty much no male would ever pay child support. Might as well do away with child support al together. So as long as you believe child support should be a thing you can't hold this view. It really boils down to acknowledging that human sexes are different. They have different functions and respond to sex differently. They give a woman more time to choose because they g…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/26 08:04 PM
1

For sure there's variability in everything.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/26 07:54 PM
10

I don't think so. A true "raging asshole" is a major liability. He'll end up in prison in the modern world. In the pre-historic world someone is going to stab his sorry ass. You're exaggerating a bit. Maybe high school girls prefer that. They obviously want a guy who is CAPABLE of being dominant. But not in that hyper aggressive ghetto hood way.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/26 07:30 PM
15

That only works if they like you to begin with. Or at least are somewhat attracted to some of your other qualities. Try negging as some dude she has no interest in.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/26 07:21 PM
23

It really boils down to a simple thing. Guys who innately get a lot of women. Whether that's through good looks, or charisma or whatever. They don't need to be nice to women. They often treat them like shit. Because they don't have to pander to them. Women come to them. The same way men come to attractive women on a platter. So guys see that and mistakenly assume that this arrogance and shitty behavior IS WHAT MAKES THEM ATTRACTIVE. When in reality it's usually other aspects that actually make t…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/26 07:17 PM
1

External locus of control vs. internal locus of control. Men who think that way are always comparing yourself and seeking vaidation = unattractive behavior. These men give off insecurity, which destroys attraction. Think about what you're saying. Don't think about being attractive because that makes you unattractive. So the only way to be attractive is to be unattractive. Otherwise you care about being attractive and therefore you are unattractive. Yes I totally get what you're saying ACTUALLY b…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/26 10:14 PM
0

If she's with a real man she wont have to pay. Especially if she's flipping burgers.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/26 09:51 PM
1

All you're saying is the useless platitudes men hear all their lives. It's hard to value yourself when nobody else values you. When everyone you're into is not reciprocating. There's only so much deluding you can do. Just completely useless advice said mainly to feel better about yourself not actually provide any value to the person listening. You want ACTUAL ACTIONABLE ADVICE. Maximize everything about yourself. 1) Looksmax. Means get in great shape. Learn how to dress. How to style your hair. …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/26 09:04 PM
1

Bro, men LAUGH at passport bro's. They are seen as losers. The fuck do I care? Cool, so those men are dating in their socioeconomic class then, which is (and has been) exactly my point. Most doctors, lawyers, accountants, and even bus drivers, aren't looking to date a minimum wage retail or foodservice worker, no matter how "hot" she is. They would absolutely date those women. They just don't happen to be around them most of the time. How many doctors are hanging out with french fry cooks during…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/26 06:51 PM
31

Depends on what the advice is. Some people have exceptional introspection and their advice is useful in any frame. Some people are completely out of touch like the guys you are describing. Their advice would only work in their world.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/26 06:35 PM
3

I don't mean to offend you. But you sound like a woman. Attraction is practically the whole game if you're a man. How many men in their mid 20s and 30s are still working at McDonalds? Those guys I assure you are fawning over their coworkers regardless of age (over 18 I would hope). I got married in Ukraine. Passport bro is incredibly effective. People hating on that shit are mostly just jealous women who can't do the same thing because men don't select on status/money. What you're missing is tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/26 06:24 PM
3

Abundance mindset is only possible when you have actual abundance. Most men never have abundance. For what it's worth I always recommend going to 3rd world countries if you want actual abundance and actual abundance mindset. Deluding yourself into thinking you're more desirable than every experience tells you is not possible for most people. You don't choose your standards. You don't get to decide who you find attractive. You can't just look at some nasty homeless man and be like "ok today I am …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/26 05:52 PM
2

What you can learn quite readily is that if you find a broke woman hot, there is likely an equally or more attractive woman with a similar personality who would also be into you. lol not in my experience. Most men go through very long droughts. If you got a hot woman into you. You hold on as tight as you can. The odds of 2 hot women being into you at once are very slim. Most people date within their socieconomic class because that is who they tend to interact with the most. That and women do sel…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/26 05:43 PM
5

Not in my experience. Most men I knew would just jump at the first pretty girl they could get. How much she earned was not part of the decision process at all. She could be a surgeon or a burger flipper. If she's hot she's hot. Now the guys that could get a lot of girls. They also didn't seem to care. They just picked up the prettiest easiest girls.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/26 05:33 PM
–

It adds up when you consider what qualities the human female is actually looking for. Looks, Money and Status. Which basically translates into 1) Quality of genetics 2) Ability and willingness to take care of her and the children. If the man is showing ability in both areas or very good in one of those. He can just sit there like a stone. Just like a real pretty chick doesn't need to say a whole lot to impress a lot of men. The thing about social ability is that it's very hard to have money and …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/26 05:21 PM
-4

Human nature. Males don't select on money and status. In most cases anyway. There is always exceptions.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/26 04:54 PM
2

This aspect of biology has been completely subverted by abortion, the pill, child support and taxes. It's now men who bear the risk from sex. Yes but our brains don't evolve that quickly. Our instincts are still in the forest. No it's mother nature. The quicker you realize that the more everything makes sense. You think women didn't need men back in the jungle? Males are stronger, faster and more endurant for a reason. Really as soon as you realize how over rated nurture is. Human behavior becom…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/26 12:11 AM
1

I disagree. I think the addition of a single male would only be make or break if there were no larger communal supports, and that doesn't exist in any modern hunter-gatherer society I've ever heard of. So why do parents become obsessive about their kids? I've heard this alloparenting nonsense. It doesn't make sense for us to have these instincts. Parents get overwhelmingly devoted to their children. They will gladly die for their children in many cases. That would be completely unnecessary if we…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/26 03:06 AM
1

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3917328/?utm_source=chatgpt.com Ok fine I read the abstract They are saying hunter gatherers in warm areas had less starvation. There is an important caveat here though. Farming in general lead to increases in population. More people means a higher likelyhood for starvation when food becomes scarce all of a sudden. So a bad season could cause a large population to starve. HOWEVER going back even farther in our conversation. The comparison is kind of moot.…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/26 02:44 AM
1

Usually people post links as a source. Like "America has the best disposable income on the planet" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income You don't have to dig through the data to figure out what I'm thinking. I already told you. But if you don't believe me. There's your data.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/26 02:17 AM
1

Lack of movement and abundance of calories. That is what makes you fat. Maybe you have a great metabolism. Maybe you move around a lot. Maybe you naturally count calories (meaning without even trying). Either way you're not the norm. The norm is lazy people who overeat at default. And data supports this. I can't read that whole thing. What are they suggesting?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/26 02:13 AM
0

Material abundance is critically important here. If someone is starving they are not going to waste time taking care of your kid for you or helping you feed your kid. They are going to be busy feeding themselves and their children. You're touching on exactly why human children need 2 dedicated parents. There's a reason human parents become so obsessive about their children survival. Our species needed that to survive. If it was normal to just throw the baby to some communal pile and fuck off. Li…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/26 02:11 AM
0

Why do you think we started farming? Because it was a lot more efficient than just picking shit and hunting game. What came before was even more miserable and poor. Why do you think humans evolved to eat like fucking pigs? Because starvation and malnutrition was the norm for our ancestors. Food abundance is a very new and very recent thing for our species. Which is why obesity is so rampant.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/26 01:53 AM
0

"Easier in prehistoric times". That is complete absurd nonsense that I already addressed in another comment. It was much much much harder. The average poor person in America today lives significantly better than emperors and kings did 200 years ago. And they had it made relative to everyone else. They would kill to have our abundance. And despite our abundance being a single mother is still tough as shit. It was wayyyyyyyy harder for our ancestors.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/26 01:43 AM
2

Utter nonsense. 50% of people didn't make it to their 5th birthday. Starvation and malnutrition was so common it was pretty much the norm for peasants. That is why the average height was so much shorter. There was practically no medicine to speak of. All sorts of diseases used to absolutely ravage our ancestors. Not to mention practically no entertainment, very little clothing, very shoddy housing, no plumbing, no electricity. It was utter fucking misery. Predation by other animals and other tri…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/26 01:41 AM
-4

We're tribal now. Yeah the tribe helps. But the primary care givers are the biological mother and father. Don't forget we all lived in utter destitute. If you don't have 2 reliable providers for your children. They don't have shit to give you either. Yes the tribe helped a little. Just like they do now. We still have daycare and pre-k and public schools and what not. All that still exists. They had less informal versions of the same thing. Being a single mother was pretty much guaranteed poverty…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/26 11:06 PM
8

We're talking about human nature. How our species evolved. Yes the pregnancy risk is low. But if you constantly engage in premarital sex outside of a relationship. You're almost certainly going to end up raising a child by yourself. Unless you can quickly secure a cuck. That was an extremely risky move. Being a single mother is hard now. It was horrifically difficult in the prehistoric times. So our human females evolved to be a lot pickier. Because the one's that weren't weeded themselves out o…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/26 10:51 PM
69

It's simple mother nature. Males don't get pregnant. Having sex with a poorly vetted partner carries with it far less consequence. We can just use our eyes to determine if mr pee pee is interested. This is just how the planet spins. Arguing against that is akin to arguing about things getting wet after it rains.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/26 09:14 PM
–

I'm sure a lot of people also show up high and drunk to job interviews. But that doesn't help the 1000s of sober applicants who can't find a job either.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/26 05:11 PM
–

"shower before a date" "maintain proper hygiene" are completely useless. It's like telling a person not to smoke crack and drink a bottle of vodka before a job interview. Technically true but isn't going to help you. "ask questions back" and "learn to communicate" are actually useful pieces of advice. But they are likely framed in such an infantile manner that the advice ends up being useless as well. The truth is they can't be honest. Government speak is no longer tied to reality in those place…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/26 03:52 PM
1

Women compromise on their attraction if you have enough status and money. True. I used to believe that was true. It was a major detriment to my life for 15 years. Thankfully I snapped out of it. It does not make sense for human males and human females to select in an identical manner. If females selected exactly like males. The vast majority of children would be raised by single mothers. That would have made our species extinct. It is incredibly difficult to raise children with one parent. That …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/26 05:44 PM
1

Psychological conditioning is what it is. It's just biology. How human brains are wired. Those "bombshells" resort to dating average dudes because they don't have access to equally hot men, otherwise they'd be pairing off with those male bombshells. Nonsense. There is a ton of hot dudes in cities like Kyiv. Some of them do just that. Have you ever been to Kyiv? There is a ton of good looking people period. Whether men or women. Women select on Physical Appearance, Status and Money. If you have s…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/26 05:36 PM
1

This is a stupid view. Humans are pair bonding species. Females are not attracted to males the same way males are attracted to females. We males only value physical appearance. Females have to also weigh in status and money along with physical appearance. Due to this thing called pregnancy that only females experience. Once you pair bond you find your partner attractive. This is why guys can be married to fat ass whales and still find them physically attractive. It's called "wife goggles" and it…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/26 05:27 PM
1

Ok let's take short distance running. Sprinting. 100 meter dash. There is a lot of men that can beat 99% of other men at the 100 meter dash. With absolutely NO TRAINING whatsoever. They are just genetically gifted. They are fast. It is an innate trait they possess. What did they do to become fast? Were born lucky enough with fast genes. Technically it's a skill but they didn't have to do anything to attain it. Interesting thing is. Your reproductive success if far less tied to your ability to ru…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/26 03:09 AM
1

Normal people do pair up. I don't discount that. That's not the argument. Humans are a pair bonding species and we put a ton of emphasis on pair bonding. Me and you really don't disagree as much as you think. The top 3 advice I always give is 1) Get in good shape. 2) Fix your social skills to be at least adequate. 3) Maximize your career skills. Adequate is the key here though. You don't need great social skills. Only enough to be a normal person. Most people who are good with social skills are …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/26 01:19 AM
1

You can both love America and think that the culture is generally superior to others. But at the same time be disillusioned with the dating market and want to go find a better one. Those are not mutually exclusive. Progressives hate America because we have economic freedoms and because we managed to get way ahead of everyone technologically. And we weren't always polite about it. Not because women here are a bitch to date. Progressives want to turn US into USSR 2.0. I assure you guys going to go…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/26 12:26 AM
3

No that is not what I am saying. I am saying that the most successful people typically don't have to develop any skills. Beyond basic social skills and basic positioning (just go partying dude). That is it. Some 9/10 guy who is naturally gregarious. He can just be himself and show up some places. He will have options. Without having to think about what he is doing or why its working. His advice to you will be "just be confident bro, look at all these hotties just hit on them its so easy". Do you…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/26 12:09 AM
3

Social skills is a skill. I agree that it is a very important skill. But most people don't understand why. Humans are tribal animals. Your social status is important to a woman. Back in the days if a guy had poor social standing that would make it very hard to raise kids with him. Even if you like everything else about him. Poor social skills = poor social standings In the human ape mind. If you suck at social skills that is a major eww factor for a female. See most guys don't have to think abou…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/26 12:03 AM
3

Would you trust poker advice from someone who never won at the table? People don't win at poker from innate traits. If humans had a poker instinct that was wired into us from genetics. Then yes that may be the case. But poker is something you have some aptitude for and it's also a learned skill. Sexual selection is a lot heavier innately. Like yes someone with a high IQ and good reading skills will be better at poker. But it's still a skill they had to develop. People can be good at dating with …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/26 11:53 PM
2

I disagree. They don't actually know why it works. They just know that it works. A guy who is like 8/10 or 9/10 who can get women by just talking to them. Isn't going to sit there and try to figure out if its looks, money or status. If its this or that. They don't need to know any of that shit. They will also give the worst fucking advice cause they don't actually know what they are doing that works. They are just "being themselves" and it all comes to them. Shit they hardly know what the fuss i…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/26 11:40 PM
7

I can tell you exactly why I don't play in the NBA. I am not tall enough. I am not athletic enough. I can't shoot well enough. I can't guard well enough. I can write a whole a book about it and dig into every single nuance. Is that going to make me an NBA player? Understanding why you fail at something doesn't magically improve you.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/26 08:12 PM
1

You've provided no evidence for that. Common sense. I never said they were a hivemind either. I said that women care a lot more about the opinion of the tribe. Which is why their behavior is often more hiveminded.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/26 07:53 PM
2

Yes it does. They care to find out.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/26 05:28 PM
3

Uhhhh. That doesn't disagree with what I am saying. They care "more". I didn't say that men didn't care at all. You think a woman wants to be seen with some obese homeless guy?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/26 05:27 PM
8

It's much simpler then that. Women care more about what the tribe thinks. Because they needed the tribe more than the men did. If you have a child. It is very hard to survive without a tribe (or a partner for that matter). So human females evolved to value the opinion of the tribe slightly more. That is all and that is it. You still have plenty of interpersonal variability. You have some women who could give a shit what the tribe thinks. But on average we observe women to be slightly more "hivem…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/26 03:26 PM
10

I mean, this is the entire basis of red pill. Somehow the least experienced, least successful men know the most about dating? It's nonsense. Guys who succeed innately have no reason to understand how it works. If every time you go to a bar a bunch of cuties want your number. The fuck do you care if its money, status, looks or pinky winky dinky buttons. It works is all you know.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/26 03:23 PM
0

Because you're not thinking about what humans are. We are just animals with animal instincts. Our species did not evolve with abortion and birth control. Our instincts have not caught up to our environment. Soon you realize that human behavior becomes a lot more understandable.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 10:48 PM
1

And what are you superior?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 10:47 PM
1

No I want them to act in a way that is most beneficial to them based on information on what is natural. That's very different from "acting natural".
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 10:36 PM
1

Uhhhhhhh yes I can. Humans are violent creatures. It is natural for us to be vindictive and murder each other. It is also bad for organized society when humans murder each other. Which is why we have laws, police, courts, jails and prisons. Because if we didn't it would be chaos. This works the same way. Something can be both bad and natural. Because we didn't evolve in large cities with millions of people around us. We were just apes fighting the wilderness for most of human history. Yes women …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 12:12 PM
1

Reddit is horrifically brainwashed. That's all I can say.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 12:02 PM
0

They can but they get pregnant. A man can get 100 women pregnant in a single year. A woman is not going to have 100 babies in a single year.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 11:59 AM
0

Rape and murder are also natural. We do need to enforce those laws. It's called setting up the proper incentive structures. If we legalized rape then society would be fucked.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 11:58 AM
2

Sounds like what i keep telling people. Morals are tied to utility. When medicine was scarce or down right non existent. You wanted as many people as possible to have sex in wedlock. To prevent single mothers. To prevent STDs. So yeah I can see why in that world they would slut shame everyone. But another thing we have to remember is that humans did not evolve with DNA tests. If you as a guy make it a point to pair up with promiscuous women. Chances are you're going to be raising someone else's …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 02:14 AM
1

There's no guarantee that a comet won't fall on his head in the next 2 minutes after reading this. Everything is a matter of % odds. Your odds of finding a high quality partner are MUCH HIGHER in another country. And I mean MUCH HIGHER. Both in terms of the quality of the quality partner and the likelyhood of it ever happening. But nothing is guaranteed. Ever.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 01:55 AM
7

So don't marry an insecure controlling man. If you have so many to pick from. Why would you pick one that makes you miserable?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 01:52 AM
1

Yeah he should do just fine. You have to understand it's not like a.......... infinite money glitch. You gotta grind at it just like everything else. You gotta move there. Learn the language. Learn the culture a little bit. It takes some time. But the end result if spectacular. The quality of women is much much higher. Just the fact alone that a lot of these countries have much smaller % of obese women is enough. But the fact that much hotter women are now into you that's the real gravy.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 01:51 AM
2

Is he dimwitted? Women can smell that shit lol :) That's a sign of low quality genetics. Even if the looks aren't bad. But yeah. From the sounds of it. Unless he's hiding some serious flaw he will do just fine in an underdeveloped country. He may have to move there and learn the language. But it's well worth it.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 01:47 AM
3

*wank wank*. Dick has value. Companionship has value. Children have value. Family has value. Social validation has value. Psychiatric health has value.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 01:45 AM
1

Is he ugly or has some mental disability? Did he do #1 and #2? Is he a fat ass? Is he totally socially inept?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 01:44 AM
-8

I don't actually slut shame lol. Ain't nobody got time for dat. I'm explaining why it happens and why it has always happened. It's just good advice.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 01:42 AM
-1

I completely and utterly disagree. You have to understand that women and men select very differently. Males: Primarily select on physical appearance. Females: Select on a combination of physical appearance, money and status. This means that a guy who is average in all 3 is going to be able to get average women. If he flies for about 10-15 hours. Suddenly he is in elite tier in money and status (even if he's no that rich at home). That significantly improves his standing in the sexual and relatio…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 01:41 AM
-2

1) Maximize your appearance. Within reason. You don't have to be the incredible hulk. But you do need to be in a very good shape. 2) Make sure your social skills are on point. Also within reason. You don't need to focus on this beyond "acceptable" or "sufficient". There's a humongous gap between socially inept and sufficient. But most people who are good at this, are good at this innately. 3) MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY. Pick out a country that is a lot less developed than a typical Western nation. …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 01:32 AM
2

No because as the poster said. Most men can't sleep around with women. Most men want to but can't. If a man is sleeping around with a lot of women. Chances are a lot of women already like him. It's like if a really hot chick sleeps around. Never gets pregnant. Then moves to a town, finds Jesus and starts behaving. The new men she meets are not going to give a shit or even know her past. The same works for good looking guys. Difference being of course. Pregnancy. That is what it boils down to. A …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 01:22 AM
-10

Not necessarily. If a woman has a child early on to a man who has no intention of helping her. She's fucked for life. There's a reason no father in his right mind allows his girl to go out looking like a prostitute. They understand how men think. Nobody will respect her looking like that. And she won't find any man worth keeping like that either. Yes former hoes get married all the time. I agree. But a lot of them get burned in the process. It's like saying "I drove drunk many times and I didn't…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 01:00 AM
-16

Males have a dual mating strategy. 1) fuck fuck fuck peace out. 2) Invest in one. Sire several children with her. Raise them together in a pair bond. What happens is. When a woman behaves like a slut. Most men in her life see her as a #1 option only. To be a cum receptacle and that is it. If she is ok with that, then no problem. If that's all she wants, that is very easy to get for most women. BUT THE PROBLEM IS. A lot of women are led stray. They want #2 but behave in ways that will only attrac…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 12:44 AM
-32

Humans have been shaming each other to improve behavior since we were apes. The difference between slut shamers and vegans is that slut shaming has positive benefits and veganism has none. It's an issue of utility.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/25 12:42 AM
1

So the study proves that the male subjects were found to be affected by the salary number of the females presented. Yes. 1000 times less significantly. You're right. Still doesn't disprove my point in the slightest. Do you seriously, unironically think this? You think that your average dude out of the two option of 6/10 rich woman and a 6/10 janitor, would choose the later? The rich part wouldn't even matter. Guys don't weigh that as a selection point. Or at least 99.99% of us do not. I suppose …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 08:15 PM
1

This study doesn't compare the attractiveness of hot broke men and ugly high-earning men, it just looks at whether or not salary information would affect the average rating of attractiveness. As it should. Nobody is saying that some 6/10 millionaire is going to go to University of Florida and pull dimes the same way a 9/10 Chad would. That is not what they are saying. What they are saying is that a rich 6/10 will have much better mate selection than some 6/10 Janitor. That only happens with wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 07:05 PM
1

Blatant lie. Men overwhelmingly tend to choose partners with similar socio-economical standing, and women aren't more sexually attracted to an mid men with money, than to a good looking broke men. Just think about the CEO's wife fucking the pool boy. Have you ever been around men? The similar socio-economic thing has to do with proximity and how women are choosing. I assure you a man has no issue dating a sexy Wendy's worker. Her inability to bring in a paycheck WILL NOT DETER US ONE BIT. That's…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 06:32 PM
1

20 year old Danny Devito vs 42 year old Hanry Cavill. You might move the needle from 98% preferring Hanry to 97%. Basically no difference. The Red Pill actually has a very interesting way to differentiate sexual attraction between genders. Males: Select primarily on physical appearance. Females: Select on a combination of looks, money and status. So that does make it quite different. Because males could give a rats ass if you work at Wendy's or are a neuro surgeon. That's just not how our attrac…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 05:32 PM
1

Who is arguing otherwise? Even if you took a young Danny Devito and 42 year old Hanry you'd largely find the same result.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 04:56 PM
2

Yes of course. There's variance in everything. Doesn't mean it's learned. It could very much be an innate variance (nature not nurture). For example we know people find their own ethnicity more attractive than others. On average. So if you have a black woman she is more likely to find black men attractive. An Asian woman more likely to find Asian men attractive. There's definitely variance. What they are usually describing is agreeance. Meaning that most women will choose Henry Cavill over Danny…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 03:59 PM
2

