TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

DissonanceBadger Archive

View 7 posts and 406 comments by DissonanceBadger on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

And which part of it do you object to?
/r/ExRedPill09/04/22 07:47 PM
12

I know a dude who lives with his grandma in an apartment that he bought. He says women are OK with that version of living with family. Someone once asked him if he lives with his parents, and after he described the situation she called it “your grandma lives with you”.
/r/ExRedPill09/04/22 04:55 PM
2

I don't know if there's a singular source for this, it's just a consensus of the field at this point, emerging from years of looking at the puzzle of sexuality through an evolutionary lens. You often find it mentioned in works that summarize the topic, like this book.
/r/ExRedPill08/04/22 01:25 PM
5

Well the evolutionary explanation to why women shame other women for being slutty is because gatekeeping sexuality is the leverage women have for getting what they want from men (commitment, etc.), but if some woman starts offering sex for cheap, it makes it harder for other women to place high demands on men.
/r/ExRedPill08/04/22 12:08 PM
1

Yeah, so what? If this were a graph of dating success, you might have a point, but it's not that kind of graph.
/r/ExRedPill02/02/22 10:50 PM
-1

Why would the Praeto principle apply to men but not women?
/r/ExRedPill01/02/22 07:47 AM
1

LOL what?
/r/ExRedPill21/01/22 04:38 PM
6

No, that’s a bad advice. You shouldn’t wait to have real life experiences until you’re “theoretically ready”. You’ll just end up not accumulating valuable experience, and feed your loneliness, which will make dating even harder because it induces neediness. Self esteem is a flawed concept, and it has nothing to do with dating success. Attraction is about having hard to fake desirable qualities, and knowing how to display them. It’s not about matching values of self esteem. Your “self esteem” mat…
/r/ExRedPill04/01/22 01:00 PM
4

Rollo is wrong about being able to fake behavior among strangers. People absolutely will be able to tell over time, in particular because all the qualities that are worth faking (because they generate attraction) are by evolutionary design the kinds of qualities that are hard to fake. This is why they evolved to be attraction catalysts. You can’t fake confidence, intellect, creativity, physical health, mental health, social skills, and so on. Your only option is to develop these qualities for re…
/r/ExRedPill27/12/21 06:08 PM
3

It’s worth pointing out that with at least two girlfriends in your history, you’re already more successful with women than many of the people who turn to the red pill. Sounds like your problem is that you gravitate to untrustworthy women, not that you’re not successful with women.
/r/ExRedPill10/12/21 09:18 AM
1

If it helps, you’ve certainly convinced me that there’s no hope for you. …that was the point of this thread, right?
/r/ExRedPill08/12/21 03:57 PM
1

I'm curious, where's the unbiased research on muscles? Genuinely curious, I didn't know if it was truly evidence based. Unfortunately I did not keep track of when I encountered this information, but if you want to see a book that does a good job summarizing everything psychologists figured out about female attraction, see this: Mate: Become the Man Women Want https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RTY0FKK/ref=cm_sw_r_awdo_navT_a_5JG5XY608E4TE9MF0GRQ The gist of why muscles are unattractive have to do with…
/r/ExRedPill30/11/21 09:01 AM
1

Every credible piece of research into the subject says that women like successful men. The reason why men are having trouble with this concept is that they don’t see the connection between being successful and invoking instantaneous lust in a woman, so they think that other factors like looks and height have to be more dominant, because at least the connection between them and instantaneous lust makes some sort of sense, unlike the mythical connection between career and lust, and the reason why …
/r/ExRedPill29/11/21 09:04 PM
3

Agreed. I think that what generally prevents people from adopting this sort of mentality is that they have yet to reach the conclusion that the situation is truly not controllable. They want something, it generates the potential for disappointment, they want to eliminate the possibility for disappointment, they don’t know how to do that, but they also don’t know for sure that it’s impossible, so they keep trying to figure out a way. Another thing that can contribute to this is lack of active soc…
/r/ExRedPill26/11/21 12:13 AM
2

Had it occurred to you that the “tendency”, the existence of which you admitted to, is the answer that people are looking for when asking questions like “what do women like”? There is an Alexandra when you are standing in front of Alexandra. There isn’t an Alexandra when you’re alone at home getting dressed for a party and trying to decide between an elegant shirt and one that says “F.B.I. - female body inspector” on it. Maybe Alexandra happens to like that sort of humor, but women tend not to.
/r/ExRedPill25/11/21 11:50 PM
2

Confidence is a the realistic expectation that you will be successful at a task given your competence and the stakes involved. That means that you can become more confident by lowering the stakes, which is what you’re suggesting when you say “don’t hinge your self worth on other people”. However, I don’t think that “self worth” sums up what the stakes are all about. I never met someone who said “I must have success with that girl or else I’ll think less of myself”. It’s usually “I want her and I…
/r/ExRedPill25/11/21 11:29 PM
7

Baby steps. You accumulate small successes, which makes you confident enough to attempt bigger successes, and so on…
/r/ExRedPill25/11/21 11:13 PM
1

Yes you are correct. In fact, it’s scientifically established that this is how confidence works.
/r/ExRedPill25/11/21 11:12 PM
4

I think you verbalized the insecurity really well, which is good because that means you have the ability to watch your thoughts and reason about them. It’s not wrong to prepare for a bad scenario, but it is wrong to only view the world through the lens of the worst case scenario. You’re not just averting disasters, you’re also a cultivator of value as well, and you’re not really reminding yourself of that right now. You’re telling yourself a one sided story. So you should proceed by also figurin…
/r/ExRedPill24/11/21 11:50 AM
3

Might as well post the video so that we’ll have something to discuss.
/r/ExRedPill24/11/21 11:39 AM
11

It’s sort of like this: To succeed with women you need A+B. The Red Pill gives you B+C. C is toxic. The Red Pill claims to be the full answer, but A is missing. B isn’t well explained, and is essentially coincidental. Maybe you managed to make it work, and good for you. If you’re an A looking for a B, and intuitively know how to resist C, it might help you. But this isn’t a well engineered solution.
/r/ExRedPill23/11/21 03:59 PM
5

First of all, 'flirt' is a kind of ambiguous term. It can mean anything from creating sexual tension to making the other person feel good about themselves. This ambiguity is one reason why men feel like they don't understand what flirting is, because it isn't defined in obvious, certain terms, but is more like a vibe. So the first step to figuring out flirting is to realize that there isn't one way to flirt, there's a spectrum of "projecting positive things at the person" to choose from, and you…
/r/ExRedPill25/10/21 04:13 PM
3

And working wherever you do for a paycheck is? Or are you doing it for reasons other than joy? I could of course point out that you are free to engage in whatever exploratory behavior you do enjoy, but you’ll just insist that there is no such thing because the point of this thread is to convince yourself through convincing others that you’re beyond help, so instead I’ll tell you to do it because it’s what needs to be done. The joy might actually come later as you may discover that you actually k…
/r/ExRedPill21/10/21 05:18 PM
2

Yes. You do it for the result. Just like you work a job you may not necessarily want to work at because you want the paycheck.
/r/ExRedPill21/10/21 05:04 PM
3

You don’t need an innate interest, you just need to do it.
/r/ExRedPill21/10/21 05:01 PM
3

No, being interesting also means living a rich life. If you travel abroad a lot, you’re interesting. If you read many books, you’re interesting. If you try many foods, you’re interesting. Etc. etc. Being interesting means engaging in exploratory behavior.
/r/ExRedPill21/10/21 04:51 PM
3

You didn’t say funny or go getter in your question, you were asking about being interesting.
/r/ExRedPill21/10/21 04:45 PM
4

How exactly does one born interesting. You know nothing and can’t do anything. What about your personality is innately interesting at that point?
/r/ExRedPill21/10/21 04:40 PM
8

You aren’t born interesting, you become interesting.
/r/ExRedPill21/10/21 04:20 PM
1

So, your understanding of confidence isn’t exactly confidence, scientifically speaking, although funnily enough you can become more confident by doing some of what you described. The scientific explanation for what confidence is, is this: The realistic expectation that you will be successful in a task based on your competence in the task, and the stakes. In other words, if you are very good at something, or there is no danger to failing, then you’ll feel confident. Confidence is domain specific …
/r/ExRedPill20/10/21 11:17 AM
1

Hi there Mr. necromancer. I encourage you to keep thinking this way, and don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise. They’re all lying to you.
/r/ExRedPill20/10/21 10:49 AM
2

Very good post, I agree with what you wrote, and to me this is what makes dating not fun (well, one of the things anyway). I kinda don’t feel like playing this game anymore. However, here’s a few things I’d like to add to it: Female process of attraction is simply not as instantaneous as men’s. It’s almost like a process of gradual convincing, and a lot of it is based on things that are not available in online dating profiles, like behavior (a big one), smell, body language, amount of effort the…
/r/ExRedPill17/10/21 05:45 AM
4

Sigh… The problem with this type of wisdom, is that it doesn’t solve anything for whoever is reading it. For example, you say: You don’t need sex. You desire sex. True, but men aren’t getting sucked into Red Pill ideologies because they’re desperately trying to figure out how to not die from lack of sex, they get sucked in because they are drug addicts who want to have control over when they get their fix. Telling them they don’t need the drug isn’t going to help them stop wanting it, and tellin…
/r/ExRedPill16/10/21 07:59 PM
1

So don’t do it in a patronizing and hostile manner, do it with love. An argument in this case is unavoidable. OP wants to tell him something he doesn’t want to hear. Trying to figure out how to do this without stepping on his feelings is pointless. He needs to see reality and be appalled at the realization, and quickly, by the sound of it.
/r/ExRedPill14/10/21 06:15 AM
1

I don't think they are socialized to be aggressive. No parent or school teacher ever encourages that behavior, they'd all rather boys just sit down and shut up and stop making trouble.
/r/ExRedPill13/10/21 09:38 PM
5

Did I make it seem like I think it’s women? No, it made it seem that you think the saying: "women rejecting men when it comes to dating will lead to them becoming school shooters" means: "we hold women responsible for making men school shooters". I wanted to point out the difference, because often in topics that relate to the relationships between the sexes, each person tends to view things from the point of view of their own sex, so every topic gets filtered through the lens of "what does this …
/r/ExRedPill13/10/21 09:25 PM
2

If I was in your shoes what I would try to do is psychoanalyze his behavior to him and have an argument about it. He is going to have two types of defenses, one is denial, and one is rationalization. You break apart his denial by saying out loud what he is really feeling and thinking, and you break his rationalization by arguing him into a corner. This sounds really aggressive, but if you do this with the mindset that you're being a messenger of objective reality, and refrain from mixing your em…
/r/ExRedPill13/10/21 08:13 PM
9

Hafeez was literally trying to say that women rejecting men when it comes to dating will lead to them becoming school shooters. [...] To try to blame women for a problem like this is crazy. You have a flaw in your logic. If women rejecting men when it comes to dating will lead to them becoming school shooters, that doesn't imply that women are to blame. It also doesn't imply that the solution is for women to stop rejecting men, because clearly that is a human rights violation. If it's truly the …
/r/ExRedPill13/10/21 07:48 PM
5

Well, here's an example: the whole topic of hypergamy. Hypergamy is well established by the relevant scientific literature. However, it doesn't say what redpillers claim it says. What redpillers call 'hypergamy' is extrapolation from the original concept. "If it's true that women marry up, then they will probably be willing to trade up". There's absolutely no literature that supports that speculation, but when people hear that that's hypergamy, and that "hypergamy" is scientifically established,…
/r/ExRedPill09/10/21 05:54 PM
5

The thing that makes the redpill so contagious is that it's telling half-truths, so a part of me is wondering if what you're referring to is people not throwing the baby out with the bath water. I guess specific examples might be helpful here.
/r/ExRedPill09/10/21 04:47 PM
9

It sort of depends on the subject of choosing, and also on your perspective. Women will say that men are the choosers because they decide who to approach, and when to offer marriage. Men will say that women are the choosers because they decide if they accept the flirtatious advances, and decide if they agree to marriage. The reason why people say that women are the choosers isn’t really about whether the act of choice exists, but rather, what it’s worth. If you have a choice, but your standards …
/r/ExRedPill08/10/21 12:35 PM
3

The healthy masculine provides stability. He is trustworthy, a man of his word, in control of himself and his environment, knows where he is and where he is going, and is directed by a purpose. The healthy masculine provides clarity instead of being sneaky. He is authentic. He says what he means, and asks for what he wants. The healthy masculine is generous, and holds space for the feminine without judging the feminine. The healthy masculine has an energy of doing. He takes action and initiative…
/r/ExRedPill06/10/21 06:48 PM
5

Men and women are actually very different when it comes to sex, and it’s all a consequence of the fact that they get pregnant, while men don’t. Men and women are pretty much alike when it comes to gender neutral things, but with regards to sex there’s a chasm of difference between the two.
/r/ExRedPill04/10/21 09:57 PM
14

You'll have an easier time understanding men if you separate the concept of sex from the concept of respect. Everything that's related to sex is incredibly cheap for men. They get aroused easily, they reach orgasm easily, they have no concerns of safety regarding sex, no concerns of social judgment regarding sex, no fear of pregnancy, and they are surrounded with endless women that are at least somewhat attractive. It's all easy positives and no negatives and endless opportunities. Nothing about…
/r/ExRedPill27/09/21 08:03 PM
7

Replace "having sex" with "eating ice cream" and you'll understand it. They see sex as something that: Doesn't require any sort of emotional preparation. Is a win-win proposition on account of it being fun for both parties. Isn't dangerous. So why not be care free and hedonistic about it? Even if they understand on an intellectual level that it's different for women, it's hard for them to relate to it emotionally, and to some degree they're still baffled by it. Like, come on, it can't really be …
/r/ExRedPill27/09/21 07:40 PM
1

How is guy supposed to be like to be considered GOOD ENOUGH to employ? Usually it's implied that you need a prestigious degree, awesome people skills, intelligent, conscientious, present yourself well, relevant past experience, and basically be a perfect high achieving worker. Does this makes sense? Absolutely. But in practice, many people who get employed fall short of this standard. So what's the cutoff point? It's hard to say specifically, but I can give you some pointers. At 20 years old, no…
/r/ExRedPill23/09/21 05:52 AM
2

This is a good analysis, way better than the type of analysis I often see on Reddit, and I think that it is correct to some of them. But I also think that it is often just the expression of lust. "I want genuine burning desire" means "I'm a drug addict, I'm addicted to the fantasy in my head, and so I need that fantasy to come true in order to satisfy my addiction". Sexual fantasy is a self feeding loop. Lust generates fantasy equal in intensity to the lust, then fantasy generates more powerful …
/r/ExRedPill23/09/21 05:14 AM
5

