TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

FantasticAfternoon9 Archive

View 5 posts and 168 comments by FantasticAfternoon9 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

This woman does not represent the majority of women I completly agree. I just wish the NYT didn't have ppl like her as columnists for their newspaper. The writer was married, but openly had sex with other guys in the marriage. She fell in love with another man while with her husband and decided to leave her husband. Boom, that's the biggest piece of evidence to me that she's a terrible person. The article essentially blames men for not being emotionally available Exactly. In my opinion, there ar…
/r/MensRights24/07/25 02:50 PM
1

Ohh ok that makes sense. It's a bit sad that you can't be fully 100% authentic and geniune in romantic relationships nowadays, but it is what it is.
/r/MensRights24/07/25 02:40 PM
1

Damn this was actually eye-opening. I didn't know NYC was that gender-imbalanced, but from the way you describe it, NYC seems like a great city for young single men in that case lol. But ya I agree, I think the issue is she has a huge sampling bias exactly as u've described, and she's ascribing the behviour of the small group of men she's interacted with, to all men, which is obv not true and isn't the case. Anyways NYT columnists probably don't pay their own rent and are likely millionaires by …
/r/MensRights24/07/25 02:39 PM
2

Just listened to a guy read this article. My God, she was in an open marriage, had a kid, divorced, then marriage the side dude. She wonders why men don't want relationships? Duh, you left your husband for some other guy you were banging while married. Exactly. These types of people are terrible human beings in my opinion. Then the complaining about the guys she wants not wanting her. That's some femcel shit. Wanting a unicorn of a man, but being a worthless woman. How does The New York Times th…
/r/MensRights24/07/25 02:26 PM
1

oh ya that's fair
/r/MensRights24/07/25 02:25 PM
1

Hmm I think around women it's best to be an actor ya. But wdym by this: "Be Tom Hardy. Not his Characters. Be Sean Connery. Not 007"?
/r/MensRights23/07/25 10:43 PM
2

I really don't care for their articles, because I know that they're throwing low blows for clicks. Journalism and Feminism have been dying for quite some time now. They're just trying to cope with the fact that their power is gone. No one is listening to them anymore. That's great. Nobody should listen to them imo. Sex was that one of the few things left that there gave some leverage, but even that doesn't matter much anymore. Everything that had value lost its value and now it's just a bunch of…
/r/MensRights23/07/25 10:42 PM
2

Mhm completly agree with this.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 08:43 PM
3

Exactly. The hypocrisy is insane lol.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 03:29 PM
2

Oh that's good!
/r/MensRights22/07/25 03:17 PM
1

Damn bro. Nothing to be done. It's just unfortunate all around
/r/MensRights22/07/25 01:35 PM
1

Ya sure my bad for all of the acronyms and text speech. I'm just kind of used to it to be honest.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 12:13 PM
2

Honestly, extremely valid take. From the title of the article alone, I should've known it'd be a terrible read, but at the same time, curiousity got the best of me, so I read it, but ya, I probably shouldn't have even bothered engaging with this garbage article, since it's borderline masochistic I agree.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 12:12 PM
1

Ya and they never think they're the problem (open marriage and divorce with her husband for some guy she fell in love with is a huge red flag LOL).
/r/MensRights22/07/25 12:09 PM
2

I mean seriously: had an “open marriage”; was seeing a guy who kept saying he wasn’t up for a relationship and yet ditched her husband, supposedly for this “J” guy (perhaps she imagined he only thought this because she was married). Ya these ppl r ridicolous imo. But typically they can’t see that they issue could be with them or their ideology, or their expectations, or even that they’re going for a particular man who is in great demand amongst women, including women who have far fewer red flags…
/r/MensRights22/07/25 12:08 PM
1

LMAOOO. That's true.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 12:05 PM
0

LOL. Tbh, I obv know not everyone is like this, but if baffles me y this was on the NYT.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 12:04 PM
1

100% fax.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 12:04 PM
2

Did you also pick up on how all the men she referred to in the article are men she either had sex with already or wanted to have sex with? It really solidifies that "men and women can't just be friends" is perpetuated by women too. Damn I didn't even notice that before but now that u mention it ya, that's true I feel it's also important to point out that everything this woman has extrapolated on in her article is considered normal. This is something any woman can fall prey to at any moment if sh…
/r/MensRights22/07/25 12:02 PM
1

It's funny how many women are willing to throw consent out of the window instead of just saying yes. It should never be more than zero... LOL fax. But this mixed messaging is what confuses men... Does he let subconscious nature take over, or does he restrain his desires and communicate them effectively? Obviously the latter is the best answer, but when people are platforming this type of messaging, they're not going to know what's normal or not. Men get their messages moderated or banned for les…
/r/MensRights22/07/25 03:04 AM
4

Nah I'm not. Tbh I just disliked this article. I thin the NYT shouldn't have such a bad person as an article writer. But I'll admit smt. There's no reason for me to be bitter/resentful or angry/upset at this specific women, since there's nothing good that will do for my mental health, and this is completly irrelevant to my life, so I don't actually care about it much lol. I just wanted to vent in this subreddit, which is y I said my last paragraph LOL. Don't take it 2 srsly.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 02:58 AM
3

Oh ya that's true. I think that article was complete BS. The reality is there r a lot of good men, they're just invisible to her.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 02:55 AM
4

