TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Helmet_Icicle Archive

View 1 posts and 2,634 comments by Helmet_Icicle 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)
7

Helmet_Icicle/r/seduction14/07/11 11:15 PM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 2,634 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
6

Morbidly obese men have far fewer sexual partners than morbidly obese women Men with the highest N-count were average to overweight, although it's very probable muscular men are being represented more in the 25-29 or so BMI range Under-weight men did the worst of any weight group, even worse than morbidly obese men The data in question: https://journals.sagepub.com/cms/10.1177/1474704915604563/asset/images/large/10.1177_1474704915604563-fig2.jpeg Source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/23 11:36 AM
5

You have apparently somehow inadvertently stumbled upon the point, while also doing a complete 180 from your earlier posit. This may come as a vast surprise but if you want to hurt people properly, you can't do it when you're simultaneously butthurt and also refusing to admit you're upset. At that point it's obvious that no healthy person puts effort into insulting someone they don't care about, so you're just back to being shrill and jaded in rejection.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/23 01:11 PM
7

Sure, because no woman every tried to hurt a man in private. Facile claims of "I'm altruistically insulting a man, for the women" is probably peak solipsism, to desperately cling to such paper-thin plausible deniability even in the obsequious throes of unabashed bitterness. Assuming every other woman is as helpless and forlorn as you are is an indication of despondency, not goodwill, because you're trying to frame a technique used to shame women as a way to inevidently help them.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/23 12:32 PM
13

The reason for the insult is not to disparage virtue, it's to attempt to hurt a man's feelings by slut shaming. OP's point is that it's full-on female projection to try to hurt male feelings by drawing attention to a man being interested in sex and also able to get it. It's classic female-on-female sexual suppression tactics. Tangentially, like most pop culture vocabulary mindlessly regurgitated by slack-jawed troglodytes, it's nowhere close to the original context, when "fuckboy" used to refer …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/23 11:50 AM
12

The massive blindspot here (aside from all the others) is that """good""" men (defined as allowing commitment) want sex just as much as """bad""" men (defined as lying). So the """good""" men who are desirable are going to instantly next you because they have a wealth of options, and the """bad""" men aren't foiled in any way because it costs nothing to literally pass time (while seeing other women). So, all these contrivances allow for is desperate guys who can't get sex any other way.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/23 10:55 AM
13

Waiting some arbitrary amount of time as a crutch only filters out people who want to have sex right then and not in the future. Of course, that's an absurd window and does absolutely nothing to filter out people who will simply wait for sex, then bounce. So it's definitely detrimental as a false sense of security, because the filtering that's taking place is unsubstantive and trivial. Tangentially, it's going to be the opposite of effective for high value guys who have a veritable cornucopia of…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/23 10:49 AM
1

Feel free to address the points in their entirety, instead of assuming attempts at ad hominem attacks are less embarrassing than admitting you don't know what you're talking about
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/23 09:45 AM
3

The key insight here is that the "online dating community" is simply just the "dating community" because none of it's mutually exclusive. The people that use dating apps also exist in """real life""" despite the fallacious expectations that a lot of folks bring.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/23 09:20 AM
1

What's more likely: You're bad at dating (and taking responsibility for it) Companies developing dating apps are so forlornly mismanaged that they care to astroturf dead-end D-grade terminally pessimistic public forums bursting with rude incompetents by...sharing simple and verifiable facts? I don't think any of these stats take into consideration the fact that IRL dating for women is MUCH easier. This is incorrect for multiple reasons, which you would know if you read the sources. Here, have a …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/23 09:18 AM
15

It's just negative wishful thinking to avoid accepting responsibility for poor results. Here's some data: Single status: 32% of men, 28% of women but note the age disparity Singles actively dating (vs not trying to date): 50% of men, 35% of women Sure, gender parity isn't equal but it's nothing close to the doomsaying the above comment was trying to imply (which is absurdly apocryphal in the first place). It doesn't even matter if the proportions were even worse, because finding compatibility is…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/23 04:27 PM
3

-The Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Women's Sexual Shame Scale. This is 16 pages of a dissertation, not a study, and has nothing to do with the point. No one is arguing societal shaming doesn't have a part in sociosexual orientation. Everything else is completely unsubstantive and belongs in a private diary, not a public forum. You're clearly participating in a conversation composed of barely one person.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/23 02:36 PM
1

It's very clear they took an analogy far past the point of its usefulness, and took to using a public forum as a private diary. Anecdotal evidence isn't. Your perception of a "high" and "low" libido is subjective, mercurial, and necessarily arbitrary. There isn't an ounce of scientific fact in your whole comment.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/23 02:30 PM
3

It's not clear what your point is or if you have any questions, but aside from your fallacious assumptions about gender parity, the reply here is the same reply from the linked thread: How are you concluding that you wouldn't have been more sexually investigatory if you were experiencing stronger sexual impulses? Do you think every biological urge ever experienced by all humans is only ever acted on because it has communal social acceptance? Your posits aren't founded on any credence of legitima…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/23 12:05 PM
1

You're certainly a fantastic object lesson in a great case for better sex ed. How to masturbate isn't a question of biology And yet, you're trying to assert that ignorance of biology is supposedly confounding very clear data about biology? questions of sexual pleasure should be left out of the classroom. So in your view, studio-funded internet porn and backwoods apocrypha is the only recourse for adolescents who want to learn more about sexual pleasure (which is unarguably a greatly relevant asp…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/23 11:56 AM
2

Feel free to address the main points in their entirety at your convenience. Hopefully there aren't any teachers telling children how to masturbate. Wait, so you're in support of social stigma demonizing masturbation? That's definitely the result of very poor sex ed. Or you think the perils of leaving biology up to self-research (which you're trying to assert should somehow confound very clear data) is somehow worse than a few moments of discomfort for puritanical incompetents?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/23 11:30 AM
5

whether they see masturbation as an option in the first place Which is a decision that is primarily and often solely fueled by the power of sexual impulse. Here's the analogy from the last time this completely solved topic was wrenched up: If your description of starving is "ready to eat any food out of a dumpster", then no, women don't get as hungry. But the actual description is "desiring food" which women absolutely do, just not as often with dumpster diving. Because it's trash. You may have …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/23 11:02 AM
10

If someone isn't experiencing an impulse that's more powerful than social stigma, then obviously their libido isn't very high
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/23 10:02 AM
3

How can we really know that? Peer-reviewed, evidence-based scientific literature. Libido between genders is not comparable whatsoever. Testosterone is a helluva drug. Gender differences in behaviour: activating effects of cross-sex hormones. The relative contribution of organizing and activating effects of sex hormones to the establishment of gender differences in behaviour is still unclear. In a group of 35 female-to-male transsexuals and a group of 15 male-to-female transsexuals a large batter…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/23 10:01 AM
–

I’ll never understand this take women keep giving regarding lazy men who don’t pull their weight. That falls on you for dating or marrying them. We aren’t all like this, but you also aren’t forced to deal with those who are. And it goes both ways. Plenty of lazy ass women out there too, but I wouldn’t paint all women as lazy based on them 🤷🏻‍♂️ /thread /subreddit
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/23 10:39 AM
1

There's a very clear semantic difference between the meanings, and the fact you'd resort to that belies the absence of any substantive argument
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/23 06:55 PM
1

Do you randomly pass the butter when no one else is around? Of course not, you only do it because someone persuaded you to.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/23 06:46 PM
1

Natural does not mean useful. Fear is completely harmful as an emotional motivation for response. For example, you're demonstrating a significant struggle with the fear of being unable to control others, and it's substantially limiting your self-improvement and ultimately how you engage with other people. It is the faculty of reason that defines healthy success, not emotion. You have a lot of excuses for why you can't meet the minimum barrier of entry to dating, but the fact remains that immedia…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/23 08:13 AM
1

It's unarguably obvious that's your problem with learning more about sociosexual interaction, which is why you think it's somehow less embarrassing to pretend otherwise. You're basing this off of your own ignorance, and just arbitrarily using this as a benchmark with which to moralize others. But you don't have any substantive argument for why it's actually detrimental, beyond simply not liking it.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/23 08:05 AM
2

Asking someone to pass the butter is manipulative. The difference isn't being manipulative or not, the difference is whether you're aware that everyone is manipulative all of the time or just ignoring this blatant fact.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/23 09:18 PM
4

Why is it not logical for me to fear at least one of them? It's not logical to be afraid because fear does not produce any increased risk mitigation. "not all" sharks eat people but I bet you're getting out of the water if a shark comes swimming in your direction. If you're not properly educating yourself before swimming in shark-infested waters then you did literally nothing to mitigate risk and a whole lot to increase it, so this example is perhaps more representative of your facile and ineffe…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/23 12:17 PM
4

The risk of a shark eating me is small, but I am still scared of sharks and swimming in open oceans. This is precisely the point and you completely stumbled right over it. It is not logical to be afraid of sharks. Yet you persist in being afraid of sharks. That means it's not about the risk, it's about the validation from fueling your fear. If you look at statistics it is logical, which leads to emotion. I can link the statistics if you want. Go right ahead, but unless you have statistics for ho…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/23 11:13 AM
3

It's wild how many people don't realize that partner filtering skillsets (or a lack thereof) are themselves a demonstration of partner value. If a woman can't find, identify, attract, and keep a high value man, then the most immediate explanation is that she's never even seen one (and if she did, certainly couldn't compete with other women for him).
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/23 09:29 AM
3

So when it's said men are trash it's because encounters with men who do these behaviors in the dating scene. And you are more than likely going to come across this than not. Because if we boil it down to statistics these men have a high turnover. Thus more chances to match/meet with women because they aren't committed. So these awful behaviors pollute the dating pool and make women more guarded and resentful. It's far simpler than that. Men do virtually all of the approaching. Out of the men who…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/23 09:17 AM
10

I mean, men do make up most of the abuse and rape cases. Is it really that surprising to you that women are wary of men? The reason this is so ludicrous is because the people who espouse this opinion don't represent the same level of risk aversion in any other avenue of life. It's very clearly not motivated by risk, but by fear (which means the process is emotional, not logical). Being overweight/obese is A) more controllable and B) far more likely to have a negative impact than any random man, …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/23 09:06 AM
7

Time for another scintillating round of "Guess How It's Obvious You Didn't Read The Sources"
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 01:42 PM
4

Everyone does that. This is certainly a popular justification used to justify ignorance or laziness, sure. I don't understand Don't worry, it's obvious. Because why would you choose to fuck someone you don't find likeable if there was a better option available? No guesses? Say, anything to do with stronger impulses?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 01:42 PM
11

So the answer to the above question is "Because I interpret everything everyone else does through my own lens of reality where I assign intention to people's actions"
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 01:32 PM
9

Do you think that the questions that occur to you, a layperson, in five minutes does not occur to the professional scientists who do that for a living?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 01:26 PM
13

You're not addressing the point by spinning the analogy off past its usefulness. The facts remain that: Men, on average, experience greater frequency and intensity of sexual desire than women Men, on average, also masturbate much more often, want more frequent sexual intercourse, are less likely to be willing to forego sex, and are willing to make more sacrifices in order to get sex The male impulse for sex appears to be stronger than the female impulse for sex, and males are less likely to care…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 01:06 PM
12

How do you conclude that the desperation is not due to a stronger impulse?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 01:02 PM
18

If your description of starving is "ready to eat any food out of a dumpster", then no, women don't get as hungry. But the actual description is "desiring food" which women absolutely do, just not as often with dumpster diving. Because it's trash. Maybe this will help illustrate the point more. The people who are willing to dumpster dive want food more, right? Because they're hungrier.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 12:14 PM
10

It's not comparable whatsoever. Testosterone is a helluva drug. Gender differences in behaviour: activating effects of cross-sex hormones. The relative contribution of organizing and activating effects of sex hormones to the establishment of gender differences in behaviour is still unclear. In a group of 35 female-to-male transsexuals and a group of 15 male-to-female transsexuals a large battery of tests on aggression, sexual motivation and cognitive functioning was administered twice: shortly b…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 12:11 PM
13

This is a tired old meme but it really is true. The same extends to whether the approacher is younger and the same race, although not nearly to the same degree. Only 46% of women indicated that sexual harassment could not be made enjoyable. Therefore, it can be inferred that to the majority (54%) of women, sexual harassment could be made enjoyable, under the correct conditions. Frequency (in percent) of contextual factors reported to increase fear, enjoyment, and verbal reactions to stranger har…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/23 08:38 AM
0

Yes, she altruistically leaked private information in an attempt to disparage an ex-boyfriend, for the children. There's no need to out yourself as an object lesson.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/23 08:04 PM
9

Because most people lack critical thinking skills, and social media engagement has absolute value
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/23 02:19 PM
–

It's okay to feel insecure, but ad hominem attacks are not less embarrassing than simply admitting you don't know what you're talking about
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/23 08:56 AM
3

and men aren’t so easily susceptible to trends too? You're being sarcastic and dismissive but this is, in fact, true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_choice_copying Non-independent mate choice largely is exhibited by females of the species (as in, not just humans by a long shot). Males sometimes do in some species but rarely to the same extent that females do. The implication is obvious: females have more reproductive investment and so have a biological imperative for selection priority. It d…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 09:41 AM
–

There are nuances and hard-to-convey knowledge that can often only be had by experience. This is a limitation from your teaching source and your learning ability, not any kind of limit from learning through someone else's experience. There's a reason that most higher education for professionals has on-the-job-learning in the curriculum. Yes, it's the path of least resistance for the most common denominator, and also the cheapest at scale.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 09:37 AM
1

It is statistically improbable for the average person to find a person the exact same age. It isn't, actually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem Maybe you should work more on engaging your misconceptions and biases to inform yourself, than cherrypicking on something that you're mistakenly thinking is wrong. That the average discrepancy in age is 2 years supports the opposite of what you are saying. Firstly, that's not the average discrepancy (it's not what the data is presenting and…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 09:31 AM
–

You'd have to support your posit to engage in any discourse. There's nothing particular about experiencing something that bequeaths a completely unique insight. Your understand is only as good as your ability to learn.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 09:22 AM
1

That's fundamentally false. Simply experiencing something by no means conveys an understanding of that experience. In fact, the human experience is largely an emotionally subjective process and therefore fraught with misperceptions and biases that directly impede accurate understanding. It's precisely why actions hold much more deductive import than words. For the most common denominator, personal experience can often be the path of least resistance to producing insights. But deliberate reflecti…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/23 06:32 PM
6

Experience is not a guarantee of insight. They are separate things altogether. It's entirely possible to learn about something without having experienced it, and even to have more accurate and rigorous knowledge than someone who did. The only qualifier for truth is that it must be true. It doesn't matter where it comes from (that doesn't make it more or less true), but in terms of content delivery it's everything. That's why a lot of people tend to listen to those who confirm their preconceived …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/23 12:58 PM
1

Most women explicitly DO NOT want a power imbalance in relationships. Obviously this is false, but it would be prudent to state exactly which venue of comparison is the context here. Here are some good examples: Here, we combined images of male and female body shape with information on annual salary to elucidate the influence of economic status on the attractiveness ratings by opposite sex raters in American, Chinese and European populations. We found that ratings of attractiveness were around 1…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/23 12:11 PM
2

This is just coming off as though you had a disproportionately monumental realization and think that A) you're somehow less ignorant and B) everyone else was as ignorant as you thought you used to be. Again, you don't seem to realize what the reality that exists for the majority of most people is, because recommending people just trade for a different social circle is about as actionable as just trading for a different house, car, and job. Social circles are not overpoweringly governed by "perso…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/23 11:37 AM
2

Changing to a social circle that better suits you, will help your mental health more than anything This just isn't true. It's certainly not comparable to an effective therapist, for one. For another, most social groups don't demonstrate the interpersonal granularity to the extremes of which you're alluding. Sure, if you're being outright abused then find new friends. But if you're unsuccessful with dating, those problems are going to exist no matter where you go because you're taking them with y…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/23 11:16 AM
2