I assume most people’s desire is built through steady and trustworthy interactions indicating affection and reciprocity, over time. “Instant desire” isn’t really a thing. That’s merely lust, at best. Lust is what they mean when they say "genuine desire".
/r/ExRedPill23/09/21 04:44 AM
6

Yes but how can a woman gain info about deep seated psychological traits of a man based on a photograph? They take guesses based on asking themselves “what kind of person would do what this person is doing”. Basically, with women, the meaning of why you’re doing something speaks louder than what it is you’re actually doing.
/r/ExRedPill21/09/21 03:12 PM
1

Yep, 100% agree.
/r/ExRedPill21/09/21 03:10 PM
1

You're totally correct. I encourage you to believe everything you wrote and live by that philosophy.
/r/ExRedPill21/09/21 01:36 PM
3

Seriously?! That’s some quality programming.
/r/ExRedPill17/09/21 03:24 PM
3

Go study psychology instead. I find that it’s much more productive than listening to dating coaches. But also, Teal Swan has some really good videos about the feminine/masculine dynamic.
/r/ExRedPill17/09/21 03:22 PM
1

Off topic.
/r/ExRedPill15/09/21 08:23 PM
1

Well if it’s not in the movie, that just brings us back to the original question.
/r/ExRedPill14/09/21 09:00 AM
-1

and you've not voiced one valid or coherent argument to the contrary other than "I didn't get that from it" Well your arguments amount to "that's how the director intended it" and "tons of people got it", so that's not a particularly higher ground, and frankly, interpreting things through an LGBTQ+ lens is a popular past time of the community, so that doesn't imply to me that the interpretation was obvious and not a product of world view bias. In fact, show me where I said that Lilly's statement…
/r/ExRedPill13/09/21 10:46 PM
-1

I'm getting pretty curious about what you think "Death of the Author" means, because we clearly aren't talking about the same article. Barthes's point was that the author is not the authority on what the art means, the reader is. So you stressing the importance of what the director meant flies in the face of that. You're attempting to use it as proof that The Matrix was never an allegory for trans identity but there's no basis in logic for your argument. And I suppose that this is where we get t…
/r/ExRedPill13/09/21 09:35 PM
-1

There's a HUGE metaphorical gulf between being so overt and hamfisted in telling a trans story that you shove it down peoples' throats...and using metaphor and allegory to tell one story to the people paying close attention, and another, still enjoyable story, to those who aren't watching that close. Nobody's asking for things to be hamfisted. When you're using metaphors and allegories you're substituting a concrete message for an abstract one, so that the viewer could project their own interpre…
/r/ExRedPill13/09/21 09:00 PM
0

The fact that it was so subtle and not hamfisted about it is actually a testament to the effectiveness with which they told that story. Yes, all effective communication is defined by being so subtle that your intended meaning flies under everybody's radar. it was 19 fucking 99 and there was NO WAY a major studio was going to greenlight a blatant, and written the way you apparently would've wanted: hamfisted, allegory for transgender identity summer blockbuster. Great, I'm glad that we're in agre…
/r/ExRedPill13/09/21 08:36 PM
-4

There's a concept called "the death of the author" which I advise you to look into. If they wanted the movie to be about being trans, it would've been prudent of them to actually refer to being trans in the content of the film. As it stands, sexual orientation is not discussed in any meaningful way in the movie, making their intentions, if they indeed had such intentions, irrelevant.
/r/ExRedPill13/09/21 07:47 PM
-2

This is the part of what you wrote that is objectively within the movie: The entire red pill/blue pill thing is about the internal dilemma ____ _____ ______, ___ ____ _____ ______ __ _______, __ _______ _____ "______ ___" __ ________: do I want to try to ignore the truth I now know _____ ______ and go back to my "blissful" ignorance ________ ___ ______... or do I want to accept the truth _ ___ ____ _____ ______ ___ ___ "___ ____ ____ ______ ____ ____"? Now you can go ahead and project that on be…
/r/ExRedPill13/09/21 07:06 PM
1

Well if that is what it means, I hope that some day you'll find it in your heart to stop being so transphobic.
/r/ExRedPill13/09/21 06:32 PM
4

Well, from a psychometric perspective, women are slightly more Agreeable than men, and Agreeableness is the scale of how much you prioritize your own needs vs other people's needs, with high agreeableness meaning that you care about other people's needs more than your own. So that would make men more solopistic than women (on average).
/r/ExRedPill13/09/21 06:25 PM
1

Judging by this conversation it apparently means rejection of incoherent artistic analysis.
/r/ExRedPill13/09/21 06:14 PM
4

Maybe you should look up the definition of sense then.
/r/ExRedPill13/09/21 06:07 PM
2

That's also incorrect.
/r/ExRedPill13/09/21 05:59 PM
1

That's really stretching it.
/r/ExRedPill13/09/21 05:52 PM
-1

And what about any of this is trans specific? By that logic every hero story is about being trans.
/r/ExRedPill13/09/21 05:39 PM
7

In what way was it a metaphor for being trans?
/r/ExRedPill13/09/21 05:26 PM
7

This.
/r/ExRedPill11/09/21 10:29 PM
2

I don't have a harem, my friends don't have a harem, their friends don't have a harem... Must be those few Chads that are hoarding all the women for themselves.
/r/ExRedPill06/09/21 01:20 PM
1

Yes, but if you go up a few flights of stairs and are out of breath by the time you reach the top, that just looks sickly.
/r/ExRedPill04/09/21 05:43 PM
1

Sure, but that's not being athletic. That's just using your weight and natural muscle mass to your advantage. Athletic means being strong relative to your body mass (like being able to do pull ups) and cardio stamina.
/r/ExRedPill04/09/21 05:36 PM
2

Tall big framed men are generally strong, athletic and intelligent There's absolutely no correlation between being big and being intelligent. Being athletic is also something you don't get for free, it requires exercise. It is true that their size makes them stronger than a smaller man though.
/r/ExRedPill04/09/21 05:30 PM
0

Yes it's universal.
/r/ExRedPill04/09/21 11:14 AM
-1

Signs of competence. That’s why confidence is such a turn on for example. Looks are important insofar that you don’t have obvious problems, beyond that you hit diminishing returns.
/r/ExRedPill04/09/21 08:16 AM
1

Are you honestly confused by this? The concept of cognitive dissonance basically answers your question. That's all there is to it. However, you also have a fundamental misunderstanding of the attraction mechanisms of women. The reason why it looks like girls are "figuring this out in their teens" is because female attraction mechanisms aren't prioritizing looks, not in the same way that male attraction mechanisms do, so they never have this problem to begin with.
/r/ExRedPill03/09/21 07:58 PM
2

How is that a "defense"? Who cares which one it is? The ideas are still stupid.
/r/ExRedPill03/09/21 08:16 AM
6

I'm impressed that they defined it based on the time when heart beat begins. That's actually a biological standard, rather than a metaphysical one. Could it be that these idiots finally got it through their head that an undefined clump of cells is not a human yet? At the same time, it's somewhat amusing that they didn't consider brain activity to be the cutoff point. I guess it's easy to overlook something when you don't use it yourself.
/r/ExRedPill03/09/21 08:12 AM
1

Insecurities give rise to anger. No, that's wrong. Insecurity doesn't necessarily give rise to anger. It only gives rise to anger if you start moralizing it, which is the pitfall Red Pillers fall into. Moralizing means categorizing things that cause negative emotions as evil, which is a form of defensive aggression that some people turn to in order to escape feeling vulnerable. There are much more mature ways to handle insecurity than to lay blame on the person causing it.
/r/ExRedPill27/08/21 07:23 PM
0

That’s because you don’t understand the meaning of the phrase. First of all, what do they mean when they say “women”? You’d think they mean “all women”, but usually what they mean is “we identified a general trend that leans a certain direction”. As in: 70% of women said they prefer black hair, and 30% preferred blonde hair, hence “women prefer black hair”. “But what about the 30% that don’t like black hair??” “We don’t care, we’re about identifying the common case, we’re not trying to accuratel…
/r/ExRedPill27/08/21 03:15 PM
1

Are you seriously asking why should anyone care about scientific research?
/r/ExRedPill27/08/21 01:28 AM
1

You just described the red pill concept of coming out of "anger phase". This is literally the advice given on marriedredpill. The fact that there's an "anger phase" to begin with is what's messed up, because once again, it betrays maladaptive anxious thinking. If your girlfriend tells you "I'm scared", your thinking shouldn't be "are you going to leave me over this", and then "how dare you leave me over something like this", and then "I'm never going to trust a woman ever again". That's what the…
/r/ExRedPill26/08/21 11:11 PM
1

How is believing that women will "severely" lose attraction if you take a "status hit" not supposed make men who believe that insecure? It has all the ingredients needed to make someone insecure. The Red Pill is what happens when you succumb to this insecurity and let it dictate your thinking. Thoughts such as: "Women have no loyalty, hence they can't be trusted, hence they are evil, hence they will never love me, hence I might as well fuck them over" are merely catastrophizing. It's you anticip…
/r/ExRedPill26/08/21 10:08 PM
1

Like I said, got talk to marriage counselors, they’ve seen this happen more than once. And no, that doesn’t make the Red pill the natural conclusion unless you start moralizing this from the point of view of your insecurities.
/r/ExRedPill26/08/21 09:46 PM
1

The Red pill is this times a 1000, which is what makes it unrealistic.
/r/ExRedPill26/08/21 09:38 PM
1

Yeah, sorry to break this to you, but it’s a known phenomenon, and I’m saying this as someone who thinks the Red pill is crap. If you don’t believe me go speak to marriage counselors, they have plenty of such stories.
/r/ExRedPill26/08/21 09:32 PM
1

From a dating point of view, most women are turned off by men who talk about their work a lot. Depends on how you talk about it. I actually brag with my job quite a lot, but I don't go around telling about the professional details of software development. I tell indicators of high status and hero stories: I report directly to the CEO, I have full control of the technical direction of a key project, I have my own employees, I have a private office, look how nice our building looks (it really does…
/r/ExRedPill24/08/21 10:02 PM
1

Which one? Either way, I've no idea if it's the same guy. I bought this as a blind buy. If I try to summarize the book, I'll be doing you a disservice, because it's really the details that make the book. But I can tell you that it's nothing like any "pickup artist" technique book you may have read, and in a good way. The "Look inside" feature on Amazon actually has the first two chapters fully available for reading, as well as an elaborate introduction. I recommend you give them a look. https://…
/r/ExRedPill24/08/21 08:21 PM
3

You asked "Who said the top question women ask is about job?". In my original post I wrote: "I once had a discussion about men and women with someone who works as a matchmaker. She said that...". That's the answer to your question. Also, just cause women expect older men to have a stable career as they should by 30 Yes exactly, thanks for proving my point. That judgmental tone you just took is exactly what I'm talking about. Why should he have a stable career by 30? What if he just wants to go t…
/r/ExRedPill24/08/21 08:02 PM
1

Who said the top question women ask is about job? The answer is in my post above the one you replied to. Being a women for 26 years, my first hand experience is that women often asked is if the man is “cute.” Unless of course, we already know how he looks like such as in online dating, then we question about jobs/hobbies etc. You should probably take into account that the demographic for matchmaker clientele is in the 30s and 40s. Of course in your early 20s you're not going to jump to discussin…
/r/ExRedPill24/08/21 07:20 PM
2

Mate: Become the Man Women Want by Tucker Max and Geoffrey Miller. This is honestly the only book you need to learn about what attracts women. It’s a summary of all the credible research on the matter, and it offers pragmatic advice as well.
/r/ExRedPill24/08/21 03:56 PM
3

I don’t think this statement is as profound as you think. Most people are average, so obviously you’re going to see a lot of people who are “on the same level”, that’s assuming you can even quantify this, which I don’t think you can. You can roughly divide people into ugly, normal, and beautiful, in a way that most people will probably agree on, beyond that it becomes really subjective, but you can be sure that 80% of people are going to be in the “normal” category. So yeah, 80% of people are da…
/r/ExRedPill24/08/21 03:44 PM
8

Well, as a man, would you say a woman’s looks is one of those things that’s “theory vs. practice”? Most women aren’t supermodels, yet somehow most women are dating or in a relationship. Does that mean that looks aren’t all that important for a woman?
/r/ExRedPill24/08/21 03:33 PM
2

If women cared about looks, the number one question that women ask wouldn’t be “what is his job”, they would ask “what does he look like”. But they don’t. The reason why it can seem like it doesn’t help outperform, is because it won’t do all the work on its own, but it’s still a pretty damn good thing to have.
/r/ExRedPill24/08/21 03:20 PM
5

All credible studies on attraction indicate that for a man a good career is a huge plus in your favor, not because of the money, but because it indicates competence. Anecdotally, I can tell you that I once had a discussion about men and women with someone who works as a matchmaker. She said that whenever she has a new dating candidate for a client, the first thing men want to know is: what does she look like, and the first thing women want to know is: what is his job. In fact, if a woman is on t…
/r/ExRedPill24/08/21 03:07 PM
1

There is a degree of truth to what you are saying, but I also think that a more fundamental problem is how many men and women grew up without fathers. Ideally your first introduction to relationship between men and women should be watching your father and mother interact. We learn most of our social skills through mimicry, so if we start our journey into relationship having no one to imitate, that’s as debilitating as being autistic. Even if you fell for the lie of abundant sex, as long as you h…
/r/ExRedPill23/08/21 10:08 AM
23

The metaphor was taken from the movie The Matrix, where Morpheus offers Neo a choice: take the red pill and see the world for what it truly is, or take the blue pill and go back to living your illusion of reality. Red pill is people who think they have the secrets for sleeping with a harem of women figured out. They believe in things that are essentially manifestations of their anxieties about women, and a skewed world view that treats sexual gratification as the only motivation humans have. The…
/r/ExRedPill21/08/21 11:04 PM
1

Exactly! Disregard everything I said, I don’t know what I’m talking about. Next time there’s a hottie you’re interested in, start the conversation by telling her you’re unemployed. Gotta filter out those gold diggers.
/r/ExRedPill18/08/21 09:57 PM
1

You seem to have started this thread only to argue with everybody’s answers. Don’t want to believe that having a good job is an advantage to getting women, go right ahead. I like it when my competition shoots itself in the foot.
/r/ExRedPill18/08/21 08:33 PM
1