100% agreed.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 01:31 AM
3

This article was all about the headline, the editor probably knew her (she's in publishing) and bought the article for the headline. Oh damn i didn't even realize that. That makes sense. I think its extremely obvious reading this article that the men who enter her orbit do not want to be with her in really any capacity. One doesn't even want to come over for sex. Makes sense to me.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 01:31 AM
5

This writer views men, relationships, and even her own marriage (which she states was an open one before the divorce...big surprise) as means for personal gratification only. LOLL yaa. Idk y the NYT even had an author like her. She wishes to be queer so that she can be free of the burdens of responsibility in a relationship--the reason she does this is because she views responsibility and accountability not as things intrinsic to being in a relationship, but things imposed on the relationship ex…
/r/MensRights22/07/25 01:08 AM
3

The extremely biased, corrupt and dishonest, anti-male joke of a legal system. LOL nuff said.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 12:38 AM
3

LOL ya
/r/MensRights22/07/25 12:35 AM
2

Sure I get ur point. The dating scene def has changed recently, and it's def way easier to get hookup sex than ever before. That's 100% true. Many women do just want casual sex, and I agree that it's become much less stigmatized than before. However, that's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for a monogamous exclusive commited LTR. Not just hookups or casual sex. And I think that's much harder than before.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 12:34 AM
5

LOL ya
/r/MensRights22/07/25 12:31 AM
7

And the answer is "Because they're sexist fuckheads". That's true lol. Be grateful they don't try to hide it; take the lesson Honestly, that's the silver lining in this.
/r/MensRights21/07/25 10:54 PM
7

I can't help myself, but I love when such dumb arrogant people reap the consequences of their stupid decisions and end up miserable. Completly agree The only possible downside to this, is a poor guy who might settle with this abomination and get abused by her. Yep
/r/MensRights21/07/25 10:49 PM
2

This person was in a committed relationship and blew it up to pursue someone who made it pretty clear from the beginning that they were not interested in anything serious. 100% Now she has exactly what she ended her marriage to get: not that guy, but the perpetual pursuit of an elusive figure of desire that she can imagine will fix her unhappiness. Boom It’s not about men vs women at all. A lot of men do exactly the same thing—I did it for most of my twenties. I mean ig. Everyone's diffrent but …
/r/MensRights21/07/25 10:31 PM
6

You have to accept that these are bitter women who can't adapt to the new dating reality, and will either die alone, or be miserable (and make their partner miserable) in a relationship where they feel like they are settling. That's true. They are not the average woman. They are not the "90%". They're just the loudest ones. I agree
/r/MensRights21/07/25 10:06 PM
17

"Honestly, while I was reading this I felt like she was throwing red flags left and right" Ya idk y tf NYT has an author like that "Maybe men are less inclined to see if there's any payoffs when the woman seems like an asshole these days. Maybe metoo made the price of admission too high and men want to play the numbers game less. Maybe sex isn't worth it anymore considering what you have to go through." Exactly "She seemed to think we are just things that are there to fuck her anyways. Any man w…
/r/MensRights21/07/25 10:04 PM
1

I guess someone I like?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/25 02:31 AM
1

Absolutely. I have like, one or two close guy friends and probably five close gal friends. Depending on how you count. Ohhh ic. I have close male and female friends as well. I've always just gotten along better with women in general, but you're right that everyone is different. Def. I think this opint gets forgetten too often in a subreddit like this where ppl just make broad generalizations of every human being in the world, but obv there will always be exceptions and everyone's def different. …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/25 01:48 AM
1

Of course it does. Just like if you say if he/she was my friend but didn't meet this or that standard, I wouldn't give them respect. Maybe this is just our definition of "friends", but I have some friends who I don't respect cuz of their past actions. Absolutely there can be valid reasons. And that means that they are not your friends. I'm not sure why you call people you don't respect friends. Maybe you mean acquaintance or something. Friend is a strong term. Like any definition of the word wil…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/25 06:32 PM
1

Oh damn icic. I mean everyone's different ig lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/25 06:28 PM
1

Of course you wouldn't. Unless she is your friend. Or you are hers, if you prefer. If you are not her friend, then yeah you wouldn't want to fuck her. That's the whole point. Honestly even if she was my friend. I wouldn't want to have sex with her she's below avg (5/10). I don't think that invalidates the friendship though. There is no valid reason other than that you aren't really friends. Or that you physically can't help them. Just like with respect. There's no valid reason why they don't wan…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/25 04:30 PM
1

Umm, yes it does necessarily mean that. That's why your body gets hard/wet - because you are physically attracted. Why is whether it's on a conscious level relevant? Because I can get sexually aroused by a below-avg (say 4/10 girl) but wouldn't want to fuck her. That's what I said. Below average. If somehow you can't perform with average, which I doubt, that still leaves almost 50% of people above average. Oh wait. In that case I don't actually think we disagree at all. I'd agree that I'd be wil…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/25 11:44 PM
1