Because that is not what they actually say. It's like asking you "well then why do you tell men that only billionaires are capable of procreating". When you've never said anything of the sort.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 03:50 PM
2

He owns SpaceX, Tesla and Twitter. That's just off the top of my head. He has others. It doesn't matter who put what together. HE OWNS THEM. He may have very well paid the people who created it. Guess what THE CREATORS GOD PAID. Which is good for the economy. It's the proper incentive structure that Soviet models were missing. Encourages others to invest and take risks.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 07:52 PM
2

Yep he would just hire new people. Workers are replaceable. Guys like Musk are unique and valuable. You can go to any corner of the planet and find able bodies to run a McDonalds. It takes brilliant people to actually put a McDonalds together when noone else had thought of it or worked out the details. That's the difference. We reward excellence and ingenuity. Not dumb repetitive labor that anyone can do.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 07:42 PM
2

Its one and the same. We allow people to own the means of production because it produces massive amounts of innovation in the economy. Public means of production was a miserable disaster in countries like USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea etc. If the means of production YOU OWN is producing goods and services. It's the equivalent of YOU producing those goods and services. That is just how the economy works and it has been extremely effective and efficient.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 07:35 PM
2

Objective reality tells us this. We don't have to guess. We can ask the market. So many people have bought his goods and services that he has become the richest man alive. That is a lot of people he served with his means of production. Nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to buy his shit. They did so voluntarily because whatever he was offering was better than the $ in their pockets.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 07:20 PM
2

Elon Musk the most productive human being ever is undesirable? No when I say undesirable I mean criminals and junkies. Not hyper productive individuals lol. If you weren't vetted that doesn't mean you're undesirable. It means you have a higher % likelyhood of being undesirable. That is all. Think of it this way 2% of vetted immigrants turn into criminal shitbags 10-15% of unvetted immigrants turn into criminal shitbags See why vetting is so important?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 07:15 PM
3

Yep. Precisely why I said "far more than Hungary and Poland". Because I am aware that those initiatives failed. I'm an immigrant in United States. But I am what we call a "vetted immigrant". When you vet your immigrants for high IQ and high work ethic. They turn out to be very productive individuals. The sort of migration we've seen in EU and the illegals in America are anything but vetted. So you get all sorts of undesirable types.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 06:39 PM
2

Yes our fertility rate is a result of 2 things 1) Access to contraceptives 2) Very poor incentive structures for families #2 is not what you think though. I am saying we should make it very beneficial for people to get married and have children in wedlock. Give tremendous tax breaks and all sorts of other perks to those individuals. Far more than what any EU nation is doing including Hungary and Poland. We should stop using immigration to plug these gaps. That is a "piss in your pants to keep yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 06:31 PM
2

Most EU nations have terrible fertility rates. Worse than US even. Despite the massive free shit they give to parents. If it was free shit alone. Then it wouldn't be that hard of an issue to fix.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 06:08 PM
2

Somewhere in EU?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 06:04 PM
1

No idea. Somewhere in UK?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 06:01 PM
2

so what country?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 05:50 PM
5

What is the fertility rate in your "civilized" country. Because the countries that offer the most assistance often have terrible fertility rates. Which country are you referring to? So believing that family is more important than doing TPS reports for your job is incorrect? You're going to be on the deathbed next to your children and grandchildren going "fuck you guys I wish I had done more TPS reports. I wish I had done some more work for that boss that cared oh so much about me.". Somehow I do…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 05:25 PM
4

Lol I'm a man. Don't worry I believe plenty of things that you would consider misogynistic. For example the primary goal of any woman should be to find a good husband and to have children. Career is secondary to that. And honestly career is secondary for a man as well. Family is also #1. Difference is career makes a man more attractive. Meanwhile career eats away at the fertile years for a woman and doesn't do anything to improve her attractiveness. A hot Wendy's worker is going to get more male…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 04:53 PM
1

You were talking about promiscuous man this and promiscuous man that. But it doesn't matter. Because he can still get what all the other guys want. That was the point I was trying to make.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 04:43 PM
4

Males being more prone to violence is a statement of fact.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 04:42 PM
0

None of that matters. Attraction is not a choice. Acting in it may be. A high value man is just a guy who can illicit involuntary attraction in a lot of women. Whether he has every std known to mankind or none is largely irrelevant. Simply because that is a personal choice and he could have chosen to be cleaner. But you don't choose to be born with attractive genes. Bonnie Blue is a gigantic outlier. One of the biggest in the history of mankind. Even most prostitutes don't fuck 1000 guys at once…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 04:02 PM
6

Depends how we define misogyny. A lot of obvious statements about the nature of males and females. The sexual dimorphism in our species. Is often misconstrued as misogyny.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 04:00 PM
5

The point is one message resonates and one doesn't. Who is more accurate is debatable. Maybe misogyny is just more congruent with the real world who knows. I was explaining what they were really doing and why Steve would rather listen to them.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 02:45 PM
15

Or better yet they RESONATE WITH STEVE. Meaning they say things the way he actually has experienced them. Instead of a bunch of useless rhetoric that doesn't agree with anything he has observed. Shit like "personality is what matters". That doesn't resonate at all. Some red pill Tate kind goes on the podcast and says "She likes athletic assholes you idiot". And he goes "yep that is exactly what I have observed".
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 02:22 PM
1

That's not how it works. Good luck trying to convince men not to want to have sex with vagina. It's like trying to convince children not to play with toys. You'd have to do some diabolical tyrannical shit to prevent men from being men.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 03:42 AM
1

Well not like there's many virgins around anyway. For the most part we don't care.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 03:37 AM
-1

I'm talking about the nature of humans. We are clearly very committed to reproduction. Otherwise this species would have died out a very long time ago. It is precisely what they SHOULD do. It's what almost everyone should do. Just because it's hard doesn't mean it was a bad idea. Going to the gym is hard. Learning how to socialize is hard. Learning new skills is hard. Making new friends is hard. Something being easy doesn't mean it's the right choice. It very often isn't. Your instincts are buil…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 03:37 AM
0

That's your definition. But that is not what we mean. Some 3/10 janitor who can hold himself in his pants and build a meaningful relationship. Is still sitting at home by himself. While that 9/10 who has ever std known to mankind is going out clubbing and taking random hotties home. It's not a fair game. Never was. That's just life.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 03:29 AM
-5

He's sort of right but he's framing it all kinds of wrong. I like the four tooth guy in Afghanistan. Why you hating on Ahmed? Anyway he's right that males have an innate preference for virgins. But not really virgins. Just women who are not openly promiscuous. For a simple reason. We evolved in a place where there was no DNA tests or anything of that nature. If the child is not a stone cold copy of you, you have no idea if you're not the father. If you're fucking and pairing up with a promiscuou…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 03:18 AM
0

I keep repeating myself. If he wasn't high value male he wouldn't be getting laid left and right. It's not like that for men. We don't just go to a night club and have endless hotties hitting on us. We have to do the hitting. If you do have hotties hitting on you... you're a high value male. That is it. That is what high value male means. That you have interest from a wide range of women. Whether you're promiscuous or not is irrelevant. We don't wear our lay count on our forehead. It's very easy…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 03:10 AM
-6

ok would you allow something to grow inside your body for 9 months? for a large sum of money? no? exactly. "you can hire nannies" as the solution here really just proves that you haven't actually considered all of the potential reasons women choose not to have kids. Of course I would. If I was a female that "something" is your fucking child. Billions of women do it for free. Let along for a billion dollars. I actually have considered the reasons. They are massively led astray by society. we have…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 02:49 AM
-2

The high value dude? Usually whatever he wants. They probably don't want "Christian girls". They want attractive girls. Them being a virgin would be a big plus. But it's not required. Only thing required is that they are physically appealing. And those are precisely the kind of guys that can actually get those girls.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 02:45 AM
-8

The thing is. Only a few men can actually get a lot of women. So when a man CAN DO it. That means he has other features that women respond to. Whether it's good looks, highly athletic, dominant, high status, lots of money, charisma, talented. whatever. A man who can do it has SOMETHING going for him. Meanwhile a woman... just opens her legs. Any woman can do that.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 02:33 AM
-16

Humans don’t pair bond like birds do though. Humans do pair bond though. That is what we call love. That is the basis for all boyfriend and girlfriend relationships. A promiscuous man is a man many women want. A promiscuous woman is a woman who doesn't know how to keep her legs closed. Any woman can get a ton of dick thrown at her unless she is utterly hideous. And hell even then they can usually get some.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 02:07 AM
-1

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Well I rest my case then :)
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 01:21 AM
-7

You guys are severely brainwashed. For a billion dollars you can hire endless nannies. You're not thinking rationally.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 01:18 AM
-1

What % of the planet centers their life, their culture and their infrastructure around bowling? Would our species stop existing if we stopped bowling? Do other species obsess about bowling? We're talking about nature here. How humans evolved. Our innate instincts and tendencies. Reproduction is innate. Bowling is just a form of entertainment. You can replace bowling with any number of other entertainment options. Reproduction is irreplaceable.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 01:11 AM
-3

The argument wasn't that it makes your life "stable". The argument was that human brains are wired to seek pair bonding and procreation. It may very well make your life a lot more hecktic. But what it does is give people a reason to get out of the morning. A reason to exist. Ask just about any depressed or anxious person what is at the core of their malfunctions. A high % will say "I don't feel a purpose". If you don't believe me try it yourself. It's not a very complicated 2 + 2. Historically a…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 12:59 AM
-2

The two concepts don't negate each other. That's like saying "If you want to have a more stable life stop using cocaine and heroin". And the answer is "well I know people who don't use cocaine and heroin who still have unstable lives". Technically true but missing the point lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 12:18 AM
-12

Well it's like some people say "I don't really want a lot of $". Is that actually true? Would they really be like "no thanks I don't want that billion dollars, you can have it". You certainly hear people say it a lot. But it's only half true. If humans weren't wired to want to have kids. At least a decent % of us. We would have went extinct a very long time ago. Human children are some of the most fragile on the entire planet. Wilderbeast children are running within a day of birth. Ours don't ev…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/25 11:35 PM
1

I've gotten banned from reddit 4 times now. This one will get banned in the next 1-3 months. Not that hard to get around but even here it's hard to speak the truth. God forbid I ever say any of this shit at work. I'd have to be a moron to say even a more watered down version of this stuff. The woke nazi army would crucify me in a matter of days. I'd be looking for a new job. So yeah... It's not allowed. We encourage people to spread bullshit. You can tell your children that women are the "nurtur…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/25 09:52 PM
1

That's a fair point. Allow me to elaborate. Our children are being taught idiotic bullshit about the sexual marketplace. Up is down and down is up. Women are not the nurturers. Men are not the providers and the protectors. Humans are not a pair bonding species. Both men and women are equally promiscuous. On and on. Just endless bullshit. This is a big problem. And it all stems from our inability to acknowledge nature. We can't say "yes some people are gay but its not normal". Because although th…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/25 09:04 PM
1

No it's actually very simple. We must encourage people to get married. We must encourage people to pair up. We must encourage people to seek procreation and marriage as the #1 goal in their life. We must do so through incentives not punishments. How can you do that if you normalize LGBT relationships? You at the very least have to say "they are a bit abnormal but just let them do whatever the fuck they want, it doesn't concern us". Because the modern woke approach is to say "no humans are not a …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/25 07:03 PM
1

You said "beat the shit out of us". That is very different from occasional controlled whoopings. SO maybe just semantics were off there.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/25 06:54 PM
2

Well we have prisons and technically it's just as easy to send you there. So basically a nothing burger. Not exactly a useful slippery slope. It's much easier to get rid of you. Allowing someone to exist and incentivizing good behavior is not the same thing. Humans are already pair bonding creatures. You don't have to work very hard at it. We try not to have high school kids pair up and have sex with each other. That's been working really well. You don't have to encourage people all that hard to…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/25 06:53 PM
1

Males and females have different sexuality. A male has to be fairly attractive or have some other traits going for him. To get unfettered access to sex. An average female simply needs to open her legs. And she can have all the dicks she can handle. BECAUSE we are different innately. We are different innately for a very simple reason. Females get pregnant and nurture the baby with their titties. So let's say a woman decides to act like a man. Open her legs anytime she gets the itch. What will hap…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/25 06:46 PM
1

When society encourage women to behave like men. Which is to say seek instant sexual gratification. How can you be surprised when these sort of pairings are significantly more common? The guy who can easily get girls is not likely to stick around to help raise the children or treat the women with any respect. But you're basically telling women to open their legs as often as possible because behaving like a useless slut is somehow liberating. Why are we shocked when the single motherhood rates sh…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/25 06:15 PM
1

You're forgetting genes. Some people just have a lower IQ. Some people have a much lower threshold for violent outbursts. Some people are far more impulsive. Some people are fucking lazy. Those are far more likely to engage in criminal behavior. And yes some people have been incentivized to behave like morons in their childhood. So they continue to behave like morons as adults.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/25 06:12 PM
1

Single dads are great parents when they choose to be; even though my dad beat the shit out of us we were raised with morals. Kind of uhhh contradicting yourself there.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/25 06:10 PM
2

We should absolutely bring back mental asylums. The homeless population would be significantly reduced. Some of those people might even get the help that they need. No we shouldn't exile people for not getting married and having kids. Some people can't even when they want to. We should strongly encourage it, normalize it and incentivize it.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/25 06:06 PM
1

Nope. I want to scale back on the denormalization. It should be set back to NORMAL. I don't have a problem with gay relationships. Long as we as society acknowledge that they are abnormal. Just like OCD and ADHD it's abnormal. But that's no reason to shit on those people.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/25 06:05 PM
1

Decisions anx behavior that are greatly affected by their upbringing and the socioeconomic factors they were raised in Sure. But for some reason a lot of people in identical situations don't turn to scummy behavior. We should thus incentivize good behavior. And punish bad behavior. Crime and violence, just like everything else, scales superlinearly with population. A small and impoverished community where everyone knows one another likely going to have less crime than a massive city where people…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/25 05:54 PM
-1

How does marriage magically make a bad parent good? Single parent homes produce much poorer results on average. You're anchoring on it being a bad parent. Most parents are average or good. “Im so glad my father can be in the household while he ignores me and wish I wasnt here!” Again you are anchoring on bad parents.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/25 03:08 PM
0

We need to normalize hetero relationships. Make it a golden standard. That is where LGBT plays in. They don't want that. No I don't think they should be coerced. They need to be told the truth. That this is the default and best setting for most people. If you're wired differently you do you. Yes you can tell people they are abnormal. I have OCD and ADHD. I am abnormal. It's a lot better for me to acknolwedge this truth then to make everyone else bend over backwards pretending otherwise.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/25 03:05 PM
4

Nobody is saying that. They are pointing out the collateral damage that comes from this sexual liberation trash. If you have a bunch of men raised without a male role model. Don't be surprised a higher % of them behave in unsavory ways. How do you fix it? Go back to highly encouraging pair bonding, marriage and raising children in wedlock. So that they grow up with a proper male and female role model. Which is how the human brain is supposed to develop. Stop with this LGBT and asexual pandering.…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/25 02:15 PM
1

The issue is not poverty. There is a correlation but the relationship is backwards. Not all poor people are criminals. But nearly all criminals are poor. Due to their own decisions and behavior. They behave in a way that makes them the least appealing demographic for employment, housing and generally to be around. So of course they are always going to be poor. Crime only pays short term. These are highly impulsive people who never make or stick to long term goals. There are many highly impoveris…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/25 02:04 PM
3

We don't have a whole pill system dedicated to figure out why people befriend each other. Maybe one day we will lol. The way our society is headed. But currently we don't. So most people don't even know any of that terminology nor do they even care.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 03:31 AM
4

Unless we ACTUALLY ASK SCIENCE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bond You have to be completely dismissing observed reality to pretend that humans do not pair bond. And that information is rather important if you seek to understand the human mating rituals and choosing patterns. If humans did not pair bond our behavior would be incredibly different in that regard. Males would not engage with their children. There would be no couples. Most children would be raised by single others (and by most I…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 03:18 AM
3

Well yeah people who are trying to get to the bottom of things tend to use scientific terms. After all science is also trying to figure shit out. Not exactly surprising. The whole selling shpiel of the red pill is basically "we only care about the truth". It should be used in casual speech a lot more. The fact that we are coy about this nature of humans causes a lot of problems.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 09:05 PM
0

To humans. Humans pair bond. Just like many other species. Just look at pretty much every city in any country. A large % of households is a mother and a father raising children. That's not a coincidence. It's also not a coincidence that many other species around the planet do the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 08:55 PM
-1

I never said such a thing. So not sure what's going on in their heads.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 08:54 PM
0

It's a scientifically accurate term. We can use a bunch of vague words that can mean anything. Like for example "love" which is extremely subjective and can include anything between a relationship between a parent and a child to the relationship between a pet and the owner. Or we can say "pair bonding" which is very specific to a male and a female raising children together that they biologically produced. I don't know why the modern generation is so scared of direct language. They would rather h…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 08:37 PM
3

To have reliable pussy. To pair bond with a female that you like. To have children. To raise children together. To have your own family that gives you a reason to wake up int he morning. You can understand the nature of the choosing mechanism. Acknowledge that you yourself have your own choosing mechanisms that would probably be deemed "unfair" if you were honest about the out loud. And make the best decisions with the best possible outcomes based on that information. That is the whole point of …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 08:21 PM
1

It's the same for both. You know it and I know it. The difference between the two is that the standards for a hook up are much lower. Both in terms of looks and what I'm willing to tolerate in terms of personality. The bottom line is... If she's not sufficiently attractive none of that matters.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 08:11 PM
6

If you ever hear a guy say he broke up with a woman because she was "too boring". That basically translates into "I got tired of fucking her". And yes that does happen from time to time. He probably didn't like her all that much to begin with though. Or she got really fat or something.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 07:41 PM
-1

Men simply don't care about personality. There is a primary question "Is she good looking?" (or at least sufficiently attractive in a lot of cases). If the answer is yes. We then ask "can we tolerate this person". Which in itself is usually a fairly low standard. THAT IS IT. We don't really care. We are not wired to care. Your career and your ambitions are as important as what color socks you wore on our first date. We probably didn't notice what color socks you wore and despite your repeated co…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 07:05 PM
1

You can use statistics. As usual people don't comprehend per capita. You have 1000s of interactions with human males. ANd maybe 1-2 or with a wild bear in your life. Most people have 0.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 12:28 PM
2

By that rationale you should never leave the house. Like literally never. Because the "adult male in the woods" level of danger is constantly present in society. Meanwhile the "bear in the woods" level of danger is almost never present. Which is why this is stupid.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/25 09:00 PM
2

No I choose the safer option. Which is by very far a human male. By very very very far. Women are saying that I will take the 1/1000 chance of the man trying to rape me over the 1/5 chance of getting mauled to death. That's the stupid part. You're trying to pretend that it's 100% of each.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/25 07:55 PM
3

It isn’t irrational for those who feel that way. That is exactly what we mean when we say "an argument devoid of logic and based entirely on feels and emotions". Yes I get for people who are not actually thinking about this rationally it may make sense. You would prefer to be raped (anally penetrated) by another strange man than death? There are plenty of men that would be very happy to speak with you if so. That is an incorrect framing. I've been around many many many men in my life. None of th…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/25 07:51 PM
5

The odds aren’t even a factor and maybe that is what men aren’t understanding when women say this phrase. Of course not. The whole thing is completely devoid of logic. You wouldn't be saying it if you actually thought about it for a second. It’s choosing which would they rather have as the worst end result. Women are saying they would rather experience a gruesome death by bear mauling than be sexually assaulted by a strange man. Death is chosen over being raped. And somehow men find this offensi…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/25 07:26 PM
10

Even then it's incredibly stupid. Your odds of getting raped by a random guy in the woods is much smaller than the odds of the bear deciding to kill you. Your odds of fighting off the male assailant are also much higher. It's just not logical or rational. It's pure emotion. This is the best example of how stupid emotional arguments really are.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/25 07:12 PM
7

Why would that matter? The crocodile will rip you apart in any pool. You've probably been in many pools with other men. I doubt you've been in a body of water with a salt water crocodile.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/25 06:59 PM
0

With any bear only a moron chooses a bear. They are all predators. Unless we're talking about a panda bear lol. Which I don't think they are. If a black bear enters a residential neighborhood. We call the police and the animal control people or the police themselves dispose of it. They will kill it if they have to. If you call the cops and complain about seeing a man YOU ARE THE NUTT THEY WILL THROW IN THE LOONEY BIN. Because men are in pretty much every neighborhood.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/25 06:48 PM
7

Oh brother. A bear is a predator. It is the apex predator in that environment. We are only apex predators due to technology and cooperation. You don't have a gun with you and you're on your own. You are basically at the mercy of the bear. Your only hope is that he is not hungry and just leaves you alone because for whatever reason the bear is not interested in you. You can't possibly defeat a bear in an altercation. Meanwhile as a woman both the likely hood of the man attacking you and your abil…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/25 06:43 PM
5

All you have to do is think about it this way. Would you rather be in a pool with a bunch of crocodiles or human males. If you choose the crocodiles. You're a dimwit. And yes people who complain about police brutality should be required to call one of those assholes who love to resist arrest anytime they get caught when they are in trouble. Since they don't respect or value the police officers who protect them for a living.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/25 06:28 PM
4

Yeah Ive been dota 2 sober since I got married lol Before that I had like 2000 hours. And its by far not my most played game.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/25 01:35 AM
4

The need for socialization is present in both adults and children. But it is very easy to satiate for adults. The loneliness epidemic is not about that. You can have a ton of friends and a fairly rich social life. If you come home to an empty house you're going to feel like there is a giant hole in your life. That is what it is really about. Children don't suffer from it because they are too young to pair bond and have children.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/25 12:54 AM
6

Yeah well that's like saying "they didn't need adult things when they were kids". Ahha but now they are adult and want and crave those things. It's a need. It's a psychological need. To pair bond with a female and produce offspring. You won't die without it like a physical need. But you will crave it. You will feel empty without it. And you don't develop it until you hit puberty.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/25 12:47 AM
7

The loneliness epidemic has to do with not pair bonding with a sexual partner. Most of these guys would be more than happy to click clack away on Counter Strike or Dota 2. That is all the socialization they need on that front. But our human brains are wired to seek pair bonding and to seek building a family. That is what they are missing. That is what it's all about. Nobody is blaming women. Women are having catastrophic rates of singledom as well. Just not as bad as men.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/25 12:31 AM
0