Well the way the red pill is describing this is obviously exaggerated and rooted in irrational anxieties. The world is not full of gold diggers waiting to leech off of you. However, being successful in life is attractive to women. This discussion is repeated every once in a while in various dating groups, so I’ll repost something one woman wrote: “When I hear that a guy is unemployed (or working at a low paying job without any plans to upgrade himself, depending on the specific flavor of the dis…
/r/ExRedPill18/08/21 12:02 AM
1

I was exposed to the Red Pill when I was already sophisticated enough in my understanding to doubt it, however it took me a while to articulate why, which is why instead of ignoring it and moving on, I lingered and developed an interest in taking it apart. My instinctual reaction before I was able to put rings into words was that it was just way too adversarial.
/r/ExRedPill14/08/21 01:36 PM
1

Yes.
/r/ExRedPill10/08/21 08:17 AM
2

I think that every time you have a body of knowledge that is: - Internally consistent, yet not aligned with reality. - Resistant to outside information. - Socially propagated. - Harmful to the participant. ...then a bunch of people who were never part of an actual cult would label it as cult based on what they read in books about cults.
/r/ExRedPill09/08/21 10:49 PM
4

There’s no need to go as far as creepy vibes. For women confidence is a drug. It’s like if a woman came to you and rubbed her tits in your face. Confidence is also really hard to fake, and most people are oblivious to at least some low confidence cues they give out. I don’t know how you worded it, and how your body language was when you said it, and I also don’t know how objective you are in your assessment that those women really lost interest. Women generally try to keep all the details about …
/r/ExRedPill08/08/21 03:09 PM
8

It’s not because you’re a virgin, it’s because you go around telling people you’re a virgin. The act of telling is itself what’s off putting, not the reality of you being a virgin. It’s off putting because of a few things: It’s possible that you have a good reason for being a virgin, or it’s also possible that you’re a virgin because you lack confidence/weird/loser in some other way. Women are risk averse. If you give her a reason to think that you might be a loser, she’s not going to stay to fi…
/r/ExRedPill08/08/21 02:50 PM
3

I’m 34. As for inexperience, what’s that got to do with anything?
/r/ExRedPill08/08/21 02:32 PM
5

Most of those women are by definition in some sort a decent relationship likely for a long term. LOL no they’re not. People break up all the time. People aren’t always actively looking. There’s plenty of normal single women, especially during the 20s.
/r/ExRedPill08/08/21 02:28 PM
6

Why “starting then”? If not a lot do it, by definition a lot don’t do it. There’s your dating pool. Go date those women.
/r/ExRedPill08/08/21 02:23 PM
1

You date men who look at the slutty borderline type and say to themselves “that’s too much crazy for me”. These people are everywhere, it’s just that such people are invisible to those who only have sexual excitement on their mind, like Red Pillers.
/r/ExRedPill08/08/21 12:20 PM
9

Listen to r/Inareskai. They got it right. I’ll also add that women like feeling desired, and it’s possible that a woman will keep around a man she’s not very interested in because he makes her feel desired, which might be what happened to you. It’s not a nice thing to do, and not all women do this, and even ones who do often grow out of it (it’s more common among teenagers and early 20s), but it could be what happened to you.
/r/ExRedPill08/08/21 09:29 AM
17

Because you're conflating someone who wants an equal partner with someone who is an unattractive loser. Why can't you be that type of person and also be an alpha? See, this isn't really a quote on attractive vs unattractive, it's about sane vs. crazy. Both sane and crazy people can be attractive, you just need to know that crazy people are only good for fucking, while sane people are good for both fucking and marriage. That is what the quote is about. Let me translate it into man language: "My a…
/r/ExRedPill07/08/21 07:56 PM
13

Well, why would she have kids with an inferior man? Why not settle down with an alpha provider? Because in the red pill world, men only want to fuck around, and you’re either someone who is able to do that (alpha), or someone who can’t (beta), so they think this forces women’s hand. But this is really just them applying their own value system into female choice. The claim speaks more about how red pullers view the world than how women view it.
/r/ExRedPill05/08/21 09:18 AM
2

Well, I don't know you, so I'm throwing guesses here. The problem with these things is that there are layers upon layers of influences that add up for a decision, including sociological factors or just past experience. I can give you another example that presumably doesn't add up: My mother values intelligence a lot, and her last "husband" (she never actually married him) was kind of an idiot. So why was she with him then? For starters, being an idiot was the opposite of her previous husband, my…
/r/ExRedPill25/07/21 07:50 PM
1

Because there is a wide variability in how these things are expressed. For example, women who come from a rich background typically care a lot less about how much money a man makes than women who come from a poor background. So it's possible that when a woman is very self sufficient, her standard for how successful you need to be goes way down. It's possible that your wife is very low on trait "neuroticism", which means that she is very resilient to negative emotions. Such women don't care much …
/r/ExRedPill25/07/21 07:18 PM
1

The point is the same point in every piece of knowledge. It’s useful to know. Now you can ask yourself “what can I do to avoid that problem?”
/r/ExRedPill25/07/21 06:50 PM
1

The amount of money you make isn’t the point.
/r/ExRedPill25/07/21 06:47 PM
-7

Your evolutionary role as a man is to provide food and protection. You could say that women “don’t care” about how you fulfill that role, because it’s your job to figure out how to build yourself up into someone who can fulfill that role, similar to how you don’t care about what the woman needs to do to be beautiful, it’s her job to figure that out. However, that doesn’t mean that there’s no place for your human vulnerabilities in a relationship, it’s just that your struggles must not get in the…
/r/ExRedPill25/07/21 12:41 PM
1

Thanks, glad you agree.
/r/ExRedPill25/07/21 08:40 AM
1

I love it when the username checks out.
/r/ExRedPill25/07/21 08:38 AM
1

Is this a way of saying that it is better for women to be stupid? I don't think that is the point.
/r/ExRedPill25/07/21 06:13 AM
1

How is he not?? Did you listen to any of his lectures or are you going by hearsay?
/r/ExRedPill23/07/21 06:49 PM
1

But he actually is the originator of the red pill, while Jordan Peterson is the antithesis of the red pill, and the Reddit is called “exredpill”.
/r/ExRedPill23/07/21 06:22 PM
1

Very interesting theory. I’ll be on the lookout for that.
/r/ExRedPill23/07/21 04:34 PM
3

Well, personally I understand what he says pretty well, but that is besides the point. Rollo Tomassi is downright pseudo scientific, yet he isn’t banned.
/r/ExRedPill23/07/21 03:20 PM
2

How about “no Rollo Tomassi” rule then? He’s the originator of this whole red pill thing. Why isn’t he in the rules?
/r/ExRedPill23/07/21 05:20 AM
3

Let me put this in a way you might understand. One would expect a Reddit like “exredpill” to have a rule like “no Rollo Tomassi”, instead somehow it’s Jordan Peterson who randomly appears in the rules section. Somehow I don’t think the rule is there because you think he sucks, so how about actually answering the question?
/r/ExRedPill22/07/21 05:57 PM
1

Or the source for those pussy pics, very interested in those as well…
/r/ExRedPill22/07/21 05:51 PM
2

Social Justice Warriors.
/r/ExRedPill21/07/21 08:42 AM
1

I wholeheartedly encourage you to adopt this philosophy.
/r/ExRedPill21/07/21 08:33 AM
1

I’d rather we discuss actual specific points, not general claims of what he may or may not be doing with statistics. 1+2: it’s an interview, not a scientific debate, and even in the context of actual scientific discussions, people aren’t talking like robots. Phrases of speech are inherent to human conversation. 3 Can you rephrase this? I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. 4 That’s not gatekeeping, that’s just being a social creature. Everybody is taught something growing up. Part of becoming …
/r/ExRedPill21/07/21 08:32 AM
4

To prove that he yet another alt-right revenger who spouts data without any sociological interpretation thinking that's how science works. Well you haven't demonstrated that either. "People" obviously means that loud and resentful group of people that have become associated with the term SJW, not all people in society. Is just unreasonable nitpicking. Saying it has patriarchal elements is not admission that patriarchy exists unless you're incredibly puritanical. What gatekeeping?! The only thing…
/r/ExRedPill21/07/21 07:13 AM
3

I fail to see how this is relevant to my question.
/r/ExRedPill21/07/21 06:57 AM
2

What does the red pill have to do with SJWs?? They may have ideas that would be repulsive to SJWs, but they aren’t actively anti-SJW. It’s not a political movement.
/r/ExRedPill21/07/21 06:00 AM
4

I’m well familiar with his work, there’s absolutely nothing in common with the red pill.
/r/ExRedPill21/07/21 05:40 AM
5

Well, that's obviously wrong. There absolutely are commonalities in what all women find attractive, and you will do well to capitalize on them. The problem is that in order to identify these commonalities you need to poll 10,000 women. An average person barely knows 10 women. This is a problem that is common for many social topics: that a pattern is only visible in a sample size that is significantly larger than the social circle of the average person. The second problem is that in order to cond…
/r/ExRedPill20/07/21 05:47 PM
1

For a woman to be attractive to a man, 70% of that is looks. For a man to be attractive to a woman, 10-20% of it is looks. Also, the way looks matter to women is different than the way looks matter to a man. To be good looking men don’t need to be beautiful, they need to be well put together, a phrase that means that you pay attention to grooming and dress reasonably well. Your physical characteristics only play a role when the way you looks signals bad health, or when the woman looks for certai…
/r/ExRedPill17/07/21 02:44 PM
-2

It became popular once men lost the plot on how sexual success works. A big chunk of it happened when we shed off all sorts of traditional societal norms, because we didn’t know how to differentiate between the parts that were outdated and the parts that were right, so we threw away both. This was exacerbated by multiple fatherless generations due to divorce, and by the socially autistic feminist movement, and now we are in a society where men want to engage with sex like it’s entertainment, and…
/r/ExRedPill16/06/21 03:13 PM
3

The correct way to look at things is that women are attracted to competence, not success. Success is a proxy for competence. Competence means being effective at handling life’s challenges. You “prove it” by displaying hard to fake traits that are associated with being competent. Physical health: you don’t have obvious health problems or abnormalities. You can’t fake not being obese, or not having poor fitness levels. This one mostly displays itself. You can carry something heavy for her for extr…
/r/ExRedPill27/05/21 10:36 AM
5

That doesn’t mean people value it. I complain about public transportation being crap, that doesn’t mean I’m going to date someone because she has a car. Once again, I encourage you to consider why is it such a feature for you.
/r/ExRedPill26/04/21 03:33 PM
17

Your problem is the degree to which you value niceness. It’s not a feature to many people, not because they want the opposite of niceness, but because it’s just not where the value of a partner lies. To sell niceness to people is like trying to sell someone a car by boasting about the quality of the screws used in assembly. No you don’t want shitty screws, yes they are important, but you’re not buying the car for the screws. You should ask yourself why is it that you value niceness so much that …
/r/ExRedPill26/04/21 11:23 AM
3

A few nitpicks: Does my future partner deserve someone like me who has done these pathetic things? Is she dating past you or present you? I don't think I harmed anyone (this isn't up to me to decide though) No actually it is partly up to you to decide. In some cases you could be doing nothing wrong and the other person will still feel hurt because their emotional system is badly calibrated. Anyway, shame is a social feeling, and your problem is that you either: don't truly believe you are differ…
/r/ExRedPill21/04/21 10:32 PM
15

Uhh... Does he not understand how being horny works?
/r/ExRedPill10/03/21 10:05 PM
3

There are multiple reasons for ghosting: Fear of commitment. Once a woman has sex with you, you are in the deep. It feels like you’ve reached the level of intimacy needed so that you could make this into a long term relationship if you wanted to (and it’s you the man who decides at this point). So suddenly he starts thinking “holy shot, is that it? Is this really the end of all the sexual experiences I could be having in theory? Is this woman so amazing that she’s worth the sacrifice?” Only a go…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/21 12:26 PM
2

I’m talking about casual relationships too.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/21 12:08 PM
3

They are not lying to themselves about what they want, they lie to themselves about whether they get it or not. They project their fantasy on the event and fill in the blanks from their mind. But I will also say that I think this often cited reason is only one of many possible reasons for why men value sex so much. I think two very common other reasons are addiction and intimacy starvation.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/21 11:59 AM
1

LOL.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/21 07:21 AM
49

Every time I hear these kinds of stories I end up wondering if you’re categorizing things correctly. You talk about empathy, and then follow it up with an example that has nothing to do with empathy. Having an engaging conversation has nothing to do with empathy. As for connection, what exactly do you mean by connection? Getting a feel for the person and feeling a bit in-sync with them? That’s not empathy, that’s a fitness test. That’s you checking that she’s normal and willing to be on the same…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/21 04:29 PM
2

So let’s not try to diagnose attachment styles as an answer that explains it all. Dating is stressful, and you’re naturally anxious. That’s a perfectly good explanation to what’s going on with you, there’s no need to add attachment styles to the mix. They’re not synonymous with “feeling anxious”, they’re their own beast, despite the overlap with generic anxious behavior.
/r/ExRedPill04/02/21 01:08 PM
2

But I do have those thoughts. That could just be plain insecurity. People with anxious attachment style don’t deal with it through avoiding action. Your avoidance of initiating sex is more fitting for an avoidant person, not one with anxious attachment. Anxious attachment people are all about bombarding people with attention as a way of compensating for not being good enough. This is not what you seem to be doing. Going on 8 dates with a woman and not making a move is not bombarding her with aff…
/r/ExRedPill04/02/21 12:10 PM
3

From the content of your post and answers, it sounds to me that you don't have an anxious attachment style, you're just anxious. An anxious attachment style isn't about being anxious around women, it's a behavioral pattern centered around need for constant reassurance. It's a coping mechanism for the belief that you will not get your needs met by an intimate relationship. An anxious attachment person believes that this happens because they are fundamentally unlovable (I am the problem), and it's…
/r/ExRedPill04/02/21 09:18 AM
2

Not vulnerable, weak. Being vulnerable voluntarily is an act of courage.
/r/ExRedPill28/01/21 07:18 PM
1

Look, your job as a man is to have your shit together for the woman in your life. You can cry next to her as long as the crying doesn’t imply that you don’t have your shit together. It seems contradictory but there are ways in which it can be done. Other than that you’re supposed to get your support from your male friends, and it’s not surprising to me that it was a guy who ended up comforting the male actors. That’s what male friendships are supposed to be about.
/r/ExRedPill28/01/21 07:17 PM
1

Everything you wrote is correct, but being lied to is a matter of perspective. From men's point of view they asked a question, and got an answer different from what the question was asking about. That feels like being lied to.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/21 03:52 PM
4

