TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

GemXi Archive

View 1 posts and 554 comments by GemXi on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

DiscussionGemXi/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/22 09:19 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

I am not making any claim about what men should or shouldn't understand. I'm simply making a distinction that a behavioral signal is an action aimed at eliciting a response. If women received zero attention from posting revealing photos online then the behavior would drastically decrease.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 06:41 PM
1

Those can often be the proximate sensations of what drives the behavior, but it doesn't change what the ultimate function of that signal is in terms of environmental elicitation.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 06:01 PM
1

I'd just be careful with putting these in the same category because one of the examples OP gave was posting revealing photos of yourself on social media, which is a very explicit behavioral signal. Getting hit on by a stranger when you dress up for your boyfriend is something entirely different.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 05:31 PM
-2

In this case, you're correct. Instead of behavioral signaling, that would be considered an evocative gene-environment correlation where there was no intent to elicit a reaction from a stranger.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 05:19 PM
3

That can also often be true but it's not entirely the same thing. Imagine a girl who is overweight (highly heritable) and gets bullied due to her appearance. The reaction is partially evoked by her genes (existing). But in this case I'd draw a distinction because some of the examples given by OP can in certain contexts be considered behavioral signaling where we consciously or not set out to elicit a response from our environment.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 05:01 PM
2

This dichotomy isn't always valid in practice because our actions don't exist in a vacuum and can deliberately or not evoke certain reactions from our environment.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 04:05 PM
1

Fully agree, you've captured the nuance with that slight adjustment.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 10:01 AM
1

In the title "Men are not a monolith, but women are" is a gross exaggeration.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 07:22 AM
1

Hm, so now being a professor of psychology dedicated to repairing structural failures within psychological science isn't credible enough. let me just ask you some simple questions that you can directly answer or ponder upon yourself. Why do we love our kids? Is it a cultural thing that just happens which we're taught? How does a spider know how to make a complex symmetrical web? Does someone teach it? Does a beaver build a dam because it's taught so or is it possible it can build this with no pr…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 02:58 AM
0

We are not comparing single studies. We're comparing fields using aggregate replicability estimates which is what it's for.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 02:33 AM
0

Replicability Report for the Journal ‘Evolutionary Psychology’: The average power to report a significant result (i.e., a discovery) ranges from 49% to 72% in Evolutionary Psychology. This finding is higher than previous estimates observed in evolutionary psychology journals. Replicability Report 2024: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology: The replicability report for the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology suggests that the power to obtain a significant result to report a significant…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 02:16 AM
1

Fair enough, monolithic is a false characterization by OP as women definitely vary. But I'd still push back against your point about women varying 'just as much' in personality, income, preferences etc. Men's greater standard deviation shows up here too when measured. Are the differences small? they often are, but like I said, on a population scale small differences can become very noticeable.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 02:00 AM
3

In virtually any measurable trait men have a greater standard deviation compared to women. The differences might often be small in an individual sense, but on a population scale small differences becomes very noticeable at the ends of the spectrum where men are extremely overrepresented.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 01:36 AM
-2

And which field is more affected by the replication crisis? Evolutionary psychology or regular social psychology and clinical psychology? Oh right, evolutionary psychology replicates better.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 01:32 AM
3

Look at any study that compares men and women and around 80% of the time men have a greater standard deviation.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 01:30 AM
1

Because what other people think of you and how they react to you has exceptional implications for your genes hence we have emotional reactions that correspondingly adjust our behavior. You also can't be serious that you think attractiveness is subjective. If it's just subjective it's quite the coincidence that men are attracted to women and women are attracted to men.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 05:04 PM
1

They are taboo/illegal and outside the status quo. Indeed but comparatively much less prevalent than the two mentioned. Why?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/25 12:50 AM
1

A woman fantasizing about younger boys or men fantasizing about a high status woman struggling to control their desire for them. Why aren't these as prevalent?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/25 12:27 AM
1

Okay, so things that are against the status quo but also taboo/illegal, why aren't these as pervasive as the two mentioned?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/25 12:07 AM
1

Yes old, not constant, so it began at some point and something made it stick around, when and why?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/25 11:38 PM
1

And why do you think we fantasize in this way? tons of things can be considered outside the status quo but are nowhere near as pervasive as these two.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/25 11:34 PM
1

By saying it's an old fantasy that coincidentally stuck around. You know it isn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/25 09:29 PM
5

So what do you disagree with?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/25 07:14 AM
6

Mate, this isn't a new, you think men finding young girls attractive is something that arbitrarily popped up recently? Or women getting validation from high status men struggling to control their desire towards them?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/25 06:43 AM
5

Doesn't make sense, if there wasn't a correlation why would people persistently have these thoughts to begin with? Because it lines up with your genetic imperative.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/25 06:28 AM
1

Primarily biological. There's been a lot of selective pressure on women that can become pregnant which is why attraction is quite restricted to this age group. For men there's a bit more variance as they can have children their entire lives more or less, so the selective pressure has been more on resources and cues to resource acquisition that naturally tends to be more prominent in slightly older men. Culture can modulate these to either suppress or reinforce such preferences, but the root is f…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 08:26 AM
2

What Explains the Heritability of Completed Fertility? Evidence from Two Large Twin Studies? For example, preferences for family size are partially genetically influenced, and these genetic influences are shared with levels of completed fertility (Miller et al. 2010). In this example, individuals with genetic predispositions to desire large family sizes tend to have larger families, resulting in genotypic variation becoming linked to variation in completed fertility. The heritability of fertilit…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/24 01:31 AM
2

Well, there's an inverse correlation between living standards and fertility. And evolution adapts through natural selection which operates on the gene, not on the organism, so a trait can be adaptive despite contributing to a "worse" or more modest lifestyle.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/24 12:43 AM
1

Absolutely, i'm all for creating favorable conditions within reason of course, but I don't agree to using any form of pressure or coercion like some others are insinuating.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/24 12:14 AM
3

I don't want to spread pessimism but evolution unfortunately does not care at all about our well-being or happiness.. it only operates on the gene.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/24 12:07 AM
1

Here's the inverse correlation between income and birth rates in 2019:
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/24 12:05 AM
7

No, Norway has everything you're talking about and arguably even more yet the birth rate continues to decline so it's not that simple.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/24 12:03 AM
2

Most of that shows an inverse correlation so it's not as simple as that.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/24 11:52 PM
3

Our planet's carrying capacity depends on lifestyle, if a more modest lifestyle is adaptive then it can support a lot more.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/24 11:50 PM
1

Yeah there's obviously a push and pull in that regard, if resources become too scarce then genetic propensities for smaller families may become adaptive and so goes the cycle. And immigration only has to be a mitigating factor until the projected uptick at 2100 - 2150.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/24 11:37 PM
1

I didn't imply it was genetically determined, I just mean that it's influenced by genetics to be heritable by around 20-40% which is more than enough to solve the issue of birth rates. And financial resources shows mostly an inverse correlation as rich women generally have fewer kids than poor women.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/24 11:27 PM
0

If it was solely due to environment then fertility (offspring produced) wouldn't be heritable, but it is. How about instead of forcing people into parenthood through pressure and coercion we just let our innate propensities play out as the issue gets solved by itself long term. If you continue importing peoples you won't be having a culture anymore, it will be their country, their culture. If you truly believe that It's not worthwhile to even engage with you. Such a black and white extremist min…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/24 11:24 PM
5

Do you propose any solutions or do you just want to have a discussion? I know some people say the fix is to turn the clock back and strip women of their liberties but that's completely unnecessary. The amount of children you have is heritable (between 20-40% depending on population studied) so the genes of those with propensities for large families will become more common causing birth rates to eventually rise. Heritability models project this may happen in 2100 - 2150, not quick enough to stop …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/24 11:09 PM
–

Agriculture is what enabled the most extreme forms of polygyny ever witnessed in human history.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/24 01:40 PM
4

We can disagree about what constitutes non-existent but the overall point I'm making is that you can in fact have varying degrees of polygyny without societal collapse.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/24 10:33 PM
1

Qatar, Iran, UAE, KSA, and even in countries where polygyny is technically banned like Turkey it's still practiced in many rural areas.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/24 09:53 PM
7

It was permitted during early civilization too and only got gradually outlawed as the catholic church started banning 1500 - 500 years ago. And many nations in the ME allow polygyny although the degree of varies and might be relatively low in some of them but they still chug along just fine.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/24 09:39 PM
5

Premise is misguided anyway, even if society were to drift towards significant polygyny it's not going to cause a collapse or make birth rates decline to extinction levels as this gets solved by itself in the long term. Some degree of polygyny has been the norm for essentially all human history and still today there are societies which permit it and they chug along just fine. Yeah it sucks for men on the bottom of the status hierarchy but there's no obvious solution that doesn't disproportionate…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/24 09:07 PM
2

Yes I do, but to your point, it usually declines to the native level with the second and third generation. The first generation may come from an environment with limited access to education, restrictive reproductive norms, and low awareness/availability of contraceptives and those can persist in the destination country to varying degrees. But you're right cultural attitudes do have an effect. Israel is a good example of a country with significant gender equality, education, and access to contrac…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/24 10:41 PM
2

If the age gap persists in every bracket it would be extraordinary for teens to be the exception. It likely exists there as well, perhaps not to the same extent but you get the point.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/24 06:12 PM
2

Because some boys that are 18/19 will be in relationships with girls who are 16/17.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/24 06:06 PM
3

That's what she said, some women are dating men outside their age bracket which skews the result. The point of relevance I mentioned is that this would be compensated for to some extent in the other direction. What do you disagree with?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/24 05:55 PM
2

Yes men die more in all age brackets, how does that relate to my comment?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/24 05:40 PM
–

It's primarily just an evolved mismatch because our genes still operate under the premise that as long as you want to have sex you'll end up having kids. The mismatch is that in our modern environment it's generally not sufficient, usually you have to want kids in order to get it and evolution obviously hasn't prepared for this.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/24 04:56 PM
11

It's good to have some common interests so you can talk about new events and occurrences within them. That way you don't really run out of things to discuss.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/24 04:51 PM
12

While getting into a relationship may be easier, compared to males they also have a lot more to lose from making a poor mating choice hence the evolved choosiness.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/24 04:48 PM
4

Female childlessness has been increasing somewhat but male childlessness is increasing at a disproportionate pace.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/24 04:37 PM
8

But that would be compensated in the other direction to some degree.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/24 04:30 PM
3

I would say we have a lot of good cross-cultural research showing quite consistent universality to a lot of these traits. And egalitarianism can even amplify it as people are free to pursue their natural genetic propensities: differences in personality are larger in gender equal countries: Replicating and extending a surprising finding
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/23 02:05 AM
3

If you acknowledge that mating is influenced by genetics you can't state average sex specific mating strategies are neither complimentary nor antagonistic in concurrence with clear division in parental investment. It's like saying we have evolved various adaptations for bipedalism but our brain did not evolve corresponding adaptations to utilize it. That's impossible. It seems like you're focusing on very specific environments where the division of labour is identical so neither party has any po…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/23 01:54 AM
0

You're completely right, which is why they've evolved coinciding adaptations to attain and control resources.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/23 12:19 AM
9

They're not complementary, in strict evolutionary terms the most fitting strategy a man can employ is to indiscriminately mate with as many fertile women as he can. In contrast, the most fitting strategy a woman can employ is to mate with the highest quality man she can and secure his genes and resources solely for herself. As you can see both are in direct conflict with each other. Obviously it is influenced to a degree by mate value, environment, and culture. But that doesn't fundamentally alt…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/23 11:44 PM
5

Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting I know this one confirmed what most people already expected, it's water is wet stuff. But everyone knows men are more violent.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/23 09:19 PM
–

This just sounds like larping or he's not being fully honest.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/23 09:03 PM
2

To your last point, contrary to expectations, sex differences in personality are larger in gender egalitarian countries.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/23 08:56 PM
3

Even when it's not reported, you have no idea if they're there voluntarily despite claiming to be as victims will often deny being coerced or pressured which is precisely why cracking down on trafficking is so difficult. When the overwhelming majority of prostitutes in Switzerland are very young girls from poor countries, to say that they're all there completely voluntarily is simply naive.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/23 06:16 PM
2

Our empirical analysis for a cross-section of up to 150 countries shows that the scale effect dominates the substitution effect. On average, countries where prostitution is legal experience larger reported human trafficking inflows. Which is blatantly obvious, legalization expands the market beyond what voluntary prostitution can service, hence trafficking.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/23 06:01 PM
2

It's legal in Switzerland and hasn't helped, family and friends are unfortunately often the source of pressure and coercion which is why these girls are there in the first place. And if the 18-year-old girl from Moldova says she's there voluntarily, what can you do? All you did was making trafficking easier.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/23 05:45 PM
3

In warfare the adaptive value is crystal clear. But when it gets to in-group rape it's very questionable, even the most generous models predict the risk of status loss, banishment and death severely outweigh any potential gain to fitness.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/23 05:36 PM
2

The problem is we don't know if the former is voluntary, and there's a lot of indicators it's often not, while the latter activities except for forced conscription are.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/23 05:27 PM
1

I mean Switzerland has been trying very hard for decades, the very nature of the industry makes trafficking and coercion difficult to crack down on. Like for instance if a young girl from Moldova claims to be there voluntarily but in reality, she was pressured and threatened by her family to work there due to their absurd salaries. What do we do? There's no easy answer. The complexity of the problem is much greater than what you may perceive it as, and there's no obvious solution here.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/23 04:39 PM
2

Thank you for this, will listen to it.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/23 04:26 PM
9

If it's voluntarily and in the absence of pressure or coercion, then one could easily argue it's a great benefit. If they're native and there's no coercion or pressure involved it's not rape. But like I said, in the case of Switzerland, the overwhelming majority of prostitutes are not native, they are young girls from poor foreign countries. And that should be concerning to everyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/23 04:24 PM
2

I don't think there any definitive answer yet, more research has to be done. If you just look at Switzerland, the overwhelming majority of prostitutes are young girls from poor foreign countries. That should raise an eyebrow in everyone, we can't bury our head in the sand and assume there's nothing shady or coercive happening. In some cases, it could very well be they're not even trafficked, just pressured by their own families due to poverty, and that's not okay either.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/23 04:11 PM
5

I'd say the difference is we work because we want to thrive and survive which is a choice, in the case of sex trafficking the occupation is forced upon you involuntarily.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/23 03:58 PM
6

Yes, the male brain has indeed evolved to have particularly intense desire for sex as the selective pressure for this trait has been strong throughout all history. Systematic reviews confirm this sex difference. I wouldn't say it's definitive as you'd need larger cross-cultural studies, but it is indeed a possibility, however, one could for instance argue you're just outsourcing rape to prostitutes, especially in regard to trafficking. Yes, because they apply their own mind onto the opposite sex…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/23 03:48 PM
12

My point is just that sex trafficking would by definition be rape with an extra step as they're not in Switzerland through voluntary choice.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/23 03:28 PM
14

It'd be a bit skeptical of the premise itself because I don't think it's necessarily that clear cut and they go over limitations in the article. Switzerland for instance has legalized prostitution but the end result is you have lots of young girls from Poland, Romania, Croatia, Latin America, SEA etc. Coming to work in Switzerland due to the absurd salaries they have, it's lucrative because they can earn a yearly salary in their home country in just a month or two in Switzerland, so the question…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/23 03:21 PM
3

Hope you didn't have to pay for that, god bless you.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/23 02:25 AM
1

I can explain it to you in greater detail to make it easier to understand later, on phone atm, gn.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/23 02:03 AM
1

That's the basic mistake of thinking evolution operates under conscious thought. If life is all about replicating genes why isn't everyone having lots of kids? And the simple answer is that in order to have kids, it's not actually necessary to want to have kids, you just need to want to have sex. And in our modern environment, a desire for sex has been decoupled from reproduction, which you can informally say is something evolution didn't prepare for, hence the decline in birth rates. So now tho…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/23 01:44 AM
3

I wonder what the purpose of this post is, you get a lot more information to evaluate by interacting with someone in real life compared to just seeing a picture of them. This is like water is wet stuff.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/23 05:46 PM
1

Evolution has no concept of morality, fairness, equality, justice, whatever. Genes that are better at replicating become more prevalent in the population, that's it, any envisioned perfect paradise will never happen as it's not the goal of natural selection, natural selection has no goal, evolution is just an amoral process that occurs. In regard to "gender war", it comes back to reproductive asymmetry. A woman's most effective replication method is to partner with the highest quality mate she c…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/23 05:18 PM
2

Metabolism. If a mother suffered from starvation before and during her pregnancy the child may inherit epigenetic changes that cause a slower metabolism to preemptively adapt for a resource scarce environment.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/23 07:42 PM
2

It's not an isolated process, cultural evolution and genetic evolution is reciprocal. Although monogamy has been around for a thousand years give or take it still had and continues to have an effect on genetic evolution as those with dispositions suited for a monogamous environment may have greater fitness.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/23 07:38 PM
2

I understand, I just used it as an example to highlight one potential consequence, not that you were suggesting people should aim for excessive self-esteem. I just wanted to stress we have to evaluate the context of which our adaptations occur. Like I said, vomiting is not something anyone wants to experience, but it can be lifesaving.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/23 12:43 AM
3

It's a good post and I agree on a few things you touched upon, mental wellbeing and a positive sense of self are naturally desirable. And your ideas for building self-esteem are great. But I would push back a bit on the slight black and white thinking. If you evaluate what context our self-esteem occurs in, then it's not as simple as low self-esteem necessarily always being bad. Coughing and vomiting are obviously undesirable sensations but when we're ill it can be very beneficial. For example, …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/23 12:17 AM
2

Evolutionary psychology absolutely is falsifiable, in fact much more so than many other fields like sociology and clinical psychology which is experiencing a replication crisis due to biased research, lack of cross-cultural studies, and an overemphasis on WEIRD societies, and these reinforce one another. EP uses evolution as a framework which is inherently amoral and unbiased as it's simply a process that occurs. Of course, this doesn't mean bias and bad research doesn't occur in EP as it does i…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/23 05:33 PM
5

Not necessarily, Income tax in Germany and Norway is around 50% for high earners (150-300k) while for low earners it's between 0-20%. I force myself up with an alarm, drag myself to work, and exert myself physically and mentally just for someone else to take half of it. Shouldn't I have right to the productive value of my body and mind? There are benefits and drawbacks to everything. Our productive behavior as well as our reproductive behavior does not exist in isolation. What would you say if y…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/23 12:35 AM
9