Stupid is as stupid does. This advice works for women who already have a ton of great options. Not so much for people who are limited in options. Same goes for men by the way. You should always pay for your date. And the woman should cook for her boyfriend. Because men are men and women are women. The roles that got curated for a 1000 years by observing human nature knew a lot of things that we decided to forget to our detriment.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/25 07:00 PM
1

Of course it does. You're less reliable. If we hire a 20 year old woman we know that 2 or 3 times in the next 10 years she will be gone for months on in. Not to mention distracted. With what I consider far more important stuff than work so it's totally understandable.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/25 05:21 PM
5

What ingenuity do you propose to make women not give birth? We already have baby formula but it is not nearly as good as mothers own milk. And pumping is bad for the womans health. The ideal is to breastfeed the baby with fresh milk. Just so you understand mothers own milk is tailored genetically to her child. Where's baby formula is a hodgepodge of things that most babies need.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/25 03:47 AM
3

Supply and demand. When women enter a field then the supply of viable workers nearly doubles. Of course the salaries will drop. The demand doesn't double.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/25 03:45 AM
8

The system didn't make mothers give birth or breast feed the babies. Nature did. Even if they gave the same amount of leave. It wouldn't change that fact. Daycare vouchers are probably 2-5 years away. The fertility crisis is too much of a problem for it not to happen. So I'm not necessarily against all that. Just pointing out that in reality mother nature is "systemically sexist". Economies are built on the realities on the ground not fantasies or utopian ideals.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/25 11:26 PM
7

"Systemic sexism" aka paying people based on their merit. If you have to take leave to have kids. You are simply less reliable Mother nature decided that it is the women that nurse the children and not the men. Having children is far more important than your fucking career anyway. But that's really only a small % of why women get paid less. Women typically get into much lower paying fields compared to men. They choose those fields that pay less. Or in some cases they can't do the high paying fie…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/25 10:55 PM
1

You do :) We live in the same world. Socialism is fantastic at getting naive idiots to vote for you. Not particularly effective as economic policy though.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/25 01:59 PM
2

But that's kind of irrelevant. The overarching point is that humans have a tremendous urge to pair bond and procreate. This is blatantly obvious if you look at any society on the planet. It is blatantly obvious if you simply observe humans particularly between the ages of 16 and 24. That is all they seem to think about. For obvious reasons that is the most fertile window for them.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/25 04:11 AM
2

The biological reason pair bonding happens in ANY species is for child rearing. Humans are by far not the only species that pair up in this manner.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/25 01:38 AM
2

Uhh yeah it does. What do you think the point of pair bonding is? To get two adult parents to take care of a child.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/25 12:04 AM
2

Human nature is to pair bond. All humans. Males just have a dual mating strategy. Either to pair bond or just fuck fuck fuck. No in reality the reason fertility rates were much better despite horrific costs was a lack of contraceptives. People fucked just as much as they do now. But way more sex turned into pregnancies. Yeah it's so much better to slave away at some office doing TPS reports. Versus raising your children. True freedom is found in commuting to an office and being around a bunch of…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 11:22 PM
3

Male nature is to reproduce. I think that is readily apparent. Bad parenting happens for sure. A large % of the population are generally shit at everything. So not surprising. We had way more kids when child rearing costs were astronomical. So that doesn't really compute. The traditional gender roles were far better suited for reproduction and family orientation.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 10:12 PM
5

That one is even worse. Never had children != Didn't want children At least the previous one was people saying that they didn't want children. Which I find very dubious. Like I said it's like some guy who sucks at basketball saying "well I never wanted to play in the NBA anyway". Not very reassuring.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 09:54 PM
5

Ahh yes. "I never wanted money anyway" says the guy who's been working at Wendy's his whole life. What people say and what they do are very different things. If human beings were genetically built to have 30-50% of their population opt out of child rearing. We would have gone extinct a very long time ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 09:08 PM
1

You get wayyyyyyyyyy more poonani in a realationship. There is no point to leaving the house for that.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 08:00 PM
3

Yes outliers exist. No doubt about that.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 04:48 PM
3

Humans do pretty much every activity to survive. Reproduction is a critical part of survival. So yeah it tracks.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 04:05 PM
0

I don't believe that for a second. Hardcore bullying is rare nowadays. Humiliated by women is exactly what I am describing so you are low key agreeing with me there. And yes we are all "dumb animals". The quicker you realize that the more the world around you starts to make sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 02:01 PM
6

They are more than happy to live life in their house. That's kind of the point. Naturally extraverted people typically don't have these problems. Introverts have no interest in socializing in person. But they are more than willing if there is an incentive for them to do so. Vagina being one of the most powerful incentives known to man.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 01:59 PM
9

Who said it has to be casual sex? They could be looking for a lifetime partner. Both parties benefit from that. In fact most average guys are under no illusion that women want casual sex from them. They know a relationship is the best they can hope for and are in most cases perfectly fine with that.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 05:02 AM
9

Yeah, because its desperation. Way too many guys are focusing on getting sex when they barely are able to make friends. They don't need to leave the house to make friends. They make most of their friends playing games. They do need to leave the house to find vagege. It's extremely scarce in those spaces. Because their priorities suck. Most people are not interested in being around a dude who thinks about vagina 24/7. That’s a guy who sounds like he has a lot of mental health issues. They are jus…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 04:07 AM
1

I was watching what they do. They were all single and I was asking them "you know you can get 50 matches in the next 2 hours on Tinder why don't you just use that". Because most of her friends are above average or good looking.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 04:01 AM
1

When I started dating my now wife. I was coming off a black pill thing. So I literally would ask her females friends this stuff. They all said the same thing about online dating "I get a ton of matches but most guys are total creeps or fucking weirdos". I'm not really disputing a lot of what you're saying. There are definitely guys that will stick their dick into anything. Which is why even 2s and 3s get matches on online dating. But there is context involved.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 03:43 AM
1

How do you even know it's not a representative of the dating world? Because I've done both online dating and regular dating. Those are very different environments. Online dating only works for top men. Real dating works a lot better for average folks. Since most humans are actually average. First one the 20% stats come from okcupid that at the time had a rate of 1 per 2, second the rates of tinder are 0.6% vs 10% of women. Since you're incapable of doing basic math: in order for it to make sense…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 03:31 AM
1

No Tinder is not very representative of the real world. It's representative of an environment where there are 5 dicks for every vagina. Of course only 20% of men will find anything in an environment like that. It's simply supply and demand. There is a ton of dick and not a whole lot of pussy. You can't make any judgement call about the rest of the world on this very specific and imbalanced environment.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 03:14 AM
23

There's a huge disconnect between reality and common narrative. What's the advice you get "don't leave the house simply looking for pussy" "don't go to social events with the sole purpose of finding a woman". On and on. The problem is... That translates to NEVER LEAVING THE HOUSE. Because without that drive a lot of guys are more than content to click clack away on Call of Duty or Dota 2 or whatever. They don't need to leave the house to have their mind filled with shit to do. Obviously not all …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 02:49 AM
2

What does Tinder have to do with anything. Tinder is a god awful sausage fest. For very obvious reasons. Human females simply don't select the way the males do (on average). Precisely why they find far less utility in apps like Tinder.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 02:44 AM
2

Where did you get that number from? I imagine it varies wildly from guy to guy. A Chad hitting on fat chicks will pull damn near 100%. An ugly dweeb hitting on 10s will strike out 1000 times in a row. You get the idea.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 02:17 AM
0

You develop people skills that way. That goes A LONG WAY towards finding a mate. Even if you strike out literally 100% of the time. Which I don't know how bad you'd have to be to do that. Or just shooting so far ahead of your league or something every time without having the awareness to adjust your expectations.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 01:37 AM
7

The vast majority of cases people are just too nervous to do it. Humans put an enormous value on their sexual prowess. A woman telling you no after a cold approach feels like a judgement against your value "You are not worthy of reproduction". Even though it obviously doesn't mean that. She may have a boyfriend or be gay or whatever. It doesn't matter. That is how our brain perceives it. We evolved in small tribes where getting shot down was very impactful. So a lot of guys are simply too scared…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 12:20 AM
0

Maybe you're asexual? The average human is deeply obsessed with sexuality and pair bonding. Just look around. Look at our art and media. But yes some people are not.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/25 09:23 PM
3

Pair bonding. Males deeply care about pair bonding. You're right that translates into thinking about pussy and tits. Because that is what attracts us to the opposite sex. But it's pair bonding. ANd the purpose of pair bonding is child rearing. So it's all the same.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/25 08:44 PM
4

No it wouldn't. It would be the same sausage fest it is now. I don't see why hookers would make any difference whatsoever in dating apps.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/25 07:49 PM
5

uhhhh. But they don't want a harem of women who only have sex with them for $. They want a harem of women who belong to them. That is very different. I think you guys are completely glossing over the psychological factors involved with procreation. Its not just busting a nutt. That is very easy. Your hand can take care of that.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/25 07:40 PM
0

How long has that been the case? In my experience you can drown yourself in video games and netflix for years. But eventually you are reminded just how empty your life really is.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/25 07:39 PM
3

Yes but prostitution alone wouldn't solve the problem. The drive is to pair bond and reproduce. Not to just to nutt in a rubber sock. If that was the case masturbation and porn would easily satiate it. You have to have a sense of purpose, acceptance and desirability. You don't get any of that from a dirty hooker. I agree that the Democrats could use yet another ploy to try to get more voters. Like they do with socialist bullshit. But at some point they are going to have to stand for more than de…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/25 07:13 PM
-2

Almost as if humans treating sex as very special and having a bunch of instinctual reactions to it is innate to humans. Who would have thought. You have to remember that sex being consequence free. Or at least to the degree we have now is a VERY VERY recent thing. If you were a woman in the 1700s. You let some dude fill up your vagina. That can end up in a pregnancy. That one night of fun sticks with your forever. Long after he hauled ass. Not to mention our medicine was very abysmal by todays s…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/25 01:24 PM
1

Genetics evolves much slower than technology. We've only had guns for a couple of 100 years. And for the vast majority of the time they were not accessible to women. They've only been openly accessible (at least in US) for maybe 30-40 years. That is absolutely nothing in terms of genetics. You want our brain wiring to be completely reworked after just 2-3 measly generations? It takes a hell of a lot longer then that. For 99.9% of human history the man was by very far the most dominant force in t…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/25 11:33 PM
2

If your goal is to become a billionaire. Your only hope is luck. If your goal is to become a middle class person in America. As long as your IQ is above 90 it's actually pretty easy. Just don't make too many mistakes and apply yourself. When we talk about finding a sufficient partner. It's more akin to reaching the middle class. Most people can do it. Some people are born with deficiencies like those with low IQ or high aggression or some shit. It's hard for them to keep a job. But most people a…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/25 11:18 PM
7

Men just generally don't give a shit one way or another. She's either hot or she's not. Her social aptitude is about as important as what color socks she wears on Tuesdays. We hardly notice it.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/25 11:16 PM
2

In my experience the selection styles are quite different. Even when a man considers other things. Look work as a primary filter. So even if he cares about career or whatever else. If she don't meet his looks threshold. It's bye bye. Women not necessarily. Most guys wouldn't meet a womans threshold for "I am interested in him right away". But that doesn't mean she will never like him. Just a differences in how the brains of our sexes work.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/25 10:00 PM
–

Why are you purple pill? You seem more red pill that anything. (aka I agree with everything you said) Do you think most red pillers can't admit that it's really their standards to blame? And a follow up question is what are you supposed to do about that? It's not like you can force yourself to be attracted to people you don't find attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/25 12:57 PM
–

They are talking about "ideal partner". Who doesn't want their IDEAL partner to be good looking? I don't know if that is really framed properly. I am probably not my wives ideal partner and she was not mine. But we are both very happy in our relationship. Ideal options are hardly worth chasing. You likely need several lifetimes to actually find it. If you even can because chances are your perceived ideal mate is potentially out of your league.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/25 12:46 PM
–

Every time you see a slew of lay offs. Those are always the first to go. It's not like the execs are total idiots. They know those jobs provide little to no value. But as long as the profits are good they are willing to tolerate a little loss from that trash. As soon as the profits dries up so do those cushy useless jobs.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/25 12:40 PM
–

We don't know what the girls look like. Maybe you have very low standards. Guys like that can fuck endless women. Because they pluck from a pool of people who are desperate. We don't know what YOU look like. A lot of people have no idea how attractive or unattractive they are. Most guys can date SOME women. The one's that struggle typically have standards that they themselves can not reach. If you're a 5/10 and you're more than happy fucking 2s and 3s. You're not going to struggle nearly as much…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/25 12:26 PM
3

Because they would get nowhere approaching Chads for long term relationships. The same exact thing happens to men. We initially approach the 10s. When we figure out those are not interested we try the 9s and so on. Until we find what actually responds to us. Women approaching would run into the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/25 12:15 PM
4

That is completely wrong. Women who are into short term they tend to think more like men. And value looks over everything. Long term it tends to be a mixture of things.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/25 12:14 PM
5

I disagree. I think you guys are forgetting that how women choose short term partners is quite different from how they choose long term partners. If they were only approaching dudes for casual sex. Yeah it would just be another tinder or night club where only the Chads get the action. But for long term relationships the dynamic is very different. They would approach guys closer to their looksmatch. And generally speaking. The REASON men can APPROACH is because looks is largely the only thing we …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/25 04:01 AM
–

Yes and we do that with our eyes. It doesn't take us long to figure out if we want to be with a woman or not. If she shows up to the date and starts telling you about her boogar collection or her 5 baby daddies who are in prison. Maybe you reconsider. But at that point you should already be paying. Because all you're doing by not paying is making yourself look worse. Also if you can't afford a $30-40 date you need a better job :)
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/25 08:44 PM
–

Its human nature for the male to be the provider and to be evaluated for their ability to provide. So all you're doing by being stingy is needlessly making yourself look uglier. It's literally akin to a woman refusing to brush her teeth and arriving to the date with wretched breath. And her response is "I refuse to brush my teeth until he proves <insert some stupidity here>". That's not going to help her find a quality partner in the slightest.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/25 08:30 PM
–

Looks, Money and status Personality is such a vague term it can literally mean anything. Health is an obvious one, you need a capable partner. Humor is a sign of intelligence which is a sign of a good provider. Yes women associate money with sexual interest. It's been proven over and over and over and over in endless amounts of studies. It doesn't quite work the same way as it does for men. We either want you or not. But what money does is make you more likely to be selected.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/25 08:23 PM
–

Males: select primarily on physical appearance Females: select on a combination of looks, money and status. Only the top looking men can attract women with looks alone. I keep having to repeat myself. If you're not already good looking you need to do what you gotta do to maximize your potential. AF/BB is retarded nonsense. Males are the ones with dual mating strategy not women. A woman who is wired to try to hoodwink any male she gets with is not going to have a higher chance of passing on her s…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/25 08:22 PM
–

Males: select primarily on physical appearance Females: select on a combination of looks, money and status. Only the top looking men can attract women with looks alone. Chances are they are not out there trying to figure out strategies that works. It's irrelevant to them. So in most cases if you need advice focusing on all 3 is the best advice. Poor social skills is a sign of poor social status. Which is why so many socially inept men have terrible luck with women.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/25 08:20 PM
–

Nonsense. It's just human nature. All that "beta male construct" garbage is completely useless in the real world. If you were born an alpha make you wouldn't need any stupid rules. If you weren't then no amount of self defeating principles are going to turn you into that.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/25 08:19 PM
-1

I think that's silly. You as a man are being evaluated for your ability and willingness to provide. At the innate level in the female brain. It would be like suggesting to women not to brush their teeth or do their hair for a date. Unless the man has already "proven" themselves. You're pointlessly shooting yourself in the foot.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/25 07:02 PM
5

Do people ever spend money when there is not something in it for them? You do realize that humans derive pleasure from helping others. We are wired this way. We are social species. That is ingrained in us.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/25 07:01 PM
–

Only in Western nations. Techies are very valued in many other parts of the world.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/25 09:08 PM
–

No idea. It can't hurt.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/25 09:07 PM
–

Those stats are kind of dubious. 50% of people didn't make it to 5. But obviously anyone who was born had a mother. So you're kind of working with a weird pool. Right off the bat 50% of men will not reproduce. I bet they don't mention that fact. Then you add in the wars, starvation, disease and regular incel types. And that is how you arrive at those figures.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/25 07:28 PM
–

That doesn't sound reasonable. Why would nature make attraction elicit this way? If most women were not interested in most men sexually. Our species would have went extinct. So what you're saying is highly implausible. What is more likely is that a small % of men can make a woman lose her shit the way an average man can lose his shit for an attractive female. On looks alone. Now that is far more plausible and likely.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/25 05:25 PM
–

Those hot girls (which are 9s) are only wanting to get with him for the money, he’s better off spending it on sex workers for a cheaper price and better experience, objectively. Depends. In America yeah I agree. In other countries he may pair bond with some 9 and live a life of luxury sexually. Not to mention have a bunch of very attractive children thanks to her genes. I agree with everything else you said.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/25 04:16 PM
–

Noone is looking for an "egalitarian relationship". The way you are describing. Every human is looking for the best option possible. If some 6/10 guy wins 1 billion dollars in a lottery. He's not going to be like "ok let me go find a nice wholesome 6/10". Homie is going to be fucking 10s. Everyone behaves the same way. HOWEVER. We also have this thing called pair bonding. Which is called "love" in layman terms. That is how come someone as rich as Zuckerberg can have a very vanilla wife. Because …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/25 03:41 PM
–

What I mean by that is. If we oversimplify how females and males select partners. And by that I mean "find partners enticing". Male: Almost entirely based on physical attraction Female: Combination of money, status and looks. This is a very important difference between the sexes. On average of course. Some women select just like guys and vice versa. The thing about Western nations is that the average guy has the same money/status as the average girl. So it's value is very deflated relative to lo…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/25 03:31 PM
–

They are both human nature. That kind of the point
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/25 03:24 PM
–

Not true. Did you even read what I wrote? Most average guys have SOME WOMEN that find them physically attractive. It may only be 1-10% of the female population. Money helps them find those women. They are really attracted to them.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/25 03:22 PM
–

The tricky part here is that most men are average looking. Which means they will be attractive to SOME women. What money does is amplify you tremendously. If there is 100 women out of 1000 that find you physically attractive. If you have money or status a large % will chase you. Without money very few will chase you. It's most useful to average looking dudes. Good looking guys don't need it. Ugly guys get very marginal benefits out of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/25 01:14 PM
–

Go travel to some underdeveloped nations. You'll see how massively effective it is right away. And before some idiots chimes in "they just like you for the money". That is the same as some fat friend telling her hot cheerleader friend that "he only likes you because you are pretty". NO SHIT. You are more than likely hitting on women with similar money and status. Which renders your money and status completely moot. You're basically down to looks and charisma at that point. And us technie nerds a…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/25 12:39 PM
0

There aren't many drives as strong as the urge to pair up and reproduce. The reason it's not happening is because the whole "woman effective worker" thing is a VERY VERY new phenomenon. For 99.99% of human history by far the most utilitarian thing a woman could do was take care of the kids. But now that the jobs are more brain oriented. A woman surgeon can produce 200 times more than a male fast food worker. So economically it would be very dumb to force women out of the workforce. But it's also…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/25 05:54 PM
0

Not at all. Humans are wired to want to procreate and pair bond. You don't have to enslave anyone. We are already slaves to our biology. We have to properly structure societies incentive structures to make people WANT to pair up at all costs. Which includes both subsidies and good ol peer pressure.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/25 05:17 PM
0

The best way to get ANYONE whether woman or man paid is to have competition FOR LABOR. Meaning there is less workers to go around than companies want to hire. So they have no choice but to impress the workers. The government gets in the way of that. We want less government involvement if we want people to get paid better. That is what I meant. It doesn't necessarily relate to dating directly. The cave man providing/protecting is baked into our brains. Even women with PhDs and who finish Med Scho…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/25 03:40 PM
0

Not at all. Corporations pay as little as they can to everyone. For the longest it was "the wage gap" where supposedly it was women making less. Even though that was horseshit. Corporations have no choice but to pay when there is enough demand for labor. We need the government to get the fuck out of the economy for that to happen. But anyway I don't share your gloomy outlook. Humans are highly adaptable. This whole living in safe well fed concrete jungles with Netflix and video games to keep us …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/25 04:13 AM
9

its just pair bonding. Sometimes its strong. Sometimes its fragile. Sometimes its all encompassing. Sometimes its very situational. Humans pair bond for the same reason we form deep attachments with our children. It's all the same thing. Chemicals in our brain that encourage us to spread our seed, pair up and take care of our young.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/25 04:06 AM
1

Only in Western nations. It's alive and well in many others. And hopefully will come back full force in the West too. We're not completely retarded. We'll figure out how much this all sucks sooner or later.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/25 04:04 AM
2

When you recognize what love is. Just a layman term for "pair bonding". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bond When you consider why we and so many other species pair bond. All this becomes quite elementary my dear Watson. Males don't get pregnant. We don't require support after we've given birth or prior when we are super vulnerable. We are not wired to need this level of support because we are less likely to need it. Of course there is a ton of variance. Some women fill the provider role just…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/25 04:00 AM
–

I assure you the average guy has no earthly interest in wifing a dirty hooker. I'm amazed that people think otherwise. What planet are you living on?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/25 03:35 PM
1

Everyones only value is populating the earth. That is the only true biological function. It's the only purpose humans really have. That is how we are wired. You can pretend otherwise. But you'd be wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 10:52 PM
1

I really don't give a shit. But why do you think that would be innate? Seeing those men as losers? I suppose that can be true to some degree.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 10:46 PM
2

uhhhh I don't spend too much time thinking about or associating with hookers. So I don't do that with them either. Society as a whole is pretty harsh on hookers. For the aforementioned reasons.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/25 11:06 PM
-1

So anyone who does something that makes you not want to date them is making a bad decision because they don’t get to date you? Or how do you mean that? Not just me. The average guy has no worldly interest in marrying or having children with a hooker. It's fairly universal. Only total losers would be willing to tolerate that baggage.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/25 10:54 PM
-1

I explained it in a further message. This is normal human behavior. We judge, bully, talk down people when they are making a bad decision. This is an effective way to prevent people from repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot. It is somewhat innate. When we see a hooker our instant reaction is "ewwww". We find it disgusting. Because a person like that makes a very bad long term partner. She would make a horrific mother. People talking shit about them both men and women alike is simple social…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/25 10:48 PM
3

I never cheated on my wife. The hottest chick on the planet could walk into my room right now naked and horny. Tell me that my wife will never find out and I'll know it to be true. I would still not touch that bitch. So maybe that comment is meant for someone else.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/25 10:36 PM
3