I don't think it's a matter of standing up to them. You're only participating in their paradigm when you do that. People are drawn to the red pill because they have failed in some way. The red pill is their best idea for handling the failure. It's not productive to try taking from them their best idea for handling the failure while they are still failing. That's just not going to work. The way to inoculate them from red pill ideas is to get them to stop failing, then the problem will take care o…
/r/ExRedPill18/01/21 08:17 PM
1

One way to look at this is that the question “what do I need to do” is interpreted relatively to an implicit starting point. “Be kind” is a great advice to an alpha, it’s not a great advice to some unemployed loser, in his case the advice is “get your shit together and go land a job”. Women are going to implicitly imagine someone who is already above a certain threshold, and then tell you what they’d like to top that with. You’ll never get from them an answer about how someone unattractive can b…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/21 07:27 AM
1

Women don’t get sexually attracted by singular traits, they get attracted by a multitude of traits working in concert, but they talk about their own attraction as if it’s based on singular traits because it’s easy to see the thing you react to, and not so easy to see the context it’s nested in.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/21 03:22 PM
4

What you say applies to some women, but I wouldn’t say it’s THE reason. I recently had the opportunity to talk to a guy who organizes speed date events. The method, if you’re unfamiliar with this type of event, is that you rotate through 20 or so 5 minute dates, and then mark which ones you liked on the list. If both parties marked each other, the organizer lets them know. He told me it’s very common for women to finish the event without marking any of the men, and sometimes he sees one mark tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 05:59 PM
4

On the other hand, I’m curious what motivates Western men to go through these stages more than once if they know there is an aftermath to the fantasy? Why bother? Well, first of all it takes a while to figure out that there's a pattern here. The first time it happens it's like "I guess she wasn't who I though she was, but that girl over there...". Then that girl over there turns out to be just as mortal as the first one, but maybe that third one over there. Eventually you catch up to the fact th…
/r/ExRedPill30/12/20 08:46 PM
8

I think that this mentality comes when you never get past the stage of infatuation. The normal course of events should be: you see a woman, you experience infatuation, you project into her an idealization, and that motivates you to go court her, then you discover the person behind the fantasy, and either develop love despite the shortcomings relative to the fantasy, or discover that they are deal breakers. At any rate, repeated exposures to this chain of events eventually matures you into unders…
/r/ExRedPill30/12/20 09:22 AM
1

I’m a bit confused about all the threads about sex as a need recently. They all seem to have an underlying premise that need implies entitlement. Just because something is a need, doesn’t mean society has to provide it to you somehow. You still need to buy your food, it’s not handed out to you for free just because sustenance is a basic need.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 09:12 PM
1

I agree, but why is that a reply to what I wrote?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 02:21 PM
0

Your definition of need is a bit too strict. You can argue that human connection isn’t a need either. You’re not going to die from it like you would die from lack of food, and there are loners out there who live very long and secluded life. Yet the research indicates that loneliness is as bad to your health as smoking or obesity, and you’re likely to die sooner because of it. So is human connection really something optional? How about avoiding pain, is that a need? Emotional pain activates the s…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 09:46 AM
5

Well, there's a bunch of approaches you need to take. One of them is to start cultivating a counter view, meaning that you need to actively look for counter examples. You'll soon realize that they are everywhere. Relationships rarely look like the Red Pill fantasy. I'll give you one for free. This is MxR Plays. The dude is an introverted YouTuber who dropped out of collage to review Skyrim sex mods for a living. He was living in a studio apartment when his current girlfriend who comes from a ric…
/r/ExRedPill10/12/20 02:12 PM
8

First of all, I’ll point out that you’re in a great position. It took me until I was 33 to figure this out. You have your whole young life in front of you. Now I guess my question would be, what do you mean by needing serious help? You seem to know what you thought wrong, so what is it that you hope to hear about your situation?
/r/ExRedPill10/12/20 11:37 AM
3

And what’s the leap from that to all women want millionaires and huge cock?
/r/ExRedPill10/12/20 07:12 AM
3

What about these ideas made them appealing to you?
/r/ExRedPill09/12/20 09:30 PM
2

There’s an element to the red pill that seems like it’s really more about male competition with each other than about being attractive to women. Take the muscle thing for example. Women generally don’t like very muscular men, they like normal healthy strong bodies, not action figures, so why do men feel compelled to care so much about it? Because a big strong man is the biggest threat to OTHER MEN in the sexual competition. He can chase them away and threaten them into submission. The whole maki…
/r/ExRedPill08/12/20 09:50 PM
3

Every time I see a post like this I wonder how do you qualify “good looks”. For example you said “tall and athletic”, is it good looks or health and ability to protect? Is athletic really the cutoff point? Is good looks primarily a physical attribute in your opinion, or is it possible that it is amplified by qualities such as confidence, and if so, which one is the stronger one, the physical attribute or the confidence? My impression is that often people miscategorize “attractive features” as “g…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/20 01:17 PM
1

I agree that it applies to dating as well, since marriage is a progression from dating. Regarding your question, maybe the tendency exists, but it’s not implied by the scientific research into hypergamy. It’s something that will have to be established on its own. My beef with the way red pillers use the word hypergamy is that by invoking scientific terminology and conflating it with something that it doesn’t actually talks about, they’re creating the impression that their ideas are scientificall…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/20 09:20 PM
1

Hypergamy is defined as marrying someone who has a socio-economic status that is equal to or higher than your own. That’s the definition that is used by the relevant scientific literature, and it’s the only correct use of the term. The red pill’s use of the term is not scientifically valid, since they extrapolate it to things beyond what is established by research. Specifically, it is not the tendency to upgrade to higher value mates, that’s a red pill invention.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 03:34 PM
1

OK you've convinced me. I guess if I follow the concept of a "tech city" to its natural conclusion it makes sense. If a city is packed with startups, all of them can't be prestigious employers like Google and Microsoft. Prestigious employers will have a natural monopoly on Ivy League type of developers, forcing the rest of the startups to be willing to accept bootcamp graduates, which ends up lowering the entry bar to the profession.
/r/ExRedPill19/11/20 02:30 PM
1

I'm aware how psychometrics measures intelligence. I'm also aware of the difference between that and a universal definition of a concept. I think you meant colloquial. The psychometric definition is the universal definition. Do you actually think every single person who works in programming fits that description? They're all above average problem solvers no matter the nature of the problem? Yes that is what I believe, because I think the simplest types of programming jobs still require a base le…
/r/ExRedPill19/11/20 02:25 PM
1

Secondly, you'd have to define intelligence, which I suspect would be the main problem, because it's such a vague category. Actually, intelligence is the most well defined concept in the field of psychometrics. The vagueness you refer to stems from the fact that for a while we really didn't know how to define what intelligence is, and there were a bunch of theories about how to divide the human skillset into categories, with some researchers proposing different types of intelligence to address e…
/r/ExRedPill18/11/20 01:51 PM
2

There's no need to tell me, I've been a software engineer for almost 10 years now :) The existence of bugs isn't an indicator that there are 'dumb' programmers. All programmers create bugs, including experienced programmers. It's a natural repercussion of the fact that to write software you have to think about all the possible scenarios that might happen (which is a lot), and the fact that you don't always have perfect knowledge of the technology itself, or the environment the program will opera…
/r/ExRedPill18/11/20 12:55 AM
1

I feel like you're describing a thing that you observe from a distance rather from actual familiarity. If you've ever been in an environment that centers around intelligence based productivity you'll know that it's an inherently humbling experience. Your intelligence no longer makes you special (everybody around you is intelligent), and you can't bullshit about your achievements like you can in fields where quality is subjective. So even though I'm not from the US, so I've never personally been …
/r/ExRedPill17/11/20 08:11 PM
-2

There’s a lot of dudebros in programming. It’s a highly competitive, sick measuring, bro culture these days. Um, what kind of alternate reality are you from? Programming has never been a bro culture, it was always the counter culture to that sort of thing, just by virtue of the price of admission (which is high intelligence).
/r/ExRedPill17/11/20 03:27 PM
2

I’m going to be cynical here and say that MGTOW aren’t really GTOW. Their GTOW is akin to those people in online communities that make a post saying “that’s it, I’m fed up and I’m leaving this community” only to log back 8 hours later to read all the comments. What they really want is not to GTOW, but to cause women to repent and apologetically chase after them as a response to their drastic action of GTOW. However, that only works if women actually care that these men are going away. In practic…
/r/ExRedPill07/11/20 08:27 PM
1

For some women that’s enough, but it’s certainly not as strong as him figuring it out on his own.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/20 04:56 PM
4

Women have been shaped by evolution to want men who take initiative, and also to cater to their needs. The two requirements are at an opposition. Someone who takes initiative is self driven, they operate from within their own internal motivations. To cater to a woman’s needs is to operate from within her motivation, which is the opposite of being someone who takes initiative. So how do you reconcile these two opposing goals? You find someone who takes initiative, in a way that just happens to be…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/20 04:39 PM
0

The answer is that with women it’s harder to tell, because their attraction mechanisms are murkier, but I do think that there’s a non trivial percentage of women who are energized by that sort of behavior, and they can do it without being unfaithful to their partner, and that’s OK.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/20 12:40 PM
0

I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect either a man or a woman to stop being attracted to other people of the opposite sex, both sides should just make a decision to be exclusive to one another regardless of that attraction, and negotiate what behaviors they consider acceptable. There are women who see flirting as a casual game, and for some of them there’s an understanding with their partner that it’s fine as long as the flirting doesn’t go anywhere.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/20 12:27 PM
2

Her speaking out against this isn’t an insecurity. It’s real. Well, we can argue that it’s insecurity because why is it a problem that he is attracted to the other woman? Because it raises the possibility he is so strongly attracted that it will overcome the attraction to his current partner. It feels safer to the woman if such spontaneous, outside of her control attraction can’t manifest to begin with. There are women who are actually OK with the idea that their partner finds other women attrac…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/20 12:15 PM
7

Like pretty much all terms that come from feminist analysis, it’s a hazy umbrella term that you shouldn’t take seriously because it doesn’t correspond to anything psychologically coherent. Women are in a double bind when it comes to the male sexual attraction mechanisms. On one hand they have evolved to enjoy being appreciated for their looks, and even draw a sense of empowerment from it, but at the same time it puts them in a place of reduced agency over their romantic destiny, because there’s …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/20 10:48 AM
1

And what made you tone it down?
/r/ExRedPill26/10/20 01:18 AM
0

I don’t think it necessarily has some twisted basis, but you’d be surprised how many people who coach men are stuck on the two interpretations I mentioned. I’d like to actually see people other than myself put into words a competing explanation.
/r/ExRedPill26/10/20 01:10 AM
1

But the thing is, most healthy humans have that function and desire built into them already. The two aren't comparable. Women have far more responsibility built into them than men do. A woman can't walk away from a pregnancy like a man can. A pregnant woman is more burdened by pregnancy and its aftermath than a man, requiring a dedicated support system to handle it (traditionally a man, today society fulfills some of that function). Women don't get to have multiple concurrent pregnancies, so the…
/r/ExRedPill06/10/20 06:43 AM
1

I'm not claiming that they should be mothers because they have the ability, I claim that they predominantly choose to be mothers of their own volition, and I claim that they do so not because of societal expectations (even though societal pressures exist), but because of biological predisposition. It's part of the average female life experience to develop that desire. I'm not saying that that's optimal, or correct, or how things should be, just that they are.
/r/ExRedPill05/10/20 11:50 PM
1

The notions that men need war to be true men, and that a woman's ultimate purpose is being a living incubator are outdated at this point. And the notion was never 'dated', it's always better to not have a war. That doesn't prevent people from romanticizing it. And the calling for women is not being a living incubator, it's being a mother. Being an incubator is just a part of it. We're at a point in time where men and women have more freedom in choosing a calling, that doesn't enslave them to bio…
/r/ExRedPill05/10/20 07:55 PM
2

The funny thing about acting uninterested is that you think you're projecting 0% of interest, but you're not. You're really projecting 70% interest. Why? Because you're on a date with her, that's why. The very fact that you asked her out and organized the date and went on the date tells her that you're interested. If you picked a nice place for a date, like a restaurant, it tells her you're more interested than if you picked something low effort like Starbucks. If you dressed well it means you a…
/r/ExRedPill03/10/20 11:02 PM
6

Anything becomes a chore when it's in the way of other things. Going to an amusement park is fun, but if you're only doing it to repeatedly enroll in their car giveaway it'll be a chore. Guys dream of sex. It's annoying that it takes more than 5 minutes to get from desire to desire fulfillment. If they weren't hung up on sex they would enjoy romance more.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/20 02:02 PM
2

So I pondered this question a lot, here are my conclusions: Not being yourself is way harder to do than people think, because you have to fake it across a wide spectrum of signals: body language, voice intonation, appearance, choice of words, behavior, etc. It's impossible to successfully fake a persona for a non trivial period of time without some of these things betraying you, because you can't take all of them into account and control all of them consciously. Women are incredibly attuned to t…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/20 01:08 PM
1

Now I'm curious. Can you give some examples of their behavior?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/20 11:53 AM
1

Again your being semantic. Well of course, how else am I supposed to bridge between the world of my inner associations and those of the readers without picking apart the specifics of what words imply to me? Your post reads otherwise btw. If you're referring to the 'how inconvenient' spiel, disliking something subjectively doesn't imply that it's wrong objectively. I'm allowed to have my preferences, that doesn't mean I think something should change about it. You don't need to be deeply afraid to…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/20 11:45 PM
1

Very good reply! Thanks for that! I'd like to add something from the male side that might be relevant. You can only be rejected if you show the other person that you like them, and it's usually the men who have to overtly admit through their actions that they like the other person. If 100% of the time you were rejected it was after showing a woman you like her, it can start to feel like a cause and effect, and you develop an aversion to that. Such men cope by finding success via aloofness, the p…
/r/ExRedPill01/10/20 09:47 PM
1

Humans are beasts of burden. We grow and improve through tackling challenges, not from living a comfortable life. The problem for men is that you need to pick your calling, and that's hard to do. At the same time living a comfortable life is tempting, and in the west reasonably available as an option. The whole notion of war being good for manhood is that a war forces a calling upon you. When there's war, you don't get to sit on the fence about what you want to do, and waste time comfortably pla…
/r/ExRedPill01/10/20 09:21 PM
1

Women don't have the same conception of 'good looking' as men have. The female idea of a good looking man is man who has visual marks of being competent in his environment, while the male idea of a good looking woman is a woman who has a quality body for hosting, birthing, and nurturing a baby. This is why men like boobs, hips, legs, and face symmetry (predicts overall health), while women like size (strength), veiny hands (strength), uniforms (society officially certified you), being well dress…
/r/ExRedPill01/10/20 09:08 PM
2

