Fancypantser92 Archive

Upvotes	Title	Category	Author	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
7	An alternative theory of SMV and aging: fixed and mobile windows		Fancypantser92	/r/PurplePillDebate	22/08/14 04:34 PM
3	Isn't AF/BB More of a Male Mating Strategy than a Female one?	Discussion	Fancypantser92	/r/PurplePillDebate	06/03/15 02:00 AM

Upvotes	Comment on	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
4	EvoPsych and the Cock Carousel Men want a woman who is chaste (the madonna), but fucks like a pron star exclusively for them (the whore). Nope. The Madonna/whore complex refers to when men are unable to form sexual attraction and respectful romantic attachment to one woman: each woman is either a Madonna on a chaste pedestal (mother/wife figure), or a debased whore (sex object). TRP has a hint of this complex, as it often suggests that a woman enjoying casual sex for fun in her twenties is unlikely to go on to become a good w…	/r/PurplePillDebate	06/04/15 11:05 PM
5	The "Slut vs. Stud" debate. This only works if you view sex as adversarial- that by having sex with someone you "defeat" their resistance. In fighting, there is a winner and loser, and in competition everyone loves an underdog. In sex, both parties (hopefully) are winners. It still makes sense to applaud the man more than the woman for a sexual encounter because it was likely more difficult for him to achieve, but it doesn't make sense to shame the woman for it. You might be more impressed by a rowers who make the team to …	/r/PurplePillDebate	26/03/15 08:25 AM
1	Question for BP women: You see a guy in class you are REALLY attracted to but too scared to approach. After class, you walk back to your dorm. Suddenly, a masked man comes out of nowhere and rapes you. Cops later catch the man and it turns out to be the guy in class you liked. Do you press charges? Yeah why not, she also rapes you (just the mechanics of random violent masked stranger rape is a lot tricker for female attackers- I wasn't trying to suggest women can't be rapists).	/r/PurplePillDebate	18/03/15 04:12 AM
1	Question for BP women: You see a guy in class you are REALLY attracted to but too scared to approach. After class, you walk back to your dorm. Suddenly, a masked man comes out of nowhere and rapes you. Cops later catch the man and it turns out to be the guy in class you liked. Do you press charges? You see a girl in class you are really attracted to but too scared to approach. After class, you walk back to your dorm. Suddenly, a masked person comes out of nowhere and VIOLENTLY ATTACKS YOU. Later you find out it's her. What the fuck man. Even if she's hot it doesn't excuse the horrible disrespect for your wellbeing and autonomy. Same for dudes.	/r/PurplePillDebate	18/03/15 03:57 AM
2	RP women, what is it like knowing TRP while dating? As an attractive woman, I came to TRP for defensive tactics and curiosity, but now mostly for entertainment and debate. There are two sides to TRP: one is an interesting economics type thought experiment framing western heterosexual dynamics as a marketplace. This is extremely interesting and raises many good points. This side attempts to make objective, descriptive observations, many of which are accurate. The other is the side which is more prescriptive than descriptive. The agenda seems less …	/r/PurplePillDebate	17/03/15 10:55 PM
2	Why invalidate evolutionary psychology/behavior in sexual dynamics? I think the confusion might stem from the fact the comment you replied to was me extending my original comment (I probably should have just edited my original comment rather than just replying to it, but hey, I'm lazy).	/r/PurplePillDebate	06/03/15 11:37 PM
1	Isn't AF/BB More of a Male Mating Strategy than a Female one? By "mating strategy" I mean in an evolutionary sense not a conscious plan (as I think RP does- or do they actually believe women plot out AF/BB?). So as a strategy, males propagate their genes by either specializing in A) quantity of offspring (alphas keeping themselves free to attract a lot of women without commitment) or B) commitment to a select few offspring of one woman (a beta strategy). If women had their way, they would have the best of both worlds- commitment from genetically fit men. F…	/r/PurplePillDebate	06/03/15 10:46 AM
2	Why invalidate evolutionary psychology/behavior in sexual dynamics? I couldn't agree more- but from your tone it seems like you think you're making a different point to mine?	/r/PurplePillDebate	06/03/15 10:28 AM
5	Why invalidate evolutionary psychology/behavior in sexual dynamics? First of all, that piece of advice has nothing to do with red pill. Secondly, that advice has nothing to do with evolutionary psychology, which would be concerned not with what women should do, but with the hypothetical evolutionary reason why men might be more sexually aggressive. Note that we can understand the mechanism that men are (in general) more sexually aggressive, ie the underlying hormonal differences and differing social expectations between genders. Also note that it's interesting t…	/r/PurplePillDebate	06/03/15 01:30 AM