If something is completely subjective then it's not real. Unless you can objectively verify something, it's nonsense and religion. In this case, you can verify if someone is attractive to someone else. Strictly speaking, you could measure the heart rate and brain activity etc with electrodes. But really for this discussion simply seeing if they can sexually perform with them is enough. If they are not attractive - you won't get hard/wet. Hmm. I think attraction is subjective and I think it varie…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/25 12:35 PM
1

attractive and unattractive Attractive means ppl a person finds attractive, and unattractive emans ppl a person finds unattractive. It's completly subjective and up tNoto the indivual imo. The 2nd only overrides the first if they are unattractive to the point where you can't perform even though you want to. See I think this is where we disagree. I think the 2nd overrides the first, not only if u physically can't do it, but if u just don't find them attractive (for the purposes of this conversati…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 02:12 PM
1

I think the thing is there are two different thoughts. The first is that you should want to help ur friend. I agree with this. If u don't, I don't think ur truly a friend of theirs. I complelty agree that if ur friend wants to have sex with u, u should WANT to have sex with them, to help them fullfill their needs/desires. But the second thought (at least for me) is if they're physically attractive or not. If so, obv I wouldn't mind having sex with them. But if not, I wouldn't want to have sex wi…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 11:56 PM
1

Mhm I responded to this comment more in-depth in my other comment.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 01:40 PM
1

Well, if you don't want to, you aren't really their friend Sure If I say when I can physically give them food or respect but I just don't want to, then you won't think twice before you conclude if I'm their friend or not. Ya but like here's the thing right. I agree that if your friend doesn't WANT to have sex with u, than ya they're not rlly ur friend, BUT at the same time, for me personally even though I may want to have sex with a friend, even if I'm physically capable, if I don't find them at…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 01:40 PM
1

Well even then not just that but I think, for me at least, even if I can PHYSICALLY give them sex, if I don't find them attractive, I just won't want to (but I expanded on this in the other comment).
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 09:43 PM
1

Well ok here's what I'd say. I agree that if you don't feel like meeting your friend's needs u aren't rlly friends. However, I think at the same time, at least for me, if I'm not attracted to a girl, I wouldn't have sex with them even if they asked (I already mentioned this before, and ik I'm repeating myself at this point, but I just want to be clear). Even if it's not to the point where I physically can't have sex with them, if I don't find them attractive, I won't want to have sex with them, …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 09:42 PM
2

LOL valid
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/25 01:28 PM
1

I mean I wouldn't say best friends but I think close friends is possible. Men are friends with women they want to fuck. Ya some men probably are and that's y I said "as long as neither are physically attracted to each other" & "The main issue I see with male-female friendships are that oftentimes one of the 2 are either physically attracted to each other, and want to escalate the relationship"
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/25 01:28 PM
1

Mhm ya I mean I'd agree that if the man already has a partner/is attractive enough to get one, he can be friends with women, but I also think that in general, if a man doesn't find a woman attractive, he can also be friends with her (and in some cases, it's possible even if he DOES find the women attractive, he can still be friends with her)
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/25 03:23 PM
1

Then are you really their friend? See, the quoted part is the difference and I already mentioned it earlier before reading this part of your comment. You would feel bad and wish you could have sex with them (again, assuming it's impossible to have since you are so unattracted, you just can't get hard, or because of physical limitations oral is impossible). In most cases that's not what happens, though, based on the friendzone stories we hear. It would be women rejecting men and then being mad th…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/25 11:02 PM
1

Define attracted. Oof that's really tough and unfortunately not something I could easily put into words. Idk how to describe it tbh. A friend would want their friend's needs to be met and will actively want to meet them themselves and meet them if physically possible (e.g. if they have enough food to share). A friend would want for a friend to have sex and if physically possible would have it themselves. Sure, if let's say you're impotent or just can't get hard after trying, then you wouldn't ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/25 11:02 PM
1

Food is a finite resource and you can run out of food or have less of it than before. You can't run out of sex or respect. It doesn't cost you anything giving respect or sex, the only difference here is consequences. But it's not like misplaced respect has no consequences. You can get betrayed or made look dumb. That's why I said if they're ur friend and they're a decent person, it doesn't cost anything to give them respect. As I said, if you don't want to, then you don't have it. Just like if y…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/25 10:43 PM
1

That's why I think to me at least, respect & food are a bit different then sex, at least from a utilitiaran moral perspective (btw, just as a fyi, I don't think the people being friends necessarily changes my moral calculations that much). And yeah I understand why they wouldn't want to have sex when they are friends, too. I just explained it. It's because they aren't really friends. If I'm a man and consider a woman a close friend, I can't imagine saying no to her if she wanted sex. I think thi…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/25 12:56 PM
1

That's why I think to me at least, respect & food are a bit different then sex, at least from a utilitiaran moral perspective (btw, just as a fyi, I don't think the people being friends necessarily changes my moral calculations that much). And yeah I understand why they wouldn't want to have sex when they are friends, too. I just explained it. It's because they aren't really friends. If I'm a man and consider a woman a close friend, I can't imagine saying no to her if she wanted sex. I think thi…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/25 12:55 PM
1

Yeah, could be. That's why I'm saying "let's" not "you should". We as in the society. That's how it's generally viewed. It's viewed as a man ruining the friendship (see all those "me when he's about to ruin the friendship" and such trends). Mhm. 100% agree with this. Umm different how and why is it relevant? I feel like the levels of investment are different if that makes sense. Like giving ur respect doesn't cost you anything at all (as long as the friend is a decent person) and giving food is …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/25 12:55 PM
1