While I agree that the red pill appeals to anxieties, I have some exceptions to what you're describing. In bullet point number 3 you describe the red pill as something that gives explanations to your failures in a way that doesn't make you feel bad. That's just one possible appeal. I think that the fact that it gives out answers is in and of itself an appeal. One hallmark quality of people who have a low negative emotion threshold (meaning they experience negative emotion easily) is that they ca…
/r/ExRedPill01/10/20 08:50 PM
1

See here's the thing, I don't think I'd be creeped out, I'd be outright scared. A guy with a chainsaw doesn't strike me as 'maybe dangerous', I'll just categorize him as dangerous and he can go fuck himself if he really isn't. I'm starting to think that creepiness correlates to how uncertain you feel about your ability to quickly figure out your environment.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/20 08:33 PM
3

First of all, this is not a 'women bad' post. Anything I know about evolutionary psychology gives good reasons for women to behave the way they behave, including this. Second, this isn't congruent with how women describe creepiness, which sounds more like fear rather than anger or being judgmental. I also don't associate suspicion with fear or uneasiness.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/20 08:27 PM
4

Well, my parents are divorced and I was bullied at school to the point of anxiety attacks, so I don't think that's it.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/20 08:02 PM
1

Well, I'm not really into specific 'should's with regards to evolutionary arguments, I'm just pointing out that you can't ignore biology's role as a constraint. It doesn't narrow things down to one option, but it does exclude some options. For example one of the problems we try to solve societally is being able to manage the high cost in terms of resources and time of raising children into self-sufficiency. It's a problem that's biologically imposed on us because of how slowly human children mat…
/r/ExRedPill25/09/20 06:42 PM
3

Do humans who work third shift and sleep during the day still prefer to do their third shift in an illuminated room? Yes. Do modern humans still have a light source in every room of their house, and turn it on when night falls? Yes. When we meet with friends, do we stay in the dark or in the light? Aside from special cases like nightclubs, we generally do our socialization in the light, because we're light bound. That's the 'should'. We organize our living area and activities around light source…
/r/ExRedPill25/09/20 06:15 PM
1

Fine, but that precisely doesn't make your point of infinite variability, because if specific types of outliers are predicted by specific types of deviations from the common environmental pressures, then we're still dealing with the same mold of humanity in both cases. I think that you're focusing on the wrong elements of society when you consider evolutionary influences. For example, all societies have warriors. That is rooted in our capability for aggression, which is an evolutionary response …
/r/ExRedPill25/09/20 05:33 PM
1

Sorry that's incorrect. Biology give us a lot of shoulds. Even something like our poor nocturnal vision compared to a lot of other animals has societal implications. It means we have a particular dependency on light, so we design our habitats to support light sources. We gather in the light, because that is a place of safety relative to the darkness. That is how campfires became ancestral gathering places. That's a 'should' regarding social behavior right there. You can pretend that it's not a r…
/r/ExRedPill25/09/20 05:16 PM
1

Your suggestion that The best way to counteract an evolutionary argument in regards to humans is to consider every culture we find humans in. For every claim that somebody makes you can always find two or three cultures who do it the exact opposite. is a fallacy itself. Outliers don't disprove a general rule. If 99% of societies aren't matriarchies, that's a dramatic trend that isn't negated by finding a few lost tribes that by some freak chance ended up being matriarchies.
/r/ExRedPill25/09/20 05:05 PM
3

Evolutionary biology is a heuristic for making predictions, not conclusions. You can say "I pondered the concept of evolution in the context of sex differences, and predict X,Y,Z", but then you would need to make the next step and do an experiment to see if X,Y,Z actually holds true. If it's true, you would then say that humans evolved to be X,Y,Z, because it's a truism that anything biologically rooted is the consequence of evolution, but that comes at the end of the analysis chain. It's not ev…
/r/ExRedPill25/09/20 04:51 PM
2

Redpill theories are plenty falsifiable, you just haven't developed the tools to do so yet. I'll refer to the sentiment you expressed in another comment as an example. You mentioned the idea that if I open up to her emotionally and become vulnerable, she’s gonna get unattracted to me and I’ll start to lose her. We can start with the fact that vulnerability is a prerequisite for intimacy, and intimacy creates a feeling of safety, which is a big deal since women are very safety oriented. Intimacy …
/r/ExRedPill25/09/20 04:16 PM
2

But we could stop blaming men for something that is out of their control. We could stop using that irrational fear to justify all sorts of nonsense, both on the individual level, but also on the political/social level. So many of feminist policies and agendas are based on this idea that women are 'under attack' and 'under threat' from all men under all time. I agree. The problem with emotions is that they feel objective, even though they're subjective. To be able to distinguish objective reality…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 11:16 PM
1

The level of fear is grossly disproportionate to the actual threat they are under. ... and you are grossly overstating the threat men pose. First of all, fear doesn't operate at societal level, it operates at the level of the here and now, so you can't quell it with societal statistics. Second, when a bad event is perceived to be serious enough, the fear from the fact that it could happen vastly overpowers the comfort of knowing that it's unlikely to happen, and women are evolutionarily adapted …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 10:44 PM
1

Some of them.
/r/ExRedPill20/09/20 04:39 PM
1

Works for me.
/r/ExRedPill20/09/20 04:38 PM
1

So really, PUA don't do it for the love of sex. They do it for the love of social capital amongst bros they get from being perceived as players. I like a lot of what you wrote, except for this part. It probably applies to some people, but I don't think it's the only explanation. I wanted to have PUA type of success because I wanted to gorge on being adored by femininity. I couldn't care less about the opinions of other men, and actively despised any type of male bravado.
/r/ExRedPill20/09/20 04:07 PM
1

I like to hang out there and get into arguments with people. There are many lost men in there and hopefully my input would help set them straight a little.
/r/ExRedPill20/09/20 03:57 PM
1

When you have money, it's easy to start solving things with money, and that includes relationship maintenance. Buying your woman something nice or giving her high life quality is not nothing, but it shifts the focus from your company being the relationship reward, to the relationship reward being things, and that's no longer a relationship.
/r/ExRedPill20/09/20 03:52 PM
1

I'll give you one important piece of advice I wish I had gotten many years ago: the best way to meet a romantic partner is through your social circle. People may say that today it's not true anymore because everybody is online, but online dating is doing a shit job at replacing meeting through real life. In online dating you get very minimal exposure to many people, in real life, just by being in the same social context with other people for a while you get extended exposure to a limited number …
/r/ExRedPill20/09/20 03:32 PM
3

There is no wage gap. There is an earnings gap. Earnings != wages!! If you read further down the thread you'll see I'm aware of the distinction and agree with you. I used the colloquial term for the phenomenon out of habit. This is complete nonsense. Women have never been safer, and are far less likely to be victims of assault and violence than men. They just like to bitch and whine non-stop about it. That's true that men are more likely to be victims of assault. It's also true that women have n…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 03:10 PM
1

No it's not easier, because just any relationship won't do. It has to be a quality guy, and one that will commit. Anything short of that is perceived as failure. They are not comforted by 'at least I got something', they're of the mindset that nothing is better than mediocre, and that's directly attributed to evolutionary adaptations. You might think that it's spoiled, but that is because you draw equivalency between your needs and their needs. If you look at it in terms of does any sex gets tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/20 01:18 PM
1

Yes, but it’s the women who have it worse, not the men. A man gets rejected early. He hasn’t invested much into the woman yet. A woman gets rejected for commitment months into a relationship. Or realizes the relationship is crap weeks to months into the relationship. Theirs is the bigger risk, not men’s. And we’re not going to get equality between the sexes in the romantic domain, ever. So stop lamenting that and start thinking about how this can be turned into a win win situation.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/20 12:57 PM
2

The two aren’t even remotely comparable.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/20 12:50 PM
1

I never said it’s one or the other, just that for females the question is not how to get sex, but how to get commitment, and in today’s society it’s setup in such a way that first they have to play all their cards (sex), and then it’s the guy’s decision of to commit or not. Imagine doing business like that. First I pay you the money, and then you decide if you’re going to send me the product or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/20 12:40 PM
9

That’s debatable. Women have a career/child caring problem that isn’t really solvable because there isn’t enough time to properly do both. That’s why there is a wage gap, women generally choose to sacrifice the career to prioritize child caring, and there’s no way out of it. They do have the advantage in sexual settings, but generally they don’t want that advantage because they are relationships oriented. What they really want is commitment, which is as hard to get as sex is for men. They are mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/20 10:25 AM
33

Men and women aren't the same. Past generations understood that, and the latest generations have lost that wisdom. You can treat men and women as if they are the same in meritocratic social contexts (like the job market), but not in the interpersonal contexts. That is the distinction people failed to make when talking about gender equality. In interpersonal contexts, men and women have different agendas, different strengths and weaknesses, and that means that they need to accommodate each other …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/20 09:13 PM
1

The body of your post doesn't seem to have anything to do with its title. The problems between men and women have nothing to do with freedom vs duty. The problems between men and women are related to the fact that society as a whole has a shit understanding of how the romantic sphere works, and everybody operate under incorrect assumptions and conclusions based on those incorrect assumptions. For example, let's say you're a man who wants to have sex with many women. OK, you're free to do that, b…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/20 06:46 PM
5

Because it’s incredibly hard to raise kids as a single mother. We’ve ran this experiment for a few generations now, and the results are clear: single mothers are less happy, and the kids perform worse in life on pretty much any meaningful metric, than is the case for a two parent family. Regarding income, just because women are more educated than men, doesn’t mean they are more educated in the direction of high income jobs, and indeed they aren’t. STEM fields are mostly male dominated. Also, the…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/20 12:25 PM
1

I think it’s definitely a major part of the problem, although not the full explanation. There was some researcher who estimated that it takes on average 10 dates to find a compatible person. It takes me 5 years to meet 10 new PEOPLE, let alone women who are willing to go on a date with me. So yeah, these odds really suck.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/20 04:39 PM
4

I think that what you're describing might be true *in addition to* the nice guy syndrome, there might even be comorbidity between the two, but I don't think it's the explanation to it. My observation is that Nice Guys are Neurotic, meaning that they have low sensitivity threshold to negative emotion. For them, the part of the brain that handles negative emotions gets triggered easily, which means that they are easily upset, very self conscious, more risk averse, more likely to interpret neutral …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/20 10:12 PM
1

Women have more power over a matter by covering it up. I find this insight fascinating. Can you elaborate?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/20 11:41 PM
3

I think he's using the wrong words tbh. If my guess about him is correct I think that what upsets him is that the way a woman makes a man feel doesn't require her to do anything, while the way a man makes a woman feel is tied to the man doing something. He's upset at the kind of condition, not really about the existence of a condition.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/20 07:59 PM
7

So I'm not OP, but I'm willing to bet reddit coins I know what the answer is. A man looks at a pretty woman, and the halo effect of her beauty makes him think she's great. That is what he means when he says love unconditionally. She doesn't need to do or be anything other than generating this halo effect. By virtue of this halo effect, everything she does has value, rather than she has value because of what she does. This is what I think he means.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/20 07:44 PM
0

It goes like this: For men, the physical attractiveness of a woman is a primary attraction parameter. For women, a man’s physical attractiveness is a secondary attraction parameter. Women are attracted to competence, most commonly expressed through behavior. Physical appearance just isn’t as important. Because looks are a secondary attractiveness parameter for women, a man has to be exceptional at it for it to trump the primary attraction parameter, but if you’re trying to win women with looks, …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/20 03:33 PM
1

I wasn’t trying to shift the goal post it’s just that words are often loaded with implicit meaning and it can be hard to separate the nuances. When people talk about promiscuity I interpret it to mean the kind of promiscuity men would’ve wanted; that of careless hedonism. I don’t see anything careless about women’s attitude towards sex, it’s actually really fucking serious. A lot of the red pill efforts seem to be about bridging that gap. The mythological chad is a guy who is so amazing that he …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/20 01:58 PM
1

You're imagining prehistoric promiscuity wrong. The likely promiscuity that happened in prehistoric times is that a woman had multiple suitors, who all passed her female choice criteria, and once the men passed THAT threshold, it become a competition amongst themselves, hence the penis shape. It's not the same as modern definition of promiscuity, which is to chase variety divorced from expectations of pregnancy. Women will never be promiscuous in the same way men are promiscuous because they can…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/20 01:33 PM
1

I know, that doesn’t prove your point. That’s like saying that the fact that people in the US carry arms proves that it’s a dangerous war zone. Both sexes evolve traits to gain advantages. Some promiscuity existed and still does, so of course it is prudent to develop traits that fight against it, but that doesn’t mean that what the female mechanisms evolved for is promiscuity. Everything about how they behave in practice shows the opposite.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/20 01:04 PM
2

First of all, pretty much all human cultures have some form of marriage tradition. It’s a human universal, which should be a clear indicator of where the wind blows. Second, look at the sum of the female behavioral and emotional mechanisms. They’re not aiming at promiscuity.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/20 12:53 PM
2

OK troll.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/20 07:18 AM
2

Sounds more like ignorance but alright, I can’t force you to read.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/20 07:15 AM
2

There’s nothing to disagree about, the brain scans had been done. Go read the scientific literature on the subject.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/20 07:08 AM
1

Their brains are wired differently. They literally have a different reward system than extroverts.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/20 07:03 AM
1

How does the primal fear not kick in then? For A LOT of them it does, and they never do the ONS thing, or they do it once or twice while they are still clueless and naïve, regret it really fast, and nope the fuck out of that scene. Then there are the ones who aren't properly aligned emotionally (anxious attachment style and the likes) who do it out of desperation. The women who actually sleep around with the same agency as men do are the exception, not the rule, and they still pick their men wit…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/20 11:56 PM
1

That doesn't really quell the emotional system. Females are programmed to fear these things, and it's a very strong and primal fear that doesn't care about rationality. It's visceral.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/20 11:42 PM
1

Keep in mind that there is some benefit here to men, too -- the chance to get a little on the side! Sure there's benefit to men, but this isn't a thread about men. I've read some anthropological studies of tribal societies that persisted into modern times I've read some anthropological studies of tribal societies where cannibalism was the norm. You have to put these things in proper context, which is that the vast majority of human societies don't practice cannibalism, and then we have these out…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/20 10:52 PM
1

Only if something is wrong enough with the relationship. Doing things on the DL has tremendous risk, and the gamble is the life of the woman and her infant. You're delusional if you think the average woman is going to risk a tried and true lifeline for some random excitement that isn't going to lead to a dependable alternate lifeline.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/20 08:59 PM
1