You asked why. I'm explaining EXACTLY why it happens. Obviously the hookers have no interest in having a relationship with the men they fuck for $. Humans have been using societal pressure to get people to behave in a way that is most utilitarian since the dawn of time. That woman who is currently a hooker. She may be a useless robot right now. But one day she may want a family. This is society telling her "If you want to have a family one day stop immediately what you're doing". This is why it …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/25 10:31 PM
-1

Uhhh because dickie like pussy. Why else? When we "look down" on them. We're basically saying "all you're good for is sex, we wouldn't be caught dead in a relationship with you". It's a social signal for women not to engage in this disgusting behavior if you ever want to have a husband and a family.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/25 10:16 PM
4

I have experienced it. It's a hell of a lot easier to manage unwanted attention then to want attention and get none.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/25 01:06 PM
3

Rich people problems for most of us. If they had to live as an invisible human (like most of us) for a little while. They'd probably stop feeling bad about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/25 12:25 PM
12

More than likely the crazy women are good looking. And it's the good looking part that attracts them not the crazy part. Them being good looking forces men to want to deal with the craziness. So it's not like they have a fetish for crazy women. I mean I'm sure some men do. But for the most part it's just a "I'm willing to deal with her craziness as long as she is hot". The trick to remember looks are by very far the most important metric. The better looking you are the more we will tolerate.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/25 12:34 PM
–

I prefer to use pair bond. It more accurately describes what is happening. Refer back to the OP question. I was describing in scientific terms why we find our mates more attractive than regular people. It is necessary to keep people together producing more children and taking care of the ones they have. There is some science behind the idea that women and even men who have more sexual partners. Have a harder time pair bonding. But it's far from a consensus. And certainly anyone with social circl…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/25 07:27 PM
–

You genuinely believe that? I remember as a child I was taught that humans were the only species that murdered each other. Come to find out when I got older that was complete bullshit. Many other species kill each other. Particularly when fighting over mates or territory. Nobody has to teach us to love. Even if nobody ever told you anything about it. Chances are the second you saw your child you would be absolutely enamored with it. Because it is instinctual behavior. The same instinctual behavi…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/25 07:18 PM
–

So what? The human ape clearly falls in love and pair bonds. Other monkeys pair bond as well. We don't need to do an in depth scientific study to figure out if humans get attached to their sexual partner or not. You just need 2 functioning brain cells.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/25 07:12 PM
–

Why? You think humans are not animals? You think we don't have animal instincts? When we're discussing sexuality this is very important. A lot of our behavior is instinctual when it comes to sex. We don't decide who is attractive to us. We don't decide when we pair bond with someone aka fall in love. It just happens. And it happens instinctually. To pretend that it's all magic fairy dust is not a very practical or useful approach.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/25 05:20 PM
–

Translation: I prefer to pretend like love is some special magical juice. Instead of admitting that it's just hormones that were wired in me from day one using genetic code. So I'll just talk shit because I have nothing else to add.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/25 04:32 PM
–

What on earth do you think love is? Do you think its some magic juice given to us by fairy gods? It's just animal instincts. We fall in love because it is a way to get a mother and a father to raise children together. AKA pair bonding. Love = pair bonding Humans are animals. We have animal instincts just like every other animal. Don't let the fact that we are much smarter than any other animal fool you into believing otherwise. We are just very intelligent apes.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/25 04:23 PM
–

That is what pair bonding is. Love is just a non scientific term for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/25 04:16 PM
–

We absolutely do. What the hell do you think love is? It's just pair bonding. Sometimes it lasts a lifetime, sometimes many years, sometimes a few weeks. Sometimes mere days. Nothing about pair bonding implies it has to be for a lifetime. It exists to raise children together. And unless you've never been outside, never observed other humans and dont know anything about the human world. You know that we do just that. We pair bond and raise children together.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/25 04:16 PM
–

I learned something interesting from my wifes pregnancy. When I met her she was in great shape. Very attractive. As she got more and more pregnant. She gained a lot of weight. Just like a large % of women do. Very few women stay in shape all the way through pregnancy. I still enjoyed having sex with her. Despite the fact that ordinarily I have 0 attraction towards overweight women. It just didn't matter to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bond Humans are pair bonding species. Once you've p…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/25 03:11 PM
32

Uhhh because they are good looking? When a man tells you what they like. You have to remember that the "are they good looking" trumps it all by a gigantic margin. I might say "I don't want my woman to be crazy". But as soon as she is sufficiently good looking I am willing to tolerate plenty of craziness. Because ultimately the good looking is a far more important metric. That is just how the human male brain works.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 05:37 PM
3

Propaganda? The military is literally a cheat code to the middle class. The second you join. You are middle class. When you consider how much free shit you get while in the military. You get a free education with the GI Bill. If you picked a decent MOS there will be a ton of decent paying jobs available for you when you get out. On top of that since we left Afghanistan and Iraq you're not getting deployed to some shithole for months. It's more like a regular job. A very difficult regular job. Bu…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 03:40 PM
–

Yes absolutely. They are 100% more desperate and don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise. The amount of attention fat women get is 10 times less than their in shape counter parts. They may still get more attention than an average guy. But that is only because fit skinny attractive women get an enormous amount of it. There are some legit chubby chasers. Men who ACTUALLY find women like that attractive. But they are quite rare. Most guys who fuck fat women do so in spite of the fact that they wou…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 03:26 PM
–

You gotta remember 2 things 1) Women typically don't hit on guys. So that doesn't necessarily mean that those are your only options. 2) If your only options are fat women. That means your value as a mate is probably lower than you imagine.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/25 03:24 PM
2

Everything you're saying is what I'm saying. It's not the age that they like. It's the money and status. They would much prefer it to be a guy their age. That just typically is not the case. Me and you dont disagree at all here. The way I like to explain it to guys who never experienced attraction to someone for their money or status (because that literally never happens to most dudes). Is that attraction to money and status is similar to attraction to tits and asses. You still want the girl to …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 06:04 PM
3

Unfortunately, for men, sex is seen as proof that they are good enough to be in society. A sort of stamp of approval. Is it fair for women? Obviously not, you may be interacting with men who are desperately trying to get in your pants not because of lust, but because they need your approval that they are good enough for this world. The obvious play for you ladies is to have nothing to do with it. A sad state of affairs that we have collectively conflated what women find sexually desirable with w…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 05:57 PM
1

The reason age gap relationships are less stable is because people getting into relationships that late in the game tend to be damaged goods on average.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 05:47 PM
2

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381730315X So how do you explain actual scientific studies that look at this. If objective reality and simple observation is not enough. How do you explain science? That says the same exact thing. That the productive capacity of a male is far more important in their dating world than vice versa. If you roll back the years to the middle ages, you will discover that men were very concerned with how much money a woman brought into a marri…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 05:41 PM
1

I've never dated a man who makes more than me, explain that? I have no idea how old you are. What you do for a living. How good looking you are. How good looking your partners have been. What they do for a living etc etc etc. If you're some obese lawyer who makes $200,000 a year. Chances are any guy who makes more than $200,000 a year ain't looking your way. Just an example of how contextual clues are important. Also I like men with fat asses and stubble and crooked teeth, does that also correla…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 05:35 PM
1

I like men who have the same sense of humour, are intelligent, are interested in the same things. Ok since you totally lack introspection (very common for females) Intelligence aka IQ is highly correlated with earning capacity. In fact nothing is as predictive of future earning potential quite like intelligence. humor = a sign of intelligence. So congrats. You're choosing men on prehistoric signs of provider capacity. Just like I said.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 05:29 PM
1

I select men based on looks and personality and I'm an outlier? You made it sound like it was entirely looks. Personality banter is just "money and status" in disguise. As I already explained. It's interesting that you think being a gold digger is somehow more moral than having genuine attraction but hey, whatever helps you I guess. Science simply disagrees with you. There are endless studies on male and female selection that point out that the resourcefulness of a male is a far bigger priority …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 04:31 PM
1

Yes I married a Ukrainian woman. We have 2 kids together. If I listened to people like you. I'd still be single. In fact I largely attribute my years of loneliness to the fact that I believed exactly what you are preaching right now. You're not exactly lying. I 100% believe that this is HOW YOU SELECT men. But you're setting guys up for failure by telling them that all women think and behave this way. Scientific studies show that you are an outlier (and thank god for that).
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 04:12 PM
2

And I disagree. I used to believe all this stuff to. Then I lived in Kyiv for 2 years. Saw so many Ogre + beauty couples. Realized that a lot of them are perfectly happy. Have children together. Have built a good home together. That this point of view is very reductive and more importantly simply inaccurate. I agree that SOME women behave exactly in the manner you are describing. That physical appearance is the top priority for them just like men. But those aren't the type of women guys like tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 04:03 PM
1

Are you going to pretend like no women do that? The truth is we typically date those around us and most long term relationships start in college.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 03:44 PM
0

Right exactly. Where you have a bigger divide between money and status. Women are far more likely to select on money and status. Precisely what I am describing. Like I said before. You can't select on money and status if everyone around you is the same money and status as you. If you're going to attract a woman with money or status. You need to have a lot more than her. Otherwise it's a wash with a 1000 other Joes and you're not going to stand out it any meaningful way.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 03:39 PM
2

How often do college aged women interact with men much older than her who have much more $? It's funny women (maybe not you) swear up and down that it's not just about looks. But as soon as you start to drill it down and say "yeah you're right its also money and status". Suddenly it's all about looks again :) Though to be fair I don't know where you sit in that debate. When women say "we care about personality". In most cases it really means "we care about his standing in the social hierarchy or…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 03:36 PM
2

Because relationships aren't usually seen as a way to economically advance for men. For a large part of human history, marrying a rich older man was one of the only ways women could move up in the hierarchy. Age gap marriages are much more likely to end in divorce. Yes. A lot longer than you realize. It's probably been the case for 1000s if not millions of years (even predates humans). Precisely why males and females evolved to value those things differently innately. You really think prehistori…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 03:25 PM
1

25 year old woman dating a 35-40 year old man is very common in many parts of the world. Particularly Eastern Europe. Where the dating market reflects human nature a lot better than the abomination we have in the West.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 03:22 PM
3

Then why do men not give a shit? Why do men honestly rank a 5/10 as a 5/10 regardless if she works at Wendy's or is a surgeon. We're not brain dead we understand the benefits of dating a surgeon versus a fry cook. That's the basic argument. This is just a difference in male and female wiring. Males are the go getters. We are the providers. We don't need a woman to take care of us. We don't get pregnant. We don't get bogged down nursing the child. We can abandon the child much easier. This is why…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 03:07 PM
0

Ahha. But that is why they compared men and women. They show a 5/10 to a group of guys. Whether she makes $10,000 a year or $100,000 a year makes no difference to them they still rate her as 5/10. They do the same thing with women. The women are 1000 times more likely to rank a guy who makes more $ as more attractive. If what you're saying was true. There shouldn't be a difference. But there is a difference and it is enormous.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 03:01 PM
2

Not all women obviously. But enough to where this is a very viable approach for most guys. Read the study. They did blind ranking tests. Women were found to be ONE THOUSAND TIMES more responsive to salary information. In other words men don't seem to give a rats ass but women do. Which is perfectly in line with what we observe in the wild anecdotally.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 02:45 PM
1

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381730315X Yeah that's the lie that society sells. Problem is there is this thing called human nature. Younger women are attracted to older men with money and status the same way guys are attracted to women with nice tits and asses. Obviously this doesn't work that well if the man is in his 60s. But it works just fine if the age difference is only 10-15 years.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/25 02:40 PM
3

Red Pill is a concoction of many different theories and ideas. How could you possibly refute them all in one swipe. That sounds like total nonsense.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/25 07:56 PM
2

Well what happens if suddenly wife leaves you and takes kids ? Drugs again ? Nah I still have to help take care of them. Maybe u have just replaced one drug with another ( Also btw don't take it personally, we are just having a discussion ) Agreed. One that is significantly healthier. Cheating contradicts it, if a person is married and already procreating and has kids why would he cheat ? Which means people want more than procreation... Let's say you have 2 good looking guys in the prehistoric w…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/25 02:51 PM
2

A little common sense goes a long way.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/25 02:31 PM
1

I thought I already did when I said that I haven't drank or done drugs since my first kid was born. I am immensely better off mental health wise than I was when I was single. It's practically my entire message. "If you don't want to be miserable get married and have kids". What do you mean? How does cheating contradict my assertion that all animals on the planet fundamentally exist to procreate? Cheating happens for all sorts of reasons. None of them touch on this notion. So I'm not really sure …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/25 02:20 PM
1

I'm here to guide the young ones. There are billions of people who are married and in relationships. Of course a % of them will be unhappy. There is literally no other purpose beyond reproduction. None.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/25 05:07 AM
1

Im married with 2 kids. I havent drank or done drugs since my first kid was born. Im shpeaking from exshperience here. And no humans don't have a "higher purpose". We are just like all the other animals. Our only goal is to survive long enough to reproduce. Then do our best to make sure our offspring survive to reproduce. On and on. This is why so many humans are utterly obsessed with sex and love. We had to be this way to survive as a species. Nothing will give you a purpose in life quite like …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/25 04:40 AM
1

Utter nonsense. Humans are wired to seek procreation and pair bonding. You're never going to feel fully satisfied with your life without that. Unless you're asexual or something. Or just wired differently from everyone else (an outlier). Otherwise this is terrible advice that only leads to misery.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/25 04:19 AM
1

Same thang. If you're going to play the game. Go balls to the wall. Do your damnest. Being a shitty simp is not playing the game well. But if you do get a quality woman and she is interested. You do what you gotta do.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/25 04:02 AM
8

You should always be the best version of yourself. Obviously that doesn't mean you should miserably simp for any piece of ass that looks your way.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/25 02:20 AM
40

That's like saying you should be lazy as fuck. Because some people are born with natural talent and earn millions without any serious work ethic. Like some uber talented athlete or something. That is a recipe for terrible performance and terrible outcomes. You should do your best at everything. Whether that's economics or looking for a partner. Yes some people just got natural talent. But you don't have to compete with them.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/25 01:23 AM
1

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381730315X Ok here's a fun one. Women were found to be ONE THOUSAND TIMES more responsive to salary information when grading random pictures of men. Meaning most men could give 2 shits. While a lot of women tended to rate the guys who had higher salaries higher. Which supports the red pill view that Males select primarily on physical appearance. Females select on a combination of looks, money and status.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/25 09:52 PM
1

Such as?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/25 08:45 PM
3

Ultimately it deals with utility and pragmatism. In my experience red pill tends to be the most effective and pragmatic approaches. Get in shape. Make more $. Learn to be effective in social situations. etc etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/25 08:22 PM
2

Nope that is what the red pill aims to be. Whether it accomplishes that or not largely depends on the flavor of red pill and who the information is coming from. Some red pillers are total looneys who are completely out of touch. But that tends to be the case with any group of humans.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/25 08:14 PM
3

Impossible to tell without knowing the full context. The red pill is primarily concerned with being scientifically accurate. Even if it is rude or unpopular. But whether that information is helpful in a troubled relationship is impossible to know without details.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/25 08:02 PM
2

Lots of tats can sometimes be a sign of sexual trauma. She is purposely making herself look uglier. Perhaps even subconsciously. Because sexual attention has traumatized her in the past. Lots of male friends... The problem is a large % of men can't be friend with women without wanting to fuck them. So that's just something you gotta deal with. She may be oblivious to it or just doesn't care. Alcohol and piercings are pretty common. But it also depends on age and context. Did you meet her in coll…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/25 12:35 AM
16

Imagine being a decent looking guy who can get with any meh or fat woman he wants. But can never have pretty girls. Because none of the pretty girls are interested. That is the life of an average woman. They have all the shit options in the world. But finding decent options is very difficult. On top of that. A lot of Chads are more than happy to pump and dump them. And our sexual liberalization trash has convinced women it's a good idea to get pumped and dumped by Chad. Which totally fucks up th…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/25 01:53 AM
2

Yes they would. Even more so than women in fact. Because at the end of the day a man enjoys casual sex a lot more than a woman. But they would undoubtedly start to fall for those girls just like the women do. If a relationship is what they crave. The complaints would be quite different because at the end of the day most males enjoy being "used" this way. But people would still complain.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/25 07:29 PM
12

What exactly do you expect them to do? Women need to learn that attractive men are far more open to casual sex with uglier people than vice versa. This used to be common sense and common knowledge. But somehow has been become taboo to say in our politically correct world. Because the idea that men and women are different sexually is a big no no to utter outloud. But yeah if you don't know any better. Of course you'll go for the best option available. Everyone does that. Men and women alike. If s…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/25 04:44 PM
10

Thats just like a guy saying "They told me not to worry about social skills" "They told me not to lose weight and get in shape" "They told me not to worry about having a quality career" "They told me not to be an interesting person" Well I did all those things anyway and found a partner I am satisfied with. Making his lunch. Doing his laundry. That's just what women are supposed to do in a traditional household and it is very attractive to a lot of guys. Just like being in shape and having a goo…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/25 03:51 PM
1

Depends what kind of bar you're talking about. I was referring to a typically 18+ or even 21+ late night venue. Underage people sneak into those all the damn time. But how the fuck do you expect an average guy to know if the bouncer didn't know any better. If you snuck into one of those places. You're just as guilty if not more guilty of whatever shitshow you create.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/25 01:04 PM
1

Unwanted attention is predation? That's a very strange definition of that word. A crocodile doesn't stare you to death. It fucking rips you apart. Well if they are hitting on her that implies consent. Because she has to want to do it. The fuck is an underage girl doing at a bar anyway. What does she think is going to happen? She is just as guilty for being there in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/25 12:39 PM
1

Tom, dick and jo They are often not very picky about who they stick their dick into. Precisely because they don't have to biologically be stuck with the baby. It's very hard to survive without support with in infant. That is why they need a partner and a tribe. Human females are incredibly vulnerable during child birth and about 2-3 months after. The children need constant supervision for about the first 2 years. You really need assistance at that point. So while Tom Dick and Jo can just fuck an…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/25 12:44 AM
11

Human females are slightly different from human males. Females evolved to care more about what the rest of the tribe thinks about their potential partner. They are more "hive minded" in a sense. This is for evolutionary reasons. Females get pregnant. They have to nurse the child. It's very hard to survive without the tribe. So they are far more concerned with the opinion of the tribe including their mate selection. They are less interested in casual sex for the same reason. Because having a dedi…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/25 08:29 PM
7

Male virgins past a certain age are failures. That is just a fact. Unless they are implicitly staying virgins for religious or other reasons. Which is fairly rare nowadays. Now whether women will lose interest upon learning that you are a virgin. Not in my experience. I was a virgin at 19 and there was a ton of women wanting to "teach you how it's done boy". Didn't really seem to deter them all that much. So that much we agree with.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/25 07:58 PM
1

A sexual predator doesn't engage in consensual sex. That's what makes them a predator. Redpill men are almost exclusively concerned with consensual sex. So no that doesn't apply at all. Even in that frame.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/25 06:33 PM
1

I assure you my $20,000 made no difference in her decision :) Homegirl was bringing home $200,000 a year. She worked at Tootsies in Miami. Look it up a rather famous place. Plus and you'll never guess. I may have arrived at this conclusion AFTER THE FACT.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/25 01:00 AM
1

I am indeed a hypocrite. A hypocrite in a sense that I am a former drug addict and if anyone ever asks me for advice on whether they should consume opiates. I can give them a pretty convincing argument on why they shouldn't. Far better than what most school teachers and counselors ever could because I actually lived it. But yeah sure I'm a hypocrite. Why not. What I'm saying is still 100% true. Prostitution is a horrible profession and we should do everything to prevent women from engaging in it…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/25 12:45 AM
1

You ever hear of an ad-hominem? :) You're basically conceding that you are incapable of arguing on the merits of the actual arguments. And have thus resorted to simply slinging verbal poo at the person making the argument. Like a kindergartener.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/25 12:36 AM
1

Having spent $20,000 on it gives me a significant edge in terms of understanding the profession. Most people have no fucking clue about it. I also spent 5 years working in the porn biz. So I saw a lot of that hell as well. I'm not arguing I'm a saint. I'm arguing that the profession is horrific and we should do everything we can to convince women not to engage in it. Whether it's porn and especially prostitution. What I did or didn't do is completely irrelevant in that frame. I'm not trying to m…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 11:58 PM
1

But then again this is why hookers have like a 700% increased chance of getting murdered by men. It has a lot more to do with the nature of the profession. They also have horrific rates of drug abuse, depression, suicide, and just about another other horrific metric. That's precisely why we should ward people off from engaging in it. It's a fucking mariana trench. Do you understand why? First of all it's illegal. So you're always interacting with criminals. Every john you serve is a fucking crim…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 11:47 PM
2

There's politically correct talk. And then there is reality. Do you think the average person views hookers as anything but degenerative trash? We do that for a reason. It's a horrific job. We want to ward off as many females as we can away from it. The more you normalize it the more people will engage in it. And that is just not good. So yeah from a pragmatic point of view. That is the correct stance.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 11:06 PM
1

lol. Nope. They are just hookers. The humanity has been wiped off the face of the earth by years of degenerative behavior.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 10:35 PM
1

Yes precisely. Profit is a way to hack the otherwise self serving human ape brain into helping others. You don't rely on fleeting altruism. You rely on good old self serving nature of humans. Which is significantly more effective. If not, those people suffer and die. But they don't. A hyper productive capitalist economy is WAY BETTER at taking care of the unfortunate ones. Than a low producing piece of shit socialist economy. You think it was good to be a minority or disabled in USSR? If everyon…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 08:19 PM
3

I had several ONS. Those were in different stages of my life. When I was paying the hooker I was not having one night stands. When I was having one night stands I had absolutely no interest in hookers.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 07:58 PM
3

Did you read what I wrote? I dropped $20,000 on a hooker. I'm married now. But yeah clearly I enjoyed it to a degree. Just not comparable to having sex with real women.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 07:54 PM
3

Yes. But the difference between a real girl and a hooker is much bigger than the difference between a club girl and a dating app girl.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 07:50 PM
2

Yep. If you can pull that off. Dating apps are rough for average dudes.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 07:43 PM
4

Not even fucking close. Like I said I spent $20,000 on a single hooker. (This was over a 5 year period I'd visit her 3-4 times a year and drop about a $1000 on her every time). And I've also had some one night stands. NOT EVEN CLOSE. The one night stands actually want to fuck you. They'll let you forget the condom. They'll milk your dick. They'll ride or let you pump any way you want to. You can do it several times. They are often down to do it again (contrary to your example). Even a high quali…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 07:39 PM
6

you they just might be horny and need someone that time ahha.... that means they want to be with you... at least in that moment lol. whether the "sex is better" is very arbitrary. I've had sex with hookers and lovers. The quality is night and day for me. The hookers are always quite robotic. The hooker doesn't think you're attractive lol. It's their job to pretend that they think you are. I was friends with the girl I spent like $20,000 on. Well "friends" in a sense that we spent a lot of time t…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 07:34 PM
6