I'm not really a libertarian but to play devil's advocate. The things you mentioned, public housing, healthcare, and education is paid for by someone else laying claim to your productive output. People force themselves to wake up with alarms, drag themselves to work, and go through all the physical and mental strains and stresses just for someone else to lay claim to a piece of the productive value of your body and mind. I'm not advocating for anything; I just want you to realize our behavior do…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/23 11:43 PM
2

Some of the things you touched upon relate to how humans are the only cultural species. Through natural selection, we evolved the capacity for social learning, copying others, storing information, conceptualizing, and passing norms, laws, and customs to future generations. And you get cultural evolution which a much quicker process compared to genetic evolution and gave rise to our unprecedented adaptability. Cultural and genetic evolution are also not separate processes but deeply intertwined a…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/23 04:16 PM
5

I actually am finishing my BA in psychology. Should've picked medicine or biology instead..
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/23 09:18 PM
11

Emotions are a product of genetic evolution and serve adaptive functions. There's no culture where people are happy when their child dies and there's no culture where people are sad when getting a pay raise. Then we don't disagree, sorry for misunderstanding you. I thought you meant culture was the primary driver of this mate preference. Culture can indeed influence this preference to a degree by either suppressing it or reinforcing it, but the root lies firmly in biology.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/23 09:11 PM
9

If your genes didn't perceive it as threatening, you wouldn't have any qualms about accepting the biological underpinnings. For instance, if I stated we care about our own children due to biology you wouldn't disagree and attribute it to culture instead.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/23 09:01 PM
12

It's fascinating how when our genes perceive mate preferences as antagonistic to our own biological fitness, we push responsibility onto environmental and cultural factors. It's not immediately clear what the adaptive function of this response is whether it's related to maintaining a positive self-image or reducing in-group conflict.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/23 08:50 PM
20

Put simply, when there are differences in reproductive biology, you always see dimorphism in sexual psychology (mate preferences). These posts always fail to take this into account.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/23 07:58 PM
1

It's inverse for women so no, patriarchy (in an economic and societal sense) is hardwired into our genes: Previous studies have found that the positive relationship between personal income and fertility for men in the United States is primarily due to childlessness among low-income men. Yet because of the opposite effects of income on fertility for men and women, it is important to examine the effects of income net of spouse's income. An analysis of income from all sources and biological fertili…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/23 06:57 PM
2

As in all human history, high status men consistently have the greatest reproductive success due to women's evolved mate preferences, it is what it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/23 06:42 PM
2

I have thought about that and there's a cruel irony to it. Women could create a matriarchy in an economic and societal sense in a couple of generations if they collectively married men who are of lower status and income. Never going to happen though.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/23 05:56 PM
3

lol i see there's a fine line between feminism and Nazism.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/23 04:33 PM
6

I think his point is they wouldn't exist in the first place if they didn't reproduce.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/23 04:24 PM
1

Reminds me of this quote from The Evolution of Desire: “Men are one long breeding experiment run by women” – Sarah Hrdy
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/23 04:08 PM
7

It's a phenomenon that's visible universally and it's very interesting. When something is perceived as moral, virtuous, and positive nobody has any qualms about accepting the role biology plays. And like you mentioned, when something is perceived as unfair, immoral or negative there's an over emphasis on environmental factors and biology is dismissed. I think this is partially because humans have an innate predisposition to avoid feelings of powerlessness. If something has strong biological unde…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/23 11:37 AM
1

As you pointed out a situation of significant sex ratio imbalance can temporarily influence mating dynamics. So I agree with you that the environment can influence our preferences to a degree, but they cannot fundamentally alter them as these adaptations are deeply ingrained genetically.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/23 12:39 AM
3

I think your point proves mine.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 09:50 PM
3

If men are less committal that aligns with what I said don't you think? Their standards for short term mating are much lower. I'll agree in a situation of extreme sex ratio imbalance standards shift in accordance to the balance but this is obviously temporary.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 09:32 PM
5

Shaving, plucking, waxing has been present in one form or another in virtually all cultures particularly by women. I literally bothered to look this up on the phone where this was asked specially for Europe: De ornatu mulierum discusses depilation in quite a bit of depth--methods, the influence of "Saracen women" on the western practice, and so forth. It's important to note that depilation is THE FIRST subject discussed by this text. Straight off: In order that a woman might become very soft and…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 09:08 PM
3

Let's check medieval Europe, right. Same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 08:29 PM
4

Indeed, we found pink Gillette razors in mummies from ancient Egypt.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 08:23 PM
2

sigh just think critically for 2 seconds. Elevated Androgen levels reduce fertility. What is an indicator of androgens? Body hair.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 08:13 PM
2

What a coincidence this preference is in virtually all cultures. It just so happened to be decided upon by sheer chance.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 08:07 PM
0

I know what you mean, but you need to understand if a preference for less body hair causes greater reproductive success then that trait will be selected for perpetually. It doesn't have to be perfect, just more often adaptive than not.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 08:04 PM
3

Pubic hair is an indicator of sexual maturity so there's not much selective pressure on it. Excessive body hair is a sign of hormonal disorders.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 07:57 PM
-3

Men prefer less body hair as too much is an indicator of endocrinological disorders.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 07:49 PM
2

If you give people more freedom to act upon their genetic propensities they do so. This doesn't mean their standards weren't high previously, just artificially suppressed.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 07:23 PM
6

Women have higher standards because they have to for their genes to replicate due to lopsided obligatory parental investment that is astronomical. Has nothing to do with environmental influences.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 07:12 PM
1

Which is a model that excludes body composition and includes bats and rodents that heavily skew the results. Even using this model, they still found that males tend to be larger in mammalian species (30% male vs 22% female).
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/23 04:48 PM
6

Now you're referring to agricultural societies. I'm talking about hunter-gatherer societies where women had a much more significant labor role. Also, it's not fantasy, this is work from anthropologists who studied hunter-gatherer societies and collected data for the ethnographic atlas. Rape within your own tribe is evolutionarily a terrible strategy and the risks were severe. People have estimated the potential adaptive benefits of in-group rape while being as generous as they can with the numbe…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/23 10:07 PM
2

Those RP men must have completely lost their brain if it was even in there to begin with.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/23 08:53 PM
5

What are you talking about? Polygyny is not rape. I can tell you haven't studied hunter-gatherers because they weren't the lawless societies you imagine where men are raping women at whim. In fact, rape within your own tribe is a terrible strategy that hinders trust and cooperation, creates conflict between families, and gives women poor incentive to raise their offspring as they didn't select their mates. Punishment for rape could be as severe banishment or execution because maintaining order, …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/23 08:14 PM
4

Yeah, I wonder what happened to all the men that didn't care? Oh, right they didn't successfully reproduce so their careless genetic traits died out with them.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/23 08:02 PM
3

Right, so men are magically reproducing without having sex. Fascinating.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/23 07:48 PM
0

That's backwards; we have less mate choice now. Not more. Widespread enforced monogamy is some of the most restrictive mating policies ever seen in history. In 99.9% of our evolutionary history, we were polygynous meaning you could be the wife any man you wanted. You're also wrong about mate selection as 11% of Norwegian men in top 5% of income are childless compared to 72% in the bottom 5%. That's not sexy-son hypothesis or birds of paradise. That's resources.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/23 07:46 PM
3

Yes, male orgasm is a requisite for reproduction.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/23 07:39 PM
1

That doesn't even come close to the reproductive disparity that men faced in our evolutionary history which is why you can't blame it on government policy when it was significantly worse before.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/23 07:29 PM
1

Perhaps these have exacerbated them in some contexts, but it's not the main driver of it. Men are destined to face more difficulties in the mating domain due to parental investment which has been true since our inception as a species. Nothing new about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/23 07:20 PM
2

What's your point? You said there's no reason one should be more accepted than the other. There are very firm biological reasons as to why virtually all cultures evolved this way. It's not something that came arbitrarily out of thin air.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/23 07:07 PM
6

Pretty sure this topic has been discussed to death already, but this seeming double standard is just an evolved adaptation in response to our different reproductive biology.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/23 06:22 PM
–

Not a completely arbitrary guess, Joe Henrich illustrated in his book how relatively low levels of polygyny can have significant impact. From a cross-cultural perspective this would be considered moderate polygyny, and you still end up with 40% of men being shut out of the mating market. Optimistically it would be ideal if it doesn't go above that, we'll have to see how society evolves in the coming decades, but the current trend isn't painting a hopeful picture.. And yeah, in this context I'm t…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/23 11:48 PM
3

There are other demographic statistics you can look at or surveys with bigger sample sizes but yeah, confirmation bias is hardwired into our genes, one can try to suppress but it never fully leaves..
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/23 11:14 AM
16

It does highlight confirmation bias though because in 2018 many people (including me) just accepted the GSS data then later surveys people were more critical as the disparity lessened. 229 respondents for 18–29-year-olds and it swings dramatically in one year means the survey is quite useless, people didn't mention this in 2018 due to bias.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/23 10:54 AM
3

He mentioned that parental investment is a likely driver of the disparity we're seeing which I agree with as it aligns with evolutionary theory.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/23 05:36 AM
4

Don't understand your question, didn't I answer this?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/23 05:30 AM
5

Exactly, as cultural and environmental factors have less influence on mating behavior, people have more freedom to act upon their innate genetic propensities.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/23 05:23 AM
7

Difficult to predict because it depends on both cultural evolution and the nature of the economy. Assuming that somehow nothing changes culturally, I'm going to guess it will stabilize at around 40% It is concerning because you see the same pattern emerge in countries like Norway where 31% of men do not have children by the time they're 40 compared to just 16% of women. The disparity lessens to 26.5% and 14.4% in the older cohort, but they grew up in a different environment, so cohorts aren't di…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/23 05:01 AM
8

Compare a culture like those in Denmark, Netherlands, Norway which are very safe countries with a high degree of gender equality to cultures in countries like Iran, India or Sudan. Which of these cultures do women have more mate choice and express more selectivity? right, the former. Water is wet.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/23 04:43 AM
7

Shocking right, in cultures where women have a higher degree of safety and freedom, they are more selective, not less. So cross-culturally we see the exact opposite relationship of what you're proposing. Because if violence increased female mate selectivity, men would evolve to be less violent and aggressive to make themselves more desirable mates. Which obviously didn't happen.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/23 04:33 AM
8

So, your hypothesis is that violence increases female selectivity. Let's look at the countries where women experience the most violence in the entire world like Afghanistan. Right, we get the inverse relationship. Violence reduces female selectivity and mate choice. We can also debunk your hypothesis just using evolutionary principles because if what you're saying was true that violence leads to mate selectivity then men would have evolved to exhibit minimal violence and aggression which they ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/23 04:13 AM
4

Okay, find me one species where the sex that invests more into offspring is consistently less selective and has more intense intrasexual competition. You're about to falsify a theory that has stood its ground for over 50 years. Good luck!
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/23 03:15 AM
11

There are many errors in your post. Monogamy was not adopted due to the need of establishing agricultural societies, in fact, agriculture often led to the intensification of polygyny. In hunter-gatherer societies, pre-agriculture, high status men generally had 2-3 wives, rarely do you see more than 4. It would be a stretch to classify that as a full blown "harem". It also has nothing to do with the supposed need for labor, certain agricultural societies in Asia practiced a relatively high degree…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/23 03:11 AM
24

Long term monogamy is primarily culturally and religiously enforced. The nature of the economy can impact mating patterns independently.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/23 02:46 AM
7

As a whole violence is a minor, even negligible factor. The reason for female selectivity is the asymmetry in a parental investment.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/23 02:42 AM
–

So, if I stated elderly and toddlers are vulnerable you would disagree with that because they experience less violence? That's not how I would define it, we'll have to agree to disagree.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/23 03:31 PM
–

That's not what I meant either, I was speaking from an evolutionary perspective. I'm not making the naturalistic case that; because X exists due to evolution therefore it's good, desirable or justified. If you want to talk about in-group bias and the wider societal implications that's an entirely different discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/23 02:26 AM
5

It's not what I meant. I was talking strictly biologically. Responded to this in another comment.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/23 10:19 PM
9

You're right but those aren't mutually exclusive, I was talking strictly in a biological sense because women are more vulnerable physiologically. It's not a requisite that they must experience violence for the former to be true.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/23 10:12 PM
33

A lot of studies have found this, and it makes sense. By virtue of biology, women are more vulnerable to violence, and they have always been at the mercy of the cultural and social institutions that are in their society. Naturally it's beneficial to cultivate inclusivity and compassion to support the well-being and reproduction of other women because women don't benefit from having multiple partners the same way men do. Key word here is "observed" though. Women generally compete intrasexually su…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/23 05:26 PM
–

That's a valid point. But wouldn't say I see people use it as justification that much though, maybe some weird people do. Usually, people say X exists because of Y but that doesn't necessarily mean X is good or justified, the wider implications of genetic propensities and mate preferences are a different discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/23 03:35 AM
10

Would you apply this to both sexes or just men's preferences?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/23 05:03 AM
6

I never made the claim that single genetic variations determine behavior. The idea that complex traits and diseases are influenced by multiple genes is well established and not new. Autism is an example of a complex trait that is influenced by multiple genes, each with small effects. This doesn't mean autism doesn't have a strong genetic basis. I can tell you're a novice in biology. You said genetics don't meaningfully influence behavior, which is what I responded to by showing you the exact opp…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/23 02:12 AM
7

Incredible, so you're telling me that traits and diseases are not determined by one single genetic variation. But that many genes are involved in complex ways that make traits and diseases more pronounced and heritable? You can read the exact page you linked where they discuss how each genetic variant contribute to the overall variation in the trait or disease risk in an additive manner. This is not new information. Good job dodging the behavior of beavers: In their experiments, the researchers …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/23 01:59 AM
9

"there's currently zero proof that behavior is meaningfully "genetic." https://i.imgur.com/BfuzNKn.jpg So, all this is learned by looking at their parents? The dam, the sleeping area, the grooming area, the main entrance, the emergency exit, and the air shaft. As well as the specific order it has to be made in to ensure the structural stability while building. What do you think happens if we take a beaver, isolate it from its parents at birth, and raise it in a closed environment where it has ne…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/23 01:33 AM
5

Different motivations due their evolved psychology. A woman being dissatisfied or unhappy in her relationship significantly increases her risk of infidelity, water is wet. Surprisingly, for men it makes no difference. Happy, unhappy, risk is the same.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/23 06:26 AM
1

You're right, we have lower dimorphism compared to some of our ancestors like Erectus and Neanderthals. That's because there exists an equilibrium where intense intrasexual competition may be too cost inflicting to a species in certain environments. But that doesn't change our mating system. For example, Chimpanzees and many species of Macaques exhibit comparable or less dimorphism than humans and are still polygynous. Even gibbons and swans which are regarded as monogamous still engage in infid…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/23 02:26 PM
2

I would be a bit careful to claim it was necessarily always like that in ancient Rome or Greece. Being in a concubinage may have been a desirable option in cases where you could escape poverty, elevate your social status, and gain protection. Sex slaves on the other hand had zero rights and were considered just property. These women either came from extreme poverty or were captured in warfare.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/23 01:39 PM
1

Because we are moderately dimorphic. There are primates with comparable or even slightly less dimorphism than us that are still firmly polygynous. It's only when you get down to very low levels of dimorphism you start seeing a high degree of monogamy and then polygyny occurs more informally through infidelity. Temporary polyandry is also not incompatible with dimorphism in the face of certain ecological or demographic insults. For example, polygynous mammals may occasionally practice some polyan…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/23 04:44 AM
1

It is true that a high degree monogamy was practiced in ancient Rome and Greece, but polygyny didn't become outlawed completely until the catholic church banned it. Back then, having sex slaves and concubines was still a fairly common practice among higher status-men even though they may have "legally" only been married to one woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/23 04:02 AM
1

Well, I wouldn't call it a theory, it's a very clear and consistent pattern you see in mammals and the only times you may see exceptions to dimorphism and mating is if there are unique ecological factors that somehow affect the fitness of males and females in substantially different ways which is very rare. Dimorphism is also related to many topics like fisher's principle, antagonistic coevolution, sexy son hypothesis, sexual selection, mate choice, parental investment and so on. The basic Wikip…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/23 02:36 AM
1

Oh, you mean in that sense. Then yeah, you could say a degree polygyny is our default or natural state independent of external factors. Same way our closest relatives all practice a degree polygyny. To check the innate mating system of a mammal, you can simply look at dimorphism of it, if there is significant dimorphism like in the gorilla, it means it has a genetic basis for extreme polygyny. If there is insignificant dimorphism like in gibbons, it means it has a genetic basis for a high degree…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/23 01:40 AM
1

Of course, culture is still a factor to how polygamy (polygyny) is practiced. For example, Islam has polygyny inhibiting elements within its culture like placing an upper limit of four wives and requiring men to deal justly with all of their wives. Which is likely an attempt at suppressing the worst forms of polygyny from arising. So, although polygyny has been the norm for most history, there is a lot of variation between polygynous cultures and how it is practiced. Enforced monogamy has a much…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/23 12:31 AM
1

We had already adopted monogamy way before the transition to industrial society. As for the reason to why 90% of hunter-gatherer societies practiced a degree of polygyny is simply the absence of monogamous cultural norms. Polygyny is practiced independently of sex ratio as is true cross-culturally and cross-species.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/23 11:23 PM
0

I'm referring to the development of agriculture which lead to larger scale societies that saw rise to some of the most extreme forms of polygyny possible where elite men had harems in the hundreds and thousands. Contrast that to hunter-gatherer societies where high-status men usually had 2-3 wives, rarely did you see more than 4. And you're right we don't live in a polygynous society because we adopted the cultural and marriage norms of the catholic church some thousand years ago which is an art…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/23 10:48 PM
0

You got it backwards; extreme resource scarcity sometimes caused polyandry to arise, not polygyny. Resource abundance and hoarding is what lead to the most extreme levels of polygyny ever seen in history.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/23 10:24 PM
0

Killing men and subjugating women during warfare is not unique to any culture or group, it was a universal practice that occurs to this day in many places. That doesn't make you exempt from intense intrasexual competition within your own tribe or affiliation.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/23 09:45 PM
1

Not necessarily, in group intrasexual competition was historically very intense in many cultures and you have recorded instances of duels that resulted in death. So, there is both varying levels of conflict within your own tribe as well as with rival tribes.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/23 09:35 PM
5

I would disagree with that. The reason men could afford to have multiple wives in the first place was due to their status and resources as they indicate greater parental investment capability.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/23 09:13 PM
5