Well ok I think there are some exceptions. For example, one of my female friends gave me a reference to get a job before. She helped me a lot, but I barely did anything for her. I think the main issue with many male-female friendships like I said in the post is either if 1 party wants to escalate the relationship but the other doesn't, or like u said in the comment, if they're being taken advantage of. Actually I honestly think the biggest issue with most guys in male-female friendships is that …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/25 12:24 AM
1

Sure that's valid.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/25 12:04 PM
1

Hm well in that case I'd def agree with u. When women get more benefits from men just for being friends, and men don't get anything return, I don't think they should be friends (although imo this isn't always the case).
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/25 12:04 PM
2

Hmm ok I completly get that and agree. If any of ur female friends expect u to be a full-time therapist or servant providing free labor, I def think that's stupid and u shouldn't be their friends (although I don't think this applies in 100% of cases).
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/25 12:03 PM
1

LMAOOO. Ya it's probably just this sub is skewed to give more controversial takes more often, and that's y it seemed to be this was a hot take.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/25 12:02 PM
1

Y not?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/25 03:17 AM
1

Completly agree with this 100%
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 06:22 PM
1

It's rough, dont know if you're going through this Nah I've never been through that, but I can def understand why it'd be rough. I keep a journal called <person> boycott - I notify them that I am doing this usually. Thats fair. I try not to break contact, I figure I'm a grown-up now, but in the end it comes to this anyway. One approach is if someone makes the move first or writes the letter, I tell them that taking that step is hard, let's not put either of us there again. Not like this happens …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 05:23 PM
1

Bottom line: Breakups can feel traumatic. Emotional recovery is better with self-compassion, healthy boundaries, and minimal contact with exes. Completely agree with all of this
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 05:15 PM
1

I get your point, but again from my experience - men and women are so fundametally different, that if men didn't desire women - they would not even talk to them Hm ya maybe but like I think there are many different reasons to talk to people in general. Like for example, networking. I can become friends with someone for networking purposes, even if I'm not physically attracted to them. I doubt a man can truly understand a woman on a deep level (required for "real" friendship) - in a way another w…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 05:14 PM
1

What the fuck is the problem with men and women being friends AND sexually attracted to each other? Sorry I've realized that some people can be friends while still being attracted to each other. If it's mutual sexual attraction and both are single: have sex or don't have sex. This is not in conflict with the friendship. You can have sex any number of times and still retain the friendship aspect of the relationship. Completely agree. If it's one-sided: what the fuck is the problem of wanting but …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 04:16 PM
1

Hmm I actually didn't know that in a breakup 0 contact was a good idea. If there is an aspect of infidelity in the separation, then really, avoidance is a good idea. If there is any infidelity imo, it should permanently end. If the partner has been in bad faith, then no contact with extreme prejudice. Saying no is your right; male or female victims need to stick to this. If you take them back, you are enabling or affirming sociopathic behavior. I mean ya sure. There are certain boundaries where …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 04:13 PM
1

I mean that's 100% true.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 02:08 PM
1

Hm ya that's a fair take.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 02:07 PM
1

Well I'm a guy lol. Honestly I completly get where ur coming from. I think this is mainly an issue about definitions, but by the standard definition of friendship, I think men and women can be friends. I agree that casual friendships are easier to maintain than like super deep friendships, and I myself have more guy friends than female friends for this reason (cuz I feel more comfortable around men than women on avg), but I think there are also exceptions, where even deep/close friendships with …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 11:39 AM
1

Valid
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 10:59 AM
1

To be fair, it's not just this sub, either. It's the traditional perspective, still very typical among more socially conservative communities and subculture. It's just that it has also become popular among internet gender-warriors. Sure that makes sense. As it happens, they can be "just" friends even if there is attraction. Sorry I meant to say "be friends" not "just" be friends. My bad for that. It depends on what sort of people they are. If you're the sort of person for whom attraction is alwa…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 03:08 AM
1

Hm icic. No that makes sense. I completly get ur perspective (even though I personally don't agree with it 100%, I still understand where ur coming from).
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 01:22 AM
1

Hm I mean I did specifically say in my post "as long as neither are physically attracted to each other, and aren't taken advantage of", but I understand your personal experience.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 01:11 AM
1

Oh ya maybe. I can't speak for the majority of men 100% accurately, I can only speak for myself, but ya I get ur point.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 12:23 AM
1

I mean sure, but isn't this entire post going against that idea LOLLL? Edit: And if it wasn't already clear enough, I believe there is a point in being friends with women even if u can't have sex with them.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 12:18 AM
1

Ya that's true.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 12:10 AM
1

Well ok notice how I ended that with "unless they're into him" lol. I think that if men aren't attracted a women, they wouldn't care if they found them attractive or not (at least I personally wouldn't). Now, if they ARE attracted to a woman, I think it makes sense why they would care about whether the women thinks they're attractive or not (and vice-versa). Personally, I've never been friendzoned, but if I ever was, I'd accept it and move on. I wouldn't cut the women off and ditch, terminate, o…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 11:52 PM
1

Oh I think that's obvious though right? Like y would they ditch, terminate, ghost, etc. a man just cuz he isn't into them lol (unless they're into him).
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 11:41 PM
1

Uh wdym by "punt"?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 11:37 PM
1