The point is that "atmosphere of personality congruence" or whatever OP is alluding to has such little relevance when it comes to effective emotional expression and overall self-development that it's not really worth addressing. It's far more efficacious to work on self-improvement than to try to artificially contrive value by changing what you're comparing yourself to. Since there's really no point in wasting time and energy on trying to break into higher social status circles (because that wou…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/23 09:55 AM
0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/23 10:16 AM
2

The first part is recognizing that human beings are not special. Remove the religion from the human, and you have a hairless primate. If we were evolved from birds or whatever, our sexual selection behaviors would be obsessed over abilities to stack rocks in neat piles and waggle about in mating dances. We share a lot of things in common with other primates, mammals, and animals (in the taxonomic sense). Here are a couple examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_choice_copying https://en.wik…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/23 09:32 AM
13

Maybe describing the flipside of your point can illustrate how poorly conceived it is at partner filtering. Basically, you're ignoring the traits that make these women desirable in the first place, and painting them all by the same brush based on ubiquitous behavioral patterns. Perception: "Good" guys (defined as pursuing long term commitment) don't want to have sex at the same magnitude as "bad" guys (defined as lying about anything just to have sex). Takeaway: Therefore, putting an arbitrary a…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/23 01:16 PM
4

Anecdotes aren't data, and your perspective is fraught with bias in the first place
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/23 02:43 PM
1

It's obvious that you read none of the essay and, with nothing but keywords, immediately jumped to harping about your emotional agenda. Sexual activity is actually decreasing in younger generations, so you're doubly wrong. Here's an extra source for you to ignore: Changes in Penile-Vaginal Intercourse Frequency and Sexual Repertoire from 2009 to 2018: Findings from the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/23 02:31 PM
28

This is the answer. Insane Clown Posse culture exists. There is unique social decorum, convention, and patterns of behavior. But you'd never know if you don't go to places where it's practiced. Hookup culture does exist but it's a tiny microcosm and by no means ubiquitous. Far more often it's simply used as some abstract boogeyman to blame for issues, rather than taking responsibility to resolve internal struggles. Sourced essay PDF: M. J. Rosenfeld, 2018. "Are Tinder and Dating Apps Changing Da…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/23 10:57 AM
10

Arrogance comes from thinking you're better than others. Confidence comes from knowing you're better than your past self.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/23 07:51 AM
18

A pathological unwillingness to comply, even (and especially) when it's reasonable. Real confidence is complete comfort in vulnerability, and accepting the discomfort that comes with learning and growth.
/r/seduction14/06/23 07:47 PM
9

False. Single adults refers to those who are not married, living with a partner or in a committed relationship. Those who did not give an answer or who gave other responses are not shown. Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/08/for-valentines-day-5-facts-about-single-americans/ More substantive definition here: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/08/PSDT_08.19.20_dating.relationships-016.png Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trend…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/23 10:45 PM
9

The only correct terminology in the whole thread. Mate-choice copying, or non-independent mate choice, occurs when a female of an animal species copies another fellow female's mate choice. In other words, non-independent mate-choice is when a female's sexual preferences get socially inclined toward those of their fellow females. This behavior is speculated to be one of the driving forces of sexual selection and the evolution of male traits. It is also hypothesized that mate-choice copying can in…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/23 06:08 PM
4

From the Depthhub which no one ever reads, on the sidebar which no one ever uses: RP people generally bring the following assumptions to a debate: They believe that there is exactly one reality, and that truth is what accurately describes that reality. The better a statement describes reality, the more true it is. They are factual absolutists. They believe that whether something is "good" or "bad" is a matter of opinion, and that all systems of morality are things societies invented to get a res…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/23 12:24 PM
48

According to past surveys, about 4 in 10 women admit having rape fantasies with a median frequency of about once a month. Rape or near-rape fantasies are central to some romance novels, often referred to as "bodice-rippers." Having rape fantasies implies nothing about a woman's mental health or real-life sexual inclinations. Rape fantasies can be either erotic or aversive. In erotic fantasies, the woman thinks: "I'm being forced and I enjoy it." In aversive fantasies, she thinks: "I'm being forc…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/23 02:42 PM
5

we see that 80% of women's messages go to men rated as "average" or lower.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/23 04:20 PM
8

Yet more sources to ignore and explain away: Men's physical attractiveness significantly predicted their romantic popularity, yet potential for financial success, friendliness, responsibility, trustworthiness, leadership, academic success, and parental qualities did not Height and Body Mass on the Mating Market: Associations With Number of Sex Partners and Extra-Pair Sex Among Heterosexual Men and Women Aged 18–65 Effects of Attractiveness and Social Status on Dating Desire in Heterosexual Adole…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/23 03:38 PM
3

It's not clear what you're responding to or what your point is
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/23 03:38 PM
6

You have to unearth the goalposts before you move them. It's not clear what your point is amidst all the assumptions about what you think the claim is here. It's just data. Here are some tangential data sets to also ignore or explain away: Morbidly or extremely obese women have the highest sexual partner count of any group (more than average weight women or underweight men) while morbidly obese men have far fewer sexual partners than morbidly obese women Females are four times more sensitive tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/23 03:18 PM
4

What other explanations come to mind?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/23 03:04 PM
2

It's not clear what your question is. The author is drawing attention to user cognitive dissonance; the disconnect between people's self-perspective and people's actual actions.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/23 02:02 PM
12

There is absolutely data to support disproportional sexual selection: https://i.imgur.com/QOpw7TC.png Site-wide, two-thirds of male messages go to the best-looking third of women. So basically, guys are fighting each other 2-for-1 for the absolute best-rated females, while plenty of potentially charming, even cute, girls go unwritten. https://i.imgur.com/iB2YxMB.png As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/23 01:48 PM
–

I am in an open relationship. If she wants to have sex with other guys, she can. That's a weird way to encompass risk mitigation. Also, what is the effect strength for promiscuity and infidelity connection? That's too simplistic a question for the variance of methodologies examining the matter from multiple angles (and also indicative that you read none of them). Extravertedness and business trips do also correlate with infidelity. What is the percentage of people who go on business trips and ch…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/23 07:34 PM
–

Promiscuity is a reliable enough indicator of infidelity risk: [DIVORCE RISK] “Contrary to conventional wisdom, when it comes to sex, less experience is better, at least for the marriage,” said W. Bradford Wilcox, a sociologist . women with zero or one previous sex partners before marriage were also least likely to divorce, while those with 10 or more were most likely. These divorce-proof brides are an exclusive crew: By the 2010s, he writes, just 5 percent of new brides were virgins. And just 6…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/23 06:58 PM
1

It's not so much the priority of the qualifier, but how much words are differentiated from actions. Cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug, and there is nothing more beguiling and soporific than a person's own opinion of themselves. It's interesting when this is demonstrated from multiple actors in the sexual selection process though: Prior research shows that daughters and their parents value the most important traits of a mate for daughters similarly (e.g., mutual love, intelligence, etc.). We…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/23 02:43 PM
1

It's obvious you're cherrypicking the wrong comprehension because you have no answer for the right one. Maybe manipulation is much more inherent in your wheelhouse than you're comfortable realizing.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/23 10:35 PM
12

If they are asking for the butter because it's out of reach and they'd like some butter, then obviously no. But why? It's a tactical maneuver on your part in order to get what you want at a direct cost to the other person. That's wholly self-serving of you without any consideration for the other person. If you say because they want to pass you the butter, then how do you not also extend that understanding to OP's example, in that strategic emotional expression only "works" on women who want to b…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/23 12:32 PM
10

Do you have objections to asking someone to pass the butter? It's just as much manipulation as the "psychological tactics" that you're trying to disparage here. No one is going to independently pass you the butter of their own volition, and no one is benefited by passing you the butter. It's 100% selfish of you, why would you treat people that way?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/23 11:25 AM
5

That's an absurd non sequitur, for multiple reasons. 1.7% of Americans are gay (source) and only 63% of Americans think that homosexuality should be societally acceptable. So a 2-3% population shift towards anything, much less something as unpopular as polygamy, would be absurdly unrealistic.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/22 02:42 PM
1

If you can't demarcate "addressing my argument" and "invalidating my opinion" in your own post on a debate sub, then be encouraged to refrain from participating on the internet until you can field the requisite emotional regulation. The fact remains that you have zero rebuttal because if you did you'd harp on that instead of transparently feigning affected amusement. You haven't made nearly the magnitude of personal progress that you think you have if that's all it takes to make you defensive.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/22 02:47 PM
30

Women were more upset than men by their partner’s emotional commitment to another woman. Data from the Distress about Mating Rivals Questionnaire showed that men relatively more than women will be more distressed by a rival that has higher status and prestige, better financial prospects and more physical strength compared to themselves. In contrast, women would be relatively more distressed than men by a rival that is more kind and understanding, has a more attractive face and a more attractive …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/22 03:16 AM
1

Then they're wrong. Most people are ignorant, that is not the point-maker you think it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/22 03:46 PM
10

It's a rabbit hole
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/22 02:47 PM
9

You're confusing equality with equity. Equality means equal (so yes, 50=50). Equity means equitable (whatever is proportionally and individually fair). Before you jump to equity being the new equal, you'd have to devise a substantially robust socioeconomic system of metrics to prove something is indeed equitable from every participating vantage point.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/22 02:15 PM
5

It's not arrogant or selfish; a relationship should be inherently beneficial (otherwise, what's the point?) and equally rewarding. However, it is completely lazy and absolutely dysfunctional. Demonstrating such a sheer inability to filter your own partners is extremely maladjusted behavior and will unarguably exclude the asker from high value connections. There is nothing more indicative of low value than being unable to assess and recognize high value.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/22 06:50 PM
2

“Considered to be attractive” is what attractiveness is. No it's not. It's primarily social conformity and largely virtue signaling. Attractiveness in this context is the basis of sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest. And you keep citing studies that show a select number of people from limited time, place, and culture agree on what attractiveness is. 1) Why are you trying to act like you've read through all the sources presented in 2 minutes? 2) Yes, you're just describing the …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 05:35 PM
1

In this context (and invariably most others), objective means "not influenced by an individual’s personal viewpoint." You're trying to gallivant off in a complete different direction and ignore everything else presented because you're wrong and have no rebuttal. Edit: Abusing the block function to impede any conversation, the absolute epitome of educated discourse and definitely not butthurt in any way.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 05:23 PM
2

Human culture is quirky and one can show many instances in which indicators of poor health were widely considered attractive. "Considered to be attractive" is a social concept, not a physical one, which means it's largely bunk in the context of sexual selection even if the historical accuracy is valid. People also worshiped the sun, that doesn't mean it's actually correct. Attraction as a biological concept is largely an unconscious process. Here's an example: Optimal Waist-to-Hip Ratios in Wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 05:03 PM
0

Most people are stupid and do stupid things, that's a horrible approach for gauging what something actually is. If you actually read the study, you'd know why the trivial supposition that occurred to you in a few minutes was absolutely controlled for by scientists who do this professionally. You're also completely missing the point (on purpose, because you're wrong); attractiveness can be measured without awareness by bypassing subjective perception. It's also why you ignored the second link abo…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 04:29 PM
0

Though to be clear, attractiveness requires a person to make an assessment and does not exist independent of the mind. This isn't true either, and that's not what "objective" means in this context and is sidling towards philosophical waffling. The vast majority of human behavioral patterns are unconscious. Here's an example: Optimal Waist-to-Hip Ratios in Women Activate Neural Reward Centers in Men They used fMRI to scan men's brains when looking at pictures of women. Nothing to do with subjecti…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 04:15 PM
0

It's not clear what your point is, no one said symmetry is the only factor. There is a difference between attractiveness as a binary notion (you are or you aren't) and a comparable relativity (whether you are more or less attractive than this person). The point isn't whether they're identical, it's to illustrate a scenario in which to highlight the different between two concepts. You're also not understanding how attractiveness is determined on a scientific basis. So much of human behavioral pro…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 03:57 PM
1

It's not clear what your point is, no one said symmetry is the only factor in determining attractiveness. There is a difference between attractiveness as a binary notion (you are or you aren't) and a comparable relativity (whether you are more or less attractive than this person). There are a massive variety of factors that affect someone's ultimate presentation. Symmetry is just an easy example because it's universal, even outside of human beings, and there is a lot of scientific literature to …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 03:57 PM
2

Firstly, you don't appear to understand what you're linking to: Junk history is embodied perfectly in a recent viral meme that portrays a nineteenth-century Persian princess with facial hair alongside the claim that 13 men killed themselves over their unrequited love for her. While it fails miserably at historical accuracy, the meme succeeds at demonstrating how easily viral clickbait obscures and overshadows rich and meaningful stories from the past. Secondly, to address the premise regardless:…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 03:20 PM
6

In a hypothetical scenario between two otherwise identical persons, the one with excellent symmetry and good skin is undeniably more attractive than the one with poor symmetry and bad skin
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 02:24 PM
28

Your posit is correct, but there are absolutely objective metrics of attractiveness. It's virtually universal because visual indicators of health all share the same purpose: sexual selection. Things like symmetry and clean skin are desirable regardless of temporal or cultural trends. Even when demarcating gender-specific aspects, there are still objective markers of dimorphic attractiveness. It is true that there's no comparable way to weigh those markers though. Edit: Blocking when proven wrong…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 01:39 PM
1

Golly, that's a lot more work than just typing "I was wrong and my source was bad"
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 01:49 AM
2

Yes, you're just defining the basic process of dialogue. Are you seriously expecting to not have your argument or source examined in a debate sub? You're unarguably using that study as impetus to corroborate your claim that most married couples start out being friends first: Wrong. Research shows you are wrong. Most married couples start out being friends first. The study also found that being FWBs first was also common. So if you're pretending to be persuaded only by scientific literature, how …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 01:32 AM
1

You should have paid more attention in analogy class. The reason we are similar to chimpanzees is not because we share 99% of DNA (that's just a quantifying description of our similarity). The reason we are similar is because we share a great many of the same evolutionary developments. You can draw similar conclusions with some behavioral patterns in virtually all animals (or any group that is sufficiently related [again, defined by a commonality of evolutionary ancestors]). Here's an example: h…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 01:15 AM
1

Besides the typical biases of a survey in university students? the prevalence of “friends-with-benefits” relationships among married friends-first initiators: Fully 42% reported that they had such a relationship with their future spouse Does that mean you're also recommending casual sex as a viable route to commitment? Seeing as how only 2 respondents out of 300 gave "In an online community/social media" as an answer to "The Best Way to Meet a Dating or Romantic Partner," using a survey of peopl…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 12:42 AM
9

This sub has been one giant object lesson for the last few years
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/22 07:24 PM
2

A) That has nothing to do with the point, you just seem bitter and jaded about a nonexistent hypothetical you're using solely to get upset. B) That link doesn't cite a source, and the data presented is woefully insufficient to even begin to analyze the methodology and sample constituents. C) Even assuming it is robust science, this is a great example of misleading statistics seeing as marriages with age gaps of 10+ years make up a tiny percentage overall. The vast majority of marriages have an a…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/22 10:35 PM
2

Every species that is sexually dimorphic is absolutely and undeniably engaging in sexual selection behaviors both conscious and unconscious (that's just basic biology), but you're wrong to assume that people are good at it or even cognizant of the process. For example, some animals choose partners based on completely arbitrary factors like its partner's ability to stack rocks. That doesn't mean it's subjective. The premise of sexual selection is to pass on genes successfully; there is no allowan…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/22 07:20 PM
2

The question itself is flawed (in multiple ways), it's just a useful topic for discussion of a more practical premise: how to assess and mitigate risk. So then it's that you don't understand either term. There is no rational human being out there who decides they want a partner with higher risk when partners with lower risk are available. Everyone is trying to get as good as they can manage. That's not subjective.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/22 06:49 PM
1

Then you're not worth the time it takes to tell you you're not worth the time, which is ironic considering you don't even consider your own replies substantive enough to actually parse what you're replying to
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/22 06:36 PM
3

No, you're just not asking useful questions. Everyone wants as low risk as possible. No one is going to choose a partner based on something arbitrary like whether the number of their sexual partners is odd or even, or a number that matches with their birthday. Either you don't understand what subjective means or you don't understand what correlative means. That's like saying poor people don't have a preference for yachts because only rich people buy them. If you want a hard threshold, just read …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/22 06:32 PM
2