Although acceptance of polygamy has been rising steadily, I don't think there's much evidence to suggest direct polygyny is becoming more prevalent anytime soon as the effects of our monogamous cultural norms will still echo for quite some time. What usually happens instead is a degree of informal polygyny where a man will have children from one wife, divorce, then remarry another woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/23 09:10 PM
3

Polygyny has been the norm for 99% of human evolutionary history. 90% of hunter-gathers societies practiced some degree of polygyny. It is culturally enforced monogamy that's unnatural.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/23 09:00 PM
4

Well, Buss did mention once in a podcast they are not necessarily mutually exclusive and there may be some overlap, but that mate-switching is still likely the predominant motivation. Because obviously, if you want the resources from one guy in the long-term you would want to forget about the guy you had an affair with like it was a transient impulse. Falling in love with him could spell disastrous for your regular relationship because love suggests stronger emotionally invested long-term attach…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/23 06:47 PM
7

All this study says is that attractive women can afford to have higher standards, water is wet. Buss writes himself in the study that perhaps dual-mating is a strategy that a minority of women employ, specifically those in the lower mate value range. In fact, newer research contradicts the premise of dual-mating strategy and buss has revised his position and now proposes mate-switching hypothesis as the most likely motivation for infidelity. This is because about 75% of women report love for the…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/23 12:42 PM
7

Good comment, these people are just looking for reasons to further cement their bitterness against women. And of course, they omit any negative or undesirable male behavior that is detrimental to female reproduction and act as if mate guarding and mate retention is an exclusive male behavior, it isn't. Both sexes employ various mate retention strategies universally, not just the west.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/23 12:16 PM
2

Firstly, emotional investment is something both sexes do, not just men. Secondly, women definitely want affection and attention from their partner, but at a normal and healthy level as this is an indicator of equal mate value, again not unique to women. If your partner has significantly more mate value than you, they may come across as aloof and lacking long-term commitment. If they have much lower mate value, they might come across as obsessed or possessive.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/23 09:32 PM
15

Both behaviors, mate guarding and resistance to mate guarding are adaptive. The sexes are not going to find common ground here because of antagonistic coevolution as it's a perpetual arms race.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/23 05:00 PM
22

Food and resources for all practical purposes were the same as money. People still trade this way in hunter-gatherer societies by exchanging goods and services. Hence resources and cues to resource acquisition are universally highly desirable traits.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/23 03:57 PM
4

I don't think they evolutionarily can afford to have much foresight. As it would severely limit their pool of mates and therefore reproductive success. The only way for this mate preference to change at a fundamental level would be for men with a propensity to care about status to have greater reproductive success than those who don't which is never ever going to happen.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/23 03:49 PM
1

I suppose so, in a lot of species they do defend territory against rival males and other tribes. In a sense that's work although it's fairly indirect parental investment if we are to consider it so. For example, it's rare for an orangutan to see their father at all in the wild. Because their father is busy defending their territory against rival males and only briefly meet their females when they're in estrus. Calling that parental investment would require some stretching of how we define it bec…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 09:41 AM
2

Well, it doesn't take much critical thinking to understand that the chances of a millionaire becoming a deadbeat is virtually non-existent and the chances of a deadbeat becoming a millionaire, especially if he's an adult. are extremely slim.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 09:11 AM
3

Not necessarily. It's a balancing act where you use a trade-off approach. The vast majority of women, would rather marry a millionaire for 5 years, have his children and resources. Than they would marry a deadbeat who is completely committed with his time for the remainder of his life. It's generally more nuanced than this of course, using an extreme example to help illustrate my point.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 08:58 AM
1

Cultural evolution? Kinship? Altruism? Not sure what word you're looking for. I mean that's precisely why status, wealth and resources are highly attractive traits in men because they indicate greater investment capability in one's kinship group.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 08:37 AM
5

Because we innately want our own children to also have children, consciously or not. That's how evolution and the continuation of our species works.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 08:12 AM
8

It's primarily because a degree preselection highlights mate value. If a man is desired among many women, it's an indicator he has the qualities and competence that is highly attractive. There have been studies testing this phenomenon, if you take an image of an average man sitting alone at a table and ask women how attractive he is. They'll say he looks normal. Place young, attractive women around him at the table, and his rated attractiveness shoots up significantly.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 08:04 AM
1

That's one key difference between us and our closest relatives. In those species, female goes into estrus, they mate, and then they interact very little afterwards, and the female ape is left with most if not all parental investment. Contrast that to humans were males exhibit tremendous long-term resource allocation to offspring.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 07:46 AM
1

It's actually a much newer phenomenon than that. It started with the spread of the catholic church which really took off in the high Middle Ages around 1000 years ago. Agriculture generally had the opposite effect of intensifying polygynous marriage, reaching extremes in the earliest empires where rulers assembled immense harems.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 07:28 AM
3

You don't have to assume; female mate choice selectivity has played a fundamental role in shaping our species.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/23 12:29 AM
5

All the technology and products you enjoy in your life is made possible as a result of women being good at selecting partners. Perhaps show some gratitude.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/23 12:21 AM
3

These two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they both enable and reinforce one another in a continuous feedback loop as it's evolutionarily highly adaptive for both sexes.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 03:11 AM
2

I'm very concerned about Julia. Did you see the guys she meets? They really mistreat her and just use her for easy sex and don't value her as a person, we need to support her. Me? rumors? I didn't say a single bad thing about her.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 05:26 AM
2

And how do you know a stronger or weaker preference for good financial prospects is independent of biology or culture? It isn't something that arbitrarily happens out of thin air. Since this sex difference is universal cross-culturally and even cross-species if you consider intrasexual competition that means the sex difference in this preference serves an adaptive purpose primarily due to our asymmetrical reproductive biology. You know Norway is a fascinating case because it has all the things y…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/23 04:33 AM
1

Well, it doesn't take much critical thinking to understand that if men care significantly less about financial prospects than women do then the end result is naturally men being of higher status and income in the majority of relationships. Men simply can't afford to care about as much about financial prospects due to our asymmetrical reproductive biology as he's either going to struggle finding a partner or he may end up with a woman that's less fertile. There's a reason men with such preference…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/23 03:40 AM
3

There have been plenty of studies on human mate preferences cross-culturally and even cross-species analysis using animal models. This is one of the first big studies that investigated sex differences in mate preference cross-culturally. And to me the result is blatantly obvious, women rated "good financial prospects" in a potential mate as significantly more important than men did in all 37 cultures, not one exception. These findings have been replicated in various study designs. Of course, you…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/23 03:08 AM
0

Sorry for my word salad, woman bad, man good. Enjoy your perception.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/23 02:54 AM
6

Do you mean in the literal sense of having a "beta" provider raise the offspring from a genetically superior male? Because this theory is starting to weaken, and mate-switching is becoming the more predominant theory. When women commit infidelity it's primarily to divest themselves from an undesirable relationship and change to a better partner, not to get the genes of one guy and have another man raise it which was the prevailing theory previously.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/23 01:57 AM
-1

If that's true, how come even in the most gender egalitarian countries like Norway where women have full financial freedom and out earn men in certain governmental sectors, they still overwhelmingly prefer partners of higher status and income? I'm guessing you're going to say that culture and socialization are driving these women to marry and date financially successful men, in spite of the fact that they themselves are financially independent.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/23 01:35 AM
1

It goes back as far as anthropological records go. Before agriculture.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/23 04:37 AM
1

So, in hunter-gatherer societies, men kill promiscuous and unfaithful women that they had a previous sexual relationship with because they're afraid of being killed by other men. As do their brothers and fathers when they commit honor killings. You have an interesting imagination I'll give you that.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/23 03:51 AM
1

Well, the biggest issue by far ignoring other evolutionary principles that don't make sense. Is that in all documented human history involving hunter-gatherer societies and agricultural societies. It's women that have been disproportionately punished and killed for infidelity and promiscuity either through domestic homicide or honor killings. Which is direct evidence of cultural norms that completely contradict your entire premise.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/23 03:29 AM
2

So, you think men have a preference for chastity and virginity not because of paternity certainty but because a violent ex-husband may kill him? There is a plethora of issues with this theory. The biggest issue is that there isn't a speck of evidence to support this because there is no known phenomenon recorded in human history where a promiscuous woman's spouse dies by her violent ex-partner to a higher degree than non-promiscuous woman's spouse does. In fact, history shows that infidelity is m…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/23 03:09 AM
2

My point was only showing that concerns over paternity certainty is an evolved adaptation that is universal which is evident in psychological functions like jealousy, mate guarding and a preference or as you say "disgust" for promiscuity as they all relate to paternity certainty. You can find cultures where these adaptations and preferences are suppressed. But that doesn't mean they are turned off or fundamentally altered as I cited.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/23 11:22 PM
2

*Oh my god* Do you think it's possible for men to engage in polygyny and still care about virginity and non-promiscuity? Yes, of course it is. The anthropological record indicates that approximately 85 per cent of human societies have permitted men to have more than one wife. So, the vast majority of human societies recorded in the ethnographic atlas engaged in polyamory (Polygyny). Yet men in all these societies and cultures still placed high value on chastity, virginity and non-promiscuity in …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/23 11:00 PM
7

*sigh* It's a universal preference cross-culturally. Which is why we do cross-cultural studies to figure out of a trait or preference has an evolved & biological component to it. I'll explain it to you simply: Let's say I find 100 unique cultures all across the world that vary greatly in their institutions, governing styles, family structures, mating systems etc. And then I give chocolate to all 100 cultures and ask them if they like the taste of it. All 100 cultures respond, "Yes we really like…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/23 10:46 PM
7

I was being sarcastic of how women often complain about men being creeps, gross etc. if they are attracted to younger women like it's a red flag. As with how promiscuity relates to paternity certainty, it's an evolved preference they have little to no control over which is why I don't blame nor disparage men for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/23 10:31 PM
3

Jealousy absolutely entails feelings of insecurity and concerns over paternity certainty. That is one of the main functions of jealousy as it relates to mate guarding which proves my point that these preferences are universal. Even though these men live in a culture of noncommitment they can't "turn-off" their evolved psychological adaptations (jealousy). Sexual jealousy is a prime example of mate guarding behavior. Both males and females use different strategies to retain a mate and there is ev…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/23 09:58 PM
6

Indeed, Mosuo individuals have been documented to experience lower levels of romantic jealousy compared to individuals from other cultures (Scelza et al., 2020; but see Renda & Kanenawa, 2021 for examples of occasional exceptions). They still experience romantic jealousy which entails concerns over paternity certainty which is the same reason men care about promiscuity. Just less compared to other cultures. Hence, you're wrong. your entire premise is bad faith.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/23 09:44 PM
3

First off, you're wrong because they still report jealousy. Just less of it compared to other cultures because while men have less paternity certainty, they are not expected or obliged to provide resources for women or their offspring. Imagine if men were not expected to provide any resources or commitment to the women they mate with. Naturally they're going to care less about paternity certainty. That's not surprising. But that doesn't mean their evolved preference changed. It's still there jus…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/23 09:30 PM
3

I'm being sarcastic. I made an entire post about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/23 09:05 PM
4

It absolutely has a biological component because it's a universal preference that men have. If it's primarily a result of culture, you would find great variation of this preference. Not just a few exceptions here and there.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/23 09:02 PM
4

Those selfish ancient old guys manipulating younger women!
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/23 07:40 PM
2

Exactly, it's sexist patriarchal norms where men try to manipulate younger women. Biology? Evolution? Pff.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/23 07:22 PM
3

I'd rather complain that men are attracted to youth. It's so unfair and sexist.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/23 07:08 PM
16

Damn, so every time I drink water when I feel thirst it's irrational.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/23 06:58 PM
20

Thanks for telling me that. Never knew women have evolved preferences.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/23 06:55 PM
71

I wouldn't say it's irrational to have an evolved preference that reduces your chances of getting cucked. If this preference wasn't adaptive in some way, they obviously wouldn't have it.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/23 06:50 PM
3

The hardcore progressives who say this are ironically the ones engaging in discriminating based on eugenics by refusing to acknowledge the specific needs and challenges between different groups of people. Instead of leaving people at mercy to their own biology which people cannot influence we need to help everyone flourish and succeed in spite of it which requires target support and resources, that's equity.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/23 04:43 PM
11

Experimenting with more physical activity, school uniforms and single sex classrooms is worth a try. We have to try something because it's not going to solve itself and it's only getting worse.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/23 01:26 AM
83

Think it's a multifaceted issue where a lot of it centers around the intensification of male intrasexual competition. A big one is the simple fact that women entered the workforce which in a sense makes it so that men aren't even competing solely among themselves anymore. They're competing with other women now because women generally do not date down in terms status and income. Compare that to pre-women's-liberation when they were reliant on men so basic jobs that required no specialization like…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/23 11:03 PM
2

I mean insulin resistance is what we call type 2 diabetes, they're the same. The theory is that making cells resistant to insulin is the body's way of protecting itself. The body basically chooses the lesser of two evils. The heart, lungs, liver etc. are more critical to your immediate survival than your cardiovascular system. So all the excess calories (glucose) end up into your blood damaging your arteries instead of your organs. This is why patients with diabetes type 2 often lose toes and ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/23 02:07 AM
2

More novel theories around diabetes type 2 suggest it's actually an antioxidant defense mechanism against caloric intoxication, increasing research supports this hypothesis. So, it doesn't actually have anything to do with sugar or insulin itself. It's the calorie excess the body can't tackle.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/23 01:41 AM
4

I still prefer the taste of cake over boiled vegetables because my taste preference hasn't changed.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/23 01:16 AM
6

You're right, because a preference for calorie dense foods was adaptive in our evolutionary history of food scarcity. Incredible.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/23 12:55 AM
5

That's my point. High-status, high-income men have the highest reproductive success. If these are the men having the most children, you're perpetuating the patriarchy as those hyper-competitive, status-seeking traits go down to their sons again. You don't get to the top by preaching for equality, redistribution and kindness. You get there by being a ruthless competitor.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/23 12:47 AM
5

Shocking right. Animals like monkeys and birds are attracted to symmetry. Even the dumbest of animals like fish are attracted to symmetry. Yet these blank slatists try to argue a preference for symmetry isn't adaptive and it's somehow a cultural phenomenon.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/23 12:42 AM
1

Sure, it's a moral goal to want to create a just and equitable world. But you're omitting that evolution ultimately does not care about morality or happiness. It's not like we landed here out of nowhere and we randomly decided to create distress. Distress is a critical adaptation. A lot of your post comes across as naive idealistic "humans are magical" like we should try to upend our innate propensities through culture and socialization which could severely restrict freedom. So, by not allowing …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/23 12:30 AM
7

Plenty of research has been done on this. We seemingly have an innate bias that automatically makes us view male victims with less compassion and male perpetrators with less sympathy and this is true cross-culturally. It's difficult to theorize what exactly the adaptive function of this is. If it has strong roots in biology or if it's culture that has a tendency to reinforce this bias. It could be partially due to our asymmetric reproductive biology as women can only have one baby at a time so v…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/23 12:58 AM
10

That makes no sense. If you're more concerned with how your body will look than actually dying, then that speaks for itself. You can also take into account that there are plenty of ways to commit suicide that don't involve a bloody mess which I'm obviously not going to get into.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/23 12:30 AM
1

I'm not going to spoon feed you by explaining basic concepts of evolutionary biology like you're 5. If you want to answer your own questions, then simply read up on natural selection.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/23 06:01 AM
1

It's the opposite. Culture is not forcing anything. Women have unprecedented freedom compared to all previous history to do make whatever choices their genetic propensities lead them to. So naturally these genetic traits sort themselves out and the issue of birth rates are resolved by itself in the long term.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/23 05:33 AM
0

We've already identified genetic traits and markers associated with a proclivity for early motherhood and an increased number of children who again inherit those traits. So, evolution is still occurring right now. You're right about the economic pain though.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/23 04:51 AM
1

Doesn't really matter. Whatever genetic traits that cause those women to become childless die out with them while women that have a proclivity for childbearing proliferate those traits. In the short term there will for sure be some economic pain but in the long-term evolution solves it by itself.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/23 04:12 AM
4

Compared to our closest relatives it's surprisingly good.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/23 08:23 AM
43

It's misleading because that 1:17 figure is something that happened briefly around 8,000 years ago as agriculture had a tendency to cause extreme inequality between men which intensified polygyny. In the totality of the human species, it's generally been 2-4 women reproducing per one man so nowhere near as bad as OP is implying. We are not walruses or gorillas.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/23 09:45 PM
3

The survey from some weeks ago that's being cited frequently did show that more men than women were looking for relationships or casual dates. There are also statistics and surveys that show unmarried, childless men are less happy than their female counterparts. So, it's too simplistic to say young men don't want to be in relationships. Single men are more likely than their female counterparts to be searching for romantic experiences. Half of these men are looking for a committed relationship an…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/23 09:39 PM
13

The more accurate term is parental investment.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/23 03:38 PM
0

Wow, I have a friend who abides by the law! So crazy. Americans and their ethnocentrism.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/23 09:05 PM
-1

You know it's possible to disagree with someone while still valuing their thoughts, opinions and the discussions you have with them? I'm guessing you're American.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/23 08:00 PM
0

Law is on his side unfortunately. And I agree it's immoral.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/23 07:20 PM
-1

He was 21 during this time.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/23 06:35 PM
1

Korean friend of mine living in Germany previously did this but not anymore. He has a virgin fetish so he would only date girls who were 14-16 and feign long term mating to get them to have sex with him then he would break up and go to the next girl. Obviously, they were extremely distraught and disappointed by this. He even had girls that were so upset they showed up unannounced to his apartment while he was with another girl.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/23 06:02 PM
4

Sorry, meant millennium. But the question I'm asking if you truly think women developed a preference for these types of men in the last couple millenniums.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/23 07:53 PM
9

You think women developed a preference for dominant and masculine men suddenly in the last couple millenniums because of religious and cultural norms that valued chastity and sought to control women's sexuality? If you think critically for a few seconds, you can figure out yourself why this makes absolutely no sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/23 07:36 PM
6

Then you've misinterpreted the article. Nowhere does he imply male in-group intrasexual competition lead men to rape women of their choosing. What he's alluding to is that traits such a dominance, aggression, ambition and status-seeking were more important in mate selection than traits like beauty (attraction). "Puts sees humans as similar to many of the apes in using male competition to determine access to mates, the winning male choosing the women of his dreams." Perhaps it's not the greatest …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/23 04:00 AM
1