6	Why invalidate evolutionary psychology/behavior in sexual dynamics? This example actually highlights the importance of social factors. "59% of Black men, 54% of Chinese men, 56% of Maori men, and 34% of Caucasian men carry the 3R allele." Would you say that Chinese men are significantly more aggressive than Caucasian men? And almost as aggressive as black men? No. (Just look at violent crime statistics). Treating black men as intrinsically more violent would likely be extremely self fulfilling; the studies highlight the importance of an adverse developmental env…	/r/PurplePillDebate	06/03/15 12:59 AM
22	Why invalidate evolutionary psychology/behavior in sexual dynamics? Thirdly, taking an evopsych perspective can be socially damaging. For example, see the similarities: 1) Black Americans are more prone to violence. 2) This is because of higher testosterone levels, due to selection pressures on slaves to be strong and muscular. 3) Therefore, we should treat black men as more likely to be violent. A) Women are emotionally manipulative. B) This is because their physical weakness/lack of male abilities mean they must manipulate men into providing for and protecting…	/r/PurplePillDebate	05/03/15 09:22 PM
32	Why invalidate evolutionary psychology/behavior in sexual dynamics? The argument is that RP endorsed evopsych tends to start with a hypothesis (eg "most/all women are hypergamous") and then come up with an explanation that seems plausible in the setting of very early human cultures. This explanation is often based on very little actual evidence beyond "that seems like a good reason why that might be advantageous behaviour". The reasoning is often very circular. Secondly, RP evopsych ignores the concept that sociocultural evolution usually explains Western human …	/r/PurplePillDebate	05/03/15 09:15 PM
1	Why aren't there more stay-at-home dads given the prevalence of women in the workplace? And what exactly was your latter point? For whose benefit would I want to "control" myself and refrain from making a judgement on a debate sub post specifically addressing me, in reply to a comment I made? I understand that I'm not obliged to reply- this isn't my job. But if you can't bring yourself to welcome rebuttals then maybe you need a different hobby, and should avoid hanging out on debate subs. Just a tip!	/r/PurplePillDebate	26/02/15 10:37 AM
2	Why aren't there more stay-at-home dads given the prevalence of women in the workplace? As adorably obvious that straw man is (trying to claim that "some women can breastfeed and all men can't" is an anti blue pill statement), my original post was rather blue pill. The original reason for child care being traditionally for women (breastfeeding) has become much less relevant and often obsolete for many couples with the advent of pumps and formula feeding. My implication was that the following social expectations are also therefore much less relevant and heading towards obsolescence.…	/r/PurplePillDebate	26/02/15 10:01 AM
1	Why aren't there more stay-at-home dads given the prevalence of women in the workplace? I am a bluper. Nobody denies that some women can breastfeed and all men can't. Your comment contributes nothing to the debate.	/r/PurplePillDebate	26/02/15 09:12 AM
2	How many of you have children? If you don't have children now, do you anticipate that you will have children within, say, the next 5-10 years? Marriage in 3 years, then a 2-3 year break, then 2-3 babies in the following 2-7 years. Yup, I'm a planner. It's a bit earlier than I'd planned before I met my S.O., but he's 7 years older than me so accelerating things by 2 years or so seemed like a reasonable compromise.	/r/PurplePillDebate	25/02/15 09:18 PM
5	Why aren't there more stay-at-home dads given the prevalence of women in the workplace? The global pattern is likely rooted in breastfeeding- it has always been more practical for women to be the primary carers because they have the equipment to feed infants. This is still relevant today, and is reinforced by the resulting social expectations. Now that we have the technology to allow for male primary carers, those social expectations can prevent couples for whom this arrangement is more practical from feeling free to use it.	/r/PurplePillDebate	25/02/15 08:56 PM
4	Word Association Game - which list does "sexy" belong under? Guy 1.5: Unpredictable Daring Cocky Insensitive Challenging Selfish Entitled Experienced Teases Bold Independent Tempestuous Predictable Consistent Dependable Generous Affectionate Eager to please optimise happiness Sacrificing Inexperienced Can take a joke Needy Shy Sensitive Emotionally competent Forgiving It doesn't have to be one or the other, guys.	/r/PurplePillDebate	13/02/15 01:53 AM