You're going to have to quote and link the statistics in question when the source provided linked to many different studies, some of which are collecting data exclusively from Caucasian participants or even contradict what you appear to ostensibly be observing: Regarding the correlates of infidelity, results indicated that on the basis of both methods of assessment, the probability of sexual infidelity (a) was greater for Blacks (relative to the remainder of the sample), (b) decreased with highe…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/22 06:15 PM
6

But see, the thing is, I’m sure that the things that lead to high partner count also lead to infidelity. Not that having a high partner count leads to infidelity. Doesn't matter. One more time: "A statistical correlation does not need to be causative to be a useful metric." There is no risk of a false negative, and there's no point in confirming that every single candidate that appears to be a bad choice is indeed so when you would be much better off confirming true positives are indeed so, or a…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/22 05:58 PM
10

Obviously yes, but also not really. If there is a statistical correlation (does not need to be causative to be a useful metric) between higher numbers of sexual partners and undesirable factors like infidelity, then it's not a matter of preference in the way of something like favorite ice cream flavor. You're not going to get divorced and impoverished because you like strawberry when most people like chocolate. The fact of the matter is that the probability of infidelity increases for every addi…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/22 05:17 PM
49

Further reading: The physical attractiveness of a male sexual "harasser" substantially determines if the experience is enjoyable or traumatic, according to women Frequency (in percent) of contextual factors reported to increase fear, enjoyment, and verbal reactions to stranger harassment Factor Fear Enjoyment Verbal Reaction Attractive Harasser 1.9 27.1 8.3 Unattractive Harasser 20.3 0.2 3.4 Younger Harasser (20s-30s) 10.1 18.2 14.0 Older Harasser (40+) 32.6 1.6 3.7 Harasser Same Race 3.1 4.7 7.…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/22 06:49 PM
3

women aren't virgin at a late age. Virgin shaming is a male thing. Men and women shame virgin men for not scoring pussy hole. This is incorrect: "The view that men suppress female sexuality received hardly any support and is flatly contradicted by some findings. Instead, the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other's sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage." https://www.semanticscholar.org…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/22 05:24 PM
3

Whether she gets shamed or not, all has to do with her friend group. If her best friends are part of the party scene where everybody tack up their body counts like nothing, then they’ll probably look down on her a bit, but if her friend group is bible reading Christian’s, then not so much. This sounds intuitive but is contrary to the apparent evidence: "The view that men suppress female sexuality received hardly any support and is flatly contradicted by some findings. Instead, the evidence favor…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/22 05:22 PM
10

It's a copout to prevent introspect and find that they're not intimidating, just boring and mean https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775719301104
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/22 10:10 AM
1

At that level, you can afford to be as selective in short term encounters just as much as long term encounters. Just because it may be only sex doesn't mean there isn't significant improvements from applying more robust filtering criteria. Quality is quality, no reason to go for second best when your candidate pool is over-saturated with top tier choices. In fact, some of the methodology encroaches into strategy that most women benefit from.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/22 10:57 AM
4

Extending your own personal limitations onto other people is the height of solipsistic narcissism
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/22 07:47 AM
5

It is "gone" in that they've moved their platform to their own website instead of using reddit. monetized a radicalized customer base
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/22 12:51 PM
1

Female population distribution, as rated by men - The curve is symmetric and surprisingly charitable: a woman is as likely to be considered extremely ugly as extremely beautiful, and the majority of women have been rated about “medium.” The chart looks normalized, even though it’s just the unfiltered opinions of our male users. 2/3 of male messages go to the top 1/3 of women. Male attractiveness distribution as rated by women - women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. V…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/22 10:50 AM
4

That's not what you asked for, you asked for a source regarding attractiveness of dark triad personality traits. Although the very clear conclusions are right in front of you, don't pretend there's a single study you'd accept anyway, or admit you're wrong. Here are some more evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific sources to ignore: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0146167218781000 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933005/ What are your sources?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/22 10:07 PM
3

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913012245
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/22 09:02 PM
5

Sexual validation from men with no standards is functionally useless, it's the cheapest and most inflated social currency there is. Additionally, the men who only require "physically attractive" in their partner candidates typically have nothing more to offer than the same baseline of "appreciates attractive physicality" which often enough is inferior to a more involved partner anyway. Virtually all men want attractive women, that is not doing anything to distinguish them as a high value partner…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/22 02:03 PM
21

He's not a simpleton, this is the meat of his career. He was laughing because that's what wealthy celebrities do when other wealthy celebrities are talking shit in the one place they're supposed to talk shit, until two things happened: He noticed his wife was not laughing Chris said "That's one of the good ones," implying that the joke let Jada and Will off easy (which was true) It's evident in his retort: "Keep my wife's name out your mouth." Nothing about being sensitive with medical condition…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/22 04:49 PM
1

Your posits are inconclusive and insubstantive, you have no sources, and you're not able to accurately represent what you're rebutting. For someone so obsessed with "debate," you sure are leading with an emotional agenda.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/22 03:04 PM
2

Sure, that's as good an excuse as any to avoid fielding a coherent argument
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/22 02:44 PM
1

You corroborated based on causality in which you were wrong. It's not clear what your point is, but it doesn't matter. Again: there is no lost opportunity cost from false negatives. The purpose is not to present a scientifically robust premise (although it does), the purpose is to get results (which this filtering strategy accomplishes). As for men, the studies you mention disagree, men with many partners are not loyal and there is the same turd problem for LTRs, a lack of loyalty isn't high val…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/22 01:01 PM
2

The point is that with such large candidate pools (which is what ideal male partners enjoy), there is no risk of lost opportunity cost from false negatives. Nothing is so special about anyone that can't be found in hundreds or thousands of other people. There are no such things as diamonds in the rough so there is no sense in taking time to confirm a polished turd is just that when you could be meeting five other people. Men on average don't exhibit nearly the same patterns, and the only ones wi…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/22 02:45 AM
6

Here's a comprehensive list to corroborate
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/22 11:17 PM
2

Sorry, are you seriously trying to claim that: Parents would rather have their country completely demolished with their children taken away and stuck in residential schools to absorb the conqueror's culture rather than strangers taking care of their children Orphans from war don't exist You don't really seem to be able to manifest the slightest barrier of entry to discourse.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/22 05:20 PM
3

Parents are NOT going to be ok with their children being in strangers hands during a war. That's what you didn't adress. One more time: The vast majority of soldier candidates aren't parents. And even if they were the decision is between "ordinary childcare" or "punitive measures for committing desertion and/or for losing the fucking war." It's still not clear what your point really is. Parents in peacetime already have to be okay with their children being taken care of by strangers, and that's …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/22 04:46 PM
5

Your point is that a female draft would be untenable because A) there would be no familiar people to take care of the children, and B) military command would have no operative personnel because fathers would just refuse to participate (as though that's an elective choice compared to something like "occupation" or "genocide"). This is a completely warped perspective with zero rationale or any bearing on reality, because: A) The vast majority of prime soldier candidates are young males who are unm…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/22 04:25 PM
5

Feel free to address the points in their entirety instead of some weird attempt at cherrypicking
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/22 04:18 PM
12

You're not demonstrating even a basic understanding of military recruitment principles. The vast majority of prime soldier candidates are young males who are unmarried and childless. If you're arguing that competent childcare is somehow the most pivotal aspect of manifesting a force multiplier compared to something like superior numbers or trained personnel then it's even less clear what your point is seeing as how A) childcare is not a gendered profession and B) even if it was, it would take ve…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/22 03:59 PM
3

Let's see those statistics
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/22 03:20 PM
13

Yes, that is definitely the largest risk with participating in open warfare
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/22 03:14 PM
1

All that says is: British children who are described by their teachers as “attractive” at age 7 are less likely to have a son as their first child 40 years later than those who are not so described Which has zero relevance to your claim
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/22 10:33 PM
3

It's scientifically proven that usually daughters are more attractive than sons. Let's see that scientific proof
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/22 11:00 AM
2

The cognitive dissonance is real: Men aren't worth approaching because they'll just have sex with you and bail (which only makes sense if sex is all you have to offer, which only applies if you're approaching men way out of your S/RMV) You don't have any issues with filtering out men like that If you don't know what you're looking for, how will you know what you're looking at?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/22 11:02 AM
1

Yes the concept of creating your own insults must be very mentally taxing
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 08:17 PM
1

That must indeed be how it appears from the perspective of someone who relies on other people to validate their internal sense of security. Using what you think are big words doesn't make someone smart, but thinking they do sure makes you dumb.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 04:42 PM
1

That must indeed be how it appears from the perspective of someone who is accustomed to using any possible leverage in an argument to invalidate the other person
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 03:24 PM
1

It's a pretty crucial point, someone else may as well just have added up everything besides "Met Online" and concluded that "80% of people didn't meet online." It has very likely transitioned from a plurality to a majority at this point, with trends actually underestimating the impact outside of generational shifts.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 03:19 PM
1

If you combine dating apps and bars/nightclubs, it's 60%. This is incorrect. One more time: the responses are mutually inclusive; you can't combine them together (because, again, the total does not equal 100%).
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 02:45 PM
1

That must indeed be how it appears from the perspective of someone who is accustomed to not doing work for themselves
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 02:10 PM
1

It must be troubling to go through life with the expectation that everyone else will do your work for you. Don't worry, life gets better once you apply yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 02:05 PM
1

Table 2 refers to intermediaries, not the venue of meeting. You're not understanding how they collated results. It is explicitly described that the results are mutually inclusive; that's why the results don't add up to 100%. There's not much else to add besides copypasting the same paragraph again that explains how your interpretation is incorrect: Fig. 1’s apparent post-2010 rise in meeting through bars and restaurants for heterosexual couples is due entirely to couples who met online and subse…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 02:01 PM
1

All of that and more awaits you in the actual study when you take the responsibility to read it for yourself
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 01:57 PM
1

You didn't read it: In SI Appendix, Table S3, we show that the rise in meeting online and the declines over time in meeting through friends, meeting through family, meeting through or as coworkers, and meeting through or as neighbors all remained statistically significant when controlling for age at which subject met partner and subject gender. Table S3
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 11:49 AM
1

Source? Meeting online is the most popular way couples connect.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 11:42 AM
3

https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyourinbox.html Our chart shows how men have rated women, on a scale from 0 to 5. The curve is symmetric and surprisingly charitable: a woman is as likely to be considered extremely ugly as extremely beautiful, and the majority of women have been rated about “medium.” The chart looks normalized, even though it’s just the unfiltered opinions of our male users. Women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 11:40 AM
1

If you're getting that figure from the Stanford study then you're misinterpreting the data. Figure 1 The responses are mutually inclusive (respondents could have met in a variety of ways): The coding of the “how did you meet” question coded as many categories as could be identified in every open-ended response. None of the categories are mutually exclusive. Some respondents met online and also met through friends; for instance, if the friend had made the introduction online or if the friend forw…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 11:36 AM
3

As a group, the women rating men showed some preference for thin, muscular subjects, but disagreed on how attractive many men in the study were. This is comparative, not absolute. Women still unarguably prioritize certain attributes (height, muscularity, etc) as a whole. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474704919852918
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 11:23 AM
1

https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/purplepilldebate 85.36 asktrp 44.20 mgtow 33.48 femaledatingstrategy 33.00 seduction 30.74 mensrights 28.71 dating 25.09 datingoverthirty 23.56 menslib 20.81 datingoverforty 20.31 trueunpopularopinion 17.48 inceltear 16.78 deadbedrooms 16.15 centrist 13.23 dating_advice 12.70 intj 11.34 tressless 10.38 bumble 9.69 askwomenover30 9.33 askwomen 9.29 pussypassdenied 9.14 banpitbulls 9.06 nicegirls 8.91 moderatepolitics 8.90 marriage 8.89 polyamory …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/22 04:38 PM
–

From deathbed relationships, I have learned that only in a minority of cases can a woman's or a man's lack of interest in sex be eliminated by the other being more tidy, more caring for children, more exercising, losing weight, being a more attentive partner. This is true, increasing "domestic workload" has no direct relevance to sexual arousal or frequency. Here is some substantiating evidence: https://www.medicaldaily.com/more-chores-husband-does-more-likely-marriage-will-end-divorce-242815 ht…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/22 02:20 PM
1

Giving up is the only way to ensure 100% failure rate
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/22 08:16 AM
2

Facing fear is not easy, and procrastinating caring is the opposite of making it easier
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/22 02:54 PM
3

Affected apathy is even more obvious fearfulness. What's scary to you about caring?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/22 02:41 PM
-2

Any metric so shortsighted is completely unreliable. Now you're just demonstrating the inherent bias that is presumably responsible for your worldview and therefore delusion. Cynicism is just lazy fearfulness.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/22 02:34 PM
-1

How do you know your metrics are valid? If something works very well but you're unable to see why, then how can you conclude it's deficient? Nothing about it is facile, so it sounds like you're confusing facility with short term gratification.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/22 02:27 PM
14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/22 10:31 AM
-3

Do you think you are more likely to receive empathy by being stingy or by being gracious? How much of your hardship is due to not understanding how to safely be empathetic, and how much is due to avoiding any vulnerability out of fear?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/22 10:28 AM
1

No one is born with developed skills. Most people are bad at dating and completely deficient in the skillsets necessary for success (such as filtering), to the point that even a modicum of working knowledge makes a vast difference in terms of qualitative and quantitative results.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/22 11:29 AM
10

It's a simple matter of cost-effectiveness in terms of time spent. You will have four results in qualitative filtering: True positive True negative False positive False negative You do not need to confirm negatives. It's a complete waste when you could be meeting five new people in the time it takes to confirm. It's simply not worth double checking that people who present poorly are actually poor candidates. There is no penalty for skipping over the false negatives because there is no lack of ne…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/22 03:09 PM
3

Just like CGI, people think they can spot it when they're only aware of the patently bad jobs
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/22 09:06 PM
1

Meeting online is the most popular way couples connect. It's not even close.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/22 09:03 PM
1

People who actually don't care are famously known for not proclaiming how much they don't care
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/22 11:16 AM
0

Men are perfectly fine with intelligent women, you're just boring and crabby. we conducted a field experiment on Tinder in which we collected data on 3,600 profile evaluations. In line with previous research on mating preferences from multiple fields, our results indicate a heterogeneous effect of education level by gender: while women strongly prefer a highly educated potential partner, this hypothesis is rejected for men. In contrast with recent influential studies from the field of economics,…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/22 11:12 AM
16

From the Depth Hub which no one ever browses from the sidebar which no one ever reads: Why PPD, while sometimes diverting, is ultimately useless RP people generally bring the following assumptions to a debate: Factual absolutists Moral relativists Argue about what is true Debates occur between theories, not people, thus questioning someone's character is off-limits, because it is irrelevant BP people generally bring the following assumptions to a debate: Factual relativists Moral absolutists Arg…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/21 09:21 AM
7

Have some peer-reviewed, evidence-based scientific data in the sea of anecdotes: Height and Body Mass on the Mating Market: Associations With Number of Sex Partners and Extra-Pair Sex Among Heterosexual Men and Women Aged 18–65 Morbidly obese women have the same number of sexual partners as average weight men Morbidly obese men have far fewer sexual partners than morbidly obese women Men with the highest number of sexual partners were average to overweight, although it's likely muscular men are …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/21 06:46 PM
–

What's more likely: There's simply no way to filter for good sexual partners, and improving in sexual skillsets like communication is ultimately pointless You're bad at sex, and bad at finding and attracting good sexual partners
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/21 09:45 AM
1

Did you not read the section that discussed mean and standard deviation? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/#__sec13title
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/21 06:33 PM
1

Women scored higher than men on Enthusiasm, Compassion, Politeness, Orderliness, Volatility, Withdrawal, and Openness. Men scored higher than women on Assertiveness and Intellect. This indicates that the two aspects of Extraversion (Enthusiasm and Assertiveness) and the two aspects of Openness/Intellect display gender differences in opposite directions. Such divergence in gender differences at the aspect level helps to elucidate the small effect of the gender difference in overall Extraversion a…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/21 06:22 PM
1

Nuance is important in an argument's construction, not in cherrypicking semantics
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/21 06:18 PM
2