Oh I get your point. Hmm, in that case ya I don't think male-male and male-female friendships are the same, and honestly I'd even agree that from my personal experience, male-male friendships are better (on avg) cuz I just feel more comfortable talking them (obv not about the specific topic u mentioned LOL, but just in general); however, I still think you can have a deep friendship with women even without talking about certain things, but I completly get ur point, since it rlly does depend on ho…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 11:31 PM
1

I mean even for deeper friendships, I think men and women having deep friendships isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as neither of them are physically attracted to each other and aren't being taken advantage of, but I think your last sentence is very true: Additionally, the more struggle and emotional support you get for that struggle from the opposite gender is likely to lead to romantic interest, that’s why trauma bonds are a thing. Trauma bonds definetly are a thing, and getting emotional…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 11:22 PM
1

Right, so let's stop seeing friendzone as a man being a bad friend to a woman when it's the other way around. I mean I def don't see the friendzone as a man being a bad friend to a woman fs. Yes, and it's not just that if a man needs sex and a woman wouldn't share then they aren't good friends. It's the other way around, too. And no, I don't think that fact no one is inherently owed sex is a good reason to disagree. You agreed about food and respect. No one is inherently owed those by their frie…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 11:18 PM
1

Mhm ya I think on this sub it's a hot take but probably not irl. And I have some very close female friends as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 11:03 PM
2

I don't just indiscriminately befriend men or women just for the sake of a perceived gender-specific friendship dynamic. I mean I completly agree with this I befriend people who I get along with Mhm ofc. Imo to truly be friends with somebody u have to get along with them and enjoy their company.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 09:38 PM
1

Mhm. I mean I personally agree cuz having male and female friends has def helped me diff perspectives/opinions, and broadened my horizons. important to not deem someone worth based on what they can do for you sexually And ya I agree with this.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 09:14 PM
2

Oh nice that's good.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 09:05 PM
1

Damn bro that's crazy. Sad world we live in man.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 09:00 PM
8

Honestly ya, ur probably right. This sub isn't the best representation of reality lolll.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 08:59 PM
1

Ya that's true.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 08:59 PM
6

Well I mean like tbh, maybe my personal experience is the exception, but I personally don't do most of those things, and that's 1 of the reasons y I mentioned "being taken advantage of", cuz I personally think that if a male friend is doing boyfriend things to a woman, he's being taken advantage of, which is y I never do those things lol. Like for example, I don't "monetarily support" female friends cuz that makes no sense to me (even tho a lot of guys, esp simps, do).
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 08:58 PM
1

Oh no I can't think of any lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 08:44 PM
9

LMAOO. That's valid.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 08:43 PM
1

I mean let me first preface by saying that I don't rlly disagree with u. I think on avg male friendships do have more benefits than female friendships, from my personal experience (and that's why I have more male than female friends). That being said I do think there r some exceptions where having female friendships CAN help you. For example, I was once friends with a female co-worker of mine, and she helped me so much in my job, that I could slack off and still get paid. That's just 1 example b…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 08:41 PM
2

I mean tbh I don't rlly disagree (on avg, but obv there r some exceptions where female friendships can offer more than male friendships). That's y I tend to have more male than female friends, but that's just me, so obv ymmv.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 08:36 PM
2

I mean ya ofc.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 08:28 PM
2

Sure that makes sense, but I don't think befriending people who are feminists by the dictionary definition is necessarily a big issue; however, befriending radical feminists (which most people who call themselves "feminists" are nowadays) definetly is.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 08:27 PM
1

Nice
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 08:18 PM
2

For me and my fiancée, we don’t really have female/male friends because it just feels more respectful that way, especially not hanging out 1 on 1. That's completly valid. Also, from my anecdotal experience, I agree that broadly speaking/in general, I get more benefits from my male friends than my female friends (esp for advice and support) and they bring less drama than my female friends, but this is just in general, and doesn't apply for all my male/female friends, and is just my personal anecd…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 08:18 PM
1

Another complicating factor is that women are more attuned to status and social dynamics That's 100% true. Completly agree with ur comment.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 08:16 PM
3

I completly get your point. Your right. I guess the main issue is if 1 friend wants to have sex with the other, and the other isn't (the friendzone). Then unfortunately, that just wouldn't work, unless something changes. I think a friend would be willing to meet 1 of your needs if they have the capability to. Your examples about food and respect are spot on imo. Completly agree with both. Now about sex, are you saying that if a man needs sex and if a woman has the ability to give it to them, but…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 08:14 PM
2

Ok first of all I'm not talking about closeted gay men. Second of all, lavender marriages are when a man and woman marry, cuz they're ashamed of either being gay or lesbian. It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about regarding male-female friendships.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 08:05 PM
1

That's valid ya. I'd agree with that. The main point is that male-female friendships are possible
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 07:58 PM
3

Wait, gay men will try to get into a relationship with women? That doesn't make any sense lolll
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 07:57 PM
1

LMAOOOO
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 07:56 PM
1

That's valid
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 07:56 PM
1

LOL. It's not even necessarily toxic/old timey imao, as I've heard many people in the RP community espouse the same thing, but never really understood it, as I've always felt like as long as ur benefiting from the relationship, and maintain boundaries to not let urself get taken advantage of, there's nothing wrong with befriending women as a man lol, since at the end of the day we're all human.
/r/MensRights16/08/24 12:39 PM
1