3	Like attracts like: Is TRP really only geared towards men chasing stereotypical, awful, shallow women? This makes no sense- surely the hottest possible women have the best bargaining power to get what they want. If anyone is getting relationships with high value men it's high value women. And it's blatantly not true that all of the really hot guys aren't getting in relationships at all. I can understand the idea that the women who base their self esteem on being sexually pursued would be the most likely to overtly hot themselves up (sexy clothes, hair, make-up, looking sexually available) and als…	/r/PurplePillDebate	10/02/15 04:33 AM
2	For Women: Do you value "low smv" men? It's less "he'd still make a good little worker drone" and more "he still has some worth, and that could be enough for another person but not for me".	/r/PurplePillDebate	30/01/15 11:53 PM
2	For Women: Do you value "low smv" men? Yes. If you find someone ugly (by your standards) you have every right to be repelled by the idea of a romantic/sexual relationship with them. If you find someone's personality unappealing (by your standards) you have every right to be repelled by the idea of a romantic/sexual relationship with them. If you find someone to be contributing so little to the world (by your standards) you have every right to be repelled by the idea of a romantic/sexual relationship with them. And you can appreciate …	/r/PurplePillDebate	30/01/15 11:49 PM
2	For Women: Do you value "low smv" men? So your claim is that low SMV women still are treated as valuable to some extent by men purely by virtue of being female (as evidenced by mens willingness to defend women). And you are asking if low SMV men also have this baseline value, or if they must earn value by increasing SMV, and whether this means that men are "disposable" if they fail to earn value. I would totally disagree that a woman's willingness to defend a man is an accurate reflection of how valuable she thinks he is. The issue i…	/r/PurplePillDebate	30/01/15 02:13 AM
6	For Women: Do you value "low smv" men? Well, not really. Would you date a woman who was any of these three things? 1) ugly (relative to other women you can get) 2) unappealing personality-wise 3) generally useless to everybody Of course not. To have high SMV you must have at least some value in all 3 categories, man or woman. Your idea of "alpha" tends to be strong in 1 and 2 (and often 3 reflected in high status professional or creative jobs), while your idea of "beta" is strong in mostly 3. Different kinds of women weight the impor…	/r/PurplePillDebate	29/01/15 09:01 PM
4	For Women: Do you value "low smv" men? Well that depends. Is he low SMV because he is ugly AND has an unappealing personality AND no skills that contribute to the welfare of others? Or is he low SMV because of only 1-2 of these factors, despite having value in the third category? If it's the former, then he has little value to anyone, if it's the latter then while being (for example) ugly might stop you from being an attractive partner this doesn't discount the other valuable things you bring to the table in platonic relationships or…	/r/PurplePillDebate	29/01/15 07:16 AM
8	CMV: I'm entitled to sex. Give me one more poorly thought out fallacious response and I'll stop responding, because its becoming clear you're a troll. "Right" = something that a particular person or group is entitled to. "Entitlement" = an inalienable claim on something. "Inalienable" = something which should not be subject to being taken away from its possessor. Therefore, if nobody has the right to have sex with someone else, it merely means that nobody has the inalienable claim to having sex with someone else. Whether…	/r/PurplePillDebate	17/12/14 08:50 AM
5	CMV: I'm entitled to sex. In this context: "Right" = something that a particular person or group is entitled to. "Privilege" = a special advantage granted to a particular person or group. We can talk about granting privilege in either a descriptive way (what actually happens in society) or a prescriptive way (what should happen in society). In a descriptive sense, certain groups (whites, males, wealthy people) generally receive certain privileges. In a prescriptive sense, sex is a privilege which should be distributed by…	/r/PurplePillDebate	17/12/14 08:31 AM
9	CMV: I'm entitled to sex. Doesn't "you're not entitled to anything (sexually)" just mean "sex is a privilege not a right"? Rights should be fulfilled for everyone by default (basic safety, survival needs, basic education etc), while some privileges can be earnt (luxuries, community standing), and other privilege bestowed however the person bestowing them agrees to (inheritances, favours, affection, sex). Therefore, nobody should feel entitled to receive sex from a woman any more than they can feel entitled to other privi…	/r/PurplePillDebate	17/12/14 07:59 AM