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is one of the most popular personality tests in the world. MBTI is junk, and a great example of why the least common denominator will suck up ego-pandering trash over actual veritable science. The company's website boasts the assessment has a 90% accuracy rating and a 90% average test-retest correlation, “making it one of the most reliable and accurate personality assessments available.”May 6, 2019 There is super duper definitely no bias there, right? https://en.w…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/21 06:16 PM
1

Still not an argument. It's obvious you don't have one. Spending time, energy, and attention on people you purportedly hate is a very good indication of obsessive fixation. Why do you think you seek out negative attention? You obviously place a lot of import on what other people think, so be encouraged to reflect on the fallacy of appeal to popularity and any personal attachments you may have to external validation.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/21 10:26 AM
0

Sure that's as good an excuse as any other to avoid having to field a coherent argument, but delusion is supposed to be comforting and you are not very comfortable
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/21 06:32 PM
0

Feel free to address the points in their entirety instead of making the mistake of assuming bizarre attempts at ad hominem attacks will get you any worthwhile attention
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/21 06:24 PM
0

You're making a value statement based on your subjective insecurities. That has nothing to do with loyalty when you're trying to manufacture a scenario where loyalty is immaterial. If you lack confidence that a partner will stay with you, it doesn't matter how many people they've been with; you're only going to end up with someone so hopelessly desperate they'll jump through whatever arbitrary hoops you throw in front of them if it means getting intimacy. That's a failing strategy.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/21 06:12 PM
0

Establishing relationship security based on the premise of choosing a partner so undesirable that no one else will want them is a failing strategy
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/21 05:59 PM
0

So the latter then. Lots of people live full lives and are still capable of following a conversation for more than two lines. But keep doubling down, it's definitely super duper not as embarrassing as just admitting you don't know what you're talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/21 09:42 PM
0

Are you? You provided the context: There's a lot more to relationships than sex. Or are you just trying to pick at semantics because you think that's less embarrassing than just not replying at all?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/21 09:38 PM
1

You're trying to compress a wide range of demographics into a single data point when a better analysis scope is the percentile ranges because it's much more representative of behavioral patterns. For example, the average age difference tells us nothing about how high value men who don't need exclusive commitment for regular sex will not be reflected in the data.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/21 08:11 PM
1

It's not clear what your question is, but you've certainly discovered why findings need to be considered in aggregate
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/21 11:53 AM
1

This data is provided by: 2017 US Current Population Survey - Excel file Distribution of the Difference in Age Between Couples at First Marriage, Australian Bureau of Statistics Age differences at marriage and divorce, Office for National Statistics - PDF file Adolescents' Age Preferences for Dating Partners: Support for an Evolutionary Model of Life-History Strategies Women's and men's sexual preferences and activities with respect to the partner's age: evidence for female choice Age Limits: Me…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/21 11:31 AM
2

Average relationship gap is 2 years. This is not quite correct, and also not a full representation of the picture of marriages: 33.9% have the man and woman within 1 year of age Then: 51.2% have the man older by at least 2-3 years 31.5% have the man older by at least 4-5 years Meanwhile: 14.8% have the woman older by at least 2-3 years 7.9% have the woman older by at least 4-5 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships#Statistics
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/21 11:14 AM
13

This is a really underrated problem. So many people assume that the wealth of knowledge is a passive inflow as a result of experience from getting older. In reality, young people who are stupid just become older people who are stupid. No change except for age. In some instances, it becomes worse because people double down on their mistakes and delusion instead of taking the accountability to admit they were wrong and do need to be proactive in self-development. The responsibility of self-improve…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/21 11:03 AM
1

Answer this question to yourself: If you could somehow magically know someone was 100% perfect for you, would you still wait? If yes, you can't pretend it's not about insecurity.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/21 11:04 PM
4

False. In addition to time, it also costs men actual money and effort to court her throughout that dating period. Men who are not invested in the relationship will just walk early on. Charging money for sex is called prostitution. Sex workers only have sex to offer, that's the whole point. Guys on this sub love to talk about men who will string a girl along for months and then ghost once he gets sex, but then bitch about men having to pay for dates. I hope this will make it clear how men paying …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/21 10:17 AM
0

I'm saying sex too son might not "ruin" it, but it makes things rockier. How? You're 100% perfect for each other. Aren't what? You only have sex and 0 other relationships in your life? Relationships without sex aren't relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/21 10:11 AM
2

It costs nothing to wait an arbitrary amount of time, and that's the only criterion you are asking of romantic candidates when all you do is passively wait without proactive filtering. A dead body can fulfill that requirement, so that methodology does nothing to improve quality of results. The only people who put up with that are desperate men who don't have any other options. Relegating relationship security to choosing someone so undesirable no one will want to take them from you is failing st…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/21 03:19 AM
0

No I'm saying even if we are perfect for each other, it's possible sex too soon would ruin it. So you're saying you'd somehow find a way to ruin a 100% perfect connection? There's a lot more to relationships than sex. Relationships without sex aren't.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/21 03:16 AM
1

You think OP's own point of enunciating the obtuse solipsism of prioritizing emotional investment before sexual investment is somehow lost on them?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/21 10:09 PM
2

I wouldn't wait if I knew we were both perfect for each other AND that not waiting wouldn't change the outcome. Are you trying to admit that 100% perfect isn't good enough for you or something? It's still not about insecurities. You know next to nothing about someone you just met. It's much harder for someone to maintain a facade over TIME. Time is an important piece of learning who someone is and whether you like them as a person much less as a boyfriend. Wrong. You know next to nothing about s…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/21 07:45 PM
1

Answer this question to yourself: if you could somehow magically know someone was 100% perfect for you, would you still wait? If so, you can't pretend it's not about insecurity. You're making a lot of causative definitions that don't really fly. "Being attracted to someone" is not the same thing as "Having sex with someone." You're claiming you're not attracted to someone without having an emotional connection (regardless of your self-contradictions), but that's not how the human body works. Her…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/21 06:47 PM
1

Ensuring safety is not a product of time, it is a product of skill. Resorting to time is not an effective mitigation of a lack of skill. I don't feel lust until I FEEL safe Then how do women feel lust for people they've never met, like celebrities? Or, you know, abstract scenarios that exist only in imagination? Like men needs something to trigger their lust, I do too. It's called physicality. I need familiarity and a sense of security / safeness as a prerequisite for lust to develop. So you're …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/21 06:13 PM
2

Avoiding discomfort also avoids growth. To use your analogy, if you had no clue how to prepare and cook the food then avoiding it will never, ever provide that knowledge and thus the enjoyment of eating something properly prepared and cooked.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/21 06:00 PM
-1

Feeling comfortable and safe and actually being safe are two completely different things. That's why it's arbitrary. You can't quantify "comfort."
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/21 05:58 PM
2

Why can't this sub understand different strokes for different folks? Every human being is different. Some people want to fuck someone before they emotionally invest in them. Some people can practice self control and restraint. They don't have to immediately emotionally invest in someone after 3 seconds because they find them emotionally attractive. This could be 2 month or 8 months. It depends on the person. And someone wanting to wait before they have emotional investment doesn't mean that they…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/21 05:56 PM
1

Waiting does nothing to filter out incompatibility. There is nothing preventing someone from just hanging around while dating other people until you finally escalate, after which they simply bounce and moves on. Waiting communicates "I am not confident in my filtering skillsets" which also indirectly demonstrates an inability to determine your worth as a partner. The only real filtering strategy is to actually do so yourself, proactively. Anything else is a crutch or delusion. Answer this questi…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/21 05:54 PM
4

Be the change you wish to see in the world
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/21 03:50 PM
25

n=1 Here's an argument based on peer-reviewed, evidence-based scientific sources: The view that men suppress female sexuality received hardly any support and is flatly contradicted by some findings. Instead, the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other's sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage. Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality Here we show that both sexes are averse to overt displa…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/21 09:53 AM
2

Then those people aren't worth engaging with.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/21 12:43 PM
4

Then those people aren't worth engaging with. Either people post good sources that are vetted sufficiently, or they don't. You're complaining about a non-issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/21 09:44 AM
2

If each study isn't critically analyzed to discern if it has actual merit Why do you think people ask for the source?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/21 08:51 AM
1

There is not sufficient evidence to draw that conclusion Consistent with multiple evolutionary perspectives, height is considered an important feature of male attractiveness (for a review, see Courtiol, Raymond, Godelle, & Ferdy, 2010). In two studies, women were more likely than men to indicate that height matters when selecting a mate (Salska et al., 2008; Yancey & Emerson, 2014), and taller men were more likely to be selected for dates at speed dating events (Kurzban & Weeden, 2005). In a stu…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/21 09:02 AM
44

Some would say that given genders are roughly similar in obesity rates, this balances itself out so there is no impact. This isn't true. Morbidly obese men have far fewer sexual partners than morbidly obese women Morbidly obese women have the same number of sexual partners as average weight men Men with the highest N-count were average to overweight, although it is likely muscular men are being represented more in the ~25-29 BMI range Under-weight men did the worst of any weight group, even wors…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/21 11:13 AM
6

"Equality" until it's a responsibility Females are four times more sensitive than males to economic status cues when rating opposite sex attractiveness, indicating that higher economic status can offset lower physical attractiveness in men much more easily than in women Men do not appear to be intimidated by highly educated women, with no evidence that men have an aversion to a highly educated romantic partner as both men and women tended to prefer better educated partners, though women were far…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/21 08:51 AM
3

"You don't HAVE to enjoy an irreplaceable stage in your relationship with your newborn baby, you GET to return to work while someone else takes care of them"
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/21 08:41 AM
5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL-1kHxsavI
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/21 10:14 PM
2

n=1
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/21 03:20 PM
86

The physical attractiveness of a male sexual "harasser" substantially determines if the experience is enjoyable or traumatic, according to women Context Effects on Women’s Perceptions of Stranger Harassment
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/21 03:18 PM
3

Most female influencers have surgery done and that's why they look good. Therapy is cheaper and infinitely more effective (and has tons more adjacent health benefits), while also coming in strong in the later years when cosmetic surgery is like nailing a fried egg to a wall
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/21 01:32 PM
2

A) That doesn't answer the question. You're just trying to philosophically waffle over semantics. "Society's expectations" or "targeting male attraction behavioral patterns" are still the same thing no matter how you try to explain it away. B) It's incredibly naive to claim it all occurs "by accident" as though the biological imperative is just happenstance afterthought. Women are people and people have responsibility and agency, they're not helpless, infantile, mindless drones. Would you also t…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/21 07:11 AM
1

Don't worry, life gets better once you put effort into growth and stop avoiding the requisite discomfort
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/21 07:02 AM
1

It literally isn't (once again, as evidenced by the scientific sources provided), but it's not like you're mentally capable of realizing you're wrong or emotionally mindful enough to do so if you were. (Hint: the word isn't "irony," it's "pathetic.")
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/21 09:11 PM
1

Wrong again, 5 inches in girth is in the 79th percentile. But don't let ignoring the sources provided (and apparently a complete lack of reading comprehension) prevent you from cherrypicking whatever suits your emotional agenda. It's almost like the topic of the thread was completely lost on you in your haste to project absolute ignorance onto the other gender. There's a word for that and it isn't irony.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/21 08:30 PM
1

What source are you expecting? In terms of product reputation, it would behoove them to not publish data in that contexts whatsoever so if you're (properly) cynical then there's no reason to disbelieve that.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/21 01:57 PM
5

This is incorrect, there is obvious preference Women preferred a penis of slightly larger circumference and length for one-time (length = 6.4 inches/16.3 cm, circumference = 5.0 inches/12.7 cm) versus long-term (length = 6.3 inches/16.0 cm, circumference = 4.8 inches/12.2 cm) sexual partners. Women's Preferences for Penis Size: A New Research Method Using Selection among 3D Models For clarity, that length measurement is in the 88th percentile and that girth measurement is in the 66th percentile.…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/21 08:28 AM
5

This is incorrect, they controlled for bots and spammers One interesting thing seems to be going on here: when the best-looking men write the worst-looking women, their message success rate takes a big hit. The knee-jerk response would be to somehow chalk it up to hunky spammers, but we very carefully control for that in these articles, and in any event why would better-looking girls be drastically more susceptible to it? It seems to be some kind of self-confidence thing. https://www.gwern.net/d…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/21 08:20 AM
1

The relevant data was controlled enough to conclude that at least half of the sample size for Met Online was through online dating apps (and a further portion from online dating websites), but regardless it's generally irrelevant seeing as it all requires the same skillsets; it's all still online dating
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/21 09:10 AM
2

Meeting online has become the most popular way U.S. couples connect Rosenfeld, a lead author on the research and a professor of sociology in the School of Humanities and Sciences, drew on a nationally representative 2017 survey of American adults and found that about 39 percent of heterosexual couples reported meeting their partner online, compared to 22 percent in 2009. Full text: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/36/17753.full Appendix: https://www.pnas.org/highwire/filestream/884727/field_high…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/21 06:53 PM
2

You do realize that there is far more than one study referenced in that post, right? Regardless, your criticism is irrelevant to the topical point. If anything, it reinforces it as the extremes draw away from the average sociosexual orientation.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/21 03:20 PM
2

Quite simply not true https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/gqifng/excerpts_relating_ncount_likelihood_of_infidelity/
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/21 12:23 PM
12

Men on Tinder do not appear to be intimidated by highly educated women, suggests new study (n=3,600), which found no evidence that men have an aversion to a highly educated romantic partner. Both men and women on Tinder tended to prefer better educated partners, though women were far more selective.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/21 09:32 PM
3

Be encouraged to reflect on the sheer absence of responsibility it takes to craft this worldview
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/21 08:43 AM
4

Study shows morbidly obese women have the same number of sexual partners as average weight men
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/21 10:02 PM
3

Your opinion of 99.99% of half the human race says far more about your ability to find, attract, and keep high value men than it does about all men
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/21 10:00 PM
7

the death counts in all the wars during human history combined Here are some facts to outline how absurdly delusional this statement is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/21 09:52 PM
2

IMO only above average looking women have a significant dating advantage. Oh, well, what's evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific studies in the face of one opinion? Study shows morbidly obese women have the same number of sexual partners as average weight men
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/21 09:35 PM
1

Experiencing trauma doesn't automatically give you issues or make you undatable. This is the literal definition of baggage, a universally undesirable aspect
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/21 09:30 PM
4

So, no answer then? as if this doesn't apply to men too lol? There's no reason to assume it doesn't apply to men; many men do in fact purposefully pursue various goals for the single deliberate result of being more attractive to women. That's the whole brunt of some RP methodology. The difference is that generally men are not duplicitous or self-delusional about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/21 12:52 PM
3

How do you explain that all the things women do "for themselves" just happen to incidentally also be things that target male attraction behavioral patterns? Like, no women are out there competing with each other in completely arbitrary things like stacking intricate piles of rocks in the wilderness or some shit. It's always contentions with the onus of social status oriented around female youth (which is a visual indicator of fertility). The view that men suppress female sexuality received hardl…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/21 11:01 AM
4

This is the answer. Blaming social media is useless and off-base. It always goes back to the responsibility of the user, which is where the problem arises. Researchers have found that quitting social media for up to four weeks does nothing to improve well-being or quality of life. Nothing can make you feel bad without your permission. It's just that the skill of filtering and processing everything that you allow into your brain is very rare. Women who took and posted selfies to social media repo…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/21 10:33 AM
3

This is the answer. The person you want is wanted by other people, some of whom are more success-oriented and therefore more competitive options. Standards mean absolutely nothing if they never produce anything worthwhile. Having standards that cause you to literally end up alone are useless.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/21 02:36 PM
8

"Building trust" and "waiting" are two diametrically opposed notions. If you're proactively building trust, then you're not waiting. If you're passively waiting, then you're not building anything. Answer this for yourself: If you could somehow magically know someone was 100% perfect for you, would you still wait? If still yes, then you can't pretend it's not about insecurity. The passage of time is not and never will be a useful filtering technique. Any idiot can wait, it does nothing to improve…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/21 09:49 AM
1

Consider the paradigm you are constructing for yourself in which the only reason to be fit is to attract women, and what that says about your capacity for self-love
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/21 06:15 PM
1