I think you're mixing up acquaintances with friends. Friends mean something to you, there is some sort of established bond. Honestly, this is completly possible, as people have often told me I conflate friends and aqutainces, but even by your definition, I'd say I have close female friends (though it's definetly possible I'm mixing it up with acquitances). Male & female are not the same, it's why we're labelled with different words. Anything we have in common is because we're human. We're human …
/r/MensRights16/08/24 12:38 PM
1

I'm short on time right now so I'll get back to you later with why. Oh ok sure np feel free to respond whenever u get back/ur free. What exactly are the boundaries that you keep mentioning, can you give me a few examples? Ok sure ya np. In 1 sentence, it'd be the things u'd likely refer to as 'boyfriend stuff' without the boyfriend benefits. For example, I'd never pay for a girls meal unless she pays for mine 1st. I'd never give her more money than she gives me. I'd never pay for free things for…
/r/MensRights15/08/24 10:23 PM
2

That's the important bit for you personally but then you go on to argue against that.. <sigh> you younguns.. ;-) LOL thnx. Honestly speaking, I'm rlly young, so I def admit I could be wrong, and I've held very strong opinions before, that I've definetly changed, so I admit this 1 could be 1 of them as well in the future (tho it's not very strongly held by me at all LOL), cuz I recognize that I'm not perfect, and definetly capable of mistakes, since I'm just a human, and I can continuously grow a…
/r/MensRights15/08/24 09:57 PM
5

LMAOO. Ok. To be perfectly honest, and upfront, very few, and u most likely have many more than me, so ur probably more experienced with this than me, I'll admit that 100%; however, that being said, I don't think what I said is discredited just because I haven't had that much experience, cuz I feel like as long as you're getting some benefit from female friends, u don't let them take advantage of u, & u set boundaries, there's nothing wrong with having female friends, but I completly admit I cou…
/r/MensRights15/08/24 09:21 PM
7

Bro I've never understood this. If u have boundaries u won't do 'boyfriend' things without 'boyfriend' benefits. The issue is that so many men don't have boundaries and are willing to let woman walk all over them LMAOO. As long as u don't let a woman take advantage of u, ur smart, and there's some benefit from them, there's no issue imao.
/r/MensRights15/08/24 07:35 PM
4

What's wrong with having female friends if u benefit from them and don't let them take advantage of u (meaning u don't give them more than what they give u in return)?
/r/MensRights15/08/24 07:34 PM
1

Man yk what the easiest arguments against this type of logic is? Force them to not say 'men' and 'women' and actually specify wtf they're talking about cuz it's such broad generalizations for no reason. Here, he could say it's less bad for people who want to be molested to get molested (due to their higher libido, sex drive, etc. but again this is all very diverse and varies a lot), rather than the ones who don't. The issue with this is that both r bad regardless of which u see as 'worse' and u …
/r/MensRights13/08/24 01:38 AM
1

Women who willingly make false rape accusations like this should at least face the same consequences their male victims would've recieved if not more, because they're lying and ruining an innocent person's reputation/life (potentially permanently). It'll also help increase the trust amongst the general public (including MRAs) when it comes to rape cases/SA cases, since there's a higher chance of it being true, as there's some actual punishment/consequences if a women willingly and knowingly fals…
/r/MensRights27/05/24 03:41 AM
2

Oh got it. Sorry. My bad for misunderstanding ur comment.
/r/MensRights27/05/24 03:33 AM
6

Bro ur calling the OP an incel when he's just plainly stating personal experiences from his own life, venting a little, and talking about a very common issue amongst a lot of men. That's crazy lol.
/r/MensRights27/05/24 03:27 AM
1

Exactly. Bro I agree with all of this LMAOOO.
/r/MensRights09/02/24 03:26 PM
2

True. Bro it's crazy how many people seem to anti-international men's day, espically in the west. But personally I 100% support it, as I myself am a man lol (and obviously because men have many had many achievements/contributions in society as well & face a lot of issues in modern-day society)
/r/MensRights09/02/24 03:15 PM
1

Oh I assumed you thought I supported modern-day feminism. If u didn't, my apoligies for that. Ya, that's true. When I search up the definition of gender egalitarnianism it says ('Gender egalitarianism supports equal rights, roles, and responsibilities for men and women. It does not support the idea that there is "women's work" and "men's work" or gender-specific roles in business and the home.') but honestly it seems to just be a more specific version of egalitarianism, so ya, I'd say I probably…
/r/MensRights09/02/24 03:11 PM
1

Honestly ya, I completly agree with this. Feminism is just a distraction to the much more important issues in society imo (like class division).
/r/MensRights09/02/24 02:21 PM
1

Buddy. Let me clear some things up for you. I agree with most (but not all) of what you said. In the post I said I'm a MRA. In case it wasn't clear enough, I oppose feminism (at least in its modern form, though not necessarily the dictionary definition). I'm anti-feminist (again in its modern form). That being said, I do believe in gender egalitarianism, mainly because I don't think people should be discriminated based on factors outside of their control (I explained my reasoning further in my p…
/r/MensRights09/02/24 02:15 PM
1

Though that could be because I was born in 2003 I think it likely was lol. The SJWs came in the early 2010s, though... then the misogynist Tate fans came in the early 2020s. Ya, the SJWs were/are def horrible.
/r/MensRights09/02/24 04:18 AM
1