So by your own admission there is a relationship with a single “daddy”. Whether it’s his child or not isn’t the point, the point is that the chosen social structure is a relationship with a single male.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/20 08:37 PM
1

This isn’t what the OP is talking about though. Clearly women have the ability to maintain multiple potential romantic relationships, but once you have sex with one of them it’s done, you dont get to walk away from that. Sex means pregnancy, and pregnancy means dependence, and dependence means social constraints.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/20 08:02 PM
0

You get pregnant, he abandons you, you are ostracized by your female support network for being a slut, no other man wants you, and you get an STD. Answer brought to you by: the brain’s emotional system that doesn’t know we are not living in prehistoric times anymore.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/20 02:54 PM
0

The choice of junk food isn’t a life and death decision. The choice to have sex is.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/20 02:14 PM
2

No, introverts are introverts because their brains prioritize acetylcholine over dopamine. This isn’t a choice they are making, its hereditary.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/20 02:13 PM
0

why would she “compromise” and commit to just one guy when she can have a variety of people Because she’s not evolutionarily adapted to do so.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/20 02:08 PM
1

Well, if the workplace is any indication, if you take a mediocre employee and invest in their professional growth, you don’t get an employee who jumps ship ASAP, rather you get a very loyal employee who is likely to stay way beyond the average span in their field.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/20 02:03 PM
1

From my experience, aversion to n counts is usually correlated with disgust sensitivity and is really a reflection of how the person perceives sex in general. High disgust sensitivity men are repulsed by high n counts, low disgust sensitivity men don't care, because sex doesn't register to them as an infection threat vector. Something like paternity uncertainty seems much more related to me to the negative emotion system, not disgust, because when the suspicion arises you feel anxiety, not disgu…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/20 01:15 AM
2

Look at videos of encounters with lost tribes. The men there look very average. They are in shape since they move around all the time, but not what you would call athletic looking.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/20 11:56 PM
1

Sounds great to me. Instead of losing precious time running around between multiple friends and managing multiple social connections, I get all my social needs met in the most effective manner, leaving me with more time to pursue my hobbies.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/20 10:29 PM
2

Prehistoric men were not jacked. You can’t hunt effectively when you’re a clumsy blow up doll of muscles, and you don’t have enough food around to sustain that kind of muscle mass. Ergo, women couldn’t have possibly evolved to be attracted to jacked bodies. A “dad bod” is simply a normal, reasonably healthy body. The reason why men think that women like huge muscles is because they themselves think huge muscles are impressive, but that’s a male competition thing, not a female appeal thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/20 10:11 PM
7

View B. Everything I read about the female attraction mechanisms indicate that they are relationship oriented. View A is how men would behave if they were women.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/20 02:59 PM
3

For a woman to be attractive she needs to be great at a small number of things (looks, friendliness). For a man to be attractive he needs to simultaneously not suck at a large number of things (intelligence, physical and mental health, kindness, assertiveness, conscientiousness). That’s the difference, and it’s a profound one. It means that you don’t need to outcompete the majority of men to be attractive. The problem is that most men don’t reach their attractiveness potential because they don’t…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/20 03:43 PM
2

Actually, most men in history were neither of these red pill caricatures, but that’s a moot point. However you feel like segregating men into groups, there certainly seems like there are a lot more men in the “fail” group than in the “win” group than there used to be, so wtf happened? Were all those mythological alphas pushed out of the gene pool in the span of a few generations? Not likely. There’s a social failure at work here.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/20 03:20 PM
1

This ones easy. Sex isn’t the activity, it’s the meaning behind the activity. Male sexlessness is a problem because it indicates a profound problem with modern masculinity, and betabuxxing isn’t a solution for that, even if that technically results in sex. The male sexlessness problem is more properly described as the alphafucklessness problem (if you wish to use red pill terms).
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/20 03:03 PM
7

Men don’t try to meet women’s standards because frankly it’s not obvious what the standards are. Your post itself demonstrates this. Women don’t like wealthy men, they like effective men. Effective men are likely to be wealthy. Wealth is a proxy to something attractive, not the attractive thing itself. Even men who have reasonable success with women often only have a warped and partial understanding of this subject. You can’t actively work towards meeting standards when you don’t know what they …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/20 09:20 AM
1

What’s so hard about approaching a woman if you are attracted anyway? Well, there seem to be an evolutionary fear associated with that. In nature, if you happen to come across a stranger woman out and about, she’s unlikely to be there all on her own. It means that her tribe is not far, and you have no idea if they’re going to be friendly or not. By approaching her you’re exposing yourself to potentially an entire group of hostile people.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/20 06:02 AM
1

I’m not really risk averse though, that’s the point of the question. I can imagine all sorts of ways in which a woman might be risk averse but it’s not a good substitute to hearing a description of it from some one else.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/20 05:44 AM
1

I think you should read the rest of the threads, but fine I won’t bother convincing you. I understand that it wasn’t a good idea to by hyperbolic in the post you are referring to.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/20 01:26 AM
1

Obviously everybody aren’t like me, this is why I’m asking “how is this different for you”?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/20 01:19 AM
0

I didn’t say everybody should be like me
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/20 01:16 AM
1

Sure if that makes you feel better I'll be on whatever spectrum you want me to be.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 11:41 PM
1

I feel like you're not getting the point of the question. I'm not saying that I know what the correct time frame for being ready to have sex is. I'm not saying that I know what the correct algorithm for deciding to have sex should be. I'm not passing judgment. I'm just trying to understand how come the average woman's time frame just happens to be different than mine. Why are you turning this into an empathy thing?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 11:34 PM
1

... is not something that can be be quantified or deduced via a formulative basis in say-two dates LOL no, I never said that. For example my conglomerate of gut feelings/emotions/rationalizations is: she's hot, would smash. That can easily be resolved in less than one date.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 11:24 PM
1

A. Explain it to him. That would probably put an end to the date though given that reading each other via indirect communication is the main ingredient in the courtship process and this kind of answer puts the conversation in the realm of very direct, analytical communication, but generally speaking when someone is seeking information I'm all about just giving it to him. B. She is ready whenever she feels ready by whatever conglomerate of gut feelings/emotions/rationalizations happen to be intui…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 11:06 PM
1

You're asking this like the question is a covert attempt to put pressure on a woman to have sex early. I'm not engaging with indirect communication here. The meaning of the question is entirely its face value request for information. If someone asked my sister this (who I've seen grow from a baby to almost 18) I'd assume it's some geeky friendzoned guy trying to understand women.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 10:43 PM
0

LOL no. What about what I wrote sounds sociopathic to you?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 10:21 PM
0

Yes pretty much. It's alien to me that sex isn't a goal in and of itself to women, it's alien to me to care about other people's opinions, it's alien to me to be worried for my safety, it's alien to me that sex isn't a guaranteed orgasm for me. Everything about the female experience with sex is weird and alien to me. When I first learned how much fear is mixed in the experience I honestly considered giving up on having sex with women altogether. Who the fuck wants to have to work against such po…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 08:36 PM
0

What is the rush? There isn't necessarily a rush, it's just that I'm ready in 30 seconds, and it's really alien to me that others aren't.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 08:22 PM
1

Yeah, that'll grow that dick back :p
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 05:23 PM
1

So why do I often hear people say they felt a connection on the first date. How can something so deep manifest in just one date?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 03:39 PM
0

Oh damn, I just realized I've been conceptualizing 'connection' all wrong. You literally mean that feeling a connection feels as if he is "bound" to you. When I think of connection, I think about being so alike that it's as if we're of the same mind. It triggers in me when we both manifest similar ideas, humor, and ways of thinking in a conversation, and the flow of conversation is in-sync without us trying to keep it in-sync. I don't think about it in emotional terms.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 03:28 PM
-2

I need connection to feel safe and to not be afraid to do it. This is another thing that kind of puzzles me. How does connection translate to safety? It seems unrelated to me. I can ascertain safety based on analyzing information about the person, and feel zero connection. At the same time, I can really like someone's vibe and later be betrayed because I fell asleep on my guard. What is it about connection that translates to safety? What does connection consists of to you anyway?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 03:08 PM
-2

Plus I don't want to be used for his pleasure, having sex with someone who doesn't adore me and doesn't care about me doesn't sound good. Do you ever use the man 'for your pleasure'? Or does the main pleasure of sex for you comes from it being the expression of the man's feelings towards you?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 02:40 PM
0

You asked about being comfortable with giving someone access to the most intimate part of your body. I'm just saying that technically that is what I do too. You might say it's not the same, and perhaps that isn't, but just saying that it's vulnerable, doesn't really explain to me the trust dynamics that are involved in being ready or not ready to do it.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 02:36 PM
1

> But how often do penises actually get bitten off/severely damaged? Probably not often. Still sounds like a pretty fucking stupid thing to do if you think about it rationally.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 02:24 PM
1

I don't define friendship based on trust. That is interesting. So you're okay with a guy who will help you out but might steal something from you? No, it's just that the question of trust isn't the first thing that comes to my mind when I ask myself "am I this guy's friend or just an acquaintance?" Obviously you can't be friends with someone you don't trust, but most people are pretty much trustworthy enough to pass the bare minimum after which it doesn't matter anymore.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 02:22 PM
-1

but we're supposed to be comfortable with giving someone access to the most intimate part of our bodies after knowing them for such a short period of time? I'm perfectly willing to put the most intimate and vulnerable part of my body into a mouth with teeth that I don't control after such a short period of time.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 02:17 PM
0

Do you call a guy you've had a few drinks several times your friend? I don't define friendship based on trust. I define it based on stuff like can I ask him to help me move and will I be invited to his birthday party. The trust threshold makes a lot of sense though. I'd like to say that my trust threshold is really low, but I'm not sure if I ever truly put it to the test given that I try to live my life in such a way that I never need to rely on trust. You don't need trust when nothing can hurt …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 02:15 PM
1

How long do you need to build chemistry?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 01:36 PM
1

If you're surprised women would care about n count without anyone around, then you must think it's ok for women to lie about n count? I couldn't care less about anyone's n count. Trying to keep n count low, something could still come up after the second date that would make me not want to date him and I don't want my number up by then Would you say that the pain of that mistake far outweighs the pleasure of non-mistake sex? not wanting to come off as a slut How does that fear get alleviated with…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/20 01:32 PM
3

That’s your interpretation. I never said it disgusts me, I said the mental and emotional labor around it is off putting, not the thing itself.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/20 06:49 PM
4

Who said emotions are useless? And however you choose to spin it, the answer is always “because I’m evolutionarily programmed to care”.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/20 06:20 PM
1

No, it comes from emotion.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/20 06:16 PM
2

Porn is acted, nothing about it is real. Yes that is why I called it a depiction. If porn is such an example for sex for you, why are movies not the same for love? I think it's a combination of: You don't need to explain sexual desire to a horny teenager. Porn is just putting into words (or images) the emotions and desires that naturally float from what you're already feeling. The kind of love you describe is less relatable (I'm not convinced that a mother's love is comparable since it's not bet…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/20 05:40 PM
0

I lived with a female friend for two years (rented a house together). It actually felt kind of like we were a couple, even though we weren’t together. We eventually “broke up”. Now I have a different female friend.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/20 05:22 PM
1

Well, what you say sounds wonderful. It also sounds utopian to me, and that connects to some insight I’ve been thinking over in the past few weeks. When you look at a well produced porn scene, what do you see? You see a depiction of two people who are comfortable with each other, who are sexually compatible, you see the interplay of masculine strength (which you feel inside of yourself) and feminine surrender (which you find beautiful and feels validating). If there’s good chemistry with the per…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/20 05:16 PM
6

Help me understand then.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/20 04:08 PM
11

Because when I say “sex”, I’m not thinking about awkward drunken anxious sex of a one night stand, and I’m not thinking about the detached performance of a prostitute. I’m thinking about being on the receiving end of genuine desire, about established sexual compatibility, and about the uninhibited self expression that comes from trust and comfort. You only get this in a relationship. A FWB is a relationship as far as I’m concerned.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/20 03:58 PM
6

Yes. I’m not saying some of the above isn’t nice when it is good, it’s just that I wouldn’t be missing on it if I were single.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/20 01:56 PM
48

I can get good conversation from men, and it’ll be the good kind of conversation too: sharing information, displaying analytical skill, shared hobbies centered around interest in things rather than people, etc. I can do interesting things on my own. I can handle my emotions by myself without the complications brought by other people’s involvement. I don’t want people to give me gifts or do favors for me because it makes me feel indebted. I don’t trust words of affection because words are cheap a…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/20 10:29 AM
1

Yes but will gay men fuck ugly guys? I once posed as a gay man on a sex board to see how the experience differs from being a woman in such a website. Guy messaged me and asked for some info about me. Figured he wants to know what I look like. Told him I’m very overweight and on the older side (older than what he was looking for in his profile). His response was, “look can you do face sitting or not?” That really stood out to me from the whole experiment. He cared more about the prospect of satis…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/20 09:36 AM
1

They are not held to a higher physical standard, wth are you talking about?! Men need to be neutral looking to be good enough to date, because female attraction mechanisms are about avoiding the bad, rather than running towards the good, so what they care about is that you’re not ugly, not that you’re beautiful. Being better looking is indeed better, but once you’re good enough improvements in that department yield significantly diminishing returns. You get the most gains to your SMV by going fr…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/20 07:03 AM
1

Any form of exploration that doesn’t require me to physically move around. This is means exploring knowledge, exploring aesthetics, exploring ideas, exploring variety. I’m basically on a constant chase after novelty. Right now I’m on a quest to sample all of Creed’s fragrances, try all the popular shaving creams on the market, try all hot sauces on Heatonist, and try to find the perfect mechanical keyboard, even if it means buying 10 of them (and I fucking will buy 10 of them if I have to). If I…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/20 10:06 AM
1

You can be viable in your early 20s too, you just need to demonstrate potential. And overconfidence is not attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/20 12:31 AM
1

You are very correct in most of what you wrote. But I should point out that when people try to manipulate it’s not necessarily due to the belief that they won’t be liked. It could also be because the idea that you can’t protect yourself from emotional pain is unbearable to you. You like someone -> creates the potential for pain if they don’t like you back -> you want to be in control of whether you’ll feel pain or not so that you could choose to not experience it -> you try to create a situation…
/r/seduction22/06/20 08:10 PM
1

So your suggestion turned out to be correct. What you should’ve linked to was an article about margins of error. That would’ve answered my questions.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/20 07:48 PM
1