Well, you can get jacked and make your own judgement I suppose. Sure, what's the use of peer-reviewed, evidence-based scientific studies in the face of one milquetoast anecdote about rationalizing away reality? So while 5-6 days a week in the gym for 5+ years has been great for me in many ways, it hasn't changed anything with women. Because you're still bad at romantic interaction. The topic is physicality, and you're mistakenly interpreting it as a suitable replacement for social skillsets.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/21 05:58 PM
0

the burden of proof is on you to show it is wrong. Sure, if you're psychopathic enough to dispute that lying is morally wrong. It's not like there is any kind of proof you would agree disproves your conjecture. Lying isn't always bad. Maybe, if your way to visualize a scenario includes useless hyperbole. And maybe, if you didn't stop at nothing to delude yourself into prioritizing your comfort bubble. In the given situation, the circumstances are not some facile binary choice between "lying in e…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/21 05:57 PM
-1

Or you could just, you know, tell your friend to mind their own business and refuse to engage with petty bullshit instead of spreading lies and gossip. I could have but reality is that would have prompted this particular person to assume he was bad. The reason why I decided to act that way in that particular way within that insignificant 5 seconds of my life was because it would have potentially caused drama later that I didn't want to deal with. Lots of people justify immorality through sheer l…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/21 11:31 AM
-1

It's not my responsibility but that's not the point. Then why did you accept it and try to pretend you could have control over what she thinks? Or, you know, care at all? I don't understand what you mean. What's this larger difference? What are you talking about? Lying is bad. Not lying is good. There is a big difference there in the magnitude of moral substantiation. Lying for a bad reason is bad. Lying for a good reason is still bad. There is a much smaller difference there in the magnitude of…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/21 11:13 AM
0

I could have but reality is that would have prompted this particular person to assume he was bad. So what? It's not your responsibility to manage the lives of idiots. I'm more of a consequentialist than deontological. White lies are ok in my book. Nothing morally superior as you suggested. You're just making excuses. The difference between not lying and lying is much larger than the difference between lying for a good reason and lying for a bad reason.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/21 10:58 AM
2

I think you're drastically overstating how much muscles make a difference. Face, height, hair, etc. are much much more important. Cues of upper body strength account for most of the variance in men's bodily attractiveness Men’s Bodily Attractiveness: Muscles as Fitness Indicators Physical attractiveness predicts endorsement of specific evolutionary psychology principles
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/21 10:31 AM
–

size isn’t everything This is only relevant when the size isn't enough. No one says "Oh you have a big penis, you must be good at sex because there's more to good sex than size."
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/21 10:15 AM
0

Or you could just, you know, tell your friend to mind their own business and refuse to engage with petty bullshit instead of spreading lies and gossip. Lying for a good reason isn't morally superior to lying for a bad reason.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/21 10:10 AM
4

Physical attractiveness predicts endorsement of specific evolutionary psychology principles Men’s Bodily Attractiveness: Muscles as Fitness Indicators Women, without exceptions, found muscular, "ripped" men most attractive - Cues of upper body strength account for most of the variance in men's bodily attractiveness Handsome Wants as Handsome Does: Physical Attractiveness and Gender Differences in Revealed Sexual Preferences Men's masculinity and attractiveness predict their female partners' repo…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/21 03:12 PM
4

If you're really interested in learning more about just how out of touch people are with their own consciousness, watch this: Dan Gilbert: The Surprising Science of Happiness The vast majority of the western world is overweight and consumes media contrived towards sexual content. You can't pretend some hairless primates indulging in base short term gratification are pure and mindful beings levitating above everything else just because they get anxious and use phones to buy junk food.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/21 07:16 PM
5

You're trying to address a biological quandary with philosophical waffling
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/21 03:01 PM
9

That's the whole point: Thinking we are special is solipsistic delusion. We aren't special, we are animals that directly share identifiable behaviors with other animals. Here's a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/21 09:31 AM
19

Here's a good litmus test: Did you find out because it was apparent in their actions, or because they directly, actively told you so adjacent to all the typical marketing socially identifiable advertising templates?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/21 11:25 AM
9

This is the onus of romance. Who is more romantic? The person who consumes every last iota of romance? Or the person who creates it?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/21 08:21 AM
3

Scratch that, it's probably because you have absolutely zero self-perception
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/21 03:44 PM
4

If you only speak for yourself, then why are you dictating advice as though everyone should accommodate what is specific to you? That's straight up solipsism. Maybe the explanation for the hate you're receiving is not that you're wrong, but because you're the kind of person who equates "not smiling" to "suicidal" and makes baseless judgements therefore.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/21 03:38 PM
3

what I said was essentially, it can’t hurt you to be “nice” Again, this is not represented in the available data: https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/cux0dm/discussion_research_finds_that_women_do_not/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913012245 https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/study-finds-heterosexual-women-prefer-benevolently-sexist-men https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201812/feminists-think-sexist-men-are-sexier-woke-men
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/21 03:26 PM
2

You're just describing literal delusion. If you think you have a better system than actual millennia of iterating on the scientific method, you would upset the entirety of the scientific establishment and completely change the course of humanity. It would be the single defining point of humanity's future, and all recorded evidence would demarcate history between pre- and post-implementation. Feel free to address the points in their entirety at your convenience.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/21 03:00 PM
2

You can point to anecdotal experience all you want, but it is quite simply not represented in the available data
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/21 02:31 PM
3

Yes, this was exactly my point. No it's not. You're claiming the viability for success is about EQ and "personality" (learned behaviors) when the evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific studies indicate it is about pulchritude and physicality (immutable traits). In fact, so long as a man possess enough physical attractiveness, the quality of his emotional intelligence is immaterial and can even be negative. This is the onus of the whole meme about rules 1 and 2. I guarantee you no man (no white…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/21 01:40 PM
12

And I don’t think the degrees of creeping women out are as firm as you think they are. If a woman is rejected by an attractive male, she becomes more bitter towards an accepting male who is unattractive - Resisting Connection Following Social Exclusion: Rejection by an Attractive Suitor Provokes Derogation of an Unattractive Suitor The physical attractiveness of a male sexual "harasser" substantially determines if the experience is enjoyable or traumatic, according to women - Context Effects on …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/21 12:42 PM
13

Probably because you are wrong. Women find men less attractive when they smile compared to when they take on swaggering or brooding poses, a Canadian study has found. In contrast, men find women more attractive when they smile, and least attractive when they look proud and confident, the study of 1,084 heterosexual men and women shows. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/between-the-lines/201105/study-finds-smiling-men-are-less-attractive-women
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/21 12:29 PM
1

It's okay to be insecure
/r/MensRights11/08/21 06:54 PM
-2

Presumably you mean either projecting or deflecting (neither of which make sense in the context), but it's not a surprise that you don't understand what you're talking about
/r/MensRights11/08/21 04:49 PM
-2

You seem to be involved in a conversation composed of one person. If you don't have anything to contribute to the topic (you know, like a correct answer to a question), then feel free to refrain from participating.
/r/MensRights11/08/21 04:14 PM
-2

Just because you can't fathom a reason doesn't mean there isn't one. The whole purpose of dialogue is to progress on an isolated topic. You sound very distressed. There is no one stopping you from asking whatever question you desire.
/r/MensRights11/08/21 04:10 PM
-2

The profit from surgical operations and the profit from selling foreskins are two different things. If you can't articulate your point without resorting to ad hominem attacks, then you don't have one.
/r/MensRights11/08/21 04:05 PM
-4

So then why did you reply to a question with an entirely irrelevant answer?
/r/MensRights11/08/21 03:38 PM
-5

What's the difference when it comes to substantiation?
/r/MensRights11/08/21 03:24 PM
-5

So then you're asserting /u/mikesteane is just lying?
/r/MensRights11/08/21 02:35 PM
5

Why are you expecting a scientifically credible answer to a scientifically uncredible question? "Pumped and dumped" is not a scientifically valid premise, and isn't even something that could be agreed upon between two people.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/21 02:15 PM
-27

That's interesting but has nothing to do with the direct profits from surgical operations
/r/MensRights11/08/21 01:58 PM
5

As of Q4 2020: Total Tinder users estimated at 66 million (Apptopia via Reuters) 17% of US adults have used Tinder, rising to 52% of those aged 18-24 (CivicScience) Other estimates find the highest US Tinder penetration among 30-44-year-olds, at 19%, compared to 15% of 18-29-year-olds, if we consider only current users (Morning Consult) https://www.businessofapps.com/data/tinder-statistics/
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/21 01:54 PM
69

That sounds interesting, do you have further reading material on that subject?
/r/MensRights11/08/21 11:39 AM
4

Meeting online is the most popular way couples connect
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/21 04:10 PM
–

I think there is some serious cognitive dissonance or older women just don't/can't understand how girls could simp for guys. I don't mean just "awww he's cute" but like actually nice guy simp behavior, buy him shit, put him on a pedestal etc. Young women do this but I guess it wasn't common back in the day due to cultural differences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia#Causes
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/21 09:08 AM
–

Why do you think no one wants advice that doesn't help? Here's a great example
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/21 09:00 AM
1

This is a great example of a misunderstanding at best of the concept. The wall is the term used to describe when women age past the point that youth is a viable factor of preferential treatment. Youth is a visual indicator of fertility and so this is unilaterally something women experience. For women, fecundity is a direct result of age. Men are not valued for their youth in the same way at all because virility is not deprecated at the same rate and men's appearances are graded according to diff…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/21 09:23 AM
1

It's not about dialectics or even debate, it's about fueling whatever their emotional diatribe is. To that end, people don't need to actually know what they're talking about, or even be able to articulate a point. They argue for negative validation.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/21 09:09 AM
2

Speaking of evolutionary genetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/21 08:12 AM
3

Making salient partner filtering choices does not need to be based on causation, it just needs something that's efficacious enough to work. There's no sense in confirming false negatives.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/21 10:55 AM
0

That's gonna be an oof, a yikes, and a wowie zowie hat trick trifecta
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/21 03:48 PM
0

The whole crux of contending with OP's premise is that men who are settled for are NOT getting what they want
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/21 03:14 PM
3

Further reading: The physical attractiveness of a male sexual "harasser" substantially determines if the experience is enjoyable or traumatic, according to women
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/21 09:24 AM
1

I don’t pick partners based on sex skill. Don't worry, it's obvious. so I prioritized what I want more and pick men based on those qualities. Too bad for them.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/21 07:10 AM
1

That's not your point. Your conjecture is that decreasing women's workload increases their libidos. Here is what the data means: <35% of work volume: 6.3 occurrences of sex per month 35-45% of work volume: 6.8 occurrences of sex per month 50% of work volume: Less than 3.2 occurrences of sex per month But the factual point was how men can increase sexual frequency. Now, seeing as your average man will generally have superficial aims to decrease work volume and increase sexual frequency, we can no…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/21 04:00 PM
2

Try this on for size: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/08/want-more-sex-split-household-chores In the 2006 data set, couples who shared housework equally had sex 6.8 times per month, on average. That was 0.5 times more per month than those with conventional arrangements and more than twice as much as couples who reported that men did the bulk of routine housework. Study in question: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jomf.12313
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/21 03:45 PM
1

The extent of the question isn't concerned with why the answer is, it's concerned with the answer itself. And the answer is that an increased domestic workload does not, in fact, result in more sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/21 03:23 PM
–

Want to guess how your anecdotal experience compares with evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific studies? https://www.medicaldaily.com/more-chores-husband-does-more-likely-marriage-will-end-divorce-242815
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/21 02:57 PM
–

Being good at sex means being able to pick good partners. If you're just banking on raw luck to do that, then you're not good at sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/21 02:30 PM
1

Being good at sex means being able to pick good partners. If you're just banking on raw luck to do that, then you're not good at sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/21 02:29 PM
1

Being good at sex means being able to pick good partners. If you're just banking on raw luck to do that, then you're not good at sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/21 02:23 PM
1

Being good at sex means being able to pick good partners. If you're just banking on raw luck to do that, then you're not good at sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/21 02:23 PM
–

It's not enough, still gotta make room for the good ol' delusional rationalization
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/21 02:21 PM
1

It's not enough, still gotta make room for the good ol' delusional rationalization
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/21 02:20 PM
1

It's not enough, still gotta make room for the good ol' delusional rationalization
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/21 02:20 PM
1

No, you are misunderstanding if you think meeting online is not online dating. If what you said is true, then "Met Online" would have the same quotient as "Met Through Friends" but it's not. It's patently obvious why from the study mechanics used as described by the author: What’s the main takeaway from your research on online dating? Meeting a significant other online has replaced meeting through friends. People trust the new dating technology more and more, and the stigma of meeting online see…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 08:32 PM
2

OLD is by far the most common way heterosexual couples meet. It’s not Yes it is, you didn't understand the study coherently, responses were mutually inclusive and "Met online" still far exceeds every other vector. It's irrespective of how long the connections last, online platforms have been the status quo for years. If you don't experience casual online dating then it's for reasons of qualification. Edit: spelling
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 08:17 PM
17

Further reading: Study shows morbidly obese women have the same number of sexual partners as average weight men
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 03:10 PM
3

Have a better source: https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/21/online-dating-popular-way-u-s-couples-meet/ Study in question: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/36/17753.full Graph: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/36/17753/F1.large.jpg They coded responses inclusively, which is why "Met in Bars or Restaurant" is the only one that didn't downtrend; people meeting online need a physical location to meet physically.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 03:03 PM
1

The quality of your company is directly proportional to your ability to find and keep it. If you're complaining about other people, it's because you're not talking responsibility for who you filter. There is no difference between skill deficiency and getting unlucky. Never make the mistake of assuming your own personal limits extend to other people.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/21 08:54 PM
5

If you don't think the onus of a perspective is relevant to understanding that perspective, much less changing it, then it doesn't sound like that sort of discourse is for you
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/21 02:11 PM
2

How do you expect people to change your view when you don't want to discuss why it is? You're trying to find ways to justify not sharing personal info. This isn't necessary, you simply choose not to share personal info and that's enough. But you also have to accept the reasons you have for not sharing personal info which is that you don't want to have to accept that the reasons you're encountering difficulties is directly your responsibility.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/21 01:58 PM
3

So you made a public post in a public forum solely about public dialogue and expect everyone to DM you because you want to keep it private?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/21 01:40 PM
5

Feel free to address the points in their entirety at your convenience. Why bother making a post that is about your perspective when you don't want to delve into the subject at all?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/21 01:38 PM
6

You are a composite of your choices, which are evident in how you describe your worldview. Someone who is good at making friends is not going to experience the problem of being unable to make friends with the opposite gender. If you think it's incorrect, contend with that. You're not making any applicable contributions to the dialogues here, conceptually or otherwise.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/21 01:34 PM
3

You're not being coherent enough with your points to derive any discourse. If you're claiming that it's harder to be platonic friends as an adult, then you were and are never good at being a friend no matter how old you are; it's just that it was the path of least resistance for any social contact whatsoever without sex as a means of connecting. Getting older doesn't mean you get wiser or more competent. That is all the product of purposeful effort. In fact, you are necessarily decaying if you a…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/21 01:30 PM
3

What's the difference between saying "all men" and "all men that I've met?" Why would getting older have any bearing on your ability to make friends with men?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/21 12:29 PM
22

Your perception of men says way more about you than it does about half the global population. What is more likely: 3.5 billion people do not respect the other 3.5 billion people sharing the planet You cannot find, attract, or keep respectful men
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/21 11:28 AM
1

Meeting online does not overshadow all of the other responses combined, only individually. For now. Every other way of meeting is on the decline. It's only a matter of time.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/21 07:25 PM
1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_lh5fR4DMA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYQmqxQgEBY https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-and-women-cant-be-just-friends/
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/21 06:54 PM
1

Looking at this study, in 2017 it was 39% online. All of the other categories (friends, bar, family, church) could lead to a friends-first situation. This tells how people met, it doesn't tell you if they began as friends or not. All friends were strangers at one point of course and could have met anywhere. In fact that's not inconsistent with the 2/3 figure. That's incorrect. If you actually read the study mechanics, they coded responses inclusively. So people could meet through church and also…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/21 06:51 PM
22