Then it changes things a bit. If you're good looking (or rich or charming or whatever) and you can actually pull off repeatedly taking home 6.5/10s. That is way better than paying for hookers. The overall quality of the experience is just miles better. You're with someone who actually wants to be there and enjoys pleasing you. At best with a hooker you're getting a woman who is good at pretending. Problem is you know they are full of shit, and they know that you know.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 07:27 PM
19

Unless you want an actual relationship. Then the girl from the massage parlor is completely useless. Not to mention the STDs, the potential legal problems, the pimps, the dirty nature of the whole thing. It's mostly shit. Fun for a few times. But ultimately gets old very quickly and leaves you feeling just as empty as you were before in most cases.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 07:24 PM
1

The problem with anchoring on altruism and wealth redistribution is that you destroy what makes humans so exceptional in the first place. Capitalism is by far the most capable of taking care of the disabled and the unfortunate who got hit by a bus or whatever. Because it produces so fucking much. They have a ton left over for people like that. When you anchor on mediocrity. On taking away from the productive and giving to the unproductive. When your entire incentive structure is "be as mediocre …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 07:02 PM
5

Because of the framing. Often people will say stuff like "looks don't matter its all about personality". That is a very common phrase. That is akin to "talent and genes don't matter anyone can make it into the NBA". Yes I agree there is plenty of average looking dudes with high social status or $ who do very well. And that is also important to point out to people.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 05:59 PM
2

Sure I don't disagree. What's your point?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 05:44 PM
5

You don't even have to remove social skills from looks, money and status. Your social skills is closely tied to your social status. If you're a very submissive male. That signals to a woman "this guy is going to be the bitch of the group". That is not a good long term partner. Because anytime someone wants to take your resources he won't do shit about it. A person like that will have a hard time rising among the tribe. Which is the sort of environment our ancestors evolved in and so did our sexu…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 05:15 PM
1

It's interesting I asked ChatGPT to evaluate my statement and it too used the word "fatalistic". hehehehe I'm not accusing you of being a bot btw. If you are a bot you're a very well masked one lol. This is what chatgpt said “You are who you are” — that’s somewhat fatalistic. Personality isn’t fixed; it’s just sticky. Studies show people’s Big Five traits shift modestly over decades or with deliberate effort (e.g., practicing extraversion behaviors can raise measured extraversion). and fair enou…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 05:11 PM
3

In reality you CAN. It's just extremely difficult and not really worthwhile advice. For instance you stick an average guy into the police department and have him work the beat for 5-10 years. I assure you he will come out significantly more socially dominant than he was where he began. His personality would have really changed as has his behavior. He may have some PTSD to boot and some aggressive tendencies that he never had before. But for the average guy struggling with dating. It's pretty use…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 05:00 PM
15

I never said you needed to be 0.01% of males to get casual sex. That is observably not true. I was just describing how the difference between some things is effort and the difference between other is just innate ability. The problem I find with all this personality talk is that it incorrectly implies that you can overcome structural boundaries. Similar to how someone would tell a 5 foot 6 unathletic guy that if you just practice enough you too can make it to the NBA. He can spend the next 10 yea…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 04:56 PM
4

I don't see it that way. Take for example how defensive or aggressive someone is. I mean sure that shows up through their actions. You can't completely remove behavior from the equation. But certain people just have very different temperaments. And in fact in many cases when some guy prone to aggressive outbursts attempts to quell it they often fail. That is just who they are. When I think of personality. I think more about these innate quirks about you as a person. Not even necessarily innate i…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 04:44 PM
0

I think you're completely wrong. I actually agree that altruism and empathy are terrible modes to build an economy on. Which is why socialism is always such a miserable failure. But that doesn't really apply when we're talking about friends giving advice to each other. In most cases they are looking out for you and would prefer you would have a good outcome. The real reason they often give shit advice is because they themselves have been given shit advice for a very long time. Or sometimes they …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 04:35 PM
8

Oh I'm a big pull yourself up by the bootstraps believer. So it's not like I disagree with you. Both in terms of economics and dating. If you're struggling. Unless you're mentally or physically handicapped. You can probably do a lot to improve your situation.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 03:44 PM
18

Changing your behavior doesn't mean you changed your personality. You're still the same person with different habbits. Refusing to learn social skills is a choice. What tends to happen is that they have been misled so badly by so many people about the true nature of dating. That by the time someone tells them to work on their people skills. They think its just another one of the 1000s of useless piece of shit advices they have gotten. Even though that one is very on point. Especially since it's …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 03:26 PM
40

The best way to describe it is this. There are 20,000 males that were born with the genetics to be NBA players. They have the size, the speed, the reflexes, the coordination, the hand to eye accuracy. But only 500 of them are actually playing in the NBA. The other 19,500 are doing something else probably making way less money. What's the difference between the 500 and the 19500? In most cases it is luck and work ethic. Luck you can't control but work ethic you can. SO anytime you hear an NBA pla…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 03:13 PM
2

Oh brother. The OP referenced being on a diet. I was describing why it is completely different from being on a diet.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 02:22 PM
2

No they are just human males. A predator kills their prey. We're just trying to fuck them. And in a lot of cases turn them into wives. Which benefits them as much as it does us. Very different dynamic.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/25 02:22 PM
56

A) We get a dopamine hit looking at attractive women. B) We get an even bigger dopamine hit interacting or even dancing with attractive women C) A small chance of success is better than 0% They are not on a diet. More like the tasty meal only lets you eat once in a very blue moon. But you'd readily eat it when you can. On a diet you have a ton of access to tasty food but you force yourself not to eat it. Very different.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 10:37 PM
1

Due to proximity. I never said it was the most common pairing. I said it was a viable one. Far more viable then say 55 year old with a 22 year old.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 07:54 PM
1

That doesn't discount what I am saying. Just because the average age gap is 2-3 years. Doesn't mean that 35 to 24 year old gap is not likely or feasible. Fact is a 35 year old is far less likely to interact with a 24 year old. Than that 24 year old is likely to interact with some 25 year old dude. Especially if they are still in college or both working some entry level position. Also a lot of people are already married by the time they reach 35. Lots of reasons why the average age gap may be jus…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 07:34 PM
2

No I totally agree with you. That's why I said "interesting one" :)
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 06:05 PM
5

interesting one.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 06:01 PM
1

Having more workers = more productive economy more productive economy = more competition FOR labor more competition FOR labor = better wages and better working conditions You want a productive economy. What matters is how much you produce. Not how much people spend. Any idiot can spend. We can teach monkeys in the zoo to spend. What you're producing is what matters. Not your ability to buy a hotdog. And the more you're producing the more stuff you have floating around that people can get their h…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 05:30 PM
1

Do you always take everything literally? They paint it as something other than WE ARE PREVENTING OUR OWN COMPETITION FROM FORMING. It can be anything. It always sounds plausible. It may even have some marginal utility. Do you understand how regulatory capture happens?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 03:39 PM
1

Right. That's how the NIMBYs always frame it. To try to make it sound like their intent is something other than "make sure the homes we own don't fall in prices". That is regulatory capture 101. Nobody goes "we want to make sure we pass laws that prevent competition from forming". Of course not. They say "we want to save the whales, snails, quails". Cause that framing actually sells.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 03:35 PM
1

Read the thing. They have very little zoning restrictions. Which is typically the NIMBY approach to preventing housing supply. Less supply = Higher price You want more and cheaper housing. DEREGULATE IT.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 03:20 PM
1

https://reason.org/commentary/houstons-housing-success-a-model-for-cities/ Deregulated doesn't mean no regulations. It means they have fewer regulations. Houston is the closest to a natural experiment on loose zoning regulations in the United States. This city has no traditional zoning or comprehensive planning, though the employment of deed restrictions on individual land parcels and neighborhoods is permitted (in addition to other workarounds). Deed restrictions, which often apply to neighborh…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 03:17 PM
1

Yes, people understand economics. So why is a 2 bedroom house in Houston 250K and 1 million in Brooklyn. With all the same amenities? Too many working women? Too many regulations in Brooklyn. Houston is actually a model of deregulation. One that we should all follow. Now obviously Brooklyn is New York. So you have kind of a land constraint there as well. But it's mostly Houston allowing the Free Market to solve problems. Where's New York tries to have the government solve the problem. The Free M…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 03:10 PM
1

Most people my age and younger world trade excessive availability to gadgetry if it meant easier access to homeownership. But people who matter (those who vote) disagree. They'd rather constrict housing supply and make the houses they already own more expensive. This is a government regulation issue. What do you mean "its too financialized"? You're not going to produce less housing by making it MORE ATTRACTIVE for developers to build houses. Which is what financial incentives provide. We've made…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 03:07 PM
1

The infrastructure required to have plumbing, electricity, internet, roads, etc. Is very expensive. Yes if you could build boxes with nothing they would be hella cheaper. But no building code would ever allow that and really for good reason it's totally unnecessary. Because most people understand economics. It's produced from productive economies that have both males and females working. Of course it won't be affordable on one income.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 03:04 PM
1

If you were allowed to build houses without AC, plumbing or electricity. They would be way more affordable. You can rent a piece of shit like that for $100 a month. Healthcare in the past was "pray to god because we don't actually have medicine". Again if you were willing to do that. You could easily afford it on one income. If you want modern luxuries like modern medicine and modern housing. Yeah you're going to have 2 people working. It's a shit balance if your country is literally facing a ex…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 02:50 PM
1

1) even in lower tier jobs. If you're thinking about promotions. Leaving to take care of kids once every 2-3 years is going to be detrimental. So instead of having 5-6 kids like we used to. We have 1-2. Which obviously has a huge impact on fetility. 2) Mostly because we expect modern luxuries. If you were willing to live like our ancestors. With no AC, Electricity, internet, phones, microwaves. Then you could easily afford it all on one income. But yes if you want all the modern luxuries that ar…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 02:38 PM
–

18% based on what? How are they figuring in the improvements in technology? If a smart phone in 1990 would cost $1,000,000 and now it costs $1000. How are they figuring in the 1000x deflation in their metrics? *hint hint* they are not. They are pretending it doesn't matter. I’d rather want the ability to afford a house than some stupid consumer gadgets, whose deflationary price is derived from questionable labor practices somewhere in Asia. Then your beef is with NIMBY regulations. Not the econo…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 02:31 PM
1

Women working makes them want to have less kids. 1) If you're a professional woman. Every time you have a kid you're putting your career on hold. That can be detrimental to people in higher leagues. 2) Taking care of kids is WAY HARDER when you're working as a woman. For both the mother and the father. 3) If you're focused on career you're less focused on having children. 4) Women who work attain money and status. They are much harder to attract this way. (people allude to this all the time in t…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 02:24 PM
1

Yes I agree. They have a lot of kids because they don't have access to contraceptives. Nor do their women typically work the way ours do. But it's more contraceptives than anything else. It's not like Europeans fuck less, they just use condoms a lot more. And because of modern medicine. A lot more survive. Which is why since the 1960s African population has went from 400 million to 1.4 billion. They are still reproducing as if half of their kids are dying by 5. But in reality most are surviving …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 02:15 PM
2

Wage growth has not been negative. That is a socialist lie. They only posit this because they completely ignore the technological improvements in quality of all of our products. How much did a smart phone cost in the 1970s? How about a modern car? How about a PC or a playstation? How about <insert any number of consumer goods that either didn't exist or were utter trash in the 1970s>? Of course they hyper focus on housing. Because due to NIMBY regulation housing is a fucking mess. That's about t…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 02:10 PM
3

Fertility issues arise from the cost of living going up so much in developed nations that the people in them decide to only have the kids they can afford. And with the healthcare and resources they can. And yet miserable shitholes with standards of living 10 times worse don't have those problems? lol. Come on now. If the issue was standards of living. All those African nations would have terrible fertility rates. You really think they can "afford" them? And so then a decline in the population ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 02:08 PM
1

We tried that with Afghanistan. We did a very similar thing to India conquest. Except we were much less barbaric. They actually GENUINELY tried to bring Democratic Western institutions to the country. The problem was the Afghans themselves. They viewed all that shit as foreign and were resistant to those ideas. That is why the thieves were never checked. In fact most people just worked with the thieves. When I say thieves I mean politicians who took the $ the US gave that was supposed to improve…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 01:58 PM
0

How do you know they were spent inefficiently? The biggest problem was the Afghans themselves just embezzled the $. They had no intent of ever controlling their own corruption levels and we couldn't do it for them because we couldn't audit every fucking thing under the sun. Fertility issues in Europe and countries like South Korea are down right catastrophic. Europe tried to fix things by bringing in Migrants. But they are way too different from the locals. THey cause way too many problems. So n…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 01:53 PM
2

I never said that women going to work is a radical notion. Me showing that fertility issues ARISE from women going to work is viewed as a radical notion by you. Even though it's a very well accepted theory by now. The question is what do you do about it? I described precisely why you can't just take women out of the workforce. Because they produce way too much. You'd be throwing the baby out with the bath water if you did that. But of course reading and comprehension those are difficult tasks. I…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 01:46 PM
-3

This is nonsense. The world is not too full. We need more people. Particularly Europeans. We tried to fix Afghanistan. Trillions of dollars later we figured out it was a fucking waste. Either they themselves develop a proper economy and culture. Or they will be living in the dark ages forever. We can't do it for them. Less people = BADDDDDDDDDDDD There's nothing good about shrinking populations. In every which way imaginable. Less productivity, less innovation, more poverty, more suffering. It's…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 01:42 PM
5

Replacement theory proposes that this is intentional. I don't think this is intentional. This is just what happens when women go to work and we have access to contraceptives. Nobody is purposely replacing whites with immigrants. It's just an easy way to solve the fertility crisis. You've been trained to see everything as some radical notion. That is not good.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 01:39 PM
1

The countries with high fertility rates are miserably poor shitholes. But not because they have a lot of kids. Because their countries are way behind technologically. They lack access to contraceptives. And women often still fill the classic role. Which is why they often have 5-6 kids just like our ancestors did. Having lots of kids FOR A DEVELOPED NATION. Is very good. Because we have very productive economies. We turn those kids into productive individuals who are an asset to our economy. That…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 01:35 PM
–

Too many RPers here outright claim that female participation in the economy is ruinous to society. This is actually a very interesting point. On the one hand. Having women in the economy SIGNIFICANTLY boosts an economy. For instance one woman surgeon can easily out produce 200 male fast food workers. So in terms of economic value. If you don't use women you are massively missing out. That is why even super muslim shitholes are now loosening restrictions. Because it's simply the most pragmatic th…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 01:20 PM
-1

Why do you think evolution suddenly stopped like 10,000 years ago? Never said it did. But evolutionary changes are very slow. We're still pretty much the same apes we were 10,000 years ago. Very minor differences. Environment has changed A LOT MORE. LMAO, you really don't have a clue how female sexuality works do you? Bless you I actually laughed out loud. I'm not surprised to hear you say that. I'm so sorry to be the one to tell you this but using a man for money or a green card isn't even remo…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 01:11 PM
2

Status is your standing on the social hierarchy. It's actually quite fluid and dynamic. This is because we are tribal animals and men with high status were typically very capable providers. A lot of times when women say "he is so confident" what they are actually saying is "he displays traits of someone high on the social hierarchy". This is why Passport Bro works so well. Just being a Westerner gives you a huge leg up in the status department. It's a social class thing. Our modern social classe…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 12:55 PM
1

You gotta remember sex and partnerships are all about child rearing. That is why sex and pair bonding exists in the first place. The problem for a 55 year old man is that they are showing signs of aging. That is not good in terms of fertility. So yes any 55 year old man who is specifically going for 22 year old women. Is going to struggle mightily. Males: Select primarily based on physical appearance. Females: Select on a combination of looks, money and status. Your looks are severely degraded w…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 12:03 PM
12

As someone said on a podcast once. "Women caring about personality doesn't necessarily mean they want someone with a good personality". In other words. When they say "I am attracted to personality". They could very well mean "I am attracted to socially dominant arrogant bullies who are willing to insult people and use violence to demand respect". But the real reason you shouldn't focus on personality is because. You're not going to change it anyway. A lot of it is innate. You're not going to tur…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 07:42 PM
1

Attraction is not logical or voluntary. Whether you get with the person. That decision is voluntary and can be done using logic.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 07:33 PM
1

A Chad is just a good looking guy (or rich or high status or something along those lines). Yes those tend to fuck around and produce a lot of bastards. That's in their fucking nature (all males nature, they are just the ones capable of it).
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 07:18 PM
1

Why not? Every Chad I have ever known has eventually settled down with one of their baby mamas. Not always the first baby mama. Why wouldn't promiscuous women do the same thing? Someone needs to raise all those bastards.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 07:03 PM
-5

I was responding to the dude above who doesn't believe pair bonds are a thing. Wasn't really commenting on the whole "women who sleep around a lot turn into shitty wives". That may or may not have merit. But pair bonding is definitely a thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 06:56 PM
0

Not at all. It's an important foundation of our mating habbits. You have to understand this foundation to build any meaningful understanding of why humans select their partners the way they do.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 06:37 PM
1

The one who wants to fuck around is far more likely to be unsatisfied. Remember these are innate tendencies. Men who NEEEED a lot of sexual variety are far more likely to feel trapped in a realtionship as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 06:36 PM
1

You think women never cheat? And if so. Which woman is more likely to cheat? The one who likes fucking around when single or the one who always wants to have just one partner? It's simple logic. The woman who wants to fuck around when she is single is far more prone to want to fuck around when she is in a relationship. And since women often have an abundance of willing casual sexual partners. The one who actually enjoys it has to fight a lot harder to prevent herself from doing it.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 05:28 PM
1

So what position of mine does this relate to? That's the part you are missing. Are you saying you don't believe in pair bonding? You've railed a lot about Rollo. But I don't even know how what Rollo says is even relevant to anything I said lol. You haven't drawn that paralel. For instance you said "that oranges make your pecker stand up better than Viagra". That is exactly what Rollo said. If both me and Rollo happened to say the same exact bullshit line. That would be mighty conspicuos. So what…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 05:15 PM
0

That sounds like like looney talk :)
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 05:09 PM
1

So what exactly do you disagree with? What exact position? You said I'm quoting Rollo.. I don't know what the fuck the guy said. I genuinely don't. Englighten me. Maybe I don't even agree with that position. Rollo's big point was "if you act a certain way all women will like you". I think that is utter bullshit.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 05:08 PM
2

What explanation? That humans pair bond to facilitate child rearing? Sounds like Rollo was just quoting a science book. If Adolf Hitler said "2+2=4" does that mean we should pretend it is actually 5 because we don't like the guy?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 05:05 PM
2

Women who enjoy casual sex? Which kind?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 05:04 PM
0

Pair bonding is just people catching feelings for each other. Why do you think humans "fall in love"? The answer is exceedingly obvious. It's so that we raise children together. This is obviously the case. Unless you never went to high school and have had 0 relationships. You've experienced it as well. Or at least observed others catching feelings for each other.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 05:01 PM
3

What exactly am I quoting? My initial argument was that pair bonding is a thing with humans. Sounds like you agree.... So why this "rollo this rollo that". Rollo ain't got shit to do with any of this.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 05:00 PM
4

Rollo did not discover pair bonding. Animal species have been pair bonding since long before Rollo. Scientists have also observed this phenomenon long before he ever said anything about it. He doesn't own the term or the idea in the slightest. I'm not like die hard red pill. I mark myself red pill because I tend to agree with more of their shit than others. I agree with some blue pill stuff and some black pill stuff as well. I'm not like some strict idealogue. Pair bonding is just biology. It's …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 04:53 PM
0

Yes. Males have a dual mating strategy 1) Fuck fuck fuck. Invest in one or none. 2) Invest only in one That doesn't really dispute the fact that humans do pair bond. Even the guys that do a lot of #1. Eventually catch feelings.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 04:47 PM
3

I agree. There's no reason to believe that. What I actually think is happening is that some women enjoy casual sex a lot more than others. From an innate position. Meaning they are born that way. And THOSE WOMEN. Don't make very good long term partners. Because they constantly want to cheat. So its not like sleeping around is making their ability to pair bond worse. They were bad at it to begin with.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 04:43 PM
3

I don't give a flying fuck about Rollo. I only know about him because people whine about him. Never read any of his shit. Humans pair bond. This is critical information in understanding human sexuality. If you're missing that part you can't possibly hope to understand what is going on. Many other species pair bond. Our sexual selection is based on pair bonding. Pair bonding is how you get self serving greedy selfish adults. To sacrifice for each other and the children. If we didn't have this ins…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 04:38 PM
2

Yeah that I don't know about. It could also not mean what they think it does. Women are not all the same. Some enjoy causal sex. A lot don't. It may simply mean that women who enjoy casual sex don't make very good long term partners. Because they often cheat. And it was never that she engaged in it but more so she was just wired that way from the get go.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 04:33 PM
-5

Because human males have dual mating strategy (NOT FEMALES but males do) 1) Fuck fuck fuck. Invest in one or none. Leave the rest to their devices. 2) Invest in one and only one. Sire several children with her. They try to teach men to think in terms of #1. Because those guys tend to be the most attractive. Most men can't even pull off #1. Because you need a lot of looks or money or status or charm or SOMETHING to make you appealing to a lot of women. If you can pull off #1 then #2 becomes much …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 04:31 PM
2

It's just an emotional attachment towards a lover. It can last a day, a week, a month, a year, a lifetime. Doesn't matter. Many other animals just fuck and move on. They don't have any attachment towards their mating partners. Humans are clearly not like that. So yes humans do pair bond. If you use the ACTUAL DEFINITION. And not the straw man people argue against.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 04:29 PM
4

It's a very simple scientific term. Do humans get emotionally attached to their lovers? Yes? They pair bond. That is what pair bonding means. There are many other species that don't pair bond. They just fuck and move on. No attachment whatsoever. In those species the mother typically does all the child rearing. The father is not involved.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 04:27 PM
-1

That's not what pair bonding means. All it means is that you develop an emotional attachment towards your sexual partner. It can last a day, a week, a year, a lifetime. Doesn't matter. There are many other species that develop ZERO attachment to their sexual partner. They just fuck and move on. The same way we just move on from our bartender or waiter or barber or some shit. You'd have to be living under a fucking rock to believe humans don't develop emotional attachments towards their lovers. S…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 04:25 PM
2

It really just means She was younger She was prettier She gave him sex without any major strings attached I don't think they mean "she did anal with him but won't do it with me" when they are saying that.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 04:23 PM
-8