4	2XC explains concerns over catcalling It's still an important facet of the discussion. When a certain kind of man harasses a woman on the street, a big part of it is getting off on making her feel threatened. To me, the threat of sexual violence is much more disturbing than the threat of having to hand over my money. I've been chased at night and my first thought is "I hope they just want my wallet". This discussion is about the parallel between harassment for money and harassment for sexual attention, and the difference in threat l…	/r/PurplePillDebate	31/10/14 12:14 AM
15	2XC explains concerns over catcalling The claim was "being attacked for sex is more frightening than being attacked for money." So the relevant dilemma is choosing between someone threatening to blind you unless you gve up you money, or threatening to blind you unless you submit to sex. I'd rather give the money, personally.	/r/PurplePillDebate	30/10/14 11:52 PM
4	In two sentences (one for men and one for women), what is the best relationship advice you would give to someone? Past the first month or two, never make someone a priority if you are only an option. Work to become the kind of person your ideal partner would realistically consider their ideal partner.	/r/PurplePillDebate	09/09/14 01:25 PM
5	Question for BP: If women and men want and enjoy sex roughly equally, why is there such a big social disparity? Women only love sex with men they find attractive; part (obviously not all) of the pleasure of hooking up is the ego gratification of being wanted by someone you want. I imagine sleeping with a PUA would be akin to beer goggles; waking up in the morning and realising the girl you slept with is hideous probably doesn't feel nice, nor does the realisation that the seemingly attractive guy you went home with is all smoke and mirrors. So if you combine the social cost of sex for a lot of women (slut…	/r/PurplePillDebate	10/07/14 08:28 PM
1	If You Were The Opposite Sex, What Would Your "Sexual Strategy" Be? I'm a woman and I use the strategy you described above. If I was a man I'd use the same strategy, only substituting "beauty" with a broader sense of attractive attributes, as women tend to have broader views of things that add to a mans initial "sex appeal" (ambition, humour, skills, compatible interests/subculture/values and general success in addition to looks). However, in both genders success depends/would depend on whether the person has enough beauty or attractive attributes to create adeq…	/r/PurplePillDebate	31/03/14 12:56 PM
1	Is "creep shaming" comparable to "slut shaming"? But it's not concern for the woman. If men were approaching women with concern for them without an ulterior motive, why aren't they exclusively approaching the kind of person who'd most likely enjoy it? As you say, "people to whom society is generally indifferent", i.e. fat women, ugly women, unattractive men, old women, lonely looking women, women putting out cues that they want to be approached? In this analogy, coffee = "concern", friendliness, whatever, while "talk about jesus" means some ki…	/r/MensRights	25/02/14 02:45 AM
1	Is "creep shaming" comparable to "slut shaming"? Not really. It differs in that there is an easy solution which doesn't really restrict your life (not putting it in your back pocket etc). The analogy is meant to inspire empathy and ask men to consider how likely the approach will be welcomed before approaching a woman, and whether it is really socially appropriate. It points out that in approaching a woman you are not being nice or offering a compliment, but deliberately bothering her for the chance of personal gain, much like a salesman or a …	/r/MensRights	25/02/14 01:05 AM
1	Is "creep shaming" comparable to "slut shaming"? After a while it would get easy to get too touchy about situation 6, not saying its right but just that its understandable.	/r/MensRights	24/02/14 01:58 PM
1	Is "creep shaming" comparable to "slut shaming"? You have a point. This is actually what I was (perhaps unsuccessfully) meaning to portray. Initially, the man would be trying to avoid mistaking 1 for 3 and abandoning a successful approach. This increases his inclination to be persistent, increasing the chance of scenario 4. After the fact, the man cannot tell for sure the difference between 4 and 2, while the woman cannot tell the difference between 4 and 5. Both misunderstandings may lead to one party thinking the other is an asshole when the…	/r/MensRights	15/02/14 06:02 AM
1	Is "creep shaming" comparable to "slut shaming"? This is a very low quality analysis of my analysis, motherfucker. SOME women may reject men in this manner, but it is far, far from all of them, and an even smaller subdivision of those women reject men overly vaguely for the reasons you've mentioned. When I reject men I'm polite and clear about it, as are most women in my circle. I have come across women that are outright blatantly rude when making rejections too. I think what you described is more common for a proportion of "friend zoned" men,…	/r/MensRights	15/02/14 05:22 AM