Really? I was born in the 2000s so I don't really rmbr a time before that, but's kinda unfortunte that we got so close in the past, but yet now have regressed.
/r/MensRights09/02/24 01:24 AM
1

Sure, equal under the law. I don't understand in what context you want to be equal that we aren't equal. Saying that you want equality doesn't mean anything when you don't specify the scenarios. This is actually a great point I hadn't thought about before. The main situation I was thinking was honestly legal, but if u were to ask me in what other contexts I'd like both men & women to be equal, I'd have to think about that. I personally believe in egalitariansm (in general, not just for the law),…
/r/MensRights08/02/24 11:58 PM
1

Oh I see. I think I get it, but if u don't mind, could you give an example?
/r/MensRights08/02/24 11:33 PM
0

Oh got it
/r/MensRights08/02/24 11:30 PM
1

Ya that's unfortunate tbh. Personally though, I have hope that true gender equality/egalitarianism can eventually be achieved (even if not in the immediate future)!!
/r/MensRights08/02/24 10:05 PM
1

Maybe you should have said "especially" instead of "at least" Mhm fair. That's valid mo. I wasn't even being mean to you. I was just saying maybe this sub isn't for you. Lol srry if I was being too agressive. Mb for that. If you were really a sexist, you wouldn't have been the first one I ever met. Rlly? R there r alot of sexist people in this sub or smt?
/r/MensRights08/02/24 09:51 PM
2

Ah I get what your saying, & I'm honestly glad that we agree. 2. It's not fair, but sometimes necessary. If you had to rescue someone from a burning building, would you send an average man of 200lbs and 5'10" or an average woman of 165lbs and 5'4". Mind you that's JUST average height and weight, not counting muscle and bone density, general performance under pressure, general emotional response under pressure and so on and so forth. Now, same question but the problem is a consoling a crying chil…
/r/MensRights08/02/24 07:59 PM
2

Women face double standards as well and they should obviously go as well Completly agree with that, even though ya, Feminists likely wouldn't be this charitable to MRAs. But the chances of Feminists stopping with their generalizations and double standards is near non-existent at this point.. Honestly, in the short-term it may not be feasible; however, at least in the long-term, I do think it's definetly possible (but maybe I'm just being optimistic).
/r/MensRights08/02/24 07:48 PM
1

Ohhh got it. Well ok. In equal in what context? The definition of Egalitarianism is 'the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.' So within that context. Espically under the law. The issue with terms like sexist and equal is that it is entirely dependent on the perspective of the gender. That's definetly true, so lets get some definitions straight, just so that we're on the same page. Egalitarianism - the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal…
/r/MensRights08/02/24 07:46 PM
2

LOL I re-read your comment, and ya, I don't u think u called him a misandrist even once.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 07:14 PM
1

It's an idealistic concept. I completly agree that it's an idealistic concept, that we're nowhere close to yet, but even so, don't you think that ideally, men & women should be equal? Men might be equal to women, but men aren't equal within their own group as well as women aren't equal within their own group. Only a small portion of men and women can achieve it. What do you mean by this? Obviously not all people r equal (regardless of gender), but at least before the law, don't you think that ev…
/r/MensRights08/02/24 07:13 PM
1

I understand what your saying, but I have a couple of questions 1) What about equality before the law? 2) Considering that none of us can control our genders (At least not our biological sex), do you think it's fair to be sexist or discriminate people based on sex (I'm not accusing you of doing this, I'm just asking cuz I'm curious)?
/r/MensRights08/02/24 07:10 PM
1

Oh I think I understand what your getting at. In a room full of men if there is a general, colonel and soldier, men innately understand their position in relation to the hierarchy in that situation and will be respectful to their superiors due to meritocracy and competency. Since he’s a general he knows more than me in this space therefore I give him credit where it is due. Completly agree with that. In a room full of women, their preference to respect is secondary. Women want to ensure other wo…
/r/MensRights08/02/24 07:07 PM
1

Bro, in my post I literally said I believe in gender equality/egalitarianism.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 07:01 PM
1

Ah ok. Ya that makes sense. So ultimately, even though both have the same final goal, they disagree on how to achieve it (MRAs believe men r disadvantaged, and Feminists believe women are disadvantaged).
/r/MensRights08/02/24 07:00 PM
1

Nono, dw about it at all, it's completly fine lol.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 05:34 PM
1

Men & women definetly have biological differences, but how is that related to the concept of respect (I looked up the exact definitions of hierarchiacal vs comunitarian, but couldn't find anything that explicitly relates to respect)?
/r/MensRights08/02/24 05:18 PM
3

Ya. It may not happen that quickly, but as long as we keep advocating for it, I'm sure it'll eventually happen.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 05:15 PM
1

No. I never said that, and don't believe that. Bro, in my post I literally said I believe in gender equality/egalitarianism. When I said 'at least in terms of the law', I meant AT LEAST the law, but that doesn't mean I ONLY want them to be treated equally with the law. In fact, ideally, I want them to be treated equally EVERYWHERE not JUST the law.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 04:59 PM
2

Yea that makes sense. I think even though that's how it's supposed to work in theory, oftentimes, it doesn't work like that in practice.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 04:21 PM
1