That's not what the article is saying. They're alluding to women having an evolved preference that places more emphasis on traits such as aggression, dominance, ambition and status-seeking over traits like beauty. They're not saying that woman had any less mate choice, you could actually argue they had more mate choice back then because polygamy was legal compared to now where we have legally enforced monogamy in most countries which severely restricts mate choice. And regarding the preference f…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/23 03:11 AM
2

Wishful thinking, these men haven't been rejected for millions of years ever since our genus homo began so they're not going to be suddenly rejected now. The only way for these traits to disappear would be for high libido men to have worse reproductive success than low libido men which is obviously never going to happen.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/23 02:34 AM
8

That's a naive and simplistic way of looking at things. Men didn't "choose" to set their sex drive and desire for sexual variety at such an extreme level. Evolution caused it due to selective pressure as it was paramount to their reproductive success. I actually heard anecdotally from some men who say they are annoyed by it because it's so pestering and not something you can simply turn off.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/23 02:09 AM
2

There's a lot of toxicity and unjustified resentment, that's completely fair. But I don't think telling someone hypergamy doesn't exist is a good way to build bridges and deradicalize as it's effectively telling them their struggles are imaginary and it's their own fault. I guess you don't believe it exists as you linked it which means we fundamentally differ on the mere basics. Thank you for this discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/23 08:15 PM
1

I just don't agree with the notion of downright lying to men about basic biological and evolutionary realities. Imagine every time a woman shared her struggles about mental health, dating, body image, self esteem, sexual harassment and the default response was "Those are all in your head, it doesn't exist, it's your own fault, stop complaining and grow up" And then we're surprised they create their own communities and become resentful misogynistic incels. Maybe you think all their struggles and …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/23 07:56 PM
5

I thought it would be more nuanced and balanced since you imply logic and reasoning but starting off with "hypergamy doesn't exist" is not a great way to communicate reality to men. In order to show hypergamy exists you don't even need to cite the mountains of data on income and reproductive success in men. All you have to do is look at our bodies, our psychology and how it differs. We are dimorphic. Dimorphism happens through sexual selection. This means certain traits in one sex must prolifera…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/23 06:48 PM
2

You're right, I created an extreme example just for the purpose of illustrating my point. Serial monogamy is in essence closer to a form of polygamy (often polygyny) than it is to true lifelong monogamy.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/23 08:08 AM
8

The problem with the defining serial monogamy is that it can quickly just end up looking like polygyny. Say a royal prince is extremely desired among women. He gets a girlfriend, impregnates her, stays with her for a year then breaks up and gets a new girlfriend and does this on repeat. By the time he's 50 he has over 30 children with 30 different women. That's serial monogamy but in essence it's really just polygyny. Add some infidelity here and there and it gets even worse.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/23 06:00 AM
–

In order for the math to add up, some women must be sharing the same man knowingly or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/23 05:02 PM
–

Surprisingly, if you look further down more men than women who are LGB report being single.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/23 04:34 PM
–

It's mainly due to two reasons. Women generally date men 2-3 years older which explains some of the difference, the second reason is that women are either knowingly or unknowingly sharing the same man so women think they're in a committed relationship when they're really not.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/23 04:27 PM
–

LGB were combined in the sample because their size is obviously a lot smaller which you can see further down. It's just reported as being "single" and doesn't make any distinction between sexual orientation.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/23 03:16 PM
–

I literally said in my comment the age gap explains some of the difference but that it can't explain all of it as the math doesn't add up, not even close. You're the one with the extreme position. You could argue men would be more inclined to define a relationship as committed as men report being unhappier single, anyway this is speculation.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/23 02:36 PM
–

Don't really agree with the notion that Incels are going to cause some revolution. If you look at history, polygynous cultures didn't collapse from within because of an uprising by unwed peasants and soldiers, they were conquered by a monogamous culture (Primarily the Roman church). I think the first consequences we're seeing are hikikomori or letting it rot where primarily young men check out of society because they can't deal with the intensified intrasexual competition in modern society. If y…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/23 01:16 PM
–

The X chromosome is from his mother who had children or else he wouldn't exist. You're lacking basic understanding of evolution. Genetic recombination and crossover happens a lot to the X chromosome and to a lesser extent to the Y chromosome. A man wouldn't exist if his mother didn't pass on her X chromosome. So over time, X chromosomes and combinations that cause childlessness die out while those that cause a proclivity for childbearing proliferate. What we see in this study is a clear genetic …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/23 10:53 AM
3

Daughters don't receive a Y chromosome, Only X. So whatever genetic traits on the X chromosome that causes a proclivity for childbearing will proliferate while the genetics traits that cause childlessness die out. This is basic evolutionary theory. So people who are worse at using contraceptives, those who they are less effective in and women who have a biological instinct for children itself and not just mating will proliferate those genetic traits. Delayed motherhood has often been ascribed to…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/23 10:14 AM
3

Obviously it affects the population as a whole as the genes of childless women die out while the genes of women with lots of children proliferate. Meet future woman: shorter, plumper, more fertile
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/23 09:55 AM
6

Evolution actually happens a lot faster than previously thought and you can get market differences in just a couple of generations. There has already been identified genetic traits of women who have very high birth rates who's daughters again inherit the genetic proclivity for childbearing.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/23 09:43 AM
12

The gap persists in the older cohort group though. The age gap explains some of the difference but it can't explain all of it. In order for the math to add up some women must be sharing the same man either knowingly or unknowingly.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/23 09:29 AM
13

It's not an issue in the long term because whatever genetic traits that causes certain women to desire children itself and not just the reward chemicals of mating will proliferate while the genetic traits of childless women die out.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/23 08:58 AM
64

I know polygyny is what we naturally drift towards as it's what we are genetically predisposed to but didn't expect it to happen so fast. For men in the younger cohort groups things are looking grim. Will be interesting to see how this develops in the coming decade.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/23 08:55 AM
1

Don't think so because the ME has an entirely different psychology. It's very difficult to be willing to become a suicide bomber if you're not deeply religious which I'd assume most incels aren't.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/23 06:58 AM
1

Fair enough but my point is proportion. Suicide bombers is a massive issue in the ME while Incel violence in the West is miniscule in comparison.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/23 06:49 AM
2

Hilarious you mentioned this because someone did a study on suicide bombers and marriage in the middle east and they're pretty much all unwed and childless. Not applicable to the west though because western psychology is radically different.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/23 06:43 AM
1

The ability to pair bond monogamously be it socially or short term is not the same as having a genetic predisposition for true monogamy. We have a genetic predisposition for a degree of polygyny which is why we require laws and restrictions against it. Defining social monogamy and serial monogamy is very blurry because things can quickly end up looking just like polygyny: Say you have a married guy who is loyal with his resources to his wife and children but he cheats on her regularly with lots …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/02/23 11:43 PM
1

Well, the point of contention was never that one mating strategy is obligatory or more moral than another. It was about what reproductive strategy do we have a genetic predisposition for which means it was more successful reproductively. And the evidence is overwhelmingly that we have a basic genetic proclivity for a degree polygyny because it's effectively our natural state. The puzzle of monogamous marriage The anthropological record indicates that approximately 85 per cent of human societies …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/02/23 04:07 AM
0

When I show you data like rates of marriage is at an all-time low, infidelity is increasing especially among middle aged and younger cohorts, rates of premarital sex has increased, single parenthood is rising. Rates of polygamy are increasing and it's becoming increasingly viewed as morally acceptable. You look at it and think "Hm, this must mean we have evolutionary reasons to be monogamous" come on.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/23 09:49 PM
1

Thank you for your reply. It seems to me like we almost agree completely and the only point of slight contention is genetic predisposition. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you so correct me if I'm wrong but I interpret you as saying that as a whole we don't have a genetic proclivity or predisposition for a particular mating strategy more so than any other one. So we have all these genes that control mate selection and reproduction but they don't dispose us towards any particular strategy and it's cul…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/23 09:18 PM
1

Evolution has never used desire for children itself as the primary mechanism for procreation. As long as you wanted to mate, offspring was a natural consequence and this consequence has been largely removed only as of recently so evolution has not had any time to "adapt" but over time, individuals in who contraceptives are less effective and individuals who actually desire children itself will proliferate those genetic traits more than those who just desire the pleasure chemicals of mating so in…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/23 02:06 PM
2

Do you not remember any of the empirical research I linked you in our past conversation: Strong evidence of lower access to marriage and reproduction among low status men in contemporary Sweden. For men, personal income and personal net worth are positive predictors of both number of childbearing partners and fertility, while for women personal income and personal net worth are negative predictors of number of childbearing partners and fertility. Fertility of Men and Women in the U.S. The findin…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/23 11:03 AM
2

Pretty sure I already told you in a previous conversation that there's an increasing trend in developed nations where high status, high income men have multiple children from multiple wives leaving a larger pool of lower status men childless. That's fitness maximizing and perfectly in line with evolutionary theory.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/23 10:10 AM
1

Why is that funny.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/23 08:09 AM
2

Overall I agree with you and see your point. We definitely don't have a sort of set in stone, obligatory mating strategy that's not adaptable to a certain degree. We're a complex cultural-species so there's a lot of variables that interact in a feedback loop: environment-> genetics-> psychology -> culture-> psychology-> genetics-> and it continues on like this in a forever loop with genetics affecting the environment and environment affecting genetics. Dual inheritance theory. I mentioned in a d…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/23 07:13 AM
3

Naturally, you're forced to explain why, if this is an EVOLUTIONARY impulse, is the correlation between social status and reproductive success much LOWER for humans than other primates? For men, personal income and personal net worth are positive predictors of both number of childbearing partners and fertility, while for women personal income and personal net worth are negative predictors of number of childbearing partners and fertility. Number of Childbearing Partners, Status, and the Fertility…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/23 01:35 AM
3

Well the comment I responded to said: There are evolutionary reasons for men wanting monogamy, or at least to limit the number of partners that they have Which is false. Men are evolved for polygyny, not monogamy. I never claimed a poor peasant has high chances of being polygynous. The point of contention was only what is evolutionarily more effective reproductively.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/23 08:46 PM
2

Because the Y chromosome and all its genetics are exclusive to males so if aggression isn't primarily caused by sex chromosomes you're implying it must be primarily caused by something else (culture, socialization, upbringing etc.) Blank slatism.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/23 08:40 PM
10

Now you're arguing against yourself because I never said polygyny is an obligatory mating strategy. I said it's evolutionarily the most effective. If a certain % of men are polygynous like the top 25% then obviously the rest must be either monogamous or unmarried. That's how it works. So yes the majority of men in this instance would be monogamous or unmarried but that doesn't mean it's evolutionarily more effective than polygyny.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/23 08:14 PM
0

Didn't you tell me literally two days ago that sex chromosomes aren't the primary driver of psychological sex differences in traits such as aggression? Aggression isn't a trait limited to those with a Y chromosome. It isn't even primarily caused by sex chromosomes. Right you did. When it's blatantly obvious, crystal clear and has been proven and replicated multiple times in studies on mammals where they test castration, hormonal levels, inbreeding and Y chromosome alteration.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/23 08:05 PM
8

Of course it's worse. If a polygynous man has 500 children his reproductive strategy is stratospherically more effective than a monogamous man with 5 children even if we were to assume poorer resource allocation to the 500. There currently does not exist one single mammal that has been show to be truly monogamous because it's evolutionarily extremely inefficient and reproductively limiting especially for men who have the resources.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/23 07:56 PM
4

polygyny is not a new fad. It's effectively the default. The puzzle of monogamous marriage The anthropological record indicates that approximately 85 per cent of human societies have permitted men to have more than one wife (polygynous marriage) The only times we've ever seen something close to monogamy arise without strict cultural or religious enforcement is in some small agrarian societies in East Asia where all men have the same farmland and resources so if all men are equal there's no benef…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/23 07:49 PM
5

That's not correct. Monogamy and life-long monogamy is one of the most inefficient reproductive strategies a man can employ which is why men have evolved strong sex drives, strong desire for sexual variety and to be indiscriminate in mating especially short term mating.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/23 07:30 PM
37

It's a decent post and while I don't agree fully with the finer details of some of the things you referenced your overall message is indisputable. Water is wet. These posts are not popular though because 90% of people regardless of where they are politically really dislike that you can explain or predict behavior. Also things like naturalistic fallacy and genetic determinism is a common straw man people react with when presented with evolutionary theory. A lot of people just want to live in thei…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/23 07:26 PM
2

Just warning you now you're wasting your time. She's a social constructionist blank slatist who denies genetic and biological sex differences in psychology and behavior. To her men and women are identical and the only factor that differentiates us is socialization and culture.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/23 07:13 PM
1

Over time you will get rid of them as the genetic traits that make them hyper competitive die out. However the economic inequality and the patriarchy will be dismantled in just one generation.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/23 01:48 PM
4

It doesn't matter. How often do you see a rich woman in her 30s pick up a young lad working as a waitress? Basically never. In first world countries Income and even education is positively associated with fertility In men. So if these are the men having children then those genetic traits go down to their sons and the cycle repeats with those sons striving to climb the status hierarchy again. So the end result is "patriarchy" or economic inequality. I'm just pointing out it's bizarre to complain …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/23 11:38 PM
3

If you want to make a matriarchal society where women hold power then collectively marry and mate with passive, meek, low income, subordinate men. It's very hypocritical to complain about economic disparity and the "patriarchy" then choose it.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/23 11:23 PM
1

Oh yeah on a societal scale I don't disagree at all. I'm talking more on a individual level as our brains are still attuned for living in tribes without evolved consideration for societal implications. Joe Henrich said culture is a lot smarter than what we are. Culture works as a second set of quick adaptive genetics. Very beneficial to have as biological evolution is a slow process.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/23 07:09 PM
1

Yeah I mean, I think most people acknowledge that large swats of young men who can't handle the intensified intrasexual competition that end up resigning and check out of out society isn't good especially economically as men pay the majority of tax. Problem is there are no clear solutions that doesn't involve some stringent totalitarian measure like making fornication illegal. Whatever the proposed solutions are gender equality would most likely still have to be a part of it. What you're talking…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/23 05:23 PM
1

The puzzle of monogamous marriage The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous Evolution, Psychology, Monogamy & Culture - Dr Joe Henrich Check out some of these. Super interesting topic about evolution and gene–culture coevolution.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/23 04:21 PM
3

I've always been aware of it to a degree but didn't really dive deep until I was discussing the falling birth rates on /r/Taiwan and someone brought up various aspects of psychology as well as hypergamy. Researching the topic led me to evolutionary biology, psychology and some anthropology and I started reading books and listening to podcasts about evolutionary psychology and biology. I don't ascribe to any "pill" though. I regularly have disagreements with people regardless if they're bluepill,…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/23 03:49 PM
1

Adjust by gender then look at the effect income and education on fertility. It's paradoxical because you always hear people blame low birth rates on housing prices and how expensive it is to have children yet wealthier women are less inclined to have children than poorer ones.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/23 11:01 AM
1

I am intuitively thinking it's that way for people with a western cultural background, but not in countries with lots of immigration from other cultural backgrounds. The effect is apparent in developed nations: In some European countries, it is not just earnings that are positively associated with fertility for men, but also education (Lappegård and Rønsen, 2013; Nisén et al., 2017). Previous research has shown that the primary reason for the positive relationship between socioeconomic status an…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/23 10:55 AM
1

Paradoxically, surveys show that men tend to desire children more than women and have generally worse attitudes towards childlessness. It's mostly related to status and income. Like I said demographically childless men are disproportionately those of lower education and income. There's also another paradox regarding this. In developed nations income and education is positively associated with fertility in men but negatively in women.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/23 06:08 PM
1

Say there's 10 men and 10 women. one man impregnates all 10 women so now one father has 10 children and ten mothers have 1 child each. 90% of men are childless while 0% of women are childless.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/23 04:53 PM
1

What do you mean? One man can potentially father thousands of children with multiple women by himself if he has access.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/23 04:13 PM
1

Not really, between the age of 15 and 45 there's 1,3% more men than women so not enough to affect the statistics in any meaningful way. I guess you could shave off 1%. It the number of men and women are equal, then the number of babies per man and woman will be the same even if the distribution is different. You know it's possible to have children with more than one partner right.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/23 04:06 PM
1

At age 50 it drops to 23% but that's an older cohort. If you don't have children by the time you're 45 chances are very high you die childless. It's going to be interesting seeing how it develops in the coming decade as the younger cohort comes up if it stabilizes at around 30% or if it just keeps rising because childlessness among men in younger cohorts is already shockingly high at age 35 and 40. And yeah immigrants get an national ID number too. There are 30 000 more male then female immigran…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/23 02:47 PM
2

First time I've heard about brad. Is he supposed to be a normal guy? If you look at the demographics it's not necessarily normal guys. It's primarily low educated men, many who dropped out of school and are working in unskilled dead-end jobs or they just leech off the government and play video games.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/23 01:45 PM
4

Norway is kinda socialist so everyone gets a national person's number at birth which tracks things like occupation, marriage, age, income etc. So from Statistics Norway (SSB) I believe you can right click the page and then click translate then go to the graph and click no children at age 45. So in the last 25 years male childlessness increased from 15% to 26% and female childlessness increased from 9% to 14%. I checked other countries as well like Finland, Sweden, Denmark, the US, Czech republic…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/23 09:17 AM
9

I agree, 30% of men are virgin stat came from a shaky survey so like you said it would be very hypocritical to accept as fact then but be critical of it now. I have this bias too. Demographics like marriage and childlessness are better examples for how society and mating changes. There's an increasing trend in developed nations where high status high earning men have multiple children from multiple wives leaving a larger pool of low status men childless. Our fitness maximizing mating instincts a…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/23 06:44 AM
1

If this were true the earning gap between men and women wouldn't exist. If women wanted to get rid of the economic inequality between the sexes they could collectively marry men who earn less than them and it would disappear in two generations. It's not reflected in real world statistics regarding fertility and marriage either: Number of Childbearing Partners, Status, and the Fertility of Men and Women in the U.S. For men, personal income and personal net worth are positive predictors of both nu…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/23 03:03 AM
3

I wonder what income is associated with. Right, intelligence and education.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/23 08:32 AM
2

A BBC article citing a Dutch researcher from 2011 who thinks publications that show a strong correlation between facial symmetry and attractiveness is biased. And one single study on children and their health, not a meta analysis. And linking more studies that show cultural variations does not disprove that symmetry, normality and dimorphism is desired universally both cross-culturally and even cross-species: Symmetry is not just appreciated by humans; symmetry in mate choice is preferred in man…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/23 08:20 AM
2