1	Is "creep shaming" comparable to "slut shaming"? Sorry 3a was meant to be covered by scenario 2, when the man is called creepy no matter what he does- I was a little unclear, but the idea is in there	/r/MensRights	15/02/14 05:11 AM
54	Is "creep shaming" comparable to "slut shaming"? This is an element of truth in here, but it's not quite on the mark. When a man approaches an available woman, one of five six scenarios can arise: Woman finds man attractive, welcomes advances. Woman finds man unattractive, immediately calls him creepy regardless of his actual behaviour (to avoid seeming superficial, due to inexperience/immaturity, to flatter herself- as in "how dare such an unattractive person think they have a chance with me!") Woman finds man unattractive, rejects advances. …	/r/MensRights	14/02/14 12:21 AM
9	What would you want your love life to be like if you were somehow desired, unconditionally, by every single person you desired? It depends what you mean by "unconditionally"- hard unconditionally, where they adoringly give literally no shits about what you do, or soft unconditionally, where they will always desire you but still have their own preferences (monogamy/other structures, how they'd like to be treated) which affect your relationship and their happiness. I think I would prefer the latter, as I think the former would preclude a genuine relationship. It would make me limit my behaviour though as I would have to ta…	/r/PurplePillDebate	11/02/14 12:51 PM
19	Conflicts over "Hypergamy"... or "Why IDGAF about hypergamy" That's just it. If "hypergamous" is stretched to mean "selecting the best/most attractive/alpha/most successful mate you can get", then EVERYONE is hypergamous. If you could pick between an attractive person and a less attractive person, regardless of your gender you're going to pick the attractive person. Alpha fucks, beta bucks applies to men too. The trope of fucking the hottest chicks you can get until you want to settle down with a woman in whom attractiveness is not the only factor (and ma…	/r/PurplePillDebate	02/02/14 11:28 PM
4	I want to sleep with physically attractive women. A lot of them. If TRP is 'the wrong' way to think TBP, what is your solution? 1) The reason it's not easy to sleep with attractive women is because you're not as attractive as them. Simple as that. They want to sleep with the most attractive guys for the same reason why you want to sleep with them, the most attractive girls. Duh. Imagine you could get your pick of literally any girl. Why would you bother with the average ones, the ones you don't really want? There's your answer. EVERYONE is "hypergamous", women AND men. 2) Becoming more attractive: working out, striving f…	/r/PurplePillDebate	01/02/14 12:38 AM
22	Men are more likely to divorce spouses with terminal illness, while wives are more likely to stay. How does this fit into the red pill idea that honor is a only a male construct? I posted this in the red pill sub and it was deleted without reason after some discussion. Honor to a man in Western society means sacrificing ones self and needs for those that he loves, but this is not unconditional (or at least not unconditional for any length of time). Such sacrifice needs to be valued and purposeful if it is to be maintained for a duration of years. A terminal or life-changing disease defeats the purposeful element and makes such an endeavour futile. Crikey! So what are the necessary conditions for a sacrifice to be considered valued, purposeful, and not futile? …	/r/PurplePillDebate	22/01/14 11:18 AM
5	If TRP is ineffective, what sexual "strategies" do work? That's exactly one of the temporary strategies I'm talking about: when she's hot or "has an attitude" (i.e., clearly thinks she's out of your league), negging is an attempt to get her to feel that she's not, and to simultaneously display social status as someone she needs to impress (but doesn't). It's fundamentally adversarial as the premise is manipulation, and that's difficult to keep that up long term. The rest of TRP seems to be about giving the impression of high social status and power. T…	/r/PurplePillDebate	16/10/13 04:58 AM
6	If TRP is ineffective, what sexual "strategies" do work? Different "strategies" work for different aims. Your initial impression is like a resume, and you need to cater it for the kind of job/relationship you want. TRP/PUA can be like claiming to have completely different qualifications and skills to get a really competitive job; it might get you a foot in the door, but ultimately leads to disappointment. Your resume/first impression also determines the type of jobs/women likely to give you a chance: a research fellowship doesn't give a rat's ass how …	/r/PurplePillDebate	16/10/13 04:08 AM