Here's a better study: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/36/17753.full We show in this paper that meeting online has displaced friends as the main way heterosexual couples in the United States meet. Traditional ways of meeting partners (through family, in church, in the neighborhood) have all been declining since World War II. Meeting through friends has been in decline since roughly 1995. It's not even close. People meet through friends because that's the lowest common denominator right above "S…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/21 06:46 PM
1

This just isn't based in reality. No one else but you is responsible for your perception. You're simultaneously saying a problem doesn't exist and then blaming men for it. If you can't even be consistent in deluding yourself, what makes you think you can discern male interest? Pro tip: attractive and genuine men also want to get their dick wet just as much as attractive and disingenuous men. The fact that most women are perfectly satisfied with being valued only for sex by actual top tier men is…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/21 11:55 AM
0

There is nothing engaging or flattering about being one of fifty women to receive the same copy-pasted message from a man online. There is if he is high value, or if YOU don't get validation from a man you consider to be lesser value than you, or if you consider the other women who do get attention to be lesser value than you because this contradicts your self-valuation. Male attention in general is absolutely gutter tier social currency that means nothing more than you have a pulse, yet is ofte…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/21 11:09 AM
0

Sounds like you care a lot about people thinking you don't care
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/21 12:54 PM
0

It's okay if you have a hard time with abstract concepts. Try this super customized analogy: if you show up to a job interview date in a t-shirt and cargo shorts, no amount of "not caring what people think" is going to land you the position impress a woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/21 11:26 AM
1

To "normalize" something is to mitigate the social penalties from contradicting social convention. Sometimes social conventions are based on something more substantial than "Well that's just how we've always done it" in which case "normalizing" something isn't going to do anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/21 10:24 AM
1

This is definitely helpful in some situations, in which internal introspection can take a much more positive approach towards self-love. But if you show up to a job interview in a t-shirt and cargo shorts, no amount of "not caring what people think" is going to land you the position. Caring about what people think is not a matter of ingratiating yourself towards people in a fake deception, it's a matter of understanding how best to organize what you have in order to influence a favorable outcome…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/21 10:11 AM
3

Just grow callouses on the order of 3-4 inches, obviously
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/21 10:05 AM
1

It's not comparable. Of course in the context of pulchritude, make-up is female competition through the lens of male stimuli. When it is extended to extremes, it's a complete caricature of those visual design principles to the point that it's no longer attractive to men and solely about women competing with other women (a comparable point here would be something like ridiculously obtuse displays of wealth in men). Make-up, as women use it to enhance what they're using to attract men, is a relati…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/21 09:57 AM
3

Responding to someone else's agency is not itself agency, it's receptive and passive. Making a decision based off of the options someone else has constructed is not proactivity.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 07:44 PM
2

Proactivity is agency. If someone isn't fielding their requisite participation, then they're not someone worth engaging with because they will always necessary be a drain.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 07:10 PM
8

There is no difference between someone who doesn't care and someone who never puts in any proactive effort
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 05:20 PM
1

Did you? You cited this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090626153511.htm Which is an article from 2009, not a source. The link to the study itself is dead: http://www.wfu.edu/news/release/2009.06.25.a.php Did you not read your own material?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/21 11:58 AM
2

You have provided zero evidence that sex early on improves relationship prospects but are scrutinizing mine? What form would that evidence take, specifically? Don't pretend you're persuaded by proof. It's patently obvious you're on an emotional-based agenda. There isn't any evidence in the world that could wrestle those delusions out of your death grip. Couples least likely to divorce marry as virgins! But guess thats not evidence either 🙄 A) You still have yet to substantiate your claims with a…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/21 01:43 PM
2

Yea because people can’t lie or hide things about themselves? There is basic filtering. Something will always appear unattainable from the perspective of someone who doesn't understand how to attain it. Specifically in the context of filtering skillsets, of course someone who doesn't understand the utility and efficacy of how good filtering skillsets yield incredible advantages will demonize what they can't get. It’s not. https://www.livescience.com/10935-delaying-sex-relationships-study-finds.h…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/21 08:25 AM
2

Withholding sex” from a date isn’t about getting men to act right. It’s about vetting out fuckboys. Well you’re being reductive because no one said anything about not filtering the men you go on dates with. Try to keep up. Delaying sex allows a woman and a man to approach the relationship more intentionally and earnestly. That's a really nice delusion, it must be comforting. Sex can work just as much as a distraction to mask incompatibility as it can bring couples closer. Only if you're bad at i…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/21 11:22 PM
1

And yet, no screenshot. Imagine being this deluded.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/21 01:02 PM
1

You're either replying to the wrong person or colossally misinterpreting what are very clear arguments
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/21 07:52 AM
1

I'm sorry if the link didn't work for you. But it does work, I've read it, and no other human im this thread has said otherwise. It seems that you just can't use links. So now you're claiming that the dead link somehow magically works for you? http://www.wfu.edu/news/release/2009.06.25.a.php Post a screenshot. And in the study you sent, tallness and leaness are also favored. And all body attributes account for 80% of physical attractiveness. Theres 20% missing there. A) That's not variance in re…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/21 07:49 AM
1

It's obvious you haven't read the study yourself when you weren't even aware the link to it didn't work. If the entire mechanics of a study can be expounded upon in just one paragraph, it is indeed completely invalid. Even a basic abstract is longer than that. Here's a real source: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2017.1819 Women, without exceptions, found muscular, "ripped" men most attractive; although in social contexts they lie to avoid hurting men around them.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 08:30 PM
1

The source cited is a dead link. All it says about the study mechanics is one brief paragraph, there's nothing to conclude because there's nothing to review or critique.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/21 05:44 PM
5

This just isn't based on reality. If a person isn't investing in someone, why would they want that person? You're presupposing something before it's even existed. If you're expecting someone to want you before they've learned why they should want you, then all you're filtering in is men who know you have a vagina. Especially when it's so crucial to make a good initial impression, there are a myriad of ways to influence an optimal outcome (and plenty of ways to fuck it up). You're completely misu…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 04:24 PM
0

God forbid a woman wants to see if a man is an asshole who will disrespect her boundaries before committing to him. You don't see if someone is an asshole by setting a trap like a simpleton and seeing if they blunder into it. That's passive and inferior. At the very least, all you're doing is failing to find out if someone is better at fooling you than you are at realizing you're being fooled. You see if someone is an asshole by proactively filtering. If you could somehow magically know someone …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 02:32 PM
0

I would. But I am a seriously monogamous person. I have no problem NOT having sex. You have to remember, I am one of those not fat, actively fit women. Around 30-35% of my countries population in my age group. I can pick and choose. I think I picked well, and seeing how much he adores me and how much I adore him in return makes me think that this is a strategy I will stick with. I don't wan't just sex. This is 100% rationalizing after the fact. Happiness is not a straight 1:1 product of actions.…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 02:23 PM
6

You're conflating objective value with subjective compatibility. Desirable men with savvy social skillsets are in very short supply. You're not going to attract and keep one by denying (out of provincial problems like insecurity) the best way to form a connection through emotional investment. Why would a high value partner put up with low value? The notion that a high value guy will somehow look through all the shit to see a diamond in the rough is a fantasy straight out of Disney movies. It's u…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 02:12 PM
7

Further reading: Women tweet the words "whore" and "slut" at nearly double the rate men do The view that men suppress female sexuality received hardly any support and is flatly contradicted by some findings. Instead, the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other's sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage. Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 01:59 PM
24

As a tangent, there is somehow this belief that "good" men who want commitment do not want sex as much as the "bad" men who lie about wanting commitment. Pro tip: all men want to get their dick wet. Moralizing based on sex drive is a horrible way to filter candidates. The kind of men typically held in the highest regard are also the ones who, by definition, have enough options such that between two otherwise identical women, the one with less baggage will inevitably be the default choice.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 01:52 PM
-3

Answer this question for yourself: if you could somehow magically know someone was 100% perfect for you, would you still wait? If the answer is yes, then you cannot pretend it's about "filtering." Throwing up artificial hoops to intimacy does nothing to improve candidate quality and will actually necessarily decrease it as the only people willing to put up with that are the ones desperate for affection. As always, the best approach is to take responsibility for your own goals and do your own fil…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/21 01:49 PM
2

In addition, male refractory period is decreased in the added presence of a new female
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/21 06:09 PM
12

The most salient proof of this behavior: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect The Coolidge effect is a biological phenomenon seen in animals, whereby males exhibit renewed sexual interest whenever a new female is introduced to have sex with, even after cessation of sex with prior but still available sexual partners. Biological imperative is resolute.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/21 04:38 PM
2

Here's the article you're probably talking about: https://bonytobeastly.com/ectomorph-aesthetics-full-article/ Aside from the somatypes fiction, the sources are interesting.
/r/TheRedPill01/07/21 10:11 AM
2

Being a victim grants privileges so the superficial fear is that diluting the privileges among all deserving victims leaves those gatekeeping without any leverage
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/21 07:17 AM
2

Here is some further reading material: The Understudied Female Sexual Predator: According to new research, sexual victimization by women is more common than gender stereotypes would suggest Female Perpetration of Violence in Heterosexual Intimate Relationships: Adolescence through Adulthood Teen dating violence is down, but boys still report more violence than girls: when it comes to teen dating violence, boys are more likely to report being the victim of violence—being hit, slapped, or pushed—t…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/21 03:47 PM
5

Sexual Assault of Men Played for Laughs
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/21 02:14 PM
1

It is not surprising that the only source you can field disproves your argument
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/21 05:30 PM
1

So far all you have are evasive excuses, and still no sources supporting your own argument
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/21 05:17 PM
1

That's nonsensical, everything takes longer to refute because the person making the argument is more familiar with it. You can use that excuse to avoid engaging with any argument you don't like. The commentary from the argument itself is already presented earlier in the comment chain, this is merely substantiation which you continue to lack.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/21 03:19 PM
1

So then the claim of talking over someone in a verbal debate has no correlation or relevance to discourse over text. Are you just expecting people to spoon feed you one source at a time at the rate of your reading speed? If you can't be bothered to read through the methodology to understand the study mechanisms involved, then maybe that explains why you think someone posting a handful of very clear, legible citations is a gish gallop or why you react so defensively to someone substantiating some…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/21 02:11 PM
1

You just dumped a bunch of links without even attempting to explain why you linked them. This is a gish gallop if I've ever seen one. Sure, if you don't take the time to actually go through and read them, which you wouldn't because you're not debating from a place to learn but rather to feel superior
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/21 01:21 PM
4

It seems the contingent aspect is that you're taking it personally (ego defense is a natural reaction). What is being said is true for everyone, and in fact most living things. That is why mindfulness is such a pivotal concept for well-being. If you visualize your entire mental processes as an iceberg, the conscious level is the very tip. You are claiming that the entirety of your mental processes is in accord with what you want them to be, which is obviously fallacious. The vast majority of you…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/21 10:03 AM
1

Men can naturally get a lot bigger, peak size is way more mass, but this is definitely peak lean which harmonizes the overall aesthetic. Performative celebrities are definitely on gear though, but that's irrelevant to natural limits.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/21 09:14 AM
3

The reason you're having trouble digesting this notion is because you are clinging to the delusion that you are in control of what you do and the choices you make, which is far and away from sexual selection analysis and debate. A great many people struggle with this, it's just that in this context it's through the lens of gendered inclinations so you are doubly unwilling to consider any veracity therein.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/21 09:10 AM
3

This really encapsulates the phenomena: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/between-the-lines/201105/study-finds-smiling-men-are-less-attractive-women https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/study-finds-heterosexual-women-prefer-benevolently-sexist-men https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913012245 I think the discussion section of this study on Dark Triad personality constellation and attractiveness explains it quite well Yet, the study specifically outlines: "Physicality…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/21 09:04 AM
0

A) The decline isn't so nearly as sudden or as steep B) Men aren't the one gestating a human being
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 07:26 PM
1

All of this is a great example of manipulative behavior. Manipulation is predicated upon having some mechanism of influence. If you're so sure that your methodology works, then...just do it. How is it manipulative to be disagreed with? What you are offering is not unique, many other women provide the same and more. If it's true and you're wrong then it's just honesty, not manipulation. No, I didn’t say she can control it but the fact of the matter is men will leave if they don’t get what they wa…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 09:53 PM
1

Again: you can't control if people leave or not. If men aren't compatible, they're not going to check themselves out when all you have to offer is sex. It is forever your own responsible to filter the people you allow into your life. Regardless, you admit that this is only a valid strategy for low value women with no hope who want relationship security based on the sole fact that the man is so undesirable no other woman will want him. This will lose every time to slightly more opportunistic wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 08:41 PM
1

Thus, the onus for success is in taking responsibility for the quality of your filtering skillsets. If you could somehow magically know someone was 100% perfect for you, would you still wait? Throwing up artificial barriers to intimacy is a crutch cop-out that not only prevents success, but also prevents growth. By only filtering in men who will put up with that, you are ensuring that you will dissuade high value men who have their choice of options. Only low value men who are desperate enough t…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 03:38 PM
0

Lucky you, a basic language lesson to go with the rudimentary mathematics catch-up: A majority is the greater part of the total. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 01:46 PM
0

You: "They didn't control for actual dating that is online and not meeting through friends online." Study: "We literally controlled for actual online dating and not just meeting through friends online." You: Study: "In fact, people who meet through OLD is rapidly increasing while people meeting through friends online is decreasing." You:
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 12:33 PM
1

Want to guess how it's obvious you didn't read the study? Table 2 shows the decline over time in personal intermediation for couples who met online from the 2009 and 2017 HCMST surveys. In the 2009 HCMST survey, 11.2% of the couples who met online met through some form of third-person intervention. In the 2017 HCMST survey, only 3.7% of couples who met online met through the intervention or mediation of a friend or other third person. Eighty-nine percent of couples who met online from the 2017 s…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 06:55 AM
0

Try adding up again: Meeting online is the most popular way couples connect
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/21 08:48 PM
10

It's obvious enough from the parent comment: OP and people with congruent perspectives don't have an accurately representative understanding of what "average" actually is. If you're interpreting facts of reality as "a crack against women" that says more about you than any way the data is presented.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/21 12:38 PM
12

If below average men aren't having sex due to failing to put in the requisite effort, what are below average women doing? "In the US, actively dating unpartnered heterosexual men met an average of 2.4 partners for dating or sex in the past 12 months. Actively dating unpartnered heterosexual women met an average of 5.1 partners in the past 12 months." Additionally, according to 2017 survey data from the How Couples Meet and Stay Together project, only 18.7% of unpartnered heterosexual men and onl…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/21 10:37 AM
3

Most people are just straight up deficient in filtering skillsets. That's why the commenter you're replying to places such a large emphasis on appearance, and how it was so surprising when it seemingly contrasted with the reality of a person; they simply don't know how to vet and so resort to superficial judgements which is OP's whole point.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/21 03:35 PM
1

Feel free to address the points presented instead of making the mistake of assuming personal experiences based on argument
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/21 04:12 PM
0

The fact that you think wikipedia is "fancy-looking" and virtue signaling anecdotes can compete with evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific studies are really the last nails in your coffin of delusion
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/21 06:27 PM
-1

It's not surprising that you're unaccustomed to evidence-based arguments, in order to participate in intellectual discourse you have to actually be able to hit a bare minimum
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/21 02:29 PM
1

Because your dumping links to a site that literally anyone who makes an account can edit on a whim Spoken as someone who has never A) looked up the sources cited in a text B) actually tried to contribute any worthwhile knowledge on a topic, and has zero conception of how rigorously controlled wikipedia is
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/21 12:28 PM
1

Not only are aesthetics objective, they're very easy to study scientifically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_symmetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averageness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty#Human_beauty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection#Theory
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/21 09:16 AM
0

And dumping a bunch of Wikipedia links is going to change my view? And deign to opt for an evidence-based opinion? Of course not, you're going to shove them all away in order to preserve your emotion-based opinion. Ignoring reality makes it go away, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/21 09:15 AM
1