Both studies you linked show that facial features are not always universally preferred among cultures and that race bias exists. This has been observed since studies of facial attractiveness began and nobody rejects this. However symmetry ,normality and dimorphism is objectively attractive cross-culturally and cross-species and has been replicated consistently since studies on facial attractiveness began. Here's a meta analysis compiling all the research of the last decades on the attractiveness…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/23 07:45 AM
2

Of course they evolved. What are you trying to imply? That women evolved to prefer idiots in one generation? It's simply not reflected in statistics. Income and education is positively associated with fertility in men.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/23 07:16 AM
2

Nobody has said you cannot find variations between cultures due to things like race bias, this has already been well observed. But certain standards are objectively desired universally such as cues to health and good genes. While individual and cross-cultural differences exist (see later), this politically correct view of beauty is to some extent false. In fact, agreement between individuals is one of the best-documented and most robust findings in facial attractiveness research since the 1970s.…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/23 06:52 AM
3

Show me a culture where men are attracted to old, diseased, ugly, dumb and mean women. Right you can't. Put rotten chicken in your mouth and enjoy the taste of it. Right you can't. This idealistic idea that our preferences and desires are culturally created social constructs is simply naive and holds no ground. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures In all 37 cultures from all over the world women rated the financial prospects of a potential part…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/23 06:33 AM
4

Well, you need to see it from an evolutionary perspective where tribal life was dangerous and violent. Strong, tall and large men are better capable of hunting, defending and fighting rival tribes so women who desire such traits have greater reproductive success. You can't "turn off" millions of years of deeply ingrained genetics just as you can't turn off your taste preference for salty, fatty, calorie dense foods. Women are far more selective for superficial traits than they are for deeper one…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/23 06:26 AM
2

In general they do. Industriousness, ambition and intelligence are good predictors of financial prospects and overall life success so these are attractive to women cross-culturally. In fact, women in all 37 cultures deemed financial prospects much more important than men did. You see this trend in most developed nations. Childless men are disproportionately those of lower education and income. I guess you could argue correlation and halo effect but afaik evidence suggests there is some genetic o…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/23 06:11 AM
3

You're viewing our species through a biased modern lens. In 99.9% of our evolutionary history life was rough and a harsh winter could be the difference between life and death. Naturally traits that increase survival and reproduction will proliferate as well as individuals who have a genetic predisposition to desire such traits in their partners. This is true cross-culturally and cross-species.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/23 04:01 AM
3

Your comments are always so uneducated and I can tell you have zero interest in human history. I almost think you're a troll because you're capable of saying the dumbest things that you could disprove yourself if you just used critical thinking for 2 seconds. Mouths to feed? You know women also forage and hunt small game, they didn't sit on their ass all day doing nothing because they actually wanted to live. If you just look at history, African tribal wars, WW2, Vikings, ISIS, colonialism, Empi…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/23 02:48 AM
2

It's not something new that men have idealized women in this way. Small group warfare and tribal warfare or just war in general usually ends with the victorious group killing the men and taking the women. It's just how it is as access to fertile women has always been the limiting factor hence a strong proclivity for men to desire and value these women.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/23 02:15 AM
2

Male psychology has evolved to be extremely sensitive to anything sexual. Think a lot of guys would love it. Root of the issue though is that both men and women fail to recognize that our evolved psychology, especially our sexual psychology is vastly different. If people just read The Evolution of Desire or The Ape That Understood The Universe then it would clear up so much confusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/23 04:58 AM
6

It's a common mistake many make when trying to see the perspective of others because they apply their own psychology onto the opposite sex. This is one of the reasons why a lot of men send dickpicks. From their perspective it's like "Oh I love looking at boobs, ass and naked women so If I send her a picture of my genitals she's gonna love that and it's gonna make her really like me." When in actuality a lot of women think it's gross.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/23 04:40 AM
2

3 = indispensable or extremely important; 2 = very highly desired; 1 = desired but not terribly important; and 0 = irrelevant. Females overwhelmingly put financial prospects between 1.5 and 2.5 which is between desired and very highly desired as is true cross-culturally with it being significantly higher than men's. The SD is consistently between desired and highly desired. Support was strong for the financial capacity prediction (36 of 37 samples), and moderate for the ambition-industriousness …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/23 07:47 PM
6

They have actually not changed drastically, ever. If you look at idealized statues cross-culturally from ancient Rome, Greece, India and African carvings. It shows men as fit and women as slim with an hourglass shape. And that BuzzFeed article is not well researched or they're willfully trying to push an agenda. Like during the renaissance If you're rich and can afford portrait paintings it's likely you're fat as well so this is not representative of the population. On top of it generally just b…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/23 08:45 AM
5

Sure, culture may suppress or reinforce biological instincts to a degree. But no matter where in the world you go you won't find men that are attracted to old, diseased, ugly, dumb and mean women. Our standards of female beauty are overwhelmingly centered around cues to youth, fertility, health and good genes which is perfectly in line with evolution.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/23 08:17 AM
4

things like "realistically every man values different things" and "backed by social constructs of beauty" reads like creationism. And if that's your personal perception that's completely fine but It threw me off that you use the words "I think" as it implies some degree of rationality and not feelings.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/23 07:59 AM
7

Going from TangerineX's comment to yours was like going from creationism to science, hilarious. These progressives who deem everything a "social construct" reads the exact same as creationism.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/23 06:06 AM
3

I wrote identical except occupation, i didn't ask you to add your own variables like hours worked and pretentiousness. And you're suffering from projection bias. The overwhelming majority of women care about income and occupation way beyond of man being able to pay for a basic standard of living. This shouldn't be a surprising just as men caring about appearance well beyond of a woman being a 4/10 in looks. It's like we're living in Disneyland, if i choose not to believe it maybe it's not true l…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/23 01:50 PM
2

I thought that the percentage of men and women who have children over a full life is basically equal Because of our asymmetry in biology men tend to have children from multiple wives as is true cross-species, cross-culturally and historically. The stats from Norway check what % of people have children by the time they're 45. Although it may happen chances are exceptionally high you remain childless after this age especially considering the rise in childlessness is greatest among unskilled and lo…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/23 07:56 AM
1

We take in about an equal number of male and female migrants. And it already increased from 15% to 20% the decade before we started taking in significantly more migrants. https://www.ssb.no/statbank/table/05182/tableViewLayout1/ https://i.imgur.com/OyM6F0i.png There are 30 000 more male migrants than female migrants in Norway. Not enough to affect the statistics in any meaningful way.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/23 07:38 AM
4

can't have a single fucking month go by where I'm not accused of this. Because it's shocking to me that you think women only care about occupation and status up until he's not homeless. The most absurd take I've ever seen. Please clarify what you meant as you probably think I'm straw manning you. I have the radical opinion that most women want men they are attracted to; Thus, the idea of "top tier men" is completely arbitrary and irrelevant. Really? So if you have two identical men and the only …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/23 06:34 AM
0

In the US 24% of men between 40 and 50 are childless compared to 14% of women in the US but these are from 2014. You can also compare a homeless addict to a bus driver. Most women would probably go for the bus driver You're gonna love this. In Norway it's impossible to be homeless. If you're broke and jobless you're simply handed an apartment with electricity, internet and given a small monthly income to pay for basic necessities. And if you have children you're given even more monthly cash. Sur…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/23 05:00 AM
1

These statistics are old, male childlessness increased from 23% to 26% in the last 6 years.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/23 04:28 AM
4

Of course, I wouldn't claim it if there wasn't data to back it up. From Norway SSB (Use translator) In the last 25 years male childlessness increased from 15% to 26% while female childlessness increased from 9% to 14%. You see the same trend in pretty much all developed nations including the US. There's not even a set universal definition for what a "top tier man" even is. Well, childlessness among men has primarily increased in those that are unskilled and lower educated which makes sense. A go…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/23 04:26 AM
8

To a degree sure, but we're seeing a trend where women marry men who already have children from a previous relationship. The amount of childless men has increased dramatically while the amount of childless women has remained fairly steady. Not full blown polygyny but moving slowly in that direction.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/23 03:49 AM
1

Tough question. Depends on how you look at it. On one hand if birth rates plummets in a short period of time it could have grave economic consequences like hindering our ability to pay for things like pensions, disability, healthcare etc. On the other hand forcing people to have children, especially women who bear the brunt of parental investment, this would be absolutely horrifying and totalitarian. I'm slightly concerned about the short term economic consequences but in the long term it's not …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/23 10:09 PM
3

cultural relativism. It's common when evaluating other societies to use our own culture as a yardstick for success which is ethnocentric. We have no idea if our way is "correct" or what it would even look like. Edit: I'm not personally a relativist but my knowing my biases is something I keep in mind.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/23 09:43 PM
3

You said in your previous comment that infidelity damages the other partner's reproduction, reduces parental investment and resource allocation etc. predictable damages to reproductive prospects in the next few generations are especially relevant. any diversion of care or resources from a woman's child represents great threat to her since her capacity and fertility are very limited. I interpret this as you claiming infidelity damages a man's reproductive fitness in the long term. Maybe I'm inept…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/23 08:09 PM
2

Evolutionary nothing is moral or immoral. But if you want to talk about genetic behaviors and their societal ramifications that's a different discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/23 08:02 PM
4

So if you understand you correctly you're trying to argue that infidelity isn't fitness maximizing and that it in fact damages the reproductive prospects of men in the long term because of reduced parental investment and resource allocation? I mean your entire argument falls flat on it's face. If committed monogamy was fitness maximizing we would be monogamous. But we aren't because it isn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/23 07:53 PM
3

That's a bizarre way of thinking. Infidelity isn't something that's socially constructed. It happens cross-culturally and cross-species even in mammals that are closer to monogamy like gibbons where you still see infidelity especially from the male. If infidelity wasn't fitness maximizing it wouldn't be a prevalent as it is. But it is because it is fitness maximizing. A man can have multiple babies at a time while a woman can only have one baby at a time.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/23 07:36 PM
1

What do you mean by genetic threat?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/23 07:23 PM
1

Having a hard time understand what exactly your point is. Are you arguing that male infidelity is not fitness maximizing? are you arguing male infidelity is immoral? are you arguing female infidelity is as fitness maximizing as male infidelity?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/23 07:18 PM
0

You can see the reverse happen in the jacana's bird. The male builds the nest, incubates the eggs and finds food for the hatchlings so all the female does is lay the eggs. So the female birds violently fight each other for dominance over their harems of males.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/23 04:09 AM
0

I think OP misunderstands parental investment. The sex that invests more in offspring is biologically the more valueable.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/23 03:55 AM
1

Great question. I'm interested cultural evolution and biology so I'll give you lots of information. You're right polygyny is technically permitted, However it's become culturally discouraged and it occurs less in wealthier societies on top of increased female labor participation. In most wealthy gulf states it's not a big % of men taking multiple wives and if they do it's generally just one or two extra. In KSA it's as low as 0.31%. There are also elements within Islam itself that attempt to lim…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/23 07:39 PM
2

Like I said. It's not unsupported. Both historical, cross-cultural and cross-species data strongly support it.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/23 02:38 AM
2

I mean you could use that logic with anything. Why is murder illegal? We can't go back in time and ask ancient tribes and civilizations thousands of years ago why they created social norms and laws against murder. But we can make hypothesizes about why it was made illegal and check them cross-culturally. if historical and cross-culture evidence shows great benefits of X then those benefits are very likely the cause for it's continued spread and adoption throughout the world.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/23 11:52 PM
5

The puzzle of monogamous marriage we have only theory, not fact. While you're right we can't go back in time and ask kings and leaders why monogamy was adopted we can make hypothesizes and check them cross-culturally and the evidence is pointing at of the suppression of intrasexual competition being of large benefit. If you just imagine it yourself for a second. Say you have two kingdoms waging war on one another but one kingdom allows polygyny so 50% of men in one kingdom do not have families. …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/23 11:05 PM
2

I mean Just by virtue of biology we naturally drift towards a degree of polygyny if there aren't cultural constraints. The roman church and various kings and leaders didn't arbitrarily decide to implement and adopt rules like monogamy. It's simply a more effective way of governance when you're competing with other kingdoms and cultures.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/23 10:35 PM
1

It's like society becomes a super-organism that can figure out when there's a surplus of males and acts to rectify the situation? How do you explain that niche of consciousness Great question! I'm not that well versed in the topic of cultural evolution and how biology and culture intertwine so I could be wrong about some things here. iirc evolution has favored traits like learning, mimicking, fairness, sociability which are necessary for culture. Even monkeys have a sense of fairness and justice…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/23 10:11 PM
2

If men are raised in a vacuum would they behave exactly the same? Of course. Male gametes evolved specifically to be easy and efficient to produce hence a much stronger desire for sexual variety and short term mating as it maximizes reproductive fitness. There does not exist one single mammal that is truly monogamous. You can get close in a few species but even then you have infidelity especially from the male. but culture does influence. That's why you have things like kamikazes I think of it m…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/23 07:14 PM
1

While I don't agree with the brash and catastrophizing stance of OP there is some truth to what he's saying: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3260845/ Monogamy subdues male intrasexual competition to a large degree resulting in better stability and loyalty which is why the catholic church was so effective at spreading. Meanwhile, cross-national regressions reveal that stronger monogamous marriage norms are associated with less (i) domestic violence, (ii) maternal mortality, (iii) fem…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/23 06:45 PM
1

If you just read what you link you'll see the biggest reason is migration. Male Dutch height as not decreased any. Female Dutch height decreased slightly which is because shorter women have more children than taller women. From Norway: When compared to the previous Norwegian growth scales of 30 years ago, the Bergen Growth Study shows that the average height of ethnic Norwegians has increased. The height of boys between ages 0 and 19 is up 3.4 centimeters on average, whereas girls between 0 and …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/23 06:02 PM
1

Environment plays a role but to deny genetics has any role is foolish. The average height in many first world countries is still increasing. In my own country Norway kids are taller than ever.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/23 05:52 PM
7

Research and surveys show men have stronger sex drives especially in regard to sexual variety and short term mating. This is true both cross-culturally and cross-species. They also report thinking about sex and fantasizing about sex much more frequently than women do and their sexual fetishes are much broader than women's. "Society" is not telling men to have sex. Evolution has been driving men to have sex for millions of years as it leads to greater reproductive success compared to men who don'…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/23 05:45 PM
2

You're completely right. Compared to some other mammals like gorillas or elephant seals with significant sexual dimorphism us humans are a lot less polygynous. I think I read somewhere that only 5-10% of male elephant seals successfully reproduce.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/23 05:49 PM
1

Sorry to dash your hopes but there currently does not exist one single mammal that is truly monogamous. There are a few mammals that get close but even then you have some degree of infidelity especially from the male. The simple way to tell if a species is monogamous or not is sexual dimorphism. If there is difference between the male and the female in size, appearance, color, strength etc. then the species is polygamous. So humans left in an environment without cultural and religious constraint…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/23 05:42 PM
3

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/10/22/vikings-invasions/?edg-c=1 This is a good article that explains it in an easy way. (Study in article) (Second one) Yeah I was baffled myself when I read about it. I actually played AC Valhalla some years ago which is a game about Vikings and never once was marriage mentioned in any way. Basically the main reason anthropologists think the Viking age was so violent was not due to the things you commonly hear like glory and plunder but due to polygyny. So m…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/23 05:09 PM
2

Not really, something like 90% of tribes practiced polygyny where they don't have royal families. In those case it's just about being the best hunter and the strongest male. In agricultural societies it's more a natural consequence of economic inequality as women are given the choice between being another wife of a high status man or being the first wife of a dirt poor peasant or solider.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/23 03:20 PM
0

That's naive. Your ancestral fathers fought tooth and nail for millions of years just for survival and to graced by a woman's touch. It's a bit egocentric to complain with our modern standard of living because you missed out on the window of enforced monogamy during the spread of the catholic church.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/23 03:00 PM
4

By looking it up? "Gender attitudes towards childlessness" and "Which gender wants children more" Which is perfectly in line with evolution. Norway's suicide rate is fairly average at around 10. And we consistently rank among the top of most happiest countries.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/23 02:37 PM
4

You see this trend in most western societies. In countries like Norway that are on the forefront of freedom there are more than double as many childless men as there are women. (25% of men under 45 are childless compared to 13% of women) Which is paradoxical as men desire children more than women and have worse attitudes towards childlessness. It's just a fact of evolution that for a certain group of women it's may very well be more desirable to be the wife of a HVM even if he has children from …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/23 02:06 PM
8

I agree. We don't wage wars on each other constantly like we did in all our past so the only way for a society to collapse now is from within. I think most LVM who can't handle the hierarchical intrasexual competition simply check out of society and become these hikikomori types they have in Japan.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/23 01:54 PM
5

Monogamy was absolutely not enforced due to agriculture. The vast majority of agricultural societies practiced polygyny: After the origins of agriculture, as human societies grew in size, complexity and inequality, levels of polygynous marriage intensified, reaching extremes in the earliest empires whose rulers assembled immense harems Agriculture has existed for 11 000 years and monogamy is actually a very recent phenomenon that was spread by the romans and the Catholic Church. I will agree wit…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/23 01:43 PM
18

He's not entirely correct. It's not necessarily that polygynous cultures collapsed on itself due to a violent revolution of poor peasants and soldiers. They were primarily conquered by monogamous cultures because polygamous societies have a lot more infighting and hierarchical competition so you end up with a population that's less stable and loyal. Hence a population of men that are less motivated and loyal to their tribe/kingdom. Some concrete examples would be Inca or Aztec empire, African tr…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/23 01:23 PM
22

There are many countries where firearms are inaccessible and men still disproportionately commit suicide. If you're truly intent on dying it's not that difficult. This is anecdotal but an acquaintance of my mother managed to kill himself with a shirt and a clothes hanger when he was left alone for 20 minutes in a psychiatric hospital. If there's a will there's a way.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/23 06:33 PM
3

Don't think it's unique to women. In a lot of relationships where there's a discrepancy in mate value the lower value partner is often willing to put up with a lot of disrespect and bullshit.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/23 07:22 AM
4

There are some HVM that are deeply into this stuff. Korean friend of mine living in Germany who's 6'3, looks like one of those K-pop guys and has a ripped body. He is DEEPLY into this looksmaxxing and blackpill stuff. He showed me his skincare routine where he uses like 6 different products every day. It really put into perspective how much you get away with when you're high value because he'd dictate to the girls he dates that they straighten their hair for example and they'd comply.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/23 07:12 AM
0

Women care less because evolutionarily their reproduction is guaranteed so there was never any selective pressure in this regard. It has always been a natural consequence of mating. Men have a stronger desire for children and worse attitudes towards childlessness as their reproduction is not guaranteed.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/23 11:46 AM
1