1	Found a picture of the example I use trying to explain logic to the illogical Further, nowhere is it written that you have the right to engage in risky behaviour without consequence. Uh, what? I absolutely have the right to jog at night without being molested. I absolutely have the right to party in short skirts and not expect to get raped. Rights, responsibility and accountability are normative concepts; they lie in the realm of "should be" rather than "is". This whole argument is about what the potential consequences "should" be reasonably accepted to be risks taken on …	/r/MensRights	16/09/13 05:24 AM
2	Found a picture of the example I use trying to explain logic to the illogical It would be a good idea if they want to reduce the chance of getting punched to not wear purple though. Maybe, but they do not have the RESPONSIBILITY to. If crucifixes put me into a blind murderous rage, Christians still don't have the responsibility to not wear them. They control the element which influences my decision to go on murderous rampages, but that doesn't negate their right to wear them, or dictate their responsibility for my behaviour. And that's just motive. Are they responsible fo…	/r/MensRights	16/09/13 04:38 AM
2	Found a picture of the example I use trying to explain logic to the illogical Really, this disagreement boils down to whether control necessarily equals responsibility. I think that responsibility is a reflection of how people should ideally be required/expected to act. No matter how well people act, there is always going to be risk of car crashes or getting hit by lightning. These are accidents: most people don't choose to crash their cars, and lightning lacks the agency to decide whether/whom to strike. Therefore, the onus of reducing risk is on the individuals involved…	/r/MensRights	16/09/13 03:45 AM
2	Found a picture of the example I use trying to explain logic to the illogical These are some good points, which definitely support the value of advice about minimising risk. I think the issue here is that we have different ideas about what "responsibility" connotes, and the normative implications of the word "should". To me, "responsibility" implies an obligation, and accountability for the consequences of your choices. It absolutely changes the "inherent accidentality of victimisation": If you have a responsibility to dress non-provocatively, you are partly accountable f…	/r/MensRights	16/09/13 02:38 AM
3	Found a picture of the example I use trying to explain logic to the illogical I'll come back to the first part later. The disagreement I have is that I think most of the precautions people here seem to find reasonable restrict my freedom unjustly. Can you imagine if anti bullying campaigns in school started putting up posters to avoid victimisation like Don't stand out from the crowd Don't look weak/like you won't fight back Don't be interested in "weird" things like WoW etc Don't wear nerdy clothing Stay in sight of teachers at all times And then if a kid gets beaten up …	/r/MensRights	16/09/13 01:13 AM
7	Found a picture of the example I use trying to explain logic to the illogical Please read what I said literally only one sentence before that. Yes there are pragmatic ways to reduce risks of being raped (which we should definitely be teaching everyone, especially vulnerable groups), but choosing to follow them or not should have no bearing on how much responsibility/blame a person accepts should they get raped. Yes women can do things to protect themselves, and it's great if they do. The argument here is about whether they should have to, and by extension whether they acc…	/r/MensRights	16/09/13 12:59 AM
29	Found a picture of the example I use trying to explain logic to the illogical Yes, but we don't require everyone planning to cross a street to wear a helmet, or avoid crossing intersections which are busy. The way I look at it, any view of what constitutes a "reasonable" restriction on a potential rape victim's freedoms to avoid the threat of rape is on a highly subjective and culture driven sliding scale. You might tell your daughter not to go home with a stranger at night, not to get "too" drunk, to not go clubbing, not to go to a party where you don't have a friend or …	/r/MensRights	15/09/13 11:47 AM
6	Saw this 'gem' on Facebook. According to feminist logic, making passive-aggressive excuses instead of being straightforward=male privilege. I couldn't disagree with this article more. The vast majority of women (myself included) don't say "I have a boyfriend" to guys at bars because they think that's the only way to get him to leave them alone. It's a quick, decisive way to make your lack of desire for romantic interaction clear, without hurting anyone's feelings. Saying BACK OFF would be just as if not more effective, but its a dick move, because all these guys need is just a gentle no, rather than a violent rejection. It also feel…	/r/MensRights	10/09/13 12:33 PM