That's not mutually exclusive with never touching a tangent social circle composed of high value, truly attractive people. Facial aesthetics are a universal pattern that have nothing to do with ethnicity, it's just that certain ethnicities are more likely to genetically accrue higher rates of objectively positive features. The odds of genetically collating enough positive features for an individual to be truly attractive is possible in any human population large enough.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/21 06:14 PM
-1

This sounds more like an argument for scientism over the scientific method. A numerical tier list to gauge attractiveness is always going to be subjective. There is no sort of academic rigor nor statistical bearing here. The sheer ignorance of these takes never fails to astound. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_symmetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averageness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty#Human_beauty https://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/21 05:55 PM
1

What's more likely: Genuinely attractive people are very common You've never been close to the same social circles as genuinely attractive people By expressing your disagreement with the above, all you're illustrating is that you're boringly bone dry average at best.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/21 05:45 PM
1

It's increasingly easier to understand ignorance that stems from a cloying delusion to avoid accepting reality at any costs. Be encouraged to manifest the self-respect to improve. Avoiding growth is never the answer.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/21 11:31 PM
1

It's okay to be insecure, but consider the fact that you have no conception of men who bring enough value to warrant a woman who properly understands relationships is because you're incapable of finding one, much less attracting one
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/21 11:25 PM
1

Because some men will not want sex while they stressed? So men will not want to have sex while stressed because some men will not want sex while they're stressed? That's the best you can manage? At least pretend you have some modicum of credence to mask your unashamed ignorance. When men are too much in there head - it also leads to the inability to get it up and stay up. You think erectile dysfunction, a complication from cardiovascular disease or neurological issues, is a symptom of "being too…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/21 10:43 PM
1

Okay, so then what are the answers to the questions posed? If you have all of those anecdotes but you're unable to answer the questions, what's the point? You composed that opinion based off of something, and it wasn't because of experience and it's clearly not based on analytical deduction. That means it's based on an emotional agenda, and not one based in reality either. Correspondingly, you derived that emotional agenda from the sense that men should not want sex all the time because that mea…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/21 08:56 PM
3

Why would a stressed or overwhelmed man turn down one of the most efficacious methods of relieving stress? What about pregnancy do you think turns off a man? You're projecting what would turn you off onto the male perspective.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/21 08:35 PM
2

Under what circumstances do you think a man in a relationship would turn down uncomplicated, low involvement 15 minute sex?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/21 08:09 PM
0

I don't see the problem with this behavior provided the right context. Context matters more than words. Okay, try this: under what contexts is it acceptable to use the word rape, not counting clinical, educational, etc scenarios? If the minority isn't representative, one can't assume that the distribution will be the same in other circles. https://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-determine-the-minimum-size-needed-for-a-statistical-sample/
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/21 10:19 PM
0

If my boss was also a personal friend aware that I use these terms tongue-in-cheek. I'd do it. Me and my friends call each other sluts, bitches, corrupt and anything you can think of, just for fun, and just like many blacks call each other the n-word, or the few gays I know call each other faggots or equivalent names that would seem offensive in other contexts. Can you specify: do you truly not understand the problem with this behavior? If an online survey isn't scientifically robust, why should…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/21 05:00 PM
2

It does matter. Shaming isn't determined by words, but by intention. Would you call your boss a whore or a slut? What about the N-word, F-word, or R-word? No? Why not? Shaming isn't determined by vocabulary, right? They explicitly said that they didn't filter for bot retweets and NSFW accounts. Again, it pales in comparison to the vast throughput of human interaction. 69% of men would respect a woman less because she hooks up a lot, but only 37% of would respect a man less. The respective figure…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/21 08:45 AM
6

I see they excluded "slut-shaming" word, but there are many other contexts the word slut is used without implying any shame or even being gendered. I'm on mobile, but if you look up "slut" on twitter you'll get a bunch of tweets like "I'm such a slut fir reassurance and communication" (this is a real tweet). Beyond certain contexts, it doesn't matter. Those words are gendered and specifically have a disparaging connotation. If they are used at all, it means they are deliberately conveying the me…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/21 03:21 PM
14

Yes, they controlled for it. Women Tweet the Words "whore" and "slut" at Nearly Double the Rate Men Do It makes sense from an economic perspective. the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other's sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Cultural-Suppression-of-Female-Sexuality-Baumeister-Twenge/26cf592c500860d43ceab39d21816654e53e9c6c
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/21 10:27 AM
4

All of those possibilities also exist for a 5/10 (statistically more so, but still mathematically). Would you rather have a potentially unfulfilling experience with a 5/10 or a 9/10?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/21 12:07 PM
2

Adam Driver is not a good-looking guy. What you really mean when you say a successful actor and celebrity is "not good looking" is that he is not AS good looking as the very top tier of successful actors and celebrities. Adam Driver is infinitely more attractive than a conventionally ugly person.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/21 02:38 PM
21

And muscular, and a marine, and a Julliard graduate, and a successful, award-winning actor, and rich and famous, with a driven (heh) work ethic and a confident personality. But sure, go off about "unconventionally attractive" because of his ears or some shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/21 08:47 AM
10

The wall as a concept isn't a disparity between men and women. It's the disparity between young women and older women.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/21 05:12 PM
37

Additionally, observing the entire gamut of the cause and effect relationship between choices of strategy is much more immediate with the male gender role in dating, mostly because it's proactive. It's very, very simple to find out what doesn't work because all it takes is a single conversation to discern if you've succeeded. It's easy to discover that the bullshit purported by society doesn't work. So over the course of a few months you can learn everything you'd need to know to begin cultivati…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/21 05:10 PM
2

How am I 'unconsciously' trying to argue someone into being with me? It's obvious in the way you try to disparage other life choices that don't include you or men you want who don't want you: "The only thing he will get from 'playing the field' is meaningless sex with strangers and maybe a few lifelong STDS." That's patently false, and nothing you can say is going to convince a man who knows he can get exactly what he wants from "playing the field." You're insecure because you're comparing yours…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/21 05:13 PM
2

Nor would I ever intend to. That doesn't mean you aren't, it just means you're not aware of it when you are. You're not exhibiting savvy critical analysis, just off-base wishful thinking. So long as you can't understand how long term commitment with you is not more appealing than short term dating with other women, then you're not ever going to be able to present a worthwhile relationship offer. No one deserves love, or a connection. It's something you have to work at and earn. I'm not a dancing…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/21 04:21 PM
2

You're not going to argue someone into being with you. You need to provide value to his life to get his attention, and provide a unique combination of value to get his commitment.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/21 03:06 PM
2

You had literally said yourself they can't eat ice cream and candy every day, well, I can. Not while living past 50 in any remotely favorable quality of life. I just eat what I feel like but it's still better than the average American While you couldn't have a lower bar, that actually does sound like pretty typical obesity habits.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/21 04:29 PM
3

"Anyone that can serve as a source of external validation" So you don't know, but you're sure we're pandering to...Someone. Nice. Are you trying to define virtue signaling? If you don't know what it is, just look it up. The whole point of virtue signaling is to receive external validation by flaunting some postured sentiment, such as "I prefer dad bods because I'm very mature and emotionally complex, not at all like those shallow and superficial women who prefer muscled men." And you assume that…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/21 11:42 AM
3

Virtue signaling to who exactly? Anyone that can serve as sources of external validation. Making the general male populace feel better about themselves is pretty low on most women's list of priorities It's not done with that intention, which doesn't matter because lying about something so fundamentally transparent accomplishes the opposite of making someone feel better. Other women certainly don't care Not true, female sexual competition is one of the most stringent sources of female toxicity. h…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/21 09:54 AM
1

What benefit is there to lying about what we find attractive? How would that go? We say we're attracted to men who aren't runners or swimmers or lifters, dad bod men date us, we sleep with them and marry them, and spend the rest of our lives unhappy? Where is the benefit to women here? 1) Virtue signaling 2) Finding someone who reinforces delusion for unhealthy lifestyle habits and does not spur pursuit of self-improvement 3) Avoid addressing the ultimate lack of self-worth in not being good eno…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/21 08:41 AM
2

Glad we can agree on how you were wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/21 09:07 AM
2

It's objectively intermediate level
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/21 08:31 AM
2

Right, because the requisite muscle mass necessary to bench your own bodyweight, squat 1.5x your own bodyweight, and deadlift twice your own bodyweight is just fluff and sparkles
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/21 05:10 PM
27

It's possible to make zero mistakes and still lose. That's not weakness, that's just life, yo. If you were necessarily satisfied with your behavior, then you should concomitantly be satisfied with the outcome because you exerted all your available influence on the situation. What happened is the best case scenario compared to finding out what kind of person she was much further down the line of personal investment.
/r/seduction19/04/21 04:41 PM
1

A) What you are describing is not avoiding the wall, every woman hits it because every woman is valued for youth and pulchritude B) If Sarah truly cares about those achievements, what's the problem? That is goal fulfillment. However, if Sarah wants a family more than anything else, she would be obliged to pursue it during the best time possible. Sarah is just as capable of pursuing a career at 40 as she is at 20, but the same cannot be said for fecundity. C) It's exceedingly rare to achieve all …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/21 03:46 PM
1

GOTTEM
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/21 11:55 PM
3

Be born. Men don't hit the wall because the predicators of fertility in women (youth) do not apply to male fecundity. Male virility is signaled by musculature and provision; so when a man is old enough that he can't defend his home or work enough to make money.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/21 11:53 PM
1

Life gets better when you work at it, but you have to stop making excuses that avoid growth
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/21 12:52 PM
1

Delusion is supposed to be comforting but you don't sound very comfortable at all
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/21 10:31 AM
1

I certainly know fat individuals both in my personal life as well as celebrities who are very actively sought after romantically/sexually and considered by many people to be very physically attractive, indeed often times more attractive than skinny people depending on who you ask Anecdotal evidence isn't. Here is what actual evidence is: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110328171226.htm https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sjop.12631 there are many different healthy type…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/21 04:54 PM
2

5.7 is basically 6. No one else subscribes to your overly generous range of error that is solely about stretching data to fit your opinion instead of the other way around. They aren't going to feel the difference Wrong again. "This study used haptic stimuli to allow assessment of women’s size recall accuracy for the first time, as well as examine their preferences for erect penis sizes in different relationship contexts. Women (N = 75) selected amongst 33, 3D models. Women recalled model size ac…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/21 04:08 PM
1

Feel free to address the points in their entirety at your convenience. Or just post more sources that actually contradict your argument. That's very amusing.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/21 04:00 PM
3

Using the global average to artificially lower the number is intellectually dishonest. It's not intellectually dishonest, it's factually relevant. It's even more factually relevant if women have more egregious expectations in countries that are statistically higher than the global average because it means they don't have objective criteria; it's all relative and they want the top 20% no matter what. In Europe and the US 6 inch is basically average You can't phrase mathematical equivalence while …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/21 03:58 PM
10

From the Depth Hub that no one ever browses located in the sidebar which no one ever reads: Why PPD, while sometimes diverting, is ultimately useless RP people generally bring the following assumptions to a debate: They believe that there is exactly one reality, and that truth is what accurately describes that reality. The better a statement describes reality, the more true it is. They are factual absolutists. They believe that whether something is "good" or "bad" is a matter of opinion, and tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/21 03:51 PM
3

they want men to be 6 foot tall (which is basically average) and to have 6 inch cocks (which is basically average). That's patently absurd. Average male height for the US is 5ft 9.5in or 177cm. 84% of American men are shorter than 6ft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_country#Estimated_average_height_of_19_years_olds_by_country https://dqydj.com/height-percentile-calculator-for-men-and-women/ Average global penis length is 5.5in or 14cm. 76.93% of all men have penises smalle…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/21 03:40 PM
1

Yes but meeting through friends is not the only way to meet people online. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/36/17753/F1.large.jpg Okay, let's break this down into what the data would look like: Online connections are in the minority: "Met Online" would be decreasing and far below almost every other vector of meeting Online connections are in the majority, but conventional social media is still the majority: BOTH "Met Online" AND "Met through Friend" would be increasing and above almost ever…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/21 02:55 PM
1

It says in multiple areas of this study that “meeting online” includes all “computer mediated communication” and not just OLD. Your quote says not that they controlled for meeting online through friends but that those people were included in both groups. It does not say they controlled for meeting online through areas other than OLD but rather that these meetings were included as “meeting online.” It very specifically explains how they distinguished this, but you're obviously either negligently …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/21 11:17 AM
0

If you can't parse the selected text, there isn't really any other way to portray the relevant information. If people were meeting online through mutual friends, this would be present in the data: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/36/17753/F1.large.jpg Do you really think the scientifically educated authors didn't account for what took you a few seconds worth of neurotic agonizing?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/21 11:00 AM
0

Oh, you mean the part where they controlled for that? It's not enough to just browse for what you think is a sticking point for your emotional diatribe. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/36/17753/F1.large.jpg https://www.pnas.org/highwire/markup/886545/expansion?width=1000&height=500 The coding of the “how did you meet” question coded as many categories as could be identified in every open-ended response. None of the categories are mutually exclusive. Some respondents met online and also met…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/21 10:45 AM
0

Want to know how it's obvious you didn't read the source? Meeting a significant other online has replaced meeting through friends. People trust the new dating technology more and more, and the stigma of meeting online seems to have worn off. I was surprised at how much online dating has displaced the help of friends in meeting a romantic partner. Our previous thinking was that the role of friends in dating would never be displaced. But it seems like online dating is displacing it. That’s an impo…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/21 10:08 AM
2

Are you trying to claim that fat people necessarily have strong dating skills? Because that's very prejudiced. The fact of the matter is that between two otherwise identical candidates, people will pick the one who is fitter with more muscle and less fat. If you are fat, getting fit will undoubtedly improve not only your dating success rate, but your quality of life in uncountable avenues as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/21 10:03 AM
0

Swingin for the fences on option #2 then
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 10:15 PM
1

Feel free to address the points in their entirety at your convenience
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 09:46 PM
3

Can’t read the second link Direct your attention to the hyperlink labeled "View Full Text". They both show that online dating doesn’t mean better options and most people end up dissatisfied. Wrong. The platform has nothing to do with why people are failing. It is the attitudes that people cultivate in attempts to externalize blame and avoid personal accountability. Big expectations = big disappointment. Exactly. Now who is responsible for someone's expectations, themselves or a third party?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 09:14 PM
-1

With whom do you think women are getting into relationships? Your cognitive dissonance is egregious and perturbing. Pick one: Following the science that says OLD is the most popular way couples meet, which confronts you with your personal responsibility for your problems Following the delusion that says OLD is shit and doesn't work for anyone, which avoids your personal responsibility for your problems
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 09:10 PM
-1

Ease of use doesn't mean anything if it doesn't produce results. It's super easy to grunt like a caveman and beat your chest, but that won't get you sex. It's not popular necessarily because it's accessible. It's the most popular because it works.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 09:01 PM
2

None of what you said addresses the point: OLD is the most popular way couples connect, so if someone thinks it's garbage then it's most likely because they're boring and fat with a bad attitude and deficient skillsets because it's wildly successful for the majority of people capable of getting into relationships at all. Further reading: A Rejection Mind-Set: Choice Overload in Online Dating Disintermediating your friends: How online dating displaces other ways of meeting "Where Have All the Goo…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 08:58 PM
0

The only thing anyone is entitled to in life is suffering and death. No one owes anyone anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 08:45 PM
1

Then how do you accommodate the evidence-based, peer-reviewed empirical data that indicates the reality of OLD being the most popular way couples meet?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 08:44 PM
10

Meeting online is the most popular way couples connect What's more likely: OLD is shit You are deficient in dating skillsets
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/21 08:34 PM
2

No offence but that is a bit of a strange question... If you think it's a strange question then why are you participating in the thread where that is the OP? What an FDS woman would offer a man would depend on the individual qualities, beliefs, and goals of that particular FDS woman, and of course what the man in question was looking for. If a woman who does not subscribe to FDS can supply anything that a woman who does subscribe to FDS can supply, what is the use of FDS at all? It's just extra …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 04:29 PM
1