I don't see women here denying status matters. If you ask any woman here if she wants an ambitious man studying for a good degree or a deadbeat sitting in his room playing World of Warcraft 12 hours a day then the answer is blatantly obvious.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/23 08:40 AM
3

Funny how guys on here constantly complain about women bringing up exceptions and anecdotes when faced with statistics then men do the EXACT same thing. Incels are such fucking hypocrites holy shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/23 08:35 AM
0

Your anecdotes totally persuaded me from the overwhelming research. 58% of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are over 6 feet tall, compared with the general American population in which only 14.5%.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/23 08:33 AM
0

Exceptions don't disprove the rule. 90% of CEOs are above average height. Income and education are both strongly correlated with height and attractiveness in men. Is some of this due to the halo effect? Sure. But to deny it has anything to do with genetics makes evolutionarily no sense. Research in interpersonal sensitivity and person perception has documented surprising accuracy in judging intelligence and health from facial appearance. For example, intelligence ratings based on facial photogra…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/23 07:15 AM
-1

Attractiveness and height are both strongly correlated with of IQ, intelligence and overall life success especially in men even after controlling for other factors. Ambition is also a trait that's very selected for. measures of physical attractiveness and intelligence are positively correlated and that the association between the two attributes is stronger among men than among women. Link Incels are not smart. They are literally the male equivalent of hardcore feminists who blame men for all the…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/23 06:24 AM
-1

Do you understand that if women didn't select for these traits to begin with in our human history then men would not invent the computer in the first place. Women specifically chose to mate with men that had traits of of ambition, intelligence and ingenuity which is the most basic necessity for all inventions. So technically women played a fundamental role in building our civilization as it is today.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/23 05:49 AM
2

Technically it was created by women because they didn't mate with lazy unambitious men who sat on their ass all day, get fucked.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/23 05:12 AM
0

In order for me to have a debate with you I need to make sure you actually have a clue of what you're talking about which clearly you don't. I'll try one final time. When I say "Evolutionary battle of the sexes" I obviously don't mean in the literal sense of men and women waging war on each other. The scientific word for it is Sexual Antagonistic Coevolution. Where we evolve adaptations and strategies that impair the reproduction of the opposite sex to benefit our own. Please consider reading so…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 05:11 PM
1

Well you can't force yourself to want to be in a relationship with someone ugly, mean and dumb. Stuck to our innate desires.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 04:01 PM
0

Women evolved the opposite mating strategy to feign short term mating. Either in an attempt to convert a man to a long term relationship or to access his resources.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 03:52 PM
0

What a tremendous waste of time and effort. God bless America.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 03:29 PM
3

Before replying with idealistic creationist nonsense you should attempt critical thinking. There is no battle of the sexes Did you try googling or reading anything at all? Sexual Conflict in Human Mating | Wikipedia Sexual Conflict |Wikipedia Concealed Ovulation by any scientific study which finds women cheat as much as men in marriages Except every single study shows that married men cheat A LOT more than women. Sometimes more than double: An extensive study published in AARP magazine found tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 03:13 PM
3

I think women are wired to believe this future faking Could be. That would mean the reproductive consequence of missing out on a committed relationship with a HVM is greater than being deceived into short term mating.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 12:10 PM
6

This is a good informal write-up of the evolutionary battle between the sexes. This is why both sexes have evolved deceptive mating strategies and men especially feign long term mating to secure short term sex. A man's most effective reproductive strategy is to indiscriminately mate with as many women as he can. A woman's most effective reproductive strategy is pinning down the absolute best man she can into a committed relationship securing him solely for herself. For one sex to win the other h…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 10:54 AM
1

To a degree sure. But even then you still see the same underlying mate strategy. Experiments show that when you ask men what they hope to achieve out of having one night stands their primary reason is just sex and more one night stands. When you ask women the same question their primary reason is hoping it will develop into a relationship. And It's fairly self evident. If HVM weren't feigning long term mating you wouldn't have hordes of women complaining about how men are fuckboys and players wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 06:15 AM
2

I think it's rather ghastly to kill people simply because they pose an inconvenience to us. The vast majority of abortions are simply due to convenience. Too young, not enough money, not in a stable relationship, want to focus on studies/career etc. I just feel like society and culture as a whole in the west constantly seeks to expand women's freedom and if you bring up potential consequences of unlimited freedom it's seen as misogyny. Morally I'm leaning pro-life but legally I'm pro-choice beca…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 04:33 AM
2

Of course. The best relationships are those where both partners feel lucky to have each other. More difficult nowadays though as a lot of women hopelessly all try to pin down the same small pool of guys who in turn feign long term mating to get sex without consequence. Which is a perfectly rational strategy evolutionarily.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 03:42 AM
2

Sure it definitely gives some perspective. In a perfect moral paradise perhaps abortion should be outlawed. But we will never live in such a society so I'm still in favor of abortion in at least the first two trimesters especially in cases of rape as the woman did not consent to pregnancy so she's not morally obligated to see it through. I think the abortion debate ultimately just boils down to burden and convenience. How much are we willing morally to have women push though? If pregnancy lasted…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 03:36 AM
2

Yup. Imagine being a peasant in polygynous cultures thousands of years ago. Working tirelessly on farmland you don't even own and be taxed to hell and at the end of the day you don't even have a family to come home to.. Very poor incentive for men be motivated and loyal.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 03:25 AM
3

I read your entire comment and it's naive. Evolution does not care what you deem unnatural or toxic. It does not. Never has, never will. It's a constant ongoing process that occurs no matter the circumstance. With the advance of technology the competition simply shifts to other traits and aspects that are desirable. Let those men watch porn to death and those genetic traits die out with them while the ambitious men who strive in the real world are the ones having children.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 02:28 AM
1

Sorry to burst your bubble but evolution does not care one single bit about what you deem toxic or immoral.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 02:13 AM
2

Well said. A lot of people erroneously think we somehow abandoned our evolutionary instincts and adaptations when we became civilized while completely forgetting our species has existed for millions of years where all we did was wander around for food and live in tribes (Homo erectus, Homo Habilis etc.) Check out the book The Ape That Understood The Universe.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 02:03 AM
3

Exactly. Incels here think in prehistoric times men were raping women at whim whenever they wanted while evidence suggests the contrary. Raping women within your own tribe/kingdom was actually generally strongly condemned and the man who committed the offense would either be executed or banished. Life was unforgiving and harsh so maintaining cooperation, trust and stability in your tribe was crucial for survival.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 01:46 AM
0

Be grateful you're not living in the Aztec Empire where royalty and high status men had harems of thousands of women.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 01:41 AM
2

Male sexuality was also liberated. Now they can feign long term mating in order to have deceive women into sex then disappear without any consequence which isn't something they could do back in the day before technology and the sexual revolution. Of course this proportion of men is a lot smaller but it's still of great benefit to their instinctive mating strategy.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 01:31 AM
-1

Not as prevalent as you may think. Raping the women of your own tribe is actually a terrible strategy as it destabilizes the hierarchy of the tribe, hinders trust and cooperation. And if the woman gets pregnant she has low incentive to raise the child as she didn't choose her mate. What's more sensible is capturing and raping women that aren't yours like the 2 million German women that were raped by the Russians in WW2 since it doesn't damage the stability of your own tribe/kingdom.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 01:16 AM
-3

It's just biology. For females the consequences of making a bad mate choice are enormous compared to males so naturally it's beneficial to have a man on the back burner. Same is reflected in motivation for infidelity with men generally just seeking sexual variety while women generally seek to divest themselves from an undesirable relationship. Edit: And this Incel stuff completely misunderstands evolution. You can't condemn women for behaving exactly as they should behave. If you were a woman yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 12:58 AM
1

Thank you.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/22 11:17 AM
1

Last question, So what do you think about these things if women aren't valued unconditionally more than men? The statistics that men overwhelmingly die in all facets of life. The experiments that show we are more willing to sacrifice men and make them experience pain. The surveys that show we tend to attribute positive traits to women and negative traits to men. And the historical evidence of how men and boys are killed off while the women are spared and given an offer of subjugation.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/22 11:05 AM
1

I’m saying women are also not unconditionally loved. I just gave you a ton of information from surveys, experiments, studies and historical examples that show you the opposite. But yeah sure you can argue semantics. Change the word "loved" for "valued".
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/22 10:58 AM
1

That's not unique to women. That's life. Evolutionarily we are valued for our traits and capabilities. Nobody wants a partner that's ugly, dumb, mean, diseased and there's an obvious reason for that. In all mammals not just humans. Being born female your odds of survival and reproduction are significantly greater than if you were born male. Let me guess. I didn't change your mind on anything even slightly and men are still the demons subject to their instincts of aggression and conquest..
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/22 10:54 AM
1

I disagree that the world values women more nowadays: if doesnt. I find it hard to believe you say this in good faith. Is this really how you perceive the world around you? Statistically men are the ones dying everywhere. Work fatalities, warfare, overdoses, suicide, violence etc. Experiments show the same. Participants are much more willing to sacrifice men than they are women: However, while both female and male subjects were less likely to shock females than they were males, women in particul…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/22 10:33 AM
1

Please just state what you disagree with without pivoting or bringing up anecdotes. Let’s say they do send a bunch of men to war, and they lose. What do you think is going to happen to the women? They either reproduce with the men left over or if they're at the mercy of the occupying power they may be threatened with execution if they don't submit as per usual. Historically speaking at least.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/22 09:56 AM
1

I never claimed females were bulletproof. I said by virtue of biology females are inherently more valuable as I illustrated. Eggs are more valuable than sperm. I read the rest and you brought up women can serve in the military. What's your point? It doesn't change anything. Female death is always going to be worse for proliferation than male death.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/22 09:39 AM
1

Biologically speaking working uterus’s have more value in terms of population growth. This was precisely what I said from the get go and I'm glad you agree. Stop arguing with yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/22 09:23 AM
1

You're right, it's not like I decided to limit you to two specific options to illustrate my point.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/22 09:07 AM
1

You don't believe that yourself if you actually think about it. Say you're a god and you're creating a group of humans and your goal is to increase the population rapidly as every organism desires. You only have two options to start from. 50 men + 5 women or 50 women + 5 men. It's pretty obvious which option is superior for proliferation. "Women and children first"
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/22 04:39 AM
4

Evolutionarily this post is just another way of saying male reproduction is unlimited while female reproduction is severely limited. If you have a tribe with 200 members with 100 of each sex and 75 males die then the tribe will still be able to repopulate back to normal levels fairly quickly. If 75 females die that essentially spells doom for the tribe as it will take forever to repopulate itself on top of competition among males becoming fierce.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/22 04:05 AM
1

When you're having multiple relationships in quick succession. Like if a guy is just pumping and dumping multiple women in short relationships. That's much closer to polygyny than monogamy even if they all thought they're in a monogamous relationship. Single household parenting is rising The percentage of children living with single parents increased substantially in the United States during the second half of the 20th century. According to a 2013 Child Trends study, only 9% of children lived wi…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/22 02:11 PM
1

Your post is stating people desire monogamy. Yet every statistic shows the opposite. Marriage is down, divorce is up. Sexual liberation is celebrated etc. Serial monogamy is in essence just a form of polygamy. And polygamy itself is becoming more normalized. Everything points to us desiring monogamy less and less.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/22 01:16 PM
1

How many times do I have to ask the same question? I don't understand how I'm not answering your question. You're asking me why did monogamy stop being enforced right? And my answer is that people fought for their independence and freedom so the cultural, legal and religious restraints were lifted. Maybe you think it's a flaw of western democracy and that government should've put their foot down. Why did the governments of the world, which supposedly created and enforced monogamy, let this happe…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/22 12:35 PM
1

And it still doesn't address the correlation/causation problem I'm pretty obvious polygyny and inequality reinforce each other. The correlation is very strong. If you have both polygyny and inequality simultaneously then that's a recipe for disaster. But inequality isn't a requirement. The west is less and less monogamous despite both sexes being financially independent and secure. You also have other sources like the 2019 study and the citations from the suicide bombings. It's also established …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/22 12:16 PM
1

You can just read the basic wiki page of it and click the citations behind each sentence to read the source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny#Findings This doesn't answer the question. Why is it no longer "enforced"? Because we decided we didn't want it to be enforced as it goes against our innate desires. Hence the cultural, legal and religious constraints were lifted. Putting aside the fact there's plenty of religions that DON'T do that All major religions do it be it Brahma, Allah, Abra…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/22 11:47 AM
1

It was created specifically for population control and stability of your kingdom: Research shows that polygyny is widely practiced where societies are destabilized, more violent, more likely to invade neighbors and more likely to fail. This has been attributed to the inequality factor of polygyny, where if the richest and most powerful 10 percent of males have four wives each, the bottom 30 percent of males cannot marry. In the top 20 countries in the 2017 Fragile States Index, polygyny is widel…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/22 11:35 AM
1

You just said in your previous comment we are naturally polygynous. Why do you think monogamy was created? chance? Is it just a coincidence that all major religions and cultures are hellbent on controlling our mating strategies with great emphasis on controlling women's sexuality?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/22 11:11 AM
1

You're right, humans are naturally polygynous like every other mammal and ape. The issue is kingdoms and nations are a completely new phenomenon that developed due to agriculture 11 000 years ago so evolution has not had any time to adapt to realize a well functioning society with massive populations. Hence enforced monogamy. Our brains and our desires and instincts are adjusted for living in small tribes of maybe 25-100 people as we were wandering around for millions of years as homo habilis an…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/22 11:04 AM
2

Don't think it will at least not anytime soon. The geopolitical landscape in the past was very violent with kings and tribes constantly fighting each other so polygamous societies collapsed and were overtaken by a monogamous ones. One concern I have though is more an economic one because I know In Japan for example an increasingly large number of people that are primarily men simply check out of society (hikikomori). If this group continues to increase you're going to have to make some hefty tax…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/22 10:32 AM
3

Monogamy was enforced purely to give more men a chance at anything. Kings and leaders didn't decide to arbitrarily do something nice for the poor peasants and soldiers. Polygamy simply isn't an effective form of governance in societies that are larger than small tribes because it leads to instability, crime, subversion and defection. Monogamy is much more effective for controlling large populations as it ensures loyalty and stability to your kingdom.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/22 10:00 AM
4

No we don't. Statistically we are becoming less and less monogamous each year. Western countries are rife with declining marriage and increased fornication, one night stands, short term mating, divorce, breakups, serial mating (which is in essence just a form of polygamy) and it's becoming more and more normalized.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/22 09:13 AM
6

Historically it's the opposite. Men favor monogamy as it benefits their reproduction as a whole and not just a minority of men at the top. Do you think it's just a random coincidence that religions and cultures all happen to be hellbent on controlling women's sexuality? The entire point of empowerment and freedom is so that we can practice our innate mating strategies (that are not monogamous at all) without lawful punishment or condemnation.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/22 09:05 AM
1

So what did you think mate value was?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/22 02:21 AM
–

Korean friend of mine who lives in Germany did this. Looks like those K-pop guys, 6'3 tall, extensive skin care routine, ripped body and all he does is date girls who are 14-16 because of his virgin fetish. Thankfully he's stopped doing this. I honestly feel bad for those girls. Age of consent should not be 14 in Germany..
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/22 08:31 PM
–

From my perception it's usually the opposite. HVM care about partner count because they have access to attractive women that are not promiscuous for long term mating. It's LVM that care less about it because they don't have access so naturally you take what you get.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/22 08:18 PM
1

Some of the findings regarding sex differences in mate preference and mate strategies are enormous though. David Buss did a lot of research on this an the evidence is overwhelmingly strong and consistent cross culturally. Things like short term mating and long term mating, one night stands, polygamy, infidelity etc. Massive differences between the sexes.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/22 05:37 PM
2

There's a lot of cultural conditioning that occurs that shapes what we want or think we should be or do I'd say that's being way too generous.. When women desire mates that are taller and stronger than them it isn't due to culture. It's because tribal life was dangerous and violent. When men desire mates that have a low waist-to-hip ratio it isn't due to culture. It's because it's a sign of fertility and an absence of pregnancy and endocrinological disorders. When women desire mates that are of …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/22 08:15 PM
1

Yeah some things are multifactorial and it's definitely too simplistic dismiss culture entirely and only focus on evolution. But You know Occam's razor. The simpler explanation often ends up being the most correct.. People here argue constantly over things like body count, height discrimination, women having high standards, men putting too much emphasis on looks etc. Projecting their own psychology onto the opposite gender and becoming baffled as they don't behave how they expect. If people here…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/22 07:48 PM
1

It really is, from an evolutionary perspective everything makes perfect sense so there's no reason to have animosity or bitterness towards either gender. I feel like if everyone just read a couple books like The Ape That Understood The Universe, A Moral Animal, The Blank Slate or listened to any of the podcasts with David Buss, Joe Henrich or Geoffrey Miller then this sub wouldn't have any reason to exist. You generally just see the same complains and opinions where both genders project their ow…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/22 05:21 PM
3

Men overwhelmingly prefer a slim hourglass shape. Look at idealized statues of women across cultures and there's a common trend. Those rail thin models are not something most men find attractive. Women ironically actually have a strong tendency to select bodies a lot thinner when asked what body do you desire and what body do you think men desire. So there's a mismatch there between men and women. And regarding youth it really is as simple as fertility since men are fertile throughout their whol…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/22 04:54 PM
4

Not self evident to a lot of people apparently. These preferences are enforced through the patriarchy according to them.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/22 12:04 PM
3

Well, It has to do with evolutionary psychology as having a preference for fertile women is obviously going to be beneficial to your reproduction.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/22 11:59 AM
1

Clearly a lot of preferences and behaviors stay consistent across cultures. You're not going to find many people that dislike the flavor of salty, fatty and calorie dense foods even if they live on opposites sides of the planet.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/22 09:40 AM
3

Amazing how we're going down this predetermined dialogue tree just as I predicted. All that's missing is the music from oblivion. I fucking love you.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/22 09:31 AM
4

I agree with you when it comes to more extreme behaviors like domestic violence or homicide. You're getting into dicey territory with these as it's impossible to test for obvious reasons.. but pretty much all the well-supported stuff I've read is kinda common sense and/or easily observable You'll be surprised to hear how many people deny or don't want to accept behaviors that are obvious only until after they've been proven. I remember David Buss brought up an example regarding this when he was …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/22 08:56 AM
1

You're right. It's just one massive big coincidence that we see the same behavior and preferences parallel that of humans cross-species and this has absolutory nothing to do with evolution. You know there's actually a book written specifically for you called The Blank Slate. But it's unfortunately written by a white man though so I guess that makes it non-viable.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/22 07:52 AM
4