Or a human. Or many other mammal species that pair bond. But yeah besides that. We should just pretend like other animals don't exist and that humans are not animals. Because it makes us feel better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bond
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 04:20 PM
1

You gotta remember a few things 1) We've made a ton of scientific advances. So we as a species indeed know a lot more and can confidently say that people in the past were indeed wrong about a lot of things. For example they may have thought that our sexual nature was due to demons or other supernatural entities. We know it's just biology. 2) The vast majority of the population could not read or write. Or count. Or do really very basic logical things that even the dumbest people in society can do…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 02:42 PM
2

I don't think they thought the opposite. I think they WANTED to believe the opposite. THe same way we say "it's on the inside that counts". When the reality is very different. It's the same "idealistic over realistic" bullshit as it always has been.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 12:59 PM
1

That's not what I am saying though. I am saying humans have a nature. It's like apes in a zoo. They behave a certain way. That is just how they are genetically programmed. Humans are malleable to a degree. But to a much smaller degree than people think. This whole "obsessed with sex" state for men is a natural state. If we weren't this way our species would have went extinct a long time ago. What I'm really saying is "Human males have always been sex obsessed apes, whether today, yesterday, 100 …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 12:04 PM
2

You really think there was a bunch of men foregoing sex in favor of arts and knowledge? That sounds like a Monty Python comedy sketch.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 11:20 AM
7

Yeah maybe they said that out loud. But if you looked at how actual men behaved. Then you would see that they were actually mostly governed by their instincts. Which are very sexual in nature a lot of the times. What % of the population actually chose knowledge and arts over booze and sex? Probably a very tiny one. But sure it was a nice sound piece... just like "everyone is beautiful" and "it's what's on the inside that matters". People repeat that shit at nauseam and it means almost nothing wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/25 11:15 PM
6

The same instincts that we had when we were hunting and fighting off predators exist today. They are just channeled in different directions. It's why we love sports. It's why we love video games. Shit it's why we still love to hunt even though we have absolutely no reason to do it. We have not "evolved past it". We are still the same exact apes we have always been. I think that is a very important reality that people must acknowledge. This idea that we have transcended animal instincts is utter …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/25 11:05 PM
1

Humans are wired to seek procreation. We are obsessed with. For a very simple reason. A species that does not obsess with procreation dies out. A large % of the population is wired this way. So you're basically missing out on arguably the most important part of being alive in the first place. Yes you can live your entire life eating dry ramen noodles. You'd survive too. This is even worse than that.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/25 08:54 PM
–

It's literally the most rewarding experience on the planet. Being pair bonded and having children together. Which obviously involves a ton of intimacy. No amount of drugs or video games can compete with that. That is the appeal. Yes it's not without risk.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/25 08:44 PM
–

Divorce doesn't mean you never pair bonded. It exists to facilitate child rearing. It doesn't have to last a lifetime. They never tell you whether they divorced just a couple of years later or much later in life. Some human pair bonds are very short lived. Some last a life time. Many some length in between.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/25 07:20 PM
–

Yes that's a risk you take. That's a risk present in any relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/25 04:56 PM
–

Yeah I get what you're saying. But they are not going to feel complete from fucking a hooker. That's like comparing having one decent meal to constantly being fed. From the perspective of a severely malnourished person. Yes one decent meal is ok. But it quickly fades and you still feel empty all the fucking time.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/25 02:39 PM
–

Yeah but the most important thing is pair bonding not actual sex. That is truly the "most fundamental and best things in life". You're never going to pair bond with a fucking hooker. Getting your dick wet is great but it's nothin compared to raising children with your partner that are biologically yours.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/25 12:40 PM
1

Relationships without raw attraction are just transactions. If the only way you can secure relationships or sex is through status or money, then what you have isn’t desire — it’s a transaction. They don’t want you; they want what you provide. That’s why relationships collapse the moment the money dries up or the security and comfort fades. There was never primal desire to begin with — just a mutually convenient exchange of value. I disagree. I agree that it's nature over nurture. Sexuality is mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/25 11:29 PM
1

The status is what attracts the woman. Its like saying that a womans pretty face is her entire personhood. Not exactly so. But when it comes to attracting males it plays a gigantic role.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/25 06:39 PM
2

Well yeah once you even out money and status. looks takes on a much more prominent role. Honestly I think status still plays a major role. It just gets transformed a bit. The leader of the group. The boss. The policeman. The firefighter. The soldier. The high ranking male (for whatever reason). The socially dominant male.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/25 05:55 PM
1

Because you have about as much sexual interest in her as a giant turd.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/25 05:49 PM
1

Women quite often do the same. If their fat ass friend likes you and you look at her like a giant turd. You best believe they are going to have something to say about that.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/25 11:44 AM
2

I mean yeah.... But what good is that? Why would you get into a relationship with someone you don't even want to fuck. Let alone be a couple with. It's the same for a lot of women btw. They have a ton of interest from marginal dudes and probably feel exactly the same way.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/25 02:23 AM
1

At the end of the day it's useless advice. "Go do things you don't want to do and don't do it to meet women. Thus you won't have any motivation to do it either". Yeah that'll get you really far.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/25 12:53 AM
1

You tell me, what is your basis for this claim? What info do you have to suggest that if men aren’t chasing the numbers game, they’re doing nothing? Better yet, what proof do you have that all of this is nature and not nurture? And what’s your historic basis? Humans are naturally lazy. Just like the lions in a Savannah. We would sleep all day if we could. We are built to conserve calories. Women are a lot more social because they require social validation from the rest of the tribe. WIthout that…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 11:52 PM
1

That's just how dudes are. It's in our nature. We didn't evolve with video games and netflix and shit. If we wanted to remain stimulated you had to go to the bar with the fellas or something. Nowadays none of that is necessary. You can go to work. Come home. Put on Counter Strike or Dota or whatever. And be perfectly satisfied. There's no reason to leave the house if you're not chasing vagege. Like at all. Yes when you go through this progression. You eventually realize "I have to leave the hous…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 11:42 PM
3

… no, the actionable advice is stop chasing the numbers game and start thinking about how you can meet people in a way more aligned with your interests and values. This also isn’t about strictly doing hobbies only related to your interest, but cast a net around settings where you think you might meet people who will align and be compatible with you. Thats great in theory. But in practice most guys who struggle will only ever leave the house chasing vagege. If it was otherwise then they would pro…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 11:35 PM
8

Yeah but whats the actionable advice here? It has to be "Just go meet a bunch of women". Sound advice. Definitely worth doing. For a lot of different reasons. But what happens when you spend 2 years going on a bunch of social gatherings that you don't even want to be in. Meeting woman after woman. And you have absolutely no success. Any woman who is attractive has no earthly interest in you. And the women who like you are fat and ugly. What do you do then? That is how men get introduced to the r…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 11:23 PM
3

Sure that's like saying that what women find physically attractive has variance. Nobody is arguing against that. It works kind of like this. You can spend the next 10 years looking for that one unicorn who is both attractive and happens to like the exact combination of skills, personality and appearance you have. Or you can recognize the basal instinct. Which is Looks, Money and Status. And just act on that. Getting results much faster and much more reliably. Nobody is arguing there is no varian…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 11:10 PM
5

But you're agreeing with that mindset. You may not realize it. But if you're saying "hey look women have money and status now so they don't select on that anymore". How is that different from what we're saying?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 11:03 PM
3

This goes perfectly with the Males: Select primarily on physical appearance. Women: Select on a combination of Money, Status and Physical appearance. If you even out Money and Status. Then Physical appearance starts to get the biggest premium as far as the selection process is concerned. Sure having social skills is very important. I don't disagree. A person with terrible social skills would have been the lowest ranking member of the clan for most of human history. So even that goes well with th…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/25 11:02 PM
1

If the urge to be a mother were truly universal among women You're conflating average and universal. The average woman feels this way. There are plenty of outliers that do not. You don't need 100% of women to have these instincts. Only enough to keep the species going. For centuries, women were told their worth depended on being mothers. That is 100% true. For a man their worth is tied into having a family as well. To this day the vast majority of the population gets their fulfillment from their…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/25 11:26 AM
1

So how do you figure. Our ancestors managed to pop out 4 children per woman. If most women don't even care to have children. If most women don't have this innate drive to feel the fulfillment of being a mother. How does that square in your brain? You think that the "patriarchy" forced them to keep the human race alive?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 08:20 PM
1

You should choose better for your own sake. I know guys usually mean "that means you should choose me". But generally speaking women do choose some pretty awful men and suffer greatly for it. So it's not entirely inaccurate. Probably just framed poorly.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 08:08 PM
1

Those are some extremely radical positions. Even for a lot of extremists. The average guy is not looking to enslave and force rape a woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 06:42 PM
1

https://sciencemediacentre.es/en/unmarried-people-have-higher-risk-depression https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-asymmetric-brain/202411/unmarried-people-have-a-higher-risk-of-depression https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352827321000495 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-023-04487-3?utm_source=chatgpt.com See I'm not just making it up. It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Human babies are fragile as fuck. Require a ton of care. Historic…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 06:40 PM
-1

We can just look at societal trends. Look at the massive rise of things like drug abuse, anxiety and depression. When we ask people what they think their source of depression is the most common answer is a lack of meaning or purpose. Where do you think most people get their meaning and purpose? Humans evolved to get their meaning and purpose past the age of about 20-25 in their own children. That is by far the biggest source of meaning and purpose. Have you really never observed some totally unw…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 05:03 PM
1

Well that was kind of the original argument. Before you devolved it into this LGBTQ+ pity fest. That yes the average person is wired to seek procreation. That if they don't have kids they will feel like their life is meaningless and get into shit like drugs, video games, alcohol where depression and anxiety quickly follow. The facts are all around you. If you choose to ignore them that's on you. Have a good one.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 04:44 PM
1

An actual birth defect would affect their quality of life and cause health issues. And being gay doesnt affect the quality of life of a person? Having kids is the most important thing just about any human can do. If you're wired to find the same sex attractive. Even if you technically can function just fine. You're not going to want to have kids. Thus you will likely miss out on a humongous part of being human. Yes that has tremendous negative side effects on a person. You have to pretend it doe…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 04:33 PM
1

Just because a birth defect happens in many species and has persisted for many generations. Doesn't mean that it is a good thing. I'm sure there are some ADHD chimps out there as well. Doesn't mean it's not a pathology. We stopped labelling gay and lesbian as a pathology simply because we found that this made it easier to integrate them into society. Which I think is a noble goal. We shouldn't shit on them for being born the way they were anymore than we should shit on people like me who were bo…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 04:23 PM
1

You sure about that? Because other posters are convinced that it is society at fault and that people who remain single are demonized by the community. I think it's fairly normal for married couples to want to hang out with other married couples. But that is often interpreted as some form of discrimination.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 04:20 PM
-1

Yes of course there is something wrong with them. Their innate attraction switches are mis matched. That's not a reason to shit on them. But that is just a fact. I was born with ADHD. Are we going to pretend like that is normal too? Is that somehow going to make having ADHD less of a burden? By people pretending (and mostly failing) that its normal.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 04:19 PM
-2

1) The vast majority of humanity derives meaning from their family. Usually their own family which means partner and kids. 2) We have had an explosion of drug use, depression and anxiety int he past 20 years. When we ask people why they feel like shit we get the same answer most of the time. Their life lacks a meaning. So while you think it's no big deal. I see it as a societal level catastrophe that so many people are single. Humans are not built to be single. We are built to pair bond and rais…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 03:24 PM
-1

How do you know that they are happy? A lot of people are outstanding at hiding how miserable they really are. Which is why it's always a shock to so many people when someone commits suicide. The same thing is always said "he seemed so happy" or "he seemed so full of life". Yeah cause that's what he wanted you to see.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 03:13 PM
–

Who said anything about forcing people to get married and have kids? We don't force anyone to brush their teeth and wipe their ass. But we strongly recommend it. You're not going to go to jail for walking around smelling like poop. But you will suffer social consequences for it. That is what I am proposing.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 03:09 PM
-3

Not at all. Many people who are wired to procreate fail to find a partner. There is a ton of men out there that would love to have a family but just can't find anyone worth a shit. The message we should be sending is "you're going to be miserable if you stay single. find yourself a partner. Have some children and make a family. There's literally nothing better on this planet. no amount of video games or hobbies can ever even come close to that level of meaningful life."
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 01:10 PM
-1

Yes outliers exist. Nobody is saying we should sanction people for failing to get married and having kids. Just don't suggest it to the general population. It's not a good suggestion.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 01:05 PM
-1

Your own brain shames you for it. We're just apes at the end of the day. It's the same reason so many people are fat. Your own brain wants you to be fat. Because we evolved in scarce plains and food was constantly short. People are still pretty fucking miserable when they are old and childless. Regardless of how society views them.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 01:04 PM
-7

Right. Mine comes from a nature stance. Humans are wired to want to procreate. An old woman without children has her own psyche working against her. Obviously not all people are wired that way. But on average they are. So giving them advice that turns them into "cat ladies" is ultimately setting them up for a very miserable older life.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 12:26 PM
–

The miserable part is what's wrong with it. We try to prevent people from being miserable. Especially when it's choices that we are recommending. Its the same reason we don't recommend men cut off their balls. It would make them miserable in the future. Yes of course leaving a bad relationship means being single temporarily. But single shouldn't be a desired status.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 12:09 PM
-13

So shouldn't the message be "don't stay in bad relationships"? Versus "turn yourself into a miserable cat woman".
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 11:49 AM
3

The stripper thing yeah probably not. I would venture to say that most guys only care about whether they are fucking her or not. And whether the relationship is exclusive. Who she fucked in the past is largely irrelevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 02:29 AM
-1

Never gave a fuck. I fucked 10/10 strippers in Miami for cash. Thus in most cases anyone I was fucking was also on the same side of the coin.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 12:14 AM
1

Not at all. Not even close. The average person has not been wealthier. Look at global abject poverty rates. Look at the quality of all of our products. The boomers could only dream of all this shit we have. About the only thing boomers had SLIGHTLY easier was housing. That's it. Their cars were dangerous pieces of shit. No phones, no internet, no video games. They didn't have a ton of our medical innovation. Most of their consume goods were utter dogshit compared to what we have. Literally you h…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/25 02:28 AM
–

When did it go to shit? Humans have never lived better than now. By a long shot. The average human has never been wealthier. A wealthy elite is just a byproduct of a meritocratic system. Some people are wayyyyyyyyyy more productive than others. Just consider how much better Lebron James is at basketball versus a regular human. Him playing with regular men is like me playing with 5 year olds. Now realize that there are people that are that good at business. How much $ do you think people like tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/25 11:51 PM
–

Actually the reason capitalism works is precisely because it doesnt force humans to be anything other than humans. It creates an incentive structure where the most capable significantly outearn the regular plebs. But in doing so it creates massive abundance for everyone. It clearly understands that the average person is not particularly capable and very self serving. That is why it works and everything else doesn't. It deals with real people.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/25 11:20 PM
–

That is what sanitation technology is for.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/25 10:36 PM
–

Yeah but the problem is the whole country is an underdeveloped shithole. Having less people is not going to make it more developed. Quite the opposite. You need people to develop an economy. They are this way because their infrastructure hasn't caught up to the life altering technology they have access to thanks to the West. Most notably vaccines, antibiotics, modern medical facilities and practices, agricultural practices. The rest of their country is still many decades behind.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/25 10:35 PM
–

Yes a very miserably poor city is going to be a miserable place. So what? All these beliefs are based on a fallacious principle called the "fixed pie fallacy". Meaning if there is more people there is less to go around. But that is only true when you have shithole economies ran by idiots. With socialist practices. In capitalists countries the exact opposite tends to be true. The more people you have the more overall production you have. The richer everyone is. This happens for a simple reason. T…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/25 10:32 PM
-3

Absolutely. Why the fuck not? I already live with 8 billion of you fuckers :) What's an extra 92. You gotta remember. More people = more innovation = more wealth for everyone
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/25 12:54 AM
-1

The world is not overpopulated in the slightest. You could have 100 billion people on the planet easily. Not sure where people get this insane idea from. Malthusian was proven wrong several times now. Why people continue to make his mistake is beyond me.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/25 12:12 AM
4

I'm married now. But back in my blackpilled days I did my own little experiment. Where I sat there and observed couples. I found most couples were lookmatched. But the biggest finding was how grossly overstated all this heightism stuff was. I think it's more of an internet thing then a real life thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/25 11:51 PM
4

As they should. But the point stands. That shit really plays practically no role.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/25 11:16 PM
4

Most insecure men don't go around complaining about their insecurities to women they are trying to date. That is just not something regular humans do.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/25 11:11 PM
13

Complete nonsense. If that same short dude gets married to some chick that he really likes. He won't give a flying fuck about other women thinking he is short. So yes another person can and often does fix your insecurities. We are social creatures after all. This whole "Just be happy with yourself" nonsense is drivel and completely useless advice. Work on yourself but realize you will never fill fulfilled if you're unwanted.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/25 11:05 PM
1

This is the cope of passport bros. Betabuxxing for a third world woman is just the white flag we all know it is, and she isn't really into you. I married a Ukrainian woman. Granted I am Russian/Ukrainian myself. But I was very Americanized. Best thing I ever done. Highly recommend it. I saw a lot of these "Average looking guy + very attractive slavic woman" couples in Kyiv. Was quite common. We have 2 kids and it's by very very very very far the best relationship I've ever had. In every way imag…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/25 10:00 PM
1

So it's better to be single or date some nasty western fat woman? Versus have a bride that is actually attractive and actually wants to be a mother and a wife. Yes you still have to get in shape. You still have to work on your social skills. You still have to work on your earning skills. It's not a free ride. If your ass is fat and ugly and you can't hold a conversation. Most women even in underdeveloped shitholes are not going to want to date you. Difference is plenty of men are doing all those…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/25 08:56 PM
1

Sure. I did that when I lived in Ukraine. Took a massive paycut. But everything is also much cheaper there so in reality I actually made more $ PPP. I made 4 times more than the average household in Kyiv. And that is by far the most affluent area.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/25 08:29 PM
1

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381730315X We found that ratings of attractiveness were around 1000 times more sensitive to salary for females rating males, compared to males rating females. These results indicate that higher economic status can offset lower physical attractiveness in men much more easily than in women. A THOUSAND TIMES! Not 10 not even 100. A fucking 1000. So no the idea that "both men and women react the same to $ is just not grounded in reality". …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/25 07:57 PM
2

That's just like "he only likes you for your body" stupid statements. Yes no shit men are attracted to physical appearance. He probably never cared about your "personality". Same thing here. There are a lot of women that won't date you if you don't have anything besides your looks because your looks are not sufficient enough to attract them. The good news is human females are different from males and status/money does make you look more appealing. In a very real sense. They've done studies to co…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/25 07:44 PM
2

Hence my oasis in the middle of a dessert statement. We can't filter. I remember explaining this to some of my friends back when I was single (I am married with 2 kids now). My standards were: She is pretty She likes me Just about everything else was negotiable. I dated women addicted to meth before. That is it. Those are my 2 standards. Obviously I wasn't going to date some serial killer or a deranged schizzo but that sort of goes without saying. And even then. I constantly had many periods of …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/25 07:09 PM
2

That’s what I’m saying, what’s stopping men from being more picky and also looking for a combination? If you think she’s pretty but she’s broke and unemployed, turn her down. Human nature. We don't pick what turns us on. I can't just turn around and say "from now on I am attracted to women who wear yellow dresses" and poof suddenly any chick with a yellow dress makes me woody stand up. It just doesnt work that way. Why do you want to waste your money on a woman who’s on a date with you just beca…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/25 06:53 PM
2

No and thats where the looks/money/status thing comes in. The way males and females select is just completely different. Males: Almost entirely based on physical appearance. Females: On a COMBINATION of looks/money/status. So yeah if you're just a really good looking guy you don't need a whole lot of money/status. I've seen a video where a homeless dude was taking pretty girls home. He's just good looking. The implication here is that. A high status man to a woman is like a chick with a really n…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/25 06:15 PM
1

A) I completely agree that industrialization and eventually modernization caused this seismic shift. Women are capable of way out earning men by going into complicated fields such as medicine, engineering, law etc. B) I don't agree that men shouldn't pay. In fact I think it's terrible advice. Would be akin to telling a woman who's not very attractive to never wear make up and never wear dresses that accent her best features. All you're doing is shooting yourself in the foot. Whether you like it …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/25 05:49 PM
6

Very well put. I like how you worded that. What are your thoughts on the looks/money/status dynamic. That in the past most of our work was grueling manual labor. So guys with bigger muscles tended to be more productive. On top of that our pecking order was still fairly rudimentary. Guy with biggest muscles on top of the heirarchy. which was usually men. So that meant both in terms of money and status men were usually higher than women. Even if they were all farmers. An average guy would have no …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/25 04:08 PM
-1

I have a slightly different theory. Its looks/money/status. You need to have a lot of something in order to attract a woman. Or at least more than her. Back in the days that was easy. Most men had way more money and status than most women. We had bigger muscles. Which meant that we were both more productive back when most labor was physically intensive. And because we were bigger and stronger we held a higher social standing. Obviously no always. Plenty of productive and high status women existe…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/25 03:51 PM
2

So let me get this straight. Human females are wired to want to reproduce. Just like males. We are all wired to form pair bonds and raise children together. Well not all but most of us. Anyway so for some reason females are just choosing not to copulate. Not to form pair bonds. Not to create children. Your theory is they are uninterested. Not attracted to the males around them. Why do you think that is? I have a theory but I want to hear your take.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/25 03:25 PM
1

BP paints a very rosy picture. Red Pill is more nature than nurture. moderates recognize that nature has variance as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 10:17 PM
1

Most of those are radical takes. Most red pillers are far more moderate. General ideas 1) Women are attracted to looks/money/status while men are mostly attracted to looks. 2) Looks do matter to women. 3) Being the best version of yourself which includes being in shape, having a good career and having good social skills is ideal for finding a quality mate. 4) Passport broing is a cheat code that works for a lot of men. 5) The mainstream narrative is far more focused on sounding pleasant rather t…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 11:12 PM
1

Sure as a single unit. Which is why we are tribal animals.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 09:53 PM
1

not necessarily. Humans have a super power. Sweating. That is how we used to hunt. I agree that any single lion or wolf or bear would absolutely destroy a single male human. But a tribe of humans will make the whole forest their bitch. Not just with their brains but their cooperation + brains.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 09:33 PM
0

Yeah but the issue is. There is value in the truth. And if the only way to speak the truth is to piss some people off. Then the Red PIll wins. Because they are the only one's willing to say it.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 08:15 PM
1