Posting links to reading materials doesn't demonstrate that you understand anything about statistics. Anyone can do that. How about you reply to the actual example I posted?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/20 07:24 PM
1

Which means your results aren't worth anything. Let's use an example. Your population has 10 people, 5 are blues, 5 are red. You can't poll all 10 people, you can only poll 4. You choose 4 truly random people from the population of 10 and ask their color. Three happened to be blue, one is red. What have we learned from this? That only 25% of the population is red? If you want your random sample to be valid, you need to somehow make sure that the 4 people you chose have the same distribution of b…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/20 07:15 PM
1

No I don't. When you poll a subset of a population you need to know that you have a complete sampling frame and that the distributions within it reflect the distributions of the bigger population. I don't see a way of establishing this when the bigger population is literally everybody.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/20 06:33 PM
3

I agree that this is probably the case. Still would be nice to see those numbers.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/20 05:56 PM
-2

Isn't the subject population of the topic all of Finland? The percentages are relative to the general population. What signifiers are supposed to ensure true randomness in this case? The only way I can see to verify true randomness is polling the vast majority of the population, which I assume they didn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/20 05:40 PM
0

I wonder what is the distribution of men and women who had only one partner, and zero partners. If women went from 60% single partners to 60% no partners, that’s a failure for them too.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/20 04:57 PM
-2

OK so you happen to be one of the few people on the internet who use “Random Sample” in its academic definition. I’m way too used to seeing people using it colloquially as “I picked random x people off the street”. I do have to wonder how they establish true randomness in a poll about a topic like this though.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/20 04:51 PM
-1

it doesn’t take very large random samples of a population to make statistically sound estimates WRONG. Just absolutely wrong. If you are relying on polling a random sample size you can pretty much throw your conclusions in the trash because you have no idea if you’re dealing with a biased sample.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/20 04:39 PM
1

Strawman is not a made up term.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/20 09:48 AM
2

A "better society" is one in which individuals sacrifice themselves for the its sake. I never said anything remotely like it. He doesn't have to, but it would be better if he chose to.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/20 11:23 PM
2

Is it bad? No. Can it be better? Yes. Is it a loss for society if he’s not better than that? Yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/20 11:04 PM
4

I don’t know if there will be an actual societal collapse, but it’s not hard to imagine a decline in prosperity. I had a coworker whose job was something along the lines of technically informed sales support. So a typical sales support only had surface level understanding of the computer hardware we were developing, but his job was to actually speak to engineers, figure out their technical needs, and offer solutions. He was a technically minded guy doing sales and tech support. Then he got marri…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/20 07:23 PM
1

women prefer attractive, popular, socially adept guys...... it’s obvious to anyone with two eyes since high school. It’s absolutely not obvious to many men.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/20 03:15 PM
8

Male sexlessness is a problem in the sense that it indicates that men are failing at being successful in life, not in the sense that they lack sex. However the conversation about male sexlessness (all the responses to it you described) revolves around the dissonance between male standards for sex and female standards for sex, which exists to begin with because men don’t understand female sexual selection properly. In lieu of a proper understanding of how female attraction works, they fill in the…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/20 11:18 AM
2

RMGTOW coming soon?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/20 08:36 AM
1

I’m not saying it’s the best thing in the world, I’m saying that the pay gap has objective reasons, and these reasons are that you are competing with people who are absolutely willing to make such sacrifices. In fact, becoming a father actually increases men’s willingness to make these sacrifices. Becoming a mother decreases a woman’s willingness to make these sacrifices.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/20 01:58 PM
1

LOL. I’m actually a bit speechless. Go read the scientific literature on this. The pay gap isn’t between men and women, it’s between mothers and everybody else. It’s easy for a woman to get paid as much as men: don’t take days off, don’t take maternity leave, don’t prioritize work/life balance, don’t pick a field based on how fulfilling it is, be willing to commute, don’t pick a people centric career.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/20 01:49 PM
1

That’s a hyperbolic answer. You feel disrespected some of the time not 24/7. You feel unsafe some of the time. When he says imagine wanting sex 24/7 and never getting it he literally means never getting it. And you aren’t getting paid the same because you don’t sacrifice your personal life as much as men do.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/20 01:42 PM
3

Because men are emotionally attached to sex, and it’s perhaps the only thing they are emotionally attached to that isn’t fully under their control. At the same time, women’s standards are very high for something men think should be cheap. For many men, a women who puts high standards for sex is like if McDonalds only allowed entry to PhDs from Ivy League collages. Finally, there’s the fact that women’s standards are often poorly communicated. Taken together it’s like “I’ll only be happy if I can…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/20 01:24 PM
22

I think these men are oblivious to how they present themselves. They have no conception of how they look to an external observer, and can’t tell if their hygiene is bad or not. How can this be? Simple. They can’t smell themselves because they are used to their own scent. They look at themselves in the mirror but look only at a selective 20% of their image (probably face and upper torso), while the rest gets buried in the hazy periphery of their vision. They don’t understand that looking good mea…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/20 05:44 PM
1

I think that profound societal changes take multiple steps to perfect, and each step is the length of an entire generation. I believe society will figure it out, but at the backs of previous generations who made all the mistakes. We had the initial discovery phases in the 60-90s which were all about “wait, things are totally different now and we can start having sex freely’, then came the initial consequences phase in the 90-10s, which saw the rise of the single mother epidemic and all the diffe…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/20 11:32 AM
3

It's not a thing in my culture, but in general to me wedding vows mean nothing because all words are cheap.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/20 07:48 AM
1

Perhaps this should be clarified in the rules then.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 05:58 PM
1

You don’t have to be an incle to be a black piller
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 05:55 PM
1

Can you also provide direct reply to the 3 questions?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 05:52 PM
0

Men who have game
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 05:42 PM
1

There’s nothing good about using the same word in different meanings, especially if the differences are subtle. It undermines clarity.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/20 08:33 PM
1

Yeah except that the standard definition of hypergamy is backed by solid research while the correctness of the pill definition of hypergamy is at best debatable, and yet it is conflated with the correctness of the standard definition by using the same name. It breeds misinformation.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/20 08:02 PM
1

I’m tired of people using the word hypergamy incorrectly. Hypergamy has absolutely nothing to do with looks. It’s not a synonym for “looking for the best option”, it’s very specific to socio-economic factors. Hypergamy means marrying up in socio-economic status. Not looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/20 12:48 PM
1

I’d like to point something out regarding the answers in this thread. There’s a personality trait called disgust sensitivity. It’s basically how easily you get disgusted by things, and it’s programmed into each person at birth. Disgust sensitivity correlates with being morally judgmental. People who are high on disgust sensitivity feel that sex is gross, and need to satisfy an assortment of criteria to convince themselves a sexual opportunity is not gross when thinking about it outside of the co…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/20 08:53 AM
1

OK. I guess I won’t try to fuck you then :p
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/20 04:41 PM
1

I’m someone that would say that I want a chill woman, but if I examine this more closely what I really mean is that I want a woman who expresses her emotions in a way that does not inconvenience me. When I think about how great a chill woman is, I’m not looking at the whole picture of what experience I want to have from a woman. I’m focusing on a selective subsection of the overall experience that I consider problematic (drama), and think about how I can solve it, with the answer being that the …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/20 04:36 PM
1

We can start with the fact it’s not so easy to do. I tried to lose weight multiple times without success. I then did a test that genetically analyzed your gut microbiome composition, and cross references it with blood tests, and found out that the majority of “healthy” foods I was eating when I wanted to lose weight lead to big blood sugar level spikes, which is terrible for weight loss. This includes “no calories” foods such as rice cakes and complex carbohydrates with low glucogenic score like…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/20 04:24 PM
1

deciding to approach me based on my appearance alone How are they supposed to evaluate your non-visual qualities without first approaching you?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/20 02:50 PM
1

What are you talking about? They're completely different things. Visual aesthetic is essentially a marker of good health, and it's much more specific to a certain type of expression. Being "more capable than she is" has many flavors and can be achieved in multiple strategies. Lifting is one method, and is definitely a popular flavor of that, but it's not the only way. You can have a normal body, maybe even be a bit short, but have this vicious look in your eyes like anyone who fucks with you is …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/20 08:12 PM
0

When people speak of looks I usually think face symmetry, good skin, that sort of stuff. Being physically powerful is indeed one way to trigger that "I can protect you" feeling women like, but it's important to keep in mind that this is what you are triggering. You're not triggering the visual aesthetic button, you're triggering the "I'm more capable than you" button.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/20 07:48 PM
0

Looks matter, just not as much as they matter to men. Men are looking for a quality host who can handle giving birth. The markets for that are all visual. Women are looking not to die when they’re encumbered with a child. Looks aren’t going to help them there. As long as your looks don’t indicate there’s something wrong with you physically you’re good enough. If you’re exceptionally good looking you’ll get special interest, but not at the cost of being able to provide protection and food.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/20 07:31 PM
-1

No, personality is more like 80%. Female attraction is evolved to identify signs of competence to protect and provide. Your looks can’t provide food or protect her from danger.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/20 09:01 AM
0

Where do people get the idea that female attraction is based on looks?! Female attraction is based on how you behave and how you present yourself (which is different from looks), and is also influenced by things such as status and social proof. Instead of “getting taller” you could: - adapt a body language that communicates that nobody fucks with you - dress better and groom better - be more professionally successful - stop being overly invested in a woman too soon Is that within your ability?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/20 08:40 AM
1

It’s a combination of various university lectures from his personality course. The very simplified gist that doesn’t do it any justice is that you can choose to confront chaos and reap the rewards, or you can choose comfort but not gain the rewards. Which one is the better deal? Depends on whether the comfort is more valuable than the rewards from confronting chaos, and you can’t really tell if that’s the case or not. However, if you look at mythology you’ll discover that overwhelmingly the pref…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/20 12:16 PM
1

Oops, meant to say economic inequality. Free market competition forces them to innovate, so overall things get cheaper and better. 70 years ago a computer cost millions and took up an entire building. But because of the efforts of people who wanted to make money off of computers now even poor people have a powerful computer in their pocket and virtually free access to all the information they want.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/20 10:19 PM
1

I think that we can’t get away from the fact that people vary in productivity, so it looks like economic inequality is here to stay, however we can hopefully at least get to the point where the people at the bottom of the economic inequality are at least above the poverty line. The irony is that it’s the deeds of the people who contribute to social inequality that push society further in a way that raises the minimum standard of living.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/20 09:56 PM
1

OK I admit I got a bit off topic.There's quite a bit of overlap between what I wrote about the free market and what Peterson has said in lectures and interviews. Here are two clips that contain a bunch of these points: Problems of inequality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4GMUamUjT8 Competence hierarchies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NieOvfs1lu0 Regarding sexual hyper success, he said some things about it, though generally not as much as on economic inequality. However, the point about th…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/20 08:40 PM
3

In the context of the free market, there's mutual benefit. The individual benefits by getting rich, and society benefits from the side effects of the individual's attempt to become rich (more jobs, more exchange of goods, better products, more access to products, etc. etc.) There's a famous story about a guy who tried to make a BLT from scratch. It took him 6 months and $1500. In a world where people have the incentive to erect economically viable organizations you can just go outside and get on…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/20 07:39 PM
2

Stop me where I have his views wrong- Hierarchies are tied to the concept of value. (this is nature/free market) Society should reinforce hierarchy in regards to wealth by allowing free market. Here. The thing that should be reinforced is access to competence, because that is beneficial on a societal level. Hierarchies of wealth are a byproduct of our best idea so far as to how to do that (free market). This certainly generates some negative outcomes, however we haven't figured out a way to take…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/20 06:20 PM
1

Again, you’re missing the context of the discussion. “It’s all natural” is in response to people who say “any form of success is completely unrelated to any objective criteria of value, hierarchies are just arbitrary organization into oppressor/oppressed, and therefore it’s perfectly justified to just decide that things should be different”. His point is that it’s not divorced from the concept of value, and we actually can’t artificially decide for things to be different. This has nothing to do …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/20 05:48 PM
2

I like him. I think his Jungian content is a fantastic argument for why you should put up with difficulties in life if you’re the sort of person that is inclined to settle for comfort, and I like his psychological take on politics. I think he has a style that is hard for some people to follow though.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/20 05:41 PM
1

The argument isn’t about whether we should let nature take its course or not. Much of what he said about economical inequalities is in the context of arguing against the mental gymnastics people do to paint successful people as oppressors. The message is that these mental gymnastics are wrong, not that economic inequality is good.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/20 05:32 PM
2

For what it’s worth, he never said economic inequality is good for society, he just says that it’s built into what is the best idea we had so far in regards to prosperity, which is the free market. As for criticizing liberals, conservatives aren’t a problem in the current political climate.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/20 05:22 PM
1

No, what it means is that for women agreeing to sex is a big deal since it involves a big leap of faith in terms of trust, and then they get emotionally attached following the sex, and are left needy. “You getting what you wanted from me comes at the price of me suddenly needing something from you, but you have no intentions of giving it to me”. It’s not transactional a-priori, it’s just a rationalization of the side effect that is an emerging emotional attachment.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/20 04:14 PM
1

I’m talking about ones who are.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/20 03:59 PM
1

You’re right. Men who have options don’t cheat with their younger hot secretary.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/20 03:54 PM
2

Men are “hypergamous” in respect to physical appearance.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/20 03:52 PM
5

I’m not so sure there are many women like that. Probably some, but many- I don’t think so. There’s too much evolutionary programming against that. Women’s need for security is deeply rooted in primal mechanisms, and women see emotional connection as the expression of a relationship in which they are secure. Don’t forget that another man is just as much a threat to her as he is an opportunity. He may be higher status and hot, and he may also be abusive and selfish. Along with a temptation to swit…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/01/20 03:30 PM
1

There is a difference between not hiding the fact that you carry some emotions, and dumping these emotions on others. There is also a difference between vulnerability and weakness. Vulnerability is a necessity for building a relationship, and admitting it is a sign of courage. It is also unrelated to whether you can or cannot cope with that which reminds you that you are vulnerable. Weakness IS the inability to cope, and that is essentially what’s not attractive. Women don’t necessarily understa…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/01/20 03:22 PM
4

It’s at its worst when talking about “branch swinging” and the “cock carousel” Agreed. I feel it’s important to point out that branch swinging and cock carousel is a thing if you isolate a woman’s motivations to sexual satisfaction. A woman for who this is a reasonable approximation of the sum of her motivations is a rare breed. Many women don’t feel secure enough to pursue such life style, many women value an emotional connection enough not to branch swing at the first opportunity to upgrade th…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/01/20 10:57 AM
9