But meeting online is the most popular way couples connect, so if it actually works then it's irrelevant how exploitative and predatory the analytics are. Just like anything else, OLD is a tool. How you use it (i.e. your attitude and skill capability) shapes your whole experience. Disintermediating your friends: How online dating displaces other ways of meeting A Rejection Mind-Set: Choice Overload in Online Dating "Where Have All the Good Men Gone?" Gendered Interactions in Online Dating
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 10:25 AM
0

To answer your main question- what's "in it" for for a guy that dates me is a partner who'll be loyal, honest and ambitious (as an individual and for us as a couple and eventually a family). What about FDS provides this such that women who don't subscribe to that methodology cannot?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/21 06:46 PM
0

Pulchritude has nothing to do with methodology
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/21 06:45 PM
1

Have some more facts to ignore: Females are four times more sensitive than males to economic status cues when rating opposite sex attractiveness, indicating that higher economic status can offset lower physical attractiveness in men much more easily than in women.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/21 11:26 PM
1

First of all, I feel things like career success, finances, and various skills are valued by most men too. Because you're making the same mistake as OP by projecting what you want onto what you think men want. Here is the reality: Females are four times more sensitive than males to economic status cues when rating opposite sex attractiveness, indicating that higher economic status can offset lower physical attractiveness in men much more easily than in women. And I know that sperm is viable for l…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/21 11:25 PM
1

You are trying to assert that Tinder, the most popular platform for online dating, is not online dating? And you think that's a demonstration of your capacity for literacy?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/21 11:15 PM
1

Have another fact to ignore: meeting online is the most popular way couples connect. OLD is what you make of it. If you think it's only for hookups, that's probably because you're deficient in filtering skillsets and goal-compatible partner candidates one don't see any relationship potential in you.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/21 04:48 PM
1

A) The things men are valued for take way more time to accrue (musculature, career success, finances, resources, social skillsets, leadership skillsets, etc) compared to the things women are valued for (youth, pulchritude, physical fitness, emotional reliability, etc) so women generally want older men: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships#Statistics B) Sperm is viable for much longer than eggs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility#Fertility_biology
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/21 04:37 PM
-1

I mean, you can cohabitate without being married. But I'm pretty sure marriage implies cohabitation. So my point still stands. If you are describing the benefits of marriage when they are actually benefits of cohabitation, what's the point in getting married when you can just cohabitate? And no partners are not supposed to fix your life, I never said that. And sure, people might not want to cohabitate at certain times for personal reasons. You said: "And if you don't see any advantage in having …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/21 04:10 PM
0

Tax cuts are a factual benefit, amongst other legal benefits. Everything else you described is from cohabitation, not marriage. If the only reason you can fathom to explain why someone doesn't want to cohabitate is because they don't genuinely like you, then you have a lot of work ahead of you to reassemble your sense of validation effectively. If you are sad, lonely, or boring, moving in with someone is not going to fix that.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/21 03:50 PM
9

Feel free to address the points in their entirety instead of making the mistake of assuming ad hominem remarks will get you any worthwhile attention. If you interpret reality as a personal attack, that's a you problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/21 02:56 PM
14

Have some facts to ignore: In line with previous research on mating preferences from multiple fields, our results indicate a heterogeneous effect of education level by gender: while women strongly prefer a highly educated potential partner, this hypothesis is rejected for men. In contrast with recent influential studies from the field of economics, we do not find any evidence that men would have an aversion to a highly educated potential partner. Additionally, in contrast with most previous rese…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/21 02:03 PM
2

Repeating it over and over definitely makes it true
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/21 01:57 AM
2

Keep telling yourself that, it surely distinguishes you as an interesting and unique person
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/21 01:55 AM
0

You're imagining this kind of awkward: https://static2.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Jesse-Eisenberg-as-Lex-Luthor.jpg Try imagining this kind: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/13/39/20/1339203708a3a560b6cb4c5750fe8060.jpg Women typically have implicit emotional barriers against confident, handsome men because the assumption they're just out for casual sex precludes any kind of dangerous emotional expenditure. So when a confident, handsome man can present a demeanor which subverts…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/21 01:42 AM
0

It's disarming and invites emotional investment
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/21 01:25 AM
1

I had a whole routine where I faked being nervous about the whole thing and that put women way more at ease than trying to affect a Chad Swagger. The only thing more alluring than a confident Chad is a genuine Chad
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/21 01:24 AM
4

How else would you describe objective indicators of someone's caliber of effort and skill involved in developing their ability to be a capable partner? Saying someone is or isn't a good partner isn't the same thing as saying they are or aren't a good person. Why would you conflate the two unless you do implicitly think someone's self worth is necessarily dependent on their ability to attract partners?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/21 12:16 PM
10

The difference between being actions-oriented and results-oriented. Outcome independence is paramount in both quality and quantity of actions and results.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/21 02:43 PM
5

You're replying to the wrong comment
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/21 05:18 PM
4

I think we should divide "malicious" friendzone and genuine one. That was the original definition of the word before it sunk into casual demographics
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/21 04:22 PM
8

Women tweet the words "whore" and "slut" at nearly double the rate men do
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/21 11:18 AM
55

Pop psychology, to be specific. Armchair diagnosing tabloid drama, to be even more specific.
/r/askTRP14/03/21 10:51 PM
1

That is incorrect. This study used haptic stimuli to allow assessment of women’s size recall accuracy for the first time, as well as examine their preferences for erect penis sizes in different relationship contexts. Women (N = 75) selected amongst 33, 3D models. Women recalled model size accurately using this method, although they made more errors with respect to penis length than circumference. Women preferred a penis of slightly larger circumference and length for one-time (length = 6.4 inche…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/21 11:38 PM
1

You are more likely to have higher qualitative and quantitative sexual opportunities if you are good at sex
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/21 11:32 PM
4

Meeting online is the most popular way couples connect. But too many just invalidate what they aren't good at instead of recognizing their own responsibility in their failures.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/21 11:22 PM
1

Name something you think works for everyone that would otherwise be considered gender-specific strategy
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/21 09:32 PM
2

where do you think the term "going Dutch" comes from, it is basic practice in the Netherlands. That's not the foundational etymology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_Dutch
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/21 09:31 PM
1

It is also undeniably true that dating mechanics in general are a completely different environment compared to low value/high value demarcation, especially for men
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/21 01:08 PM
3

100% yes. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474704919852918 https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/dwt2tk/study_women_without_exceptions_found_muscular/ https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2017.1819 https://www.pnas.org/content/110/17/6925 Bonus source: https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/6hxr9t/study_shows_morbidly_obese_women_have_the_same/
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/21 10:27 PM
0

When a man says something, he usually means literally what the words are. Ie "women are privledged because they don't have to put in any effort to get a huge amount of dating options and people paying for dates". To a man that seems like a pretty straight forward statement, right? Well any time a conversation happens with a woman the first thought is "why is this person saying this" and "what are they trying to get me to do". So the actual words themselves don't even matter. Look at this insane …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/21 01:36 PM
1

Why would I care what others think about my partner? Because they might be right about seeing something you can't or won't that is preventing you from making better choices for yourself
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/21 07:59 PM
2

None of this matters. This, more than anything else, perfectly illustrates the depths of your delusion. Just broad invalidation of reality across the board because you don't like encountering truth that makes you uncomfortable. It's why you're all over this thread simping hard for a useless list of baseless posits; you feel personally attacked that bullshit can be recognized for what it is. You can pretend you don't want something you couldn't get anyway as much as you want, but it won't yield a…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/21 05:35 PM
2

he stays because he loves her. Wrong. People (not just men) stay for one reason, and one reason only: because they want to, for whatever reasons they've concluded to themselves. If you mean that is the core basis for how relationships succeed, you're also wrong. Relationships take hard work and skill. Loving someone really, really hard is not nearly enough. Furthermore, that doesn't answer the question. What about FDS produces lovable qualities in women? Why even bother loving someone with such …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/21 05:28 PM
2

Value is objective, relative, and based on market saturation. If you say you have an expensive sports car and then produce a beat up 20 year old used sedan, no one is going to take you seriously when you claim it's an expensive sports car "to you."
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/21 05:22 PM
3

Nope. Bad men are the swamp water. Being single is not swamp water. Drinking swamp water because you don't want to die of dehydration is going to absolutely deter any man remotely worthwhile because you are necessarily competing with women who don't drink swamp water and instead functionally learn how to successfully navigate the desert, which is infinitely preferable. The only men who will put up with you drinking swamp water are the ones who can't interest any women who don't drink swamp water…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/21 05:15 PM
4

That's like saying drinking swamp water allows you to avoid dehydration in deserts. It's not hard to avoid low value individuals, so there is no sense in making great sacrifices to do so especially when it actively deters high value partners. If you have trouble distinguishing low and high value partners in the contexts of filtering skillsets, then that is a far more salient area of improvement. There is no easy button for success, you need to put in hard work and effort. If you're conflating av…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/21 04:51 PM
13

This is the key aspect about high value men that completely dismantles these approaches: When high value men are so in demand, they can afford passive role (female) dating practices. But they aren't penalized for also using active role (male) dating practices, so they have the best of both worlds. There is no value/gender combination with more abundance than high value men. The conclusion is that these high value men with this paramount abundance aren't going to pursue any high value women but t…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/21 02:51 PM
2

In a nonviolent situation, amused mastery. People can only offend you with your permission. In a violent situation, eyewitnesses record the whole thing from multiple points of view as you restrain her (like with a hold, not striking) until her friends or other neutral observers can separate you both physically. Someone smaller and weaker can still do damage, but socially and legally it's still not worth exerting the practical extent of self-defense. That's the world we live in.
/r/askTRP17/02/21 07:49 PM
9

Confidence is knowing you are better than your past self. Arrogance is thinking you're better than other people, and that this matters.
/r/askTRP16/02/21 01:48 PM
1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs#/media/File:Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs2.svg
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/21 04:58 PM
1

There are plenty of things that human beings need which are not legally provident. The reasons your conclusions are erroneously fallacious is because your base assumptions are completely off-base, and you're intractable on what you believe about which it allows you to delude yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/21 04:48 PM
1

A need is that you can't live without it. You can live without sex. This is wrong, and an arbitrary definition that has already been addressed: "Sure, you don't need sex to not die. You also don't need more than 2m3 of space or less than 6.25 kPa of atmospheric pressure or any light or microgravity. Yet it is literal torture to deny people those things. So 'in order to live' is an awful way to define what people need, especially considering we can easily surpass the bare minimum of what people n…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/21 03:12 PM
2

Blind people aren't the majority and they have a disability. Just like asexual people aren't the majority and have an absence of a fundamental faculty of the human condition. Because needs are considered human rights. That's why saying "Sex Is A Need" is super entitled, because it implied wanting people to give it to you out of pity. Again, understanding the nuance between "sex is a need" and "the opportunity to have sex is a need" is palpably lost.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/21 03:06 PM
3

Asexuals have entered the chat, and would have to disagree. It is not a need. It is a want. Humans need social contact, whether that's with friends, with family or a partner. We know locking a human in a box in isolation is bad for them. But this social contact, this intimacy does not have to be sexual. Just because blind people don't need light doesn't mean light isn't a need for human beings. I also cannot believe that you've just compared not being able to have sex, to physical and psychologi…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/21 11:57 PM
6

Sex isn't a need "To need" is a conditional statement. You need to affix a condition in order to make a coherent point. In order to live? Sure, you don't need sex to not die. You also don't need more than 2m3 of space or less than 6.25 kPa of atmospheric pressure or any light or microgravity. Yet it is literal torture to deny people those things. So "in order to live" is an awful way to define what people need, especially considering we can easily surpass the bare minimum of what people need to …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/21 01:10 PM
1

Some vitamins have mutual absorption such that you'd want to take them at different times, as well
/r/TheRedPill10/02/21 06:38 PM
3

This is wrong and off-base. Value is relative to market saturation. It's not subjective, that's just what people claim in order to avoid having to face the reality of being low value themselves.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/21 05:09 PM
3

Direct your attention ten pixels to the right: http://www.femininebeauty.info/suppression.pdf
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/21 04:54 PM
8

If you want to take that view, then empircally speaking most women are bad friends: Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other's sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/21 04:38 PM
1

If the goal is structured so as not to be fulfilled over a period of decades, they are impossible
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/21 03:18 PM
1

https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/la4c6r/men_should_adopt_womens_mindset_when_it_comes_to/glpx7x7/
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/21 02:29 PM
1

Just because you can't understand how it is true doesn't mean that it isn't. That is why you would be well advised to self-reflect on what you are in denial about, and what believing the things you do lets you ignore.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/21 02:26 PM
1

Incorrect, we are a product of how we choose to process our experiences, as you've more than adequately demonstrated
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/21 02:16 PM
2

Enjoy your gormless defeatism, it will surely bring you success at every corner
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/21 02:14 PM
1

Unreachable
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/21 01:55 PM
1

Be encouraged to reflect on what is functionally accessible to allowing you to create happiness
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/21 01:32 PM
1

It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with your caliber of self-actualization. Not everyone is resigned to being so pathetically hopeless.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/21 01:27 PM
1

Im prepared to still be one at 83 if i don't meet the right woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/21 01:15 PM
2

The whole point here is that standards that are never reached are, by definition, unreachable
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/21 12:54 PM
1

I have high standards and am a kissless fat virgin at 23. Im prepared to still be one at 83 if i don't meet the right woman. They said "high standards" but what they actually described are unreachable, as self-delusion is usually a requisite component in not being able to leverage your partner value to anything tangible
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/21 12:16 PM
3

If you think all possible women are toxic, that says far more about your ability to find and attract good women than it does about all women in general
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/21 11:43 AM
-1

What's self-respectable about never being hopeful?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/21 11:42 AM
1

Again, that does nothing to protect you from a toxic dynamic. You can be otherwise compatible with an abusive partner. The only safe way through is to identify and avoid toxic behaviors, not look for a bunch of things that make you feel good.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/21 11:42 AM
1

"A bare wall is better than an awful painting nailed to it." "No house is better than one that will collapse on you in your sleep." It is entirely achievable to have a moderately good painting or a sufficiently safe house. The choice isn't between two extremes.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/21 11:40 AM
0

What's the point in having standards that don't filter people in? If you are so ignominious as to be uncompromising for your own sake of happiness, then it doesn't matter what your stance is on standards or what composed them anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/21 12:32 AM
-2

Sure, that's as good an excuse as any to avoid fielding a rational argument
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/21 10:43 PM
43

This attitude only works when men are the target. Bingo. High value men are much scarcer for average women than any women are for any men. The sheer abundance mentality high value men have surpasses any sort of other value/gender combination by miles. It is the unyielding luxury of choice.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/21 10:43 PM
2

they said that if they don't end up with someone who meets their standards that they are OK with that. That is the same thing as guaranteeing they will never end up with someone. So again, why bother to consider standards that will never be used or met?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/21 10:39 PM
1

No, it doesn't seem as though you are understanding the point. The alternative to having unreachable standards is not to have poor standards. It is to not bother considering standards at all. So again, why bother considering standards at all if they will never be used as a partner rubric, much less achieved as a life goal?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/21 10:38 PM
13

No it doesn't. The only thing protecting you from toxic relationships is to learn how to identify and avoid them, not to have unreachable standards. The only thing that incentivizes self-improvement is self-discipline, not putting yourself in a position of hopelessness. If you expect to end up alone, it's much simpler not to bother considering your standards at all because you will have zero viable interactions. Proclaiming the success of a late bloomer is not due to the methodology, it's due to…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/21 10:37 PM
1

The alternative to having unreachable standards is not to have poor standards. The alternative is to not consider standards at all for the purpose of never expecting to meet someone. So again, what is the point of having unreachable standards? Edit: spelling
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/21 10:32 PM
0

Then why bother having a list of attributes you're looking for in a house?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/21 07:58 PM
1

That doesn't address the point. Why bother having standards if you don't expect them to be met?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/21 07:45 PM
3

That doesn't answer the question. If someone thinks they'll never end up with anyone, what's the point of having standards at all?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/21 07:45 PM
1

Youth is a general fertility indicator, not a fecundity mathematical precision. The answer to your question is because that's when older women cannot compete with younger women: they do not look as young.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/21 07:38 PM
1

You can't look at absolute rates, you have to consider the lowest