Yeah but we're talking about the environment the humans evolved in. As in most of our ancestoral path. Remember the original topic was the shape of the penis. How it uses the shape to suction out the competing sperm. Which I don't know how that would even work considering the sperm is fast as fuck. But whateva!! My conclusion was that even if that was the function. The reason for it is the constant warfare and rape that riddled our species since the dawn of time. It has fuck all to do with how m…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 07:57 PM
4

Those seem like radical reductive takes. A moderate red piller would admit everything is on a spectrum. An average woman will behave in so and so way. But those are only average observations. You can make yourself appealing to the average woman or you can try to find outliers. To answer your question. No human is perfect. The baggage needs to be tolerable.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 07:50 PM
1

Well yeah. You can take the ape out of the forest but you can't take the forest out of the ape. It's still hard wired even if it is maladaptive. That is true for a lot of human behavior.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 07:34 PM
0

Yes but the bigger picture here is that you don't care how the fish feel about it. Not that you are trying to catch them, kill them, then cook them on a skillet.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 06:51 PM
1

https://news.tulane.edu/pr/new-study-reveals-long-history-violence-ancient-hunter-gatherer-societies I always thought this was a no brainer how much war we had in recorded history. That unrecorded history was just as brutal if not more. But apparently this is a debated topic with evidence pointing to both. So my point rests on the assumption that we were just as tribal and violent as we have been in the last 4000 years. The only difference being the tribes were much smaller because we didn't hav…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 06:49 PM
5

The fisherman thing works because you're somewhat asking the question from a "I don't really care how women feel about this information angle". So you're not necessarily trying to lure them in a predatory way. You're just uninterested in their overall opinion of it. Similar to how a fisherman could give a shit if the fish hate him. A lot of the red pill stuff women despise. Because it reveals things about their nature that they are not comfortable with.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 05:16 PM
1

So, the penis evolved with a scope because of events that happen every 70 years or so, or less instead of the norm? They did not happen every 70 years or so in the past. When we were tribal animals. Tribes went to war on a regular basis. This whole large cities and large countries thing is a very recent phenomenon. Your reasoning is based on biblical "science". Are you religious? I am an atheist. I have no idea what the bible even says. And even I did I wouldn't take it as the "gospel". As for y…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 04:44 PM
2

Humans are more like Chimps than bonobos. Though innate behavior differs in all 3. For obvious reasons. We are different species after all. Your reasoning is men won't love and protect children that are not biologically their own. Yet, this is patently false. Not at all. It's the same exact instinct. At the same rate the cinderella effect is a real thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect And by far the best predictor of violence towards children is having a male step father. So it…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 04:31 PM
2

Bonobos are not humans. They have very different social structures. What idiot history teacher would teach his kids that humans are not a pair bonding species? If humans were not a pair bonding species. The male would feel 0 attachment to both the mother and the children. Any level of observation of other humans will tell you that is not the case at all. Yes the extended family model would actually work really well if we could all live in the same neighborhoods. That way you get the massive adva…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 03:42 PM
2

Sure not all pair bonds are identical. Humans have a variety. Some are very short lived. Some last a lifetime. No argument there.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 03:06 PM
-1

They are uncontacted because they don't want to be. Like the Sentinelese. We know where they are. But they murder anyone who dares step foot on their soil. And we don't want to forcefully take over because we have no reason to do that. You can't assume that the entire human genome behaves exactly like the Sentinelese. When these people have been evolving for 100s if not 1000s of generations separate from us. This is why you have to take their customs with a grain of salt. What works for them cou…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 03:04 PM
0

Other women helping doesn't dispute the fact that humans are pair bonding species. If we weren't pair bonding species. The male would feel 0 attachment both towards the mother and the children. There are many species that are like that. They just stick their dick in, ejaculate and bug out forever. That is clearly not how humans operate. I never said anything about nuclear family. That is a totally separate discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 02:59 PM
1

If humans did not pair bond. Males would feel no emotional attachment towards the mother or the children. It is not taught to us by religion. These are innate instincts. Even in the total absence of religion. Fathers would still feel these things. Much like sexual attraction. This is not a choice. This is just instinct.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 02:31 PM
1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family Ok so you're basically stating the argument with 1) Nuclear family means mother father kids live in a separate home 2) Extended family means mother father kids live in a home with other members of the family. If you frame it that way. Then yes a large chunk of the planet actually lives in #2. But mostly because they are too god damn poor to make #1 a reality. However.... there is a bigger issue here. I'm not arguing #1 and #2. I think both are fine se…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:24 PM
1

Single mothers are a nuclear family No because the father is not present. Remember I said the thing that actually matters is whether the mother and the father is present. Not who else is around. That's a pretty simple standard. Ah yes, which is why even the richest, most powerful aristocrats in history still usually had their close family members staying in the same mansion. They actually hated it the whole time, because we as modern people know what's best. Gee I wonder what's different between…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:10 PM
–

Yes on average the women are different. Let's say that 30% of women genuinely enjoy casual sex. While 70% do not enjoy it to various degrees. Some just don't like it that much others are completely against and think it's disgusting. FOr the sake of simplicity lets just separate them into 30% of those that do and 70% that don't. You will find MANY MORE casual sex type women in online dating. Than you would out in the wild. Because online platforms are far more effective at building quick relation…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:56 PM
1

Then what you are referring to is NOT a nuclear family by any definition. It's an extended family. You can't just expand definitions to mean whatever you want. Just admit you're wrong. Nothing about the nuclear family forces grand parents to stay out. Nothing. So no I'm not wrong. You're adding this addendum that has nothing to do with the argument. "Yes, we always wanted to isolate ourselves from our family. We enjoy doing more work for less reward because it's the moral thing to do. This is ou…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:47 PM
–

Here's a better thought experiment. What % of the general population are very popular youtubers? He is a massive outlier. You can't generalize anything about the general population while looking at massive outliers. Most good looking people don't make a ton of $ with their looks. They just go through life with subtle advantages that can be negated by any number of things. They don't have massive followings. They don't have bodyguards. So looking at someone that does, doesn't tell you a whole lot…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:40 PM
1

What about the nuclear family DOES NOT allow for grandparents to help? What about that definition states "that the children MUST BE RAISED WITH NO ASSISTANCE FROM THE LARGER FAMILY". Absolutely nothing. What you are describing is the dynamics of a society that has enough wealth to produce housing SEPARATE from the family. As in "we always wanted to live independently from our parents but that only became a large scale possibility in the 1950s because prior to that we were too poor to do that". T…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:27 PM
2

If you don't agree with the definition from the Wikipedia article YOU cited, maybe I'm not the retarded one? Thats not the definition from the wikipedia article. That was the critique of pair bonding. No, your argument was that human being mated in pairs and raised children as an independent unit. That's you making an argument for nuclear families. Not me. Which they observably do if you just open your eyes and look at any country on the planet. Please provide a single piece of evidence that nuc…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:07 PM
1

What the hell they got to do with anything? If uncontacted tribes have weird maladaptive behaviors. That doesn't mean that all humans do. That just means those weirdo tribes do. That's why they are off in the boonies to begin with. Because they can't function with the rest of society.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 11:48 AM
1

"Pair-bonding is a term coined in the 1940s[1] that is frequently used in sociobiology and evolutionary biology circles. The term often implies either a lifelong socially monogamous relationship or a stage of mating interaction in socially monogamous species. It is sometimes used in reference to human relationships." That is nonsense. Pair bonds don't have to be lifelong. They can last any number of time Pair Bonding is just the scientific term for falling in love. Nobody teaches us to "fall in …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 11:46 AM
1

So don't be a single mother. There are 3 rules you have to follow if you want to stay out of poverty 1) Don't commit crime (which includes doing drugs). 2) Don't have children too early (bingo) 3) Get an education. Even if it is only from a trade school like truck driver or police officer. Yes some people end up single mothers through no fault of their own. But often it is just bad decision making.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 10:46 AM
0

As I told another poster. If humans were not a pair bonding species. We wouldn't have relationships. There would be no concept of boyfriend and girlfriend. The man would never have any relationship with the mother or the chilren. He would just stick his dick in, ejaculate, and haul ass. THere are many species that function exactly like that. A pair bonding species is where the mother and father from an attachment to each other and raise children together. Now which one sounds more like humans?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 10:43 AM
-1

What? Are you guys nutts? Of course we are pair bonding species. What kind of madness do you have to be reading online to believe that humans are not a pair bonding species? Do you understand what humanity would look like if we didn't pair bond? We wouldn't have relationships. Like at all. We would just fuck and that's it. There are many species like that. Where the father has absolutely no involvement with the children. This fails the simplest of logic tests. Do fathers form an attachment to th…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 10:41 AM
1

No they need to learn how to be more productive. It's really not that hard. Plenty of jobs that require nothing more than someone who shows up on time and puts in a little effort. You don't need to be a genius to drive a truck or some shit. Those guys make good $.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 02:57 AM
1

We don't "withhold" anything. You are not entitled to what others produce. I am not withholding food from you by not allowing you to eat out of my fridge. It's my food. I paid for it. People who actually apply themselves have access to massive amounts of resources. BECAUSE we have good incentive structures in our economy.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 02:30 AM
1

"want" is irrelevant. I want to be a billionaire. What's that got to do with anything? They make shit choices. That is why they are poor. That is far more often the case than not. Or they just have a low IQ. Which is sad, not their fault. But we can't pay people for breathing either. If you're useless you're useless it is what it is. I would be completely useless on any professional sports team. It's just the truth.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:59 AM
1

I have more in common with people who actually apply themselves. Not a bunch of lazy idiots and criminals. I grew up around poor people. That is why I don't buy all this "woe is me bullshit". I watched them be their own worst enemy over and over. The thing is... as long as others make excuses for their shitty behavior. THey have no reason to stop behaving that way.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:44 AM
1

Because it creates a set of incentives that promotes growth. It's not a choice between. 1) Taking care of everyone or 2) Not taking care of everyone Its 1) Focus primarily on economic growth 2) Slow your economy down to take care of those who can't figure out how to tie their shoelaces in the most prosperous nation ever. #1 is the clear choice in my book. 10% of the human population is below 80 in IQ. You also have a certain % of sociopaths, psycopaths and other mental cases that probably have a…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 01:05 AM
1

It has never been easier to get fed, educated or receive healthcare. Obesity is a very serious epidemic. Starvation is not. Education is borderline free if you go to the right places. Sure the University of Harvard costs $100,000 per semester. But nobody is forcing you go to Harvard. Go to a community college where the tuitions are much cheaper. Healthcare is a mess I agree. But mostly due to too much government interference. And you'll notice most of what I listed was healthcare related innovat…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:57 AM
1

We want innovation to go as fast as possible. People who feel otherwise lack imagination. I want effective anti cancer treatment. I want effective anti aging treatment. I want self driving cars. I want police drones that make it impossible to get away with crime. I want opiates that feel exactly the same way but don't turn you into a junky. I want effective OCD and ADHD treatment (we don't have that). I want effective anti addiction treatments (we really don't have that either) On and on. Those …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:46 AM
1

Hedge fund managers exist because the investment apparatus is EXTREMELY effective at speeding up innovation within an economy. People way overfocus on the massive outlier managers who make millions just throwing spit balls into the air. They forget about the 1000s of people who risk their $ hoping that whatever they are investing in ends up being the next big thing. This puts innovation and technology at the forefront. There's a reason why so many of the biggest companies on the planet are based…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:41 AM
1

That is how the economy works though. The whole point is to address scarcity. Scarcity is natural. If you don't reward people for massively addressing scarcity. The way a surgeon does. You won't have enough surgeons. Ever. It's a very difficult trade. The incentive structure is intentionally most rewarding for those with the most ability. That is not a flaw in the system. It is a critical component that makes it effective.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 12:23 AM
-5

You're forgetting that we are pair bonding species. Much like many other species of mammals. We raise children in pairs. Male and female. Mother and father. We have always done this. So when I say "taking care of the woman when she is pregnant". I mean taking care of the family. Yes the tribe helps. But the tribes are separated into family units.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 10:48 PM
-2

Im not the OP. Why do you think males are so much stronger? What do you think the function of that was in the wild? Of course it was for protection. Protection and providing. They are male tasks. Women provide nurturing. Males are the providers. Females are the nurturers.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 10:46 PM
1

We reward merit. For instance some woman working in OBGYN surgery. She produces more value than 100 male burger flippers. She doesn't even make 100 times more $ than them. But she does make a lot more. This is a good set up. We want the paycheck to be as close to the actual value to society as possible. The market is just the most effective way we have found to find that value. It's not perfect by any means. But a hell of a lot better than anything else that has been tried before.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 10:06 PM
1

We mostly agree on the dynamic. I just don't see the point of blaming or even mentioning capitalism. This would have happened under any system. Because eventually your muscles become irrelevant. I agree that it is an evolved preference.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:50 PM
-1

Nobody is saying women sat around and did fuck all. Men are the stronger sex. They provided protection. When the woman was pregnant or nursing. They were out there taking care of the family. Yes obviously the rest of the tribe helped. Nobody is saying they didn't. But in the father/mother dynamic the female took care of the babies and the male went out and got shit for the family. This dynamic has massively changed now that a woman can easily earn as much as a man. Thanks to the fact that most o…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:42 PM
2

Its not capitalism. Its technology. The value of big muscles has massively degraded as most of our labor is using our brain nowadays. The difference between males and females in the brain department is much smaller than in the muscle department.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 09:34 PM
–

Fuck DEI. It is anti meritocratic Marxist mumbo jumbo. We should always hire on merit. Not based on race or gender or nationality or whatever. Because it is a pendulum that swings on both sides. You tell enough white people that "we are no longer hiring because there is too many white people working here". Won't take long before a lot companies refuse to hire anyone but white people. To make up for the bigotry. On and on. It's a cycle. The only true pattern is HIRE ON MERIT. We should always str…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 01:44 PM
1

Everything else we look at tends to be 50/50. Why would this be any different? It's rather important for the species to correctly pick out a partner. Why would that particular function be far more malleable than so many other things. The bigger argument here is that it is far less malleable than people make it out to be. There are probably leftists that believe if you plastered enough obese women on posters and in movies. The average guy would start prefering obese women. Nothing could be farthe…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/25 05:53 PM
1

We learn what language we speak, and we learn most skills (e.g., humans are not “natural” touch typists). Language ability is innate to humans. They tried to teach Chimps and Gorillas to speak. Using various methods. They lack the faculty to fully take advantage of this skill. They developed rudimentary ability to communicate. But not beyond what say a 3 or 4 year old would develop. So while the language itself is indeed learned and depends on the region you are born in. The ability to develop l…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/25 02:00 PM
2

OTOH, the nobles or wealthy burghers back then actually had to buy those Baroque paintings. So it's simply reasonable to assume that they liked what they saw. Or why else did they spend their money? Yeah rich fat women paid painters to paint their ugly fat asses. The painter... had to pay his bills somehow. You just answered your own question. Or a woman like Madame Pompadour (the actual mistress of Louis XV) also didn't look fit and was quite chubby but considered the pinnacle of beauty. By who…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/25 02:27 AM
3

Yes all these paintings. Which is why I brought up the gaunt looking 1990s models. If some alien was flying by earth in the 1990s. They probably would think that the average guy jacks off to Holocaust survivor looking women. But we were not. We liked fit women. We didn't like that look. Only the guys who put those women on the pedestal liked that look. And they were gay, they didn't even like women. Which is why I say that what the media portrays as attractive is not always consistent with what …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 11:52 PM
1

This is exactly what I mean. "But research shows the girls who a very small % of people find attractive are actually attractive.". Your research ain't worth shit if it doesn't line up with the real world. That was about fat women being attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 11:13 PM
3

In the real world the vast majority of men prefer fit women. not fat women. Yes there are a small % of legit chubby chasers. By legit I mean they ACTUALLY prefer that. Because most guys that date fat women only do so because they can't get anything else.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 11:11 PM
3

Being fat was never attractive. I'm not sure why people continue to perpetuate that myth. It's just like in the 1990s where our "super models" were gaunt as fuck and looked like Holocaust survivors. The average guys did not like that look. Even though that is what the media portrayed as the most beautiful. What the media says is often not consistent with what real guys actually find attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 10:48 PM
3

The real world being the real world.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 10:39 PM
6

In the wild it signalled a poor partner. We're not talking about slightly chubby. Most men are fine with that. We're talking obese or just FAT. In the wild if you see a very fat person it means one of these things 1) They are dim witted 2) They are extremely lazy 3) They are very injured or diseased You couldn't really become obese in the past. We were constantly moving around. Constantly hunting, gathering, building, taking care of each other. Most people were at least moderately fit. Having ab…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 12:34 AM
7

This is exactly what I mean. "But research shows the girls who a very small % of people find attractive are actually attractive.". Your research ain't worth shit if it doesn't line up with the real world. And yes of course biology matters with what we find attractive. Otherwise people would be falling in love with their poodles, computers etc. Yes it happens in very edge cases. But it's extremely uncommon. Usually people criticize the most radical positions from the most radical red pillers. The…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 12:23 AM
5

Reading into RP, I found that a lot of common beliefs seem quite sad: people are completely self-serving, relationships are transactional, unconditional love doesn't exits, social settings are competitions, etc. Personally, it's hard to imagine believing these things and building a socially and emotionally fulfilling life. You're mis interpreting it. The goal is to be accurate. Because people often tend to explain human sexuality in terms of "things are as how I wish they were" instead of how th…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/25 11:44 PM
–

Yes it's critical. Social skills is a must. Having weak social skills puts you at a big disadvantage. Sure if you're Chad you don't need it. But you're probably not Chad. Average looking men can make massive improvements in their outcomes if they improve social skills. Better looking women. Better relationships. Which ultimately leads to a better marriage. Also going out to pick up women is a great way to force yourself out of the house. It's about the only thing capable of getting a large % of …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/25 12:51 AM
–

Are you telling me a tipsy/drunk guy doesn't know he's holding someone big? The eww factor has been diminished. Think about it this way. Go into a disgusting night club bathroom. With fucking puke and piss all over the place. How easy is it to tolerate such a place when you are sober? Do you even notice all the disgusting shit when you are very drunk?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 05:36 PM
–

No I don't think thats correct. You probably do have more gay slip ups when people are drunk. Meaning guys who are already borderline gay. Following through. But its not really the same thing. Its more like the angles and patterns we look in facial features change. We are far more forgiving of flaws. You take a fat girl. She looks a lot better to a dude when he is drunk. Why? Because her being fat has a major "eww" factor. Which is a sign of a poor partner. That message gets significantly less p…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 05:23 PM
–

And I would argue that the base attraction is what changes. As in "this person was not capable of pleasing me before because I felt zero sexual attraction. Now that I am drunk I do feel innate sexual attraction and they are capable of pleasing me". I always anchor on nature when the situation is ambiguous. Mainly because attraction is not something you actively control. If you can't control it. Society has a very hard time controlling it as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 05:09 PM
–

No they become more attractive. Your standard for what you're willing to fuck significantly lowers. You get aroused by people that normally have no way of getting you aroused. Its like enjoying certain activities that you would HATE when you are sober. Like going to a loud night club. Normally that is a hellhole for me. But with enough drinks its fun as hell. You literally start enjoying and liking things you are not capable of liking sober. That's not just inhibition. That is a more fundamental…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 04:54 PM
–

uhhhhhhhhhh how the hell did you jump to that? I guess you live up to your username.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 04:51 PM
–

Well.... Uhh........ Someone has never had a drunken one night stand. I have literally taken a girl home. Fucked her brains out. Next morning woke up and found myself utterly horified at my decision. Which made perfect sense back when I was drunk. In fact fucking ugly women is by far not the only decision I made while drunk. Which had me utterly horrified the next morning. Shit I am still horrified at some of the decisions I've made drunk and I haven't had a sip in over 3 years. Beer googles are…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 04:15 PM
1

Like, if you could only have sex with people who can overpower you physically and are responsible for more than 95% of the violent crime, you might feel the need to know the person better before you spread your legs. If a woman brings you home. She can easily stab you or ambush you with some accomplice. Yet men don't seem all that concerned when the pee pee starts doing the thinking for you. In fact men pay for hookers all the time. Where the risks are much worse. I mean, of course you need to a…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/25 12:07 PM
1

When did I say that? Perhaps you misread. A 8/10 woman walks up to a 6/10 man in a bar and offers casual sex. The 6/10 man will say yes damn near 100% of the time as long as he is single. A 8/10 man walks up to a 6/10 woman and offers casual sex. She gets offers like this all the time. A much smaller % will say yes (but some will). May be as little as 20-30%. The proportions are wildly different. Men are simply more interested in casual sex per capita. Doesn't mean all women are uninterested.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/25 11:56 AM
1

They have done studies where they had a random woman come up to men and proposition for random sex. And a man do the same. The results were about what you would expect. A high % of men agreed to it. Almost no women agreed to it. The level of interest in casual sex is very different. Now according to you.... You're a Chad. Guess what. Women DO WANT to have casual sex with you. In fact thats about the only way to talk women into having casual sex with you. By being very physically appealing especi…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/25 11:53 AM
1

ON AVERAGE. There is plenty of slutty outliers. Not to mention they enjoy the actual sex. But then feel like shit afterwards because they fall for the guy.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/25 11:47 AM
1

If she's attractive a man could care less if she acts like a bozo. Dick don't care lol. The more attractive she is the less of a fuck they will give. If a man turns down an attractive woman. He is either taken (or interested in someone else) or she REALLY fucking annoyed him. Or he's gay or something. It's otherwise unusual for men to turn down attractive women.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/25 07:54 PM
3

I've talked to my sister and wife about this. They get hit on (or at least used to) by people who are physically attractive all the time and turn them down. Either because it's obvious they are just trying to get laid or because they are acting like Bozos. Neither of which would deter a man if an attractive woman was hitting on them.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/25 07:43 PM
2

I was using 9/10s as an example that would be easy for men to understand. I'm sure if they go out enough they occasionally get hit on by people that attractive. But I agree it's not like an every day standard. Also depends largely on your geography. Some places have more whoring and desperate Chads than others. I bet an average looking chick could fairly reliably hook up with a Chad in South Beach for example.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/25 07:32 PM
1

An average looking girl will get hit on by better looking dudes if she goes out clubbing or something. Maybe not 9/10s. But better looking than her for sure.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/25 07:12 PM
3

It deals with pair bonding https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10295201/ That is a human insinct. A male can easily enjoy having sex with someone they have 0 intent of pair bonding with. A woman often can not. On average of course. What muddies the water here is that ONCE THEY ARE PAIR BONDED. A woman can be just as horny as a man. The standard for what "enhorniates" them is quite different. It's not the same thing as "men are hornier than women".
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/25 06:14 PM
9