Same here. I was mainly just asking to confirm, because I personally don't think men or women should be advantaged due to their biological sex (at least in terms of the law), as it's completly out of their control. Unfortunately, I do have to agree that many feminists advocate for women to be advantaged over men, even though in theory, it's not supposed to be like that.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 04:20 PM
1

Ya, I agree, at least in terms of the law.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 04:18 PM
2

That's good imo
/r/MensRights08/02/24 03:57 PM
6

Ya ofc equal opportunities and not outcomes lol.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 02:36 PM
3

No I get that. In practice, it does definetly seem that a lot of feminists are sexist, and don't believe in gender equality/egalatarianism, but what I'm more so referring to is in theory. Like in theory, both MRA & Feminists should agree that gender equality/egalitarianism is their final goal right. What I'm trying to say is when MRA says that they believe in equality for men & feminism says they believe in equality for women, in theory at least, shouldn't that mean they both believe in gender e…
/r/MensRights08/02/24 02:36 PM
3

Honestly ya I can see that. How do you think that could be fixed though? I wish more politicans would care about MRA, but it seems that most don't.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 02:31 PM
2

The laws help shape a society’s morals so if our laws don’t protect men no wonder no one gives a fuck about us. Completly agree with this. I think the 1st step towards achieving egalitarianism is by fixing the laws, so that they're equal to EVERYONE (men & women). The only thing I disagree with that you said is a patriarchy is better. Nevertheless I don’t think a patriarchy nor matriarchy is good for anyone involved. This type of system will always create an elite class that rules everything and…
/r/MensRights08/02/24 02:28 PM
2

Oh I wasn't talking about right now. I agree. I don't think we've achieved gender equality/egalitarianism yet, but I meant as a long term goal. I honestly wish that everyone (both men & women) were equal in the law, but unfortunately, I'm pretty sure they're not yet. 'In the "man, it's a thing worth having and worth working towards" sense of "believe in", I certainly do believe in gender equality.' Ya that's what I was moreso referring to.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 02:14 PM
2

Admittedly, something I haven't given much thought about before is that even though I believe in gender egalitarianism (ideally, men & women should be equal before the law imo, both in theory & practice) considering men & women's different biological needs, how would society account for that. Hopefully 1 day we can deal with all their different biological needs, while still remaning an egalitarian society. Also, anime is great, and def a great form of escapism lol.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 02:10 PM
3

Yea, it's sad how far away that goal seems, but I'm sure it's achievable/possible eventually (though maybe I'm too optimistic)!!
/r/MensRights08/02/24 02:01 PM
0

Ohhh, but than when they say 'equality', what are they referring to? Surely it's the other group no?
/r/MensRights08/02/24 02:00 PM
3

Yea I completly agree with that.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 01:58 PM
2

Ya. I completly agree with that. In theory, both should believe in gender egalitarianism & eliminating sexism, but in practice, that's not what often happens.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 01:58 PM
3

Ya true. Right now, we definetly haven't eliminated sexism or achieved gender egalitarianism, but that should be the ultimate goal imo. And honestly ya, it seems that a lot of people, even politicans, don't really care about mens rights, even if they're men. Sometimes I geniuely wonder why that is.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 01:55 PM
2

Oh LOL fair. I'm pretty sure he said it in good faith, but ya, to me it seemed slightly extreme.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 01:54 PM
3

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought both feminism & masculism seeked to end sexism (at least in theory, though maybe not in practice. Feminism being 'the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes' & Masculism being the smae, but for men instead; however, I thought the goal of both was ultimately to end sexism, and achieve gender equality/egalitarianism).
/r/MensRights08/02/24 01:45 PM
3

That's completly understandable ya. I think under the law, men & women should be equal, but if there are certain unique responsibilities (like the draft) that only men have, than they should obviously also have certain unique rights to balance that out. As you said, 'an equal balance of rights and responsibilities' for both genders.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 01:42 PM
1

Men and women are obviously different, that's just a fact. But as you said, I was more so referring to equality under the law.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 01:39 PM
3

Ya I completly agree with that. The double standards have to got to go (espically in regards to Mens Rights, like Rape or Prison Sentences).
/r/MensRights08/02/24 01:38 PM
5

I was talking about the law specifically ya.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 01:36 PM
5

I have a question. You mentioned 'I believe in both', but don't all MRA & Feminists believe in both (at least in theory, though maybe not in practice)? Because as you urself said, MRAs believe in equality for men (compared to women), and Feminists believe in equality for women (compared to men), so don't both groups at least theoretically believe in both, just with different emphasis?
/r/MensRights08/02/24 03:15 AM
2

I understand where your coming from, but don't you feel like in a patriarchy, the women may feel discriminated against, and may feel like they're not given equal rights/opportunities as men, just due to their gender/biological sex, which they can't control. Why should people be discrimanated against for factors outside of their control (like I mentioned in my post, I know that this likely applies to a lot more than just gender/biological sex, but I'm just focusing on that for the sake of argumen…
/r/MensRights08/02/24 02:27 AM
6

Ya I understand that. 1 user reccomended 'gender egalitarianism' and I think that would probably be a better term than 'gender equality'.
/r/MensRights08/02/24 01:46 AM
16

Honestly that's probably a better way to phrase it, but ya, I completly agree
/r/MensRights08/02/24 01:04 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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