It's a common slight people feel when there are evolutionary and genetic explanations for our behavior. "Omg you're telling women to go back into the kitchen?! how dare you!" It's just them projecting their own insecurity onto others. Because most normal people are not trying to use evolution to excuse for example homicide. I think we're all happy to have such behavior subdued even if it's played a central part of our ancestral history.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/22 07:42 AM
1

Good job omitting everything inconvenient to your belief.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/22 07:35 AM
19

This is a weak attempt of slandering evolutionary psychology or biology for that matter. I understand it's uncomfortable to accept that males and females have evolved specific psychological and behavioral adaptations to tackle the different reproductive challenges men and women faced in our ancestral history. Sure it's not the easiest field to test your hypothesizes but you can still do this by doing experiments, analyzing statistics, conducting surveys and doing all this cross-culturally and cr…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/22 07:17 AM
2

I don't think we naturally gravitate for monogamous mating. The male instinct for sexual variety is immense. Something like 50% of married men cheat on their wives and around 30% of men on dating apps are in a committed relationship. I agree with you in smaller tribes though that it's only the high status men who get to have 3-4 wives. Agricultural societies this becomes an issue though because a man can support harems of possibly hundreds of women.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/22 11:36 PM
1

I am aware of this review and this topic has been debated In Norway and the factors cited cannot explain fully explain the disparity. Grasdal is not convinced that the new study disproves this completely. "I think men who have children with several women are still part of the picture, but Kravdal brings in another part of the picture that we may not have been so concerned about", says the UiB researcher to forskning.no. Astrid Louise Grasdal points out at the same time that the new study is limi…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/22 08:12 PM
1

I think that monogamy tends to be self-reinforcing and that women generally don't prefer to share a husband. I agree with you to an extent but not entirely. If the difference between a LVM and HVM becomes stark enough then it might be desirable for some women to share a HVM than have a LVM for themselves. Polygamy is becoming more normalized, sometimes even encouraged in the west. Who does this benefit? Overwhelmingly men because polygyny is the most common form of it which makes sense from an e…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/22 06:54 PM
1

Very normal for tribes to practice polygamy to some degree. The evolutionary biologist said anthropological evidence shows around 85% of tribes allowed high status men to have multiple wives. From another comment: Polygyny was widely practiced throughout the region, although the permission of the first wife was required. Divorce existed and could be initiated by either party. Cheating was frowned on and punishable among the Creeks (neighbors of the Cherokee), while the Cherokee allowed both wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/22 05:12 PM
1

I mean you might as well say 100% if you want to talk in the literal sense. But things are obviously a bit more complicated than that. It's not easy to fight back against a superior force when you're living in tribes. Take native Americans for example who backstabbed each other and made alliances with the Europeans.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/22 04:26 PM
1

huh? you realize polygamy refers generally to multiple wives right? why do the multiple partners have to be short term? If you want to mate and have multiple wives you need to be married but even then only a minority of Muslim men practice polygamy. Think less than 1% in KSA for example. So it's culturally very enforced monogamy. No casual dating, hook ups etc. the voluntariness is irrelevant to the claim about sexual inequality. I suppose so. Evolutionarily speaking men have a much stronger des…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/22 04:15 PM
1

What did you want to know about KSA? Stability? only a small % of Muslims in KSA practice polygamy and generally only have a couple extra wives so not enough to impact male participation in society. And regarding Rome I'd disagree with OP. It didn't fall due to polygamy. It fell due to a number of reasons with polygamy probably being a lesser important factor unless you want to argue that assimilating slaves into society and letting them have families would make them fight for you which I doubt.…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/22 03:34 PM
1

Marriage is the strictest form of monogamy. It's very difficult to be polyamorous or have short term mating with multiple partners if fornication is illegal as you'll be killed or jailed for it. And yeah it's not the best survey data since it just shows absence of sex in the last year and nothing about how voluntary it is. Men under 35 is still on average higher though but kind of irrelevant. the gap doesn't mean that women are more sexually active on average either, it could just be that there …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/22 01:56 PM
1

Just look around you. What societies are monogamous and what are polygamous. How come the polygamous societies weren't effective in waging war and defending themselves. A 2019 study of 800 rural African ethnic groups published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution found that "young men who belong to polygynous groups feel that they are treated more unequally and are readier to use violence in comparison to those belonging to monogamous groups Not great to have your own men people turn against yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/22 01:33 PM
0

A man may have multiple wives according to the Quran but it's not really the cultural norm or general expectation. Monogamy is still strongly enforced though. Dating is permitted only for the purpose of marriage. Fornication is illegal. Adultery gets you killed. Divorce is difficult for women and they are generally shamed for it if they do get it through. These are all measures to enforce strict monogamy. well data from the GSS shows both genders having less sex, with women overtaking men accord…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/22 11:40 AM
0

A small minority of high status muslim men practice it (1-3%) and they usually just have a couple wives. Not harems ranging from dozens, hundreds even thousands of women like you saw in the past. the data shows sexlessness is rising somewhat for both genders and also across the board Not really. The most concrete example I have of mate selection is from Norway where 1/4 men under the age of 45 is childless compared to 1/8 of women. (13% of women vs 25% of men) And the latest data was from 2015 I…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/22 09:38 AM
1

Because in your original comment you seemed really dismissive about polygamous societies being unstable and that they collapsed or transitioned to monogamy due to other factors unrelated to war and instability. Which I obviously disagree with. I'd say the evidence is quite clear by which societies collapsed or are unstable and why monogamy ended up becoming the norm and was culturally and religiously enforced throughout the world. I think it's naive to say "Oh well that's probably just due to sh…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/22 09:31 AM
2

Yeah that about the 17:1 difference makes sense because such a massive disparity doesn't sound sustainable or stable. Considering that during tribal wars men were killed off and the women taken captive you'd naturally expect to see less variation in the Y chromosome. Monogamous societies are obviously not immune to instability or conflict but the Syrian civil war erupted due to protests about corruption and torture that blew up into full scale war and sectarian violence.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/22 09:22 AM
1

Arabic countries with widespread polygamy are not the most stable ones (Afghanistan ISIS-K VS Taliban) nor is the region as a whole. Obviously not only due to polygamy but you get my point. Thankfully in most Arab nations a minority of men practice it so it's only a small % of high status men at top that have multiple wives. You can’t truly believe the major cause of the fall of Rome was polygamy? Obviously not. It's multifactorial In Rome's case. But not having soldiers willing to fight for you…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/22 09:09 AM
2

So it's just a massive coincidence that monogamy became the dominating form of governance worldwide and all religions and cultures that enforce it just do so by sheer chance? Come on. Even you can see that's grasping at straws.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/22 08:46 AM
0

Yeah I was confused because I thought maybe you meant monogamy evolved biologically so I was thinking "This guy can't be serious?" But yeah it very much has to be socially enforced. You can obviously see what's happening in the West currently as the social constraints have been lifted.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/22 08:42 AM
1

Other research shows that polygyny is widely practiced where societies are destabilized, more violent, more likely to invade neighbors and more likely to fail. This has been attributed to the inequality factor of polygyny, where if the richest and most powerful 10 percent of males have four wives each, the bottom 30 percent of males cannot marry. In the top 20 countries in the 2017 Fragile States Index, polygyny is widely practiced. You really don't need to do more than look at the societies and…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/22 08:38 AM
1

It could be that monogamy arose more organically, in an evolved manner Monogamy is culturally and socially enforced. The opposite of evolved. We don't think there currently exists a single truly monogamous mammal. Primates and apes like us are very polygynous. We are evolved and adjusted for living in small tribes because that's how we wandered around for millions of years. Agricultural communities only appeared around 10 000 - 20 000 years ago so evolution has had no time to "adjust" if you wan…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/22 08:20 AM
3

On phone atm, just look up keywords "infant toy preference" and "primates toy preference" https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-29418230 I like this video the most though because you actually get to see the experiment being conducted and their results were even stronger than the 2008 study.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/22 04:39 PM
1

Language is what enabled us to pass knowledge and create the civilization and culture that is around us which is why other apes still live in basic tribes. but it's uncontroversial scientifically that primates have complex social systems I never said apes didn't socialize or have hierarchies. I said their gender roles aren't enforced through socialization. They don't even have the faintest concept of what gender roles are nor what culture is. infants 9 months old show preference for toys specifi…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/22 12:26 PM
2

How would chimpanzees and gorillas socialize gender roles when they have no spoken language and no concept of what gender roles and culture even is? Lots of things are true of humans that aren't true of any other animals, we're a bit special you see We are not. We are animals just like other apes and our species of primate lived in small tribes for millions of years (homo erectus/sapiens). Our brain is not adjusted for the civilization you see around you and there is a plethora of examples of th…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/22 12:03 PM
3

Apparently figuring out which fruits and berries give you the shitter is a task exclusive for women that is not passed down.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/22 11:39 AM
1

They require the bare minimum of social skills. It's like telling someone to set up an ambush or lift a carcass together. You don't run a kudu to exhaustion with persistence hunting by being sociable. You do so by sheer will and stamina. You don't ambush an animal by being sociable. You do so by being patient and ingenious.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/22 11:23 AM
3

What are you talking about? You really think male chimpanzees communicates with their female counterpart telling them they're supposed to take up all parental responsibility and care for their children for many years? It just happens to magically be true for virtually all primates and mammals and you don't think this has anything to do with our innate behavior?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/22 11:01 AM
3

You can find exceptions but that doesn't change that females bear the overwhelming brunt of parental investment in virtually all mammals. I looked up your example: but not the most attentive fathers… After mating with a female belonging to a different matriline, they return to their own families, leaving all parental care to the mother.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/22 10:56 AM
2

It's nothing they're "taught" Primates and mammals exhibit identical behavior and nobody is teaching them anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/22 10:47 AM
1

Evolution. Females who were sociable, agreeable and good caretakers had better reproductive success than females who didn't. Males weren't subject to the same selective pressure in regards to sociability as their survival and reproduction depended more on things like hunting, craftsmanship and fighting.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/22 10:43 AM
0

Because it's innate behavior. It's like trying to tell someone to stop liking donuts and pizza when it's an evolved taste preference they have zero control over. Men behave the way they do because women chose to mate and raise the children of men with these traits. If women collectively put their foot down and said "You know what? If any of you beat us, rape us, cheat on us and otherwise mistreat us in any sort of way then we will not have your children nor will we raise them and give them suste…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/22 02:12 AM
5

Having no dignity and no discernment on dating apps also doesn't seem to be beneficial to male reproduction either Yeah I wonder what happened to all these men? Oh right they didn't successfully reproduce so the genetic traits that made them selective died out with them. Shocker, I know.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/22 02:34 AM
6

Men and women have fundamentally different mating strategies due to obvious biological and psychological differences. Putting the blame on them by saying: "If men were more selective we'd be less selective therefore men are the problem" Is a complete misunderstanding of the sexes. In 99% of mammals the males are indiscriminate because they HAVE to be indiscriminate. It's not a conscious choice they've made. If being selective was beneficial to male reproduction they would be. But they aren't bec…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/22 01:08 AM
1

Let me guess. You're gonna tell me sentience, love, rationality, compassion, forgiveness and culture is evidence that humans are separate from animals so we are not subject to our evolutionary instincts and adaptations anymore. While in the same breath having an evolved taste preference for salty, fatty calorie dense foods that you have zero control over.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/22 08:52 AM
3

You know what's funny. You are just as delusional as the hardcore feminists you blame and condemn for all your problems. Enjoy your perception.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/22 06:56 AM
1

Maybe if you had that confidence with women they'd find you attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/22 06:49 AM
4

So you're telling me hand on heart. That if you were a HVM with dashing good looks, status, resources etc. You wouldn't be polygamous and mate with multiple women, break up and divorce frequently and so on? Hard doubt. It's easy to take the moral high ground when you aren't one of these HVM.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/22 05:46 AM
-1

Life and evolution isn't fair, never has been, never will be. Change your perception accordingly in order to tackle this reality. But it's better to be a man today compared to the polygamous societies some thousands of years ago where the ratio of female to male reproduction was 17:1 and other crazy numbers like that.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/22 05:44 AM
1

Only through strict cultural and social enforcement.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/22 05:41 AM
4

Not just women. Men also have to be controlled as they're the ones having these massive harems with dozens, hundreds, sometimes even thousands of women. Not a single mammal species has, thus far, been definitively shown to be truly monogamous Our closest ancestors like chimps, gorillas , bonobos etc. are very polygynous. Yet humans are supposed to be the magical exception.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/22 05:37 AM
6

You are completely right that freedom of choice is central to female sexuality and from an evolutionary perspective it's completely irrational to mate with LVM out of sympathy. But there is an argument for why this might not be ideal for society. Note I am by no means a supporter of this argument nor am I a believer in arranged marriage. Just offering a different perspective. When the reins are off and freedom is in full force the females flock to the most desired males as it's ingrained in thei…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/22 05:11 AM
7

The TL;DR is that it's just a bunch of bible-thumping nonsense. Naive idealism of humans that we are not like animals and that when we became Homo Sapiens we somehow abandoned all our evolutionary instincts and adaptations.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/22 03:15 AM
2

But we just established they do want it, or else they wouldn't do it. That's like saying you don't like the idea of bosses having employees who don't enjoy work. Therefore it's bad. Edit: As expected no reply. I guess self-victimization stops when logical consistency begins.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/22 02:36 AM
0

So if a woman has sex with a man for his status and resources what's the issue?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/22 02:21 AM
1

What kind of logic is that? Anytime anyone does anything they don't enjoy the process of it's somehow against their will even if they desire the consequences of said behavior? I don't enjoy the process of cleaning my house but I definitely enjoy the consequences of it. Does that mean I clean my house against my will? I don't enjoy working but I definitely enjoy they financial consequences of it. Is that against my will?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/22 02:18 AM
6

Are you debating in good faith? Millions of women sell and objectify themselves without any motivation of survival. Sex workers, adult actresses, ASMR streamers, boobie streamers, OF creators, Skimpy IG models etc. You can't demonize men for practicing their innate behavior while simultaneously reaping the financial benefits.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/22 02:07 AM
-3

Yet I end up arguing with red pilled people, amazing.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/22 09:05 AM
0

Good job managing to spell correctly the second time.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/22 08:05 AM
2

The post specifically talks about women being willing to cheat on their boyfriends with him and then claiming people deem it morally neutral or something when they absolutely don't. In fact evidence suggests the exact opposite that women are much more condemned for it than men. And instead you want to pivot to like some small group of hardcore progressives in California that see female adultery as acceptable because they misunderstand evolution.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/22 08:02 AM
6

Yeah right "cuddled". Tell that to women being battered, stoned and executed for adultery while Islam allows men to have 4 wives. Not even something unique to Islam as there is overall more leniency towards male sexuality than female sexuality due to cultural and evolutionary reasons.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/22 07:50 AM
0

I've been here for like 5 days and all I see are the same posts of people complaining and whining with no willingness to understand. And for your enjoyment I'm not gonna participate much anymore as there's no reason to help anyone when they'd rather continue wallow in self pity.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/22 07:40 AM
7

people generally expect better morals from women than men, to the point that they are less monitored In regards to infidelity this isn't even true. Historically, religiously and culturally, adultery is the easiest way for a woman to be executed whereas there is much more leniency towards men committing it. And regarding morality as a whole it doesn't surprise me when men are the overwhelming perpetrators of crime and violence. In the West certain groups of people might be more sympathetic to wom…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/22 07:33 AM
-1

You're exaggerating. Maybe some hardcore feminists might but most normal people and people on this sub especially have no issue acknowledging behavior deemed immoral of either sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/22 07:07 AM
-6

Damn really? that's insane. Any more groundbreaking information you can enlighten me with?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/22 06:50 AM
-4

Woman bad *insert anecdote*, yawn. Feels like once you've been on this sub for a couple days you just see the same 3 variants of posts and people arguing in circles. What is your point? Everyone acknowledges that infidelity happens. I almost never see anyone try to argue men and women are angels.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/22 05:37 AM
1

Competition among the sexes is innate so there's always going to be a shaming and bullying. But I wouldn't say virgin shaming is comparable. It is true that LVM tend to be virgins so bullying them removes them from the market but there are a few HVM who aren't promiscuous (exceptionally rare) and a good portion of women actually find these men more desirable for long term mating as a low partner count is an indicator of stability and greater parental investment. When men care about partner count…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/22 08:49 PM
1

This is an erroneous way of thinking. Whatever is above average is desirable. If X is average and Y is above average then Y is desired as it's ingrained in our evolutionary psychology. It literally does not matter what facet of life it is. If fewer men have it, more women want them. You could make the exact same example with income. The higher income a man has the more desired he is and the smaller the pool of men become.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/22 08:03 AM
1

Doesn't really matter as male death is inconsequential to population growth. although it might be destabilizing to the economy in the short term. Whatever women that have genetic behaviors for childbearing will be the ones furthering proliferating those traits while the women who don't cease.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/22 05:24 AM
1

Of course nobody should be pressured into anything. Norway is great in this regard as there is little to no cultural pressure trying to dictate anyone how to live.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/22 05:17 AM
1

I don't get your point. People with low proficiency and status have worse outcomes than those with high proficiency and status? that's not surprising.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/22 04:36 AM
0

I could've chosen statistics like women only swipe right on 5% of men on dating apps or that they deem 80% of men as unattractive based off looks alone (okcupid) but this isn't the best reflection of gender dynamics in reality so I chose a real world example.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/22 01:07 AM
1

To illustrate that women don't see average men as their desired mate. Or "Primary" option call it what you will.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/22 01:02 AM
1

You know that two things can be true at the same time? Just because average men are less desirable mates doesn't make it impossible for them to have children. She said "Women do find average men attractive" Not "Women do have children with average men" These two not the same.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/22 12:54 AM
1

I never claimed the average man wasn't having children in the modern day. But in the totality of our existence the average man was actually not having children: Mitochondrial DNA analysis shows humans today have twice the female ancestors as male ancestors. It's estimated that historically only around 40% of men have reproduced while 80% of women have.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/22 12:44 AM
4

I wouldn't say the difference is small. If 24% of men under the age of 45 are childless that is 1 in 4 men which to me is honestly a shocking number compared to 1 in 8 for women. And like I said these statistics are from 1970 so in prospective data the difference is bound to be even more significant. But thank you for taking the time to reply. Feel free if you have any more thoughts as I appreciate your input.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/22 12:21 AM
4