It's not even "as horny". A woman can be plenty horny around "her man". But she wants to have sex with "her man". A guy having sex with her with no intention of committing to them doesn't feel that good to them. Where's for a guy it's perfectly acceptable. If you get to fuck some random hottie and you know she has 0 intention of a long term relationship that is A OK.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/25 06:05 PM
15

Thats not the confusing part. The "women don't get the same level of satisfaction from random sex with good looking dudes" is the confusing part. (before I was married) If I knew I could just go to a bar and have a bunch of 9/10 women hit on me because they wanted to have sex with me and ghost me. I would go out all the time specifically looking for that. Because as man I would significantly enjoy that. Women don't really enjoy it in the same way.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/25 05:58 PM
32

I think the big confusion comes from the fact that Average women can get what Average men want. Fairly easily. Problem is they don't want it. I'm talking about casual sex of course. Most average looking men would be delighted to have a bunch of good looking women "use them" for sex. Just a difference in human biology. Women get pregnant and men do not. So women are naturally far pickier about sexual partners and particularly one night stands.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/25 05:09 PM
20

I don't think you understand the relationship. Its backwards. Men who are already attractive to women. Tend to treat them like shit. Because they can always find a new one. Not always, but very often. They are not attractive to women because they treat them like shit. They have other features such as perhaps great physical appearance that women find attractive. Them treating them like shit is a result of the fact that women are easy for them. But it's not like women can stop liking attractive me…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/25 03:35 PM
1

Im sure people have all sorts of interpretations for shit. When you frame it as some rich CEO yeah it makes little sense. When you frame it as just some guy who can get women for whatever reason. Whether charm, looks or money/status. Then it suddenly makes perfect sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/25 01:29 AM
5

A high value man is just someone who can get with pretty girls on a regular basis. A Tyrone who spends half of his life in prison and has a net worth of $0 can be a high value man. Simply because he is fit and attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/25 01:05 AM
1

But what's not true? I never said that families were isolated. That grandparents, aunts, cousins, brothers and sisters never comingled. Of course they did and still do to a large extent. How does that negate any of what I am saying? Yes I suppose you can live for the children of your brother or sister. But trust me from personal experience it will not give you anywhere near the level of fulfillment as your own family and your own kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 06:04 PM
–

Not proven? Every society on planet earth regardless of how rich or poor, regardless of religion. Focuses on the mother and father style family. That is not a coincidence. That is the ideal setup for our species. This whole "you don't need a family to feel whole" is the toxic ideology. It's what is f ucking so many people up. Yes if you look at millions of couples you will find all sorts of examples of poor couplings. That is always the case. That doesnt mean that you shouldnt couple up though.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 05:34 PM
–

I never said it was "the only way". It's the most reliable way. "Find your tribe" doesn't really work the same way. You don't get the same level of intimacy with your close friends as you do with your children and spouse. You don't have sex with your friends. You don't live with your friends (after college). Your friends are not made from the same DNA as you. Yes I agree there are other ways to accomplish this. The thing we went away from doing is telling people "This is the most reliable proven…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 04:53 PM
–

It's about the framing. There is a whole generation of people who are fucking miserable and have no idea why. Because it has become toxic to point out "if you don't get married and have kids your life is going to feel empty as fuck". Because we are so busy making sure the edge cases who are gay, infertile or just uninterested are not offended. We are fucking over the majority to appease the minority. It's not about how society views things. It's about our own psychological perception. Humans der…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 04:07 PM
–

Biologically that tends to be the case. Just like for a lot of men impregnating a woman and helping her raise a child is the greatest role they can fill. This is how our species evolved. Just because feminists disagree with this notion it doesn't undo million of years of evolution (which predates humans). We don't live for our jobs. Most of us would never go to work if it was optional. Friends and hobbies are great. But they are not sufficient in replacing the value that having a partner and a f…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 03:53 PM
–

The point is she LIKES YOU. She can pair bond with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bond Humans are pair bonding species. We also call it "falling in love". The scientific term is pair bonding. So you can go to a poorer country. Find a woman 10 times better looking than one you can date in the west. And she will REALLY like you. Who gives a shit how others perceive it. You both like each other. You go home. You make her your wife. You raise children together. Everyone is better off includ…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/25 11:53 PM
–

It's simple arbitrage. A musty greasy dude is not going to do very well. Most of these women are regular women with real jobs and lives. They are not a bunch of homeless trash. If you're going to date them you need a decent job and look somewhat presentable. You don't have to be a looker. Just being average looking is plenty. But you can't be a fat slob. But yes otherwise it's simple money/status arbitrage. They are getting something out of it too. They want a high status guy the same way guys w…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/25 11:13 PM
5

The second one is easy. A all the way. I'm the man I'll figure out how to earn the $. The first one you kind of want the best combination of both. You don't want some hooker who has slept with 500 men just because she let you hit it on the first night. Conversely you don't want some low n count woman who will string you along for god knows what reason. I suppose you didn't say that B has necessarily slept with a lot of men. It's only somewhat implied. So most guys would choose B there.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/25 10:37 PM
–

That is what women do around the house in more family oriented cultures. Don't worry men have a lot of expectations of them too. It's a good setup for the human species.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/25 10:25 PM
–

No that's not what I'm saying. I used to think that (same as you). My dad tried to tell me for like 15 years otherwise and I just didn't listen. Women select differently from men. The same way a girl with a really nice ass and an ok face might still make you horny. A guy who is average looking but has a lot of money/status will be appealing to a woman for a long term partnering. Which means she will genuinely like the guy, have kids with him, cook and clean for him and take care of his sexual ne…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/25 09:55 PM
–

Passport bros think just because you go to a different geographic region, you magically meet better woman. No, those women don’t have options like in the west. This is similar to companies finding cheap labor in foreign countries. This is temporary as the whole world, is becoming westernized. This is completely wrong. Females are not like males. Our sexual selection is binary. You are either hot enough or you're not. Females are more compartmental. If you're not hot enough for casual sex (which …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/25 09:47 PM
–

Men do obsess to some degree. Especially in Western nations where status and $ tends to be on parallel with women. But to a smaller degree. For a very simple reason. Males: select primarily on physical appearance. Females: Select on a combination of looks, money and status. It simply makes more sense for women to obsess more over their looks. Their entire sexual worth is tied into their looks. Not necessarily the case for a man. It is only a component for us.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/25 07:50 PM
2

That doesn't imply they will all have a high body count. That implies THEY COULD IF THEY WANTED TO. A lot of them don't want to. But you don't need a high body count to have some skill in sex. One partner you have sex with 50 times is more than enough. Who's more likely to struggle finding that one partner a female or a male?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/25 06:48 PM
-1

Well you also have to consider that women can get unlimited practice by just opening their legs. It's not exactly hard for them to find sexual partners. Even if they are not that great looking. That is why ultimately they tend to be more skilled in that regard.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/25 06:34 PM
1

That doesn't really disprove what I'm saying. In fact I agree. Status cues are wildly different from place to place. That is why passport broing works so well. You don't need to conform to any status signal. Just being a Westerner is already enough. Just who you are is already enough. I'm not really making any societal level suggestions. Just pointing out a fact. What we do with those facts is up to us and open to interpretation.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/25 04:17 PM
1

Sure but it needs to be said that these are just innate natural tendencies. People have this horrendous idea that our sexual appetite is somehow shaped by society. It is to a very small degree. A lot of it is innate.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/25 10:54 PM
-2

Its just human nature. Males: Select primarily on physical attractiveness. All other variables are secondary. Females: Select on a combination of money, looks and status. The difference comes from differences in biology. Most notably the fact that females get pregnant, give birth and lactate. You can't erase biology just because you don't like it. The fat women who say that men should be attracted to them because they are funny are going to have about as good of a time of convincing men to like …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/25 10:25 PM
6

If that happens that means their merit outweighs their jackassidness. That can happen. Basically decent bosses are hard to find. Sometimes you'll deal with a jackass if he can otherwise do the job. Because in a lot of cases you'd be trading for an inept boss who is nice. A capable asshole is better than an inept nice guy.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 11:56 PM
7

A couple of things 1) Most guys can't be bad boys. It's somewhat innate. 2) It is toxic in many different ways. If you want to hold down a job you can't be a giant jackass to everyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 11:16 PM
1

Dont worry im not trying to get through to you either. Im here for the lurkers of which there are many.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 09:54 PM
–

Women attraction to bad boys is just their attraction to high status men. That's all it is. In the hood the guys who are the baddest boys typically have the highest status. The bad boys very often have high status in high school and even college to some degree. There's a reason why women stop preferring bad boys the more they mature. Because the more you enter the adult world. The more this type of toxic behavior ends up working against you. Mature adults don't tolerate that bullshit. We put guy…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/25 05:55 PM
1

Massive financial incentives. Far more than what Hungary and Romania and whoever else did. We need to go back to telling people they are a failure if they dont get married and have kids. It's rough. But its necessary. They already feel it subconsciously anyway. Organize society in a way where everything is family centric. Basically the anti-woke.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/25 12:08 AM
1

Make having families and babies #1 priority.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/25 11:38 PM
1

Still improve their economies :) You always want to do that. No matter what. Fertility can be fixed. Productivity is vital.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/25 11:27 PM
1

That is because they have inept unproductive economies.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/25 10:54 PM
2

Its not linear it grows exponentially with our population. So its only speeding up. The exact opposite is true. The more people we have the better we live. Yes tech will solve "all" of our problems. Not a matter of if but when. It's called Malthusianism. Look it up. That is what you're doing basically.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/25 08:58 PM
0

Resources may not be quite infinite. But the universe is really really big. If we run out of stuff its not because its not there. Its because our technology is limited. This is important because more people = more technological progress So you actually want MORE people not less if you're worried about resources.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/25 08:45 PM
-5

Constant growth is both sustainable and very possible. Remember the limitation is always technology not resources. There is an insane amount of resources on the planet and in the universe. The limiting factor is our ability to extract it. A sharp population drop would be very bad for everyone. I agree that we will solve the fertility issue. One way or another.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/25 08:37 PM
-7

The issue is not resources. The resources have never been more plentiful. The issue is contraceptives, abortions and culture (women in the workplace). Im not saying we should make contraceptives and abortions illegal or throw women back into the kitchen. That would be more destructive than the fertility crisis. But the fertility crisis is a real problem. Could have dire consequences if not addressed quickly.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/25 08:19 PM
2

Even a wealthier 3rd world man. You still have to remember to them she's just a visa. They are not going to have any innate attraction to her if she's not physically attractive. And a physically attractive western woman does not need to go into the 3rd world pool to find a husband.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/25 08:11 PM
2

Again the issue is. Average looking Western man + Poorer 3rd world woman = good nature match Average looking Western woman + poorer 3rd world man = bad nature match For a simple reason Males: Attracted primarily to physical appearance Females: Attracted to a combination of looks, money and status. A 3rd world man on average will have no sexual interest in some average looking western woman. Beyond using her for a visa there is no utility for him in that relationship. Neither will an average look…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/25 07:57 PM
2

Why the hell would they marry an average American woman? A rich man can get a visa without her.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/25 07:42 PM
1

It's different for men and women. For men I agree. Only reason he would ever date a meh looking white woman from America is to get a visa. Not very likely to be attracted to her. For women... They are naturally wired to be attracted to men of higher socieconomic status. So yes in both cases you may end up used. But the likelyhood that the woman really likes you is much higher versus a man. Just because we are wired differently. It doesn't work for western men in western countries because their s…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/25 06:33 PM
–

Notice how the way he is holding his jaw is different. the lighting is different. he looks significantly older. The pre picture may well be while he's still going through puberty. It's always such smoke and mirrors. I could take 2 pictures. One where I am purposely sucking my jaw in and another where I am purposely sticking it out. And despite it being 100% the same person. if I do enough lighting changes you won't be able to tell the difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/25 06:23 PM
–

Show me one example of it making a substantial difference. Usually when you do see major changes it's lighting and angle tricks. The person themselves doesn't really look all that different. And that's assuming it was done right and they didn't mangle your face in the process or nudged some nerve and gave you permanent chronic pain in the area.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/25 05:52 PM
–

The problem is plastic surgery often yields VERY LITTEL results. Even when it it is done very well. It is often not done very well. And you end up paying $ to look much uglier. Just look at all those fish lip women. They have completely mangled their faces with that disgusting shit. I've seen before and after pictures. At best maybe you're getting a .5 bump. And that is after $1000s of spent. The average person can get way more bang for their buck just by going to the damn gym every day for a ye…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/25 05:45 PM
-2

Women typically don't date down in socieconomic status unless the guy is very good looking or super talented or something. So if you do find a man who is African and very good looking. Chances are he's not going to want to date some American whale. It just wouldn't work as well due to how males and females sexual instincts operate. Women for the most part don't want immigrant men. Immigrant men don't want ugly American women. It works much better vice versa because females are wired to find men …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/25 05:27 PM
–

According to a 2021 analysis by OnlineDivorce.com, approximately 24.7% of immigrants who come to the U.S. on a marriage-based visa get divorced within 15 years. This rate is lower than the divorce rate for the overall U.S. population, which has been cited between 40% and 50% for American-born couples.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/25 05:18 PM
2

No offense but I don't think you understand what looks + money + status means. Looks is pretty easy to understand. But the trick is.... different things are attractive to different people. Some women like bears. Some like twinks. Some like athletic guys. Others don't care so much about athleticism. So while it's pretty easy to understand there is a decent amount of variety. Money... easy to understand. But one thing people don't get is that its MONEY RELATIVE TO HER. Which is where a lot of West…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/25 07:29 PM
1

A nerd Chad would be a guy with an attractive face who gets into nerdy shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/25 07:24 PM
1

Innately women are less likely to be like that. Because effective contraceptive is a fairly recent invention. You couldn't just sleep with a bunch of men and treat them all like shit. One of them will surely be your baby daddy very soon. You'd be setting yourself up for single motherhood that way. But yeah obviously dirty cunts exist as well. Never claimed otherwise.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/25 11:54 AM
5

I never said that it's a dichotomy. In my experience the biggest womanizers are also the biggest assholes to women. But that doesn't mean that every good looking man is a womanizer. I've known plenty of "Chads" who just had one girlfriend and didn't sleep around and treated them perfectly fine. And yes obviously you can demand self respect without being an asshole.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/25 11:51 AM
6

No I mean treating them like shit. Cheating on them. Ignoring them. Disrespecting them. That sort of thing. Not just having a spine. Being a jackass.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/25 03:38 AM
4

Yes but the vast majority of people are not outliers. So you can't really make judgement calls on that. What works for him will not work for 10,000 other dudes. So you're generalizing about a situation that only happens 1/10,000 times while ignoring the other 9,999. (pulled the numbers out of my ass, just giving you an example of why outliers are unreliable)
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/25 02:46 AM
0

You shouldn't really base your ideas on how people treat major outliers. Jack Doherty is a very popular social media influencer. That is why he can get women. Whether he's an asshole or super nice. Is rather irrelevant. Women are attracted to Looks+Money+Status. He doesn't seem like much of a looker. It's his money/status that attracts women.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/25 02:40 AM
21

The guys that treat their women like shit often have a lot of women. Not because they treat them like shit. But because women have made it easy for them to treat them like shit. Let's take a guy who is naturally charming, athletic and good looking. He has women throwing themselves at him all day long. When he gets with a woman. He doesn't have to coddle her. He doesn't have to treat her right. She is expendable. He can get another one the same day. This is not true for the vast majority of men. …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/25 02:37 AM
1

So a guy goes from village to village. Impregnates women left and right. Lets say he does this from 20-25. In that time he impregnates 50 women. 25 of them grow up into adulthood (we always assume about a 50% loss in those times). Even if for the rest of his life he is viewed as an utter vermin who is despised by everyone. Or even if they murder him......... It doesn't matter. He went from 1 to 25. He is exceptionally successful in the evolutionary sense. That behavior pattern has now spread and…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/25 12:49 AM
1

Now if it was common for children to be raised by their mother and father then it’s unlikely the tribe would allow a man to evade his responsibilities of caring for “his children” after impregnating a woman. Humans traveled from tribe to tribe. That dispels that entire notion. A guy can just travel from tribe to tribe and get dozens of women pregnant if he's that good looking. How quickly people get pregnant varies a lot by the individual and the couple. Some people tend to effortlessly get preg…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 11:43 PM
1

That doesn't negate anything I am saying though. Humans often traveled from tribe to tribe. A good looking man can get 100s of women pregnant that way. It benefited our males to have this "fuck and flight" mode. Because it meant spreading your seed. A female is not physically capable of doing that. She can't get 100 guys pregnant in a year.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 11:37 PM
1

Yes I've heard this utter nonsense take before. THEY STILL HAD A PRIMARY MOTHER AND FATHER. You know that our tribes also help right? We have daycare, public schools, summer camps, baby sitters. That hasn't really changed that much. Our tribe assists us with child rearing in many different ways. But we still have primary parents. Our tribes still help us tremendously. We would be utterly fucked without doctors, police, firefighters, etc etc etc etc. And yes they help us raise their kids. Our tec…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 10:51 PM
1

Loving your own children the most doesn’t mean that you can’t care about other children in your community dude. Yes but we invest the most time and effort into OUR children by very far. Yes there is a level of care but the extent is very different. We are not capable of caring so deeply for a large number of children who are not related to us (at least most of us). Yes we are communal creatures. But this idea that our children didn't have a primary mother and father until recent times is totally…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 10:28 PM
2

That is total nonsense. If our children were thrown into some communal pit by default. Parents would not develop these overwhelming attachments towards their own biologic children. Especially the males. There many males in many other species that have 0 attachment to their children and do not help raise them in any way. The idea that our ancestors didnt have a mother and a father is ridiculous nonsense. We are a pair bonding species. Like many other species that pair bond. We pair bond to raise …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 10:15 PM
1

Because they only get attached if they are pair bonded. If they don't give a shit about the woman they dont give a shit about the child. He'll still help hunt, share, gather whatever. He just wont be a father. Or chances are he may even be from another tribe. Its not like they never intermingled. Yes some tribes prevented their women from having sex with anyone but them. But most did not.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 10:02 PM
1

Anti vaxers are convinced vaccines are bad. Flat earthers think that NASA is a scam. Nothing new there. Dumbasses are going to dumbass.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 10:00 PM
1

I'm explaining that men will always want casual sex more. Its not some societal thing. This is just human male nature.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 09:54 PM
1

The point is. A human male is naturally going to be more opportunistic with sex. Because they don't get pregnant. Consider some male going from tribe to tribe travelling. Let's say he is attractive. He can fuck 30 women on his way from point A to point B. Not invest any time beyond that. If 10 of them have children and 5 of them survive to adulthood. He just produced 5 adults in one trip. A female can't do that. She gets pregnant once and she's stuck with that kid. That is why males are NATURALL…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 08:58 PM
1

If that was the case men would not have parental instincts. They would not get fanatically emotionally attached to their children. There would be no reason to have this instinct. But we do. Because we are a pair bonding species. We raise children in a pair bonded couple. Yes of course the rest of the tribe helps. But the primary caregivers are the parents. So when I say "take care of some baby" I mean be a proper parent. Not just one of the guys who brings meat.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 08:49 PM
0

What I meant was that more guys paired up in the past than now. People dated their looksmatch statusmatch. Where's today a lot of people are alone because they are constantly trying to bat out of their league. Men have always had a dual mating strategy 1) fuck fuck fuck peace out 2) Invest in one The Chads of this world typically go through a 1 1 1 1 11 2 1 1 1 11 1 2 progression. Where they fuck a bunch of women but eventually settle down. Most men would love to do that but in reality they only…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 08:43 PM
3

I don't necessarily think that is the issue. We live in a very unnatural world to us. People spend all day on social media, playing video games, scrolling on their phones. We used to spend all that time around other humans. That is the real problem. People have out of the world standards for mates because they don't socialize. I do agree that monogamy is good and this whole sexual liberation thing has caused a lot of problems as well. But it's a minor bug. The real problem is secluded lifestyles…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 08:12 PM
2

Children still had primary care givers. Who were usually their biological parents. He would still go out there and hunt and shit. Maybe even go to war with enemy tribes. But he wouldn't help raise the child the same way a father would. The tribe helped raise children. But so do our modern tribes. We have things like daycare pre-k k-12 school summer camps baby sitters etc. It's all the same shit. But those people are not their primary care givers. They are just assisting. Being a father and just …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 08:04 PM
1

Not very likely. Getting discarded by your tribe was akin to a death sentence. I seriously doubt they effectively executed guys for not wanting to take care of some woman's baby. Who claims it is yours but you have no way of knowing if that is even true.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 08:00 PM
4

Okay and do you think in this supposed wild all males are paired up and/or have access to sex? Much higher proportions than now. But there have always been losers that nobody wants. The way to solve this issue (if it is indeed an issue) would be to raise the stakes. In an environment where men and women are dating for marriage men will have to be more picky, because dating will be more costly for them (they’ll need to provide, be committed etc…) and women will have less options sure but they wil…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 07:55 PM
1

The tribes were bigger than that. 50-150 individuals. And no they are not going to discard someone just because he doesn't believe the child is his. What do you think they would force him to be with her? We don't even do that... Why would they? These were patriarchal societies by in large. Due to the fact that men have larger muscles and might is right in the animal kingdom. So more than likely the real response would be "why the fuck were you fucking a guy who has 0 commitment to you? Thats you…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 07:07 PM
1

I have a different theory. In the 1990s people were still social creatures. By 2025 a large % of the population are hermits. Or they exist in their tiny social circles. What happens is that if you don't socialize enough. Your standards for a mate are blown way out of proportion. You will want to date people who are way better looking than you. This is particularly bad for women because a lot of Chads will gladly throw some dick your way. But will likely not commit to you. It distorts their self …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 06:51 PM
4

What do you mean? You think they would kick a man out if a woman accused him of getting her pregnant and he said "nah fuck that, that ain't my baby". Maybe sometimes but I doubt that was the norm.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 06:47 PM
-1

Men pride themselves in being “less picky” as if that’s not actually part of the problem. Yeah but thats just innate. Males don't get pregnant. Of course we'll be less picky. In the wild you can just dump the woman and let her deal with the baby. Ain't no child support where we evolved from.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 06:33 PM
2

Your value is tied to your ability to attract a quality partner. That is not something society made up. It's instinctual. This is how our ancestors shaped society for 1000s of years. You don't just erase millions of years of evolution (which predates humans) because tik tok told you otherwise. Why is your value tied to your ability to attract a quality partner? Well think about in the animal world. Survival is of the paramount importance. If you can't survive you are dead meat. If you don't repr…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 06:29 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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