Personal experience is one of the worst sample sizes for social statistics. Aside from the obvious limitation of experience that a single person can cover, you are also hardwired to filter out 95% of the world. You essentially only see what you aim for and what gets in your way. And yes, there are commonalities to the qualities women look for in a partner, but I’m sensing that you obsess over them in a very skewed way. You probably treat them as if they aren’t contextual, and likely misinterpret…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/20 12:33 AM
7

You have a lot of hidden assumptions in what you've just written, and I suspect this creates quite a lot of selection bias for you which you can't differentiate from reality. What do you mean all women are essentially the same? Women vary in neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, and conscientiousness just as much as men. These are deep, core, irrevocable differences. These women can't all be essentially the same. They literally have different biologically ingrained mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/20 11:22 PM
18

You're asking something which I myself struggled with and invested a lot of thought into. My conclusions were as follows: First of all, what you are saying is sort of correct. If a woman only loves you for who you aren't, then she doesn't really love the actual you, and there's no reason for you to feel any love for her in return. Essentially, your only way out of this bitterness is to never present a false image of yourself to women. Then whichever woman does find you attractive, will find you …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/20 10:49 PM
6

“Smart” usually just means smarter than she is. Women generally look for men who are “more than they are” in various aspects: size, intellect, skill, power, status, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/20 05:21 PM
2

Because “improve your personality” is ambiguous advice. What the hell does that even mean? Improve by what standards? How is that improvement even measured? It remains ambiguous advice even when people try to elaborate on what it means. “Well, don’t be boring”. Great, thanks. Now wtf does boring means?! “Oh you know, have interesting hobbies”. Now you’re just rephrasing the previous statement in different words. Wtf is interesting?! To whom?! “Oh you know, to the kind of people you want to attra…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/20 10:11 PM
5

No they didn’t try that advice. They tried a bastardized version of the advice based on their flawed understanding of what creating an emotional connection entails and what constitutes a good personality, and once THAT failed, concluded that the advice doesn’t work.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/20 09:20 PM
0

I agree with you, but I would also add hopelessly misguided to the list of possibilities.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/20 03:37 PM
9

Women are unable to experience sexual attraction to 80% of the male population they have no emotional connection with. They experience sexual attraction at much higher rates with people they connect with intimately. However, you won’t get there if you are mentally ill.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/20 03:30 PM
0

Because they want easy access to lots of sex, but only for themselves. There’s an evolutionary reason to dislike promiscuous women, and it’s that in a world without paternity tests the only thing you can do as a man to make sure the baby is actually yours is trust your woman to not fuck someone behind your back. Since you can’t watch her 24/7, you must make a trustworthiness estimation based on her behavior. A woman who is sexually tame feels more trustworthy than one who is sexually open with o…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/19 07:47 AM
7

My theory is that such guys are intellectually guarded against any sort of emotional intimacy, and the only thing that goes around these defenses is sexual attraction because it originates in the primal part of the brain and interfaces directly to the emotional part. So the only way they are able to experience emotional connection, is if they obtain it via the sexual pathway, and they call that love because it’s more emotional connection than what they experience anywhere else.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/19 01:57 PM
1

Riiight. Fat, dumb, borderline psychotic women have sex with men who are so useless nobody would hire them or trust them with anything important, and you see them as winners. Enjoy your delusions.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/19 10:44 PM
1

You seem to attribute a god-like status to women if you consider their mating choice the irrefutable defacto standard for value. When a woman chooses to reproduce with someone, she is not necessarily doing society a favor.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/19 03:55 PM
1

Here’s my theory. I don’t know if it applies to everybody, but I think it applies to at least some. I believe that some men are unable to feel loved unless it goes through sexuality because they are intellectually guarded against emotional intimacy, and the only thing that short circuits this defensiveness is sexuality (because it is based on an urge that comes from the primal brain, which doesn’t come in contact with the defensive pathways of the intellectual side of the brain). So sex = the on…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/19 10:37 AM
10

Hypergamy is real, but I also don’t think it’s such an all consuming force as everybody pretend it is. Hypergamy is a primary motivating force if you assume sexual attraction is the only motivating force. When you combine it with the other motivating forces that exist in reality, it’s only acted upon when a lot of the other motivating forces in the relationship break apart.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/19 09:18 AM
1

I don’t think you appreciate how socially contextual female attraction is. They notice shit like “once he noticed me, did he linger or did he approach right away?”, “is he afraid to piss me off?”, “does he knows what he wants?”, “can he lead?”, “can he stand his ground or does he change his views to accommodate other people?”, and so on. Stuff that men don’t give a crap about in a woman, but for a woman these sorts of signifiers scream “attractive”. And they ascertain these things based on the s…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/19 07:51 PM
1

So you basically agree with me in your last sentence when you say they get dumped after sex once the girls realize they’re insecure and needy. Why does this suddenly matter? He’s still as good looking as he was before sex. You will get bonus points for looks, but unless you are confident and non needy, or able to convincingly fake it for long enough, you won’t get to sex. The only reason why a good looking guy may have an advantage is because women will be more forgiving if you fuck up in the be…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/19 07:38 PM
1

What’s your point? That you can be so ugly that nothing else matters? That doesn’t help your case. An insecure, needy, attractive guy will not be picked for sex either, unlike an insecure attractive woman. That pretty much tells you what the difference is.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/19 07:23 PM
0

No, they absolutely don’t. They select both primarily based on behavior. The behavioral signifiers change somewhat depending on the goal, but there’s also a lot of overlap. It’s way more important for you to be able to look a woman in the eyes with confidence than to have a symmetrical face.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/19 05:03 PM
0

Women don’t select men based on looks, they select men based on behavior. Good looks are indeed a sign of good genes, but being highly capable is also a sign of good genes and supersedes in importance the good looks indicator.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/19 03:06 PM
1

In a world with no paternity tests, virginity means she couldn’t have possibly been impregnated by anyone before you showed up. This preference is hard coded into the emotional systems of men by evolution. Any other explanation is post hoc rationalization (although some of these rationalizations are good points in and of themselves).
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/19 01:49 PM
2

Because you are high on disgust sensitivity. I don’t think they look disgusting.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/19 10:57 AM
1

I would like to point out that dom/sub shit has an infinite amount of flavors. You mentioned it is a power fantasy for you, but it could also have very different meaning with only a subtle difference in the practice itself. A scene where sub is tied and unable to resist is a power fantasy. A scene where you do the exact same thing, but the sub is not tied and has the freedom to walk away yet chooses to stay and obey is a surrender fantasy. One changed detail makes a world of contextual differenc…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/19 10:53 AM
3

Man here. I was in a week long tantra retreat. I wouldn’t be able to recognize any man from my group if my life depended on it.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/19 10:48 AM
1

It’s the combination of the two that people take offense at. First they tell you to be less masculine, you comply, then they tell you through action you’re now exactly what they don’t want. Either stick to the original request (want that which you tried to create = don’t date masculine men) or don’t feminize men.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/19 07:43 AM
2

Of course jealousy is a natural emotion, but so is anger or greed and we managed to move past indulging those (or at least try). You never get past being affected by emotions. You’re stuck with having to deal with them, and you can only find ways to cope and manage them. Most people do not want to deal with jealousy for the same reason they don’t want to deal with anxiety. It’s a stressor. You can work at becoming more resilient to it, but even then it’s not something most people want. I can tol…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/19 02:55 PM
5

Monogamy does not serve a purpose anymore and is unnecessary. It is well established that polygamist societies have significantly more male on male homicides, so there’s that. Also, your brain is hardwired for jealousy, and there’s a good evolutionary reason for that. Satiating the jealousy mechanism is a purpose of monogamy in itself. Monogamy does not actually work. Monogamy worked perfectly well for hundreds of years. What changed now is that: - People get married based on fickle and unreliab…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/19 01:33 PM
3

Don’t invest all of yourself in the woman, women want to be part of your life; if all your life is about tech stuff it means you have no place for her to join your life, women like a kind of ironic attitude (his version of aloof and stoic).
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/19 06:01 AM
3

Because we are only now figuring this out explicitly after a long history of limited opportunities (marrying whatever is available in your small village) and arrange marriages. Modern dating and its degree of freedom is very new, as is marrying for love. It’s going to take a few more generations if not more before western society finishes developing these social contexts properly. I recently had the talk about what women want with my dad for the first time (I’m 32). Some of the things he said we…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/19 05:17 AM
35

The Red Pill is what you get when you reduce men/women interactions to a single dimension: sexual attraction. It’s useful to do that sort of thing because that is how you study things: you isolate them from other factors and then explore them. However, men and women have additional motivations beyond sexual drive, and they absolutely do play a role and intermix in complex ways. People who can’t see that are those who aim for interactions where sexual drive is the sole driving factor, so there’s …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/19 08:42 PM
1

Being extroverted has nothing to do with social skills. Extroverts are more likely to develop social skills than introverts because of how much time they spend interacting with people, but you can be a clueless extroverted moron too.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/19 04:06 PM
1

Lack of intelligence will absolutely drive me insane.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/19 11:13 PM
3

...and until then, we can rank order psychological models based on well established criteria of validity and reliability, which the Meyers Briggs fails abysmally, and the Big 5 does not.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/19 10:22 PM
4

Well, we know that Extroversion and Openness are linked to Dopaminergic activity while Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness are linked to Seratonergic activity. There's also plenty of research that correlated brain differences to the Big 5 traits. But hey if you want to blindly dismiss psychometric standards as unscientific to protect your little pet theory be my guest.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/19 09:52 PM
2

Well, presumably what you are trying to do when you use the Myers Briggs is understand the personality of people, others and your own. In that case, it would be helpful to use a personality model that actually correlates to reality. The Big 5 is a scientifically valid model, the Myers Briggs is pseudo science: It has zero predictive power It is not reliable as a measuring tool (same person can get different results when taking the test multiple times) It does not stand to psychometric scrutiny (…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/19 09:16 PM
3

no one actually does that with big 5 I do that, and I suggest others start as well, since your assertion that You can't find any material of common emergent traits of people who have the same traits on big 5. … is absolutely incorrect. Here are some examples: High agreeableness: finds it hard to say no to people, prioritizes other peoples needs at the expense of their own needs, likely to develop resentment when their selfless altruism is not reciprocated, bad at negotiation, dislikes being in l…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/19 01:02 PM
2

[high neurotic, low neurotic] x [agreeable, disagreeable] x [high openness, low openness] x [extraverted, introverted] x [high conscientious, low conscientious] There’s your 32 types. From there you can extrapolate to the grey areas in between the extremes.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/19 12:09 PM
1

How does the big 5 not provide categorization?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/19 12:02 PM
2

I agree. But there are better alternatives available (specifically the Big 5, which is better than the Myers Briggs by pretty much any standard), so I see no reason to stick to the Myers Briggs.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/19 11:57 AM
5

Because they are clueless. Myers Briggs has no scientific validity, but sort of kinda sounds like it taps into patterns that people can recognize in themselves or others, so they think it means there’s something to it.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/19 10:43 AM
25

It’s perfectly fine to throw batteries into regular trash. Disposing then separately hasn’t been a necessity for over 20 years.
/r/RedPillWomen09/10/19 10:31 AM
3

TRPillers care about maximizing sexual attraction, not social dynamics or practicality. As long as female sexual attraction is based on being submissive to a high value dominant male, then that is how it’s gonna have to be. So it’s not that they don’t understand, it’s that they don’t care.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/19 09:20 AM
1

Because if you aren't a snowflake wrapped in cotton wool then a bit of a challenge can be fun. And you can learn about yourself. Sure, when you pick the challenge and its timing. Otherwise it’s an obstacle. As I like to explain to Linux fanboys, it’s really fun that Linux lets you tinker with all aspects of the system, but when I’m trying to watch porn the last thing I want to do is have to drop into command line to figure out why the Nvidia driver is being screwy. Have you ever felt a crushing …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/19 09:09 AM
2

Number 1 sounds perfectly fine for me. I'm fairly addicted to number 1, but I also don't consider it a challenge. That's just pure fun for me. When I hear the word challenge I always think about number 2, and I get the feeling that usually people refer to number 2 when they say "be more challenging", or at best refer to something like playing hard to get, which also feels incredibly annoying for me. If I want something, I want it as quickly as I can. Delaying my getting it is not going to make m…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/19 08:09 PM
3

If the living in together before marriage period is short, then fine. My comment applies to long living-together-before-marriage periods (multiple years).
/r/RedPillWomen05/09/19 10:08 PM
9

Probably because living together before marriage correlates with “I’m keeping my options instead of going all-in” mentality. In other words, correlates with people who are more likely to fix by replacing than to fix by mending.
/r/RedPillWomen05/09/19 02:05 PM
1

Check out this video at the 10:30 mark. https://youtu.be/IQ23YtN7HaA
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/19 02:30 PM
3

One thing I think all people who wonder about appropriate amount of eye contact should know is that in order to think, you have to be able to avert your gaze. Search for body language eye direction, and you’ll see that whenever we do things like access memory, or construct ideas, our eyes immediately move to a certain direction. So don’t categorize all instances of you averting your gaze as problematic. If you don’t allow your eyes to do the movements they need it’ll inhibit your ability to perf…
/r/RedPillWomen25/07/19 01:11 PM
1

I completely understand what you're saying. It's like "if I need to tell you to be dominant, you're by definition not dominant". You want it to come from him, because you're attracted to the kind of person who is like this naturally, not someone who is different but pretends. One thing I can tell you though is that you don't really see the full picture of who this guy is right now. It's possible that he has the qualities of the kind of man that behaves in the manner you described, but he's too b…
/r/RedPillWomen15/07/19 12:16 AM
1

Don’t use the phrase “too nice” when you talk to him about it. It sounds like you are punishing him for his virtues, and that sounds incredibly ungrateful (not that being nice is necessarily a virtue, niceness alone usually isn’t a virtue, but that is what it’s going to sound like to him). Explain to him that for you, a certain degree of distance increases your enjoyment of him, because your image of him is constructed through what his actions imply about who he is, and the persona he creates wh…
/r/RedPillWomen14/07/19 11:31 PM
15

There’s a reason why poly relationships usually don’t work: although we are driven by temptations such as novelty and attraction, we also crave emotional stability, and these are contradicting needs. It takes a set of very unusual circumstances to satisfy both simultaneously, and usually what happens is that emotional stability is sacrificed for the freedom to pursue novelty and excitement. Another common case is people who are not satisfied with their relationship, and instead of fixing it or r…
/r/RedPillWomen07/07/19 02:18 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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