We don't know the reasons for that Well it's quite obvious that LVM are for whatever reason not being selected as desirable mates. What is a LVM in your eyes ? A man who doesn't have the traits women find desirable in mating. Statistics from Denmark: half of all unskilled men in Denmark now live alone against their will. 3 out of 4 want a family. So education and occupation is definitely a big one.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/22 12:10 AM
9

I think women do find average men attractive I hear this a lot and I don't deny this could very well be your anecdotal perception of mate selection but when you actually look at statistics regarding dating, divorce, marriage etc. you find that it's simply not reflected in those statistics. I feel like a broken record as I reference this a lot but it's the most concrete example of mate selection available, from population register study in Norway: The proportion of women without children remained…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/22 12:00 AM
3

This isn't "social sciences" these are statistics from our nation's population register. How do you explain that in Norway there are more than double as many unwillingly childless men as there are women if they supposedly don't desire to mate with high value men? The researchers themselves concluded women would rather recycle HVM between each other than have a LVM for themselves so HVM tend to divorce and have multiple children from multiple wives. 13 per cent of Norwegian women who have reached…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/22 11:42 PM
4

I mean you're perfectly free to have that perception but it's not a reflection of reality when we have studies, raw data and statistics about dating, marriage, divorce etc. that say the exact opposite.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/22 11:28 PM
27

I agree. It's easy to take the moral high ground and criticize other people when a problem isn't yours. If men were women they would do the exact same as it's in their evolutionary biology to desire the best mate. I'd make a distinction of proportion though because the pool of men that women find desirable in mate value is very small yet the average woman still has short term mating access with these men which in comparison is something the average guy can only dream of.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/22 11:17 PM
5

I got an interesting reply when I asked someone about this before I started researching evolution and mate selection: I think the crux of the issue is that as the average male and female achieve parity in terms of income, status, and educational attainment, and given that most people have their basic needs met and most of the traditional male responsibilities have been socialized and outsourced, an average guy no longer brings enough to the table to compensate for an average woman’s reproductive…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/22 10:27 PM
0

Stats in my reply to fancy-respect.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/22 10:01 PM
5

https://imgur.com/a/MB4zsXo Childless men and women at age 40 by year of birth in Norway (%) And this graph stops in 1970. 13 per cent of Norwegian women who have reached the age of 45 do not have children. This is also the case for one in four men of the same age https://www.hf.uio.no/imk/english/research/news-and-events/news/2020/involuntary-childlessness-there-is-no-recipe-for-h.html And you can find the exact same statistics in other developed liberal democracies but these statistics are esp…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/22 10:00 PM
20

Depends on who you are. For a minority of men at the top? Absolutely. For your average man? Absolutely not. There's a reason the amount of unwillingly childless men is higher than it's even been in past 50 years and it's only increasing while the amount of unwillingly childless women has remained more or less steady.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/22 09:49 PM
4

It's hypothetical purely for the illustration of paternity certainty to be easy to understand. Thank you for this discussion, excuse me while I go blow my brains out.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/22 07:48 AM
3

I'm trying my absolute hardest here to help you understand. Remember you think it's really weird society and culture focuses more on a woman body count than a man's right? I'll try one last time: Let's say you want children and you're ovulating and currently at your most fertile. You have 2 men to choose from to be the father. One is a virgin and the other has sex with 30 different women a month. Which of these two men will best ensure that you become the mother of your own children? And the ans…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/22 07:36 AM
5

We can't "turn-off" our evolution just because we're not consciously thinking about it. I already gave you the example regarding food preferences. No man sees an attractive woman on the street and thinks "This woman has a good waist–hip ratio signaling high fertility, youth and an absence of endocrinological disorders therefore she has high mate value" He just thinks "that's an attractive woman" So you understood my illustrations and you know what paternity certainty is now?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/22 07:20 AM
3

Yes and? Did you understand any of my illustrations at all?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/22 07:08 AM
6

I'm sorry but how is bodily/sexual autonomy relevant to paternity certainty?You found it weird there is more focus on a woman's body count than a man's body count and I pointed out it isn't because a woman has paternity certainty. I'll give you another illustration. woman A has sex with 10 different men per month and woman B is a virgin that has not had sex yet. If you try to see it from the perspective of a man which two of these women are more likely to father your own child if you decide to m…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/22 07:04 AM
7

How is this difficult to understand? I'll illustrate it for you with an extreme example to make it simple: If a woman has sex with 10 men in quick succession and she gets pregnant do the men know who the father is? No they don't. Does the woman know who the mother is? Yes she does. That's paternity certainty. you’re ignoring that most humans don’t have sex solely for procreative purposes anymore. We've never had sex "solely" for fertilization nor do many primates as it's an evolved part of mate …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/22 06:44 AM
10

it’s weird to me that the focus is always on women’s body counts and never men’s Because female has paternity certainty and male doesn't. So from an evolutionary perspective it's completely rational.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/22 06:26 AM
3

No clue but he has an impressive talent for finding the dumbest women alive. Not saying that as a sexist spite as there are plenty of intelligent women on podcasts but this one specifically the girls he brings on make it seem like we don't even live on the same planet. I opened it again and listened for like a couple minutes and heard a girl say "men care more about height than women do" just holy fucking shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/22 04:37 AM
4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2q2zrpIDgA He's live right now. Beware you might overdose on cringe by opening this link.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/22 03:28 AM
46

I actually remember listening to a podcast where a woman claimed dating was harder for them because they generally have high standards and have to filter out undesirable men. I don't think it's comparable though. It's better to have options than none at all and If you desire the best possible mate then competition is naturally going to be more fierce.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/22 02:05 AM
5

Men generally cheat because the opportunity simply presented itself as the evolutionary instinct for variety is very strong. This is why when men cheat they often have multiple affairs. Women generally cheat because they want to divest themselves from a bad relationship either to go back into the dating market or switch to a more desirable mate. This is why women overwhelmingly report more love and attraction towards their affair partner than men do and why they tend to only have one affair part…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/22 12:36 AM
1

So how you do explain that primates show the same gendered preference for toys as Homo sapiens if behavior is not affected by evolution?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/22 08:23 PM
1

Let me guess. You're gonna tell me something like all men not lining up to donate sperm proves evolution doesn't affect our behavior? Please enlighten me to how magical Homo sapiens is.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/22 05:42 PM
4

What kind of imaginary world have you created in your mind? You want to know what happens when a woman is honest about her promiscuity? The guy leaves or he's okay with it in 99.9% of cases. And women are aware that men don't find promiscuity attractive in long term mating which is precisely why they feel shame and are inclined to lie about it. It has absolutely nothing to do with some imaginary physical abuse you've created in your mind where 100% of girls who feel shame over their partner coun…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/22 12:12 AM
6

I never said such behavior was rational. Why are you arguing with yourself? I said women have a tendency to lie and feel shame about their partner count because they are subconsciously aware men are sensitive to getting cucked. Which is precisely why women slut-shame each other.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/22 11:57 PM
-2

Not wanting to get cucked is irrational? Rules for thee but not for me.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/22 11:44 PM
3

You mean she pissed in her own mouth right? lmao I mean you can always find anecdotes and outliers for everything but the overwhelming survey data shows men have much greater variety of atypical and paraphilic sexual fetishes than women who are on average more vanilla. As expected, significant sex differences were found, with men reporting significantly less repulsion (or more arousal) to the majority of paraphilic acts than women
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/22 10:47 PM
7

Yeah this is an imagination of life as Disney land and not a reflection of reality. People of above average attractiveness have more children than those of below average attractiveness. Men with higher status have more children than those of lower status. Men of above average height have more children than those of below average height. What even is your point? "All these fat miserable losers could easily have lots of children if they wanted to" Then do it or not because it's currently not refle…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/22 10:18 PM
1

When women gossip about another woman that's because that woman is the one who's getting all the men I mean no shit? most women will never reach a level of promiscuity that's going to disqualify them from getting a decent man So why do women have a tendency to lie or feel shame about their partner count or rationalize not answering when men ask about it? Because from an evolutionary perspective you are more likely to get cucked by a promiscuous woman than one who isn't and women take advantage o…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/22 10:06 PM
2

Concealed ovulation is most likely a evolved adaptation that very few mammals have as men will be required to invest more in their partner instead of just pumping and dumping. It could also be to lessen paternity certainty as it would be more difficult to detect and commit infanticide against the offspring or rival males. Yeah this one is actually difficult to test and we have no idea. It might just be an evolutionary quirk that neither increased nor decreased chances of reproductive success or …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/22 09:57 PM
11

Slut-shaming is actually something women especially evolved in order to compete with each other which is why they do it to themselves much more than men do it to them. Women are subconsciously aware that men are extremely sensitive to getting cucked as there is no greater failure in life from an evolutionary perspective than investing time and resources into raising a child that isn't yours. Hence the slut-shaming you see as it's a signal to men "Stay away from this girl, she's a whore and not a…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/22 09:02 PM
1

What makes you think we don't? Why do we fight wars over arbitrary territory. Why are there wars that last hundreds of years over sectarian tensions that are almost never ending? Even chimpanzees do this just like us. Why are 99% of mass shooters and school shooters male? why are men specifically still more than capable of sadistic cruel arbitrary violence even in our advanced civilization? And the answer is simple because our brains are still attuned as if we're living in tribes. Environment is…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/22 08:39 PM
23

sexual selection will create a new type of men for the future that will not have to deal with the turmoils unattractive men go through. This is a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works. It doesn't suddenly "stop" once a certain bar of average attractiveness has been reached. It's perpetual. We will always desire to mate with the best possible partner as it's ingrained in our evolutionary biology to do so. Once your idea of "attractive" is average there is always going to be a desired "…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/22 07:54 PM
1

Ok, the result I think is the same. Most women around today are descendants of average men This is simply not true. Mitochondrial DNA analysis shows humans today have twice the female ancestors as male ancestors. It's estimated that historically only around 40% of men have reproduced while 80% of women have. Another study on DNA analysis estimated that 8000 years ago 17 women reproduced per 1 man. If women did have children with average men, the difference would not be this stark. But it is as i…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/22 05:02 AM
0

Not everyone in the black pill is miserable. I actually had a Korean friend living in Germany who was deeply into looksmaxxing and blackpill and he said it gave him more perspective into the evolution of the sexes and how to increase his own mate value. This guy was a very interesting individual and he came from a conservative Christian family and he had 4 brothers and they were all extremely tall. He is over 6'2 and the tallest of them. And he is an extremely HVM. Extremely attractive like thos…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/22 12:50 AM
1

I get what you mean. They're sort of putting the blame on men. Regardless it's still an involuntary admission of the high standards they've evolved to have so I get why they say those things.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 07:03 PM
0

Evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years if not millions to evolve significant changes. Our brains are still attuned as if we're cavemen living in tribes. A simple example of this is our affinity for fatty, salty and calorie dense foods which back in those days was an advantage but in our modern life is causing a plethora of health problems.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 06:59 PM
1

Makes sense. But I feel like some initial attraction has to be present.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 06:11 PM
1

But some less attractive men with confident personalities still do well In long term mating this is true to an extent. But a lot of research points to looks initially mattering a lot. Even to the point of it being the only thing that can predict if the participants want to continue talking in dating experiments. But these experiments don't fully reflect reality as you're constrained on time so looks is probably one of the easiest boxes to check so you at least have that moving forward. But every…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 04:44 PM
1

there are plenty of physically unattractive men with partners that men who are angry at women choose to ignore. These men obviously do have some attribute to make them attractive besides looks. You're completely right. But I think that at least in first world countries like Norway where everything necessary for survival and an average standard of living has been socialized a lot more emphasis is getting placed on looks at the moment.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 03:58 PM
1

I did go over it a little bit, but the post was primarily meant to give peace to incels. Mate guarding is a common strategy especially among men. then women would be engaging in dual mating AF/BB strategy where they deceive wealthier but less attractive men that their children are theirs It's possible and there is evidence it may happen to a degree due to concealed ovulation. But currently the prevailing theory is that "mate-switching" or "trading-up" is much more prevalent as a mating strategy …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 03:47 PM
1

Do you not understand that a big part of attraction literally is judging and ranking people by mate value? So, it's okay for them to behave this way but I'm at fault for pointing it out? lol
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 03:06 PM
1

Thank you.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 03:03 PM
1

What if some people attain happiness by judging individuals by mate value so they get into the relationships they want? Are you going to tell them "No you're not allowed to like tall handsome men, give this average guy a chance, stop ranking people" This is a childlike delusional state. But whatever makes you happy.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 03:01 PM
0

Ah I understand. You're simply one of those people who want to believe humans are special and life is meant to be a dance on roses. Enjoy your perception.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 02:53 PM
1

Why is it weird to give peace to angry men and incels who are misguided and bitter towards women for irrational reasons? I'm not advocating for anything. I'm simply stating it's irrational to be angry at someone for behaving the way they're meant to behave.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 02:50 PM
1

Sure
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 02:47 PM
1

I'm really curious if you could give me your opinion about my last 2 questions. I appreciate your input. Don't you agree that historically, culturally and religiously there's a lot more leniency towards men than women in regard to sexuality? Do you favor more conservative and traditionalist societies? Thanks.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 02:46 PM
1

I agree with you and the women who decide not to have children or to have children with low quality men don't continue their lineage as successfully making these traits die out which is completely fine and their choice. The post is primarily meant to give peace to the angry men and incels who constantly complain about women being picky and having high standards.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 02:41 PM
1

So why do you make a comment insinuating they are more faithful and moral when they aren't.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 02:35 PM
1

I agree. I just think it's irrational to be angry or bitter towards women because of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 02:27 PM
1

Animal behaviors don't translate directly to human because children are expensive and dependent for much longer These two are not contradictory in fact they complement each other. If the female bears massive risk of investment in regard to mating. you better make sure you mate with a healthy man of high genetic quality that can ensure your children's continued survival. To expand further: Mitochondrial DNA analysis shows humans today have twice the female ancestors as male ancestors. It's estima…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 02:26 PM
1

You are clueless to how prevalent infidelity by men in the middle east is. I never claimed they must have 4 wives. It was just to illustrate Islam is extremely lenient towards men and extremely controlling towards women.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 01:49 PM
1

Without contraception and modern medical science to treat STDs, very few people will engage in casual sex as it would a very risky endeavor It doesn't disincentivize 99% of male mammals and primates as the reproductive benefit of fathering many children greatly outweighs any possible risk. And maybe you don't know this, but humans are not naturally monogamous. It's actually exceptionally rare constituting less than 1-3% of all mammals and it might be even lower as mammals we previously thought w…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 12:54 PM
1

Contraception is a new phenomenon which did not exist for virtually all human history, so evolution has by no means had any time to "adapt" if you want to think of it this way. But that doesn't change our underlying behavior. Imagine for a second contraception didn't exist how many single mothers there would be, and children born out of wedlock. So, the behavior is still there. And even with contraception you still see the same behavior play out. For example, my own country Norway there's more t…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 11:43 AM
2

I see, thanks for your insight.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 01:04 AM
2

So, your point basically is polygamy could be detrimental to society therefore we should reinstate arranged marriage or at least make our culture more conservative and traditionalist? Interesting explanation. Do you have any more thoughts about it? like moving forward how society will develop etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 12:46 AM
3

I don't deny there are exceptions, but the majority of depictions when our bodies are idealized show men as fit and women with an hourglass figure. Look at statues of men and women across cultures. You're not going to find many fat men or women. Women did not seek out the best genetic mates This is cope beyond belief and I find it hard to believe that you even think this yourself despite the overwhelming evidence. Why does a male peacock have massive useless feathers that are impractical, requir…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/22 11:34 PM
1

Ok, the result I think is the same. Most women around today are descendants of average men This is simply not true. Mitochondrial DNA analysis shows humans today have twice the female ancestors as male ancestors. It's estimated that historically only around 40% of men have reproduced while 80% of women have. Another study on DNA analysis estimated that 8000 years ago 17 women reproduced per 1 man. If women did have children with average men, the difference would not be this stark. But it isn't a…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/22 11:23 PM
1

I don't bother engaging in religious and spiritual nonsense.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/22 11:17 PM
-1

I didn't reply seriously precisely because there was nothing of substance for me to reply to.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/22 11:07 PM
3

Look at nude or sexualized statues and paintings of men and women and you'll find a common trend. Sure, there are exceptions like you said, but the overwhelming majority of depictions show men as fit and women as slim with an hourglass shape across cultures. And regarding evolution. If a male with behavior A (impulsivity, aggression,) whatever you want it to be is more successful at reproducing than male with behavior B then A will become more prevalent. Even newborn babies show a preference for…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/22 11:05 PM
4

I honestly thought my post was pretty okay but seems like people here really want to believe that humans and special, unique and that there are more grand and spiritual aspects to us. I guess I should've expected the controversy.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/22 10:48 PM
1

copium is an incel word? I must not be up to date. I didn't know what to reply so I just wrote something funny.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/22 10:41 PM
0

What am I supposed to even reply? I had to laugh while reading it because it was like I was reading a religious comment about spirituality, God, heaven and hell. You didn't write anything for me to reply to. Your comment basically boils down to: "Oh well maybe evolution matters a bit but us humans are so spiritual and great and compassionate and loving we're not like animals at all even though we share 99.6% of our DNA with chimps" A bunch of empty platitudes.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/22 10:37 PM
2

Most women are the descendants of average men (and women). Attractiveness is only one component to reproductive success I don't know why you bring this up. I didn't write attractiveness in my post. I wrote "Very high standards" Which is not unique to looks and applies to anything from personality, status, charisma, resource gathering, ingenuity etc. But modern-day life has exacerbated the emphasis on looks as food, resources, protection, shelter etc. have all been socialized. I don't believe wom…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/22 10:31 PM
3

half-heartedly. Even Islam allows men to have 4 wives.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/22 10:18 PM
7

Is it realistic to expect men to defy millions of years of evolution? "Fucking down" Isn't a new phenomenon. In all species where the male bears lower investment costs to mating which is like 99% of all mammals the male is willing to fuck anything with 2 legs and a pulse. And even if we somehow were able to collectively decide to stop having sex with lower quality women all it would take is a certain % of men not complying to disrupt the entire system taking us right back to our innate behavior.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/22 10:04 PM
3

Fair point. But I wouldn't necessarily say I see them vehemently disagree that much. They often just rationalize it like "Well if men weren't such jerks and douchebags and if they took care of themselves and did X Y and Z better maybe we'd give them a chance" Which is just another way of saying the exact same I spoke of in my post in a subconscious manner.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/22 09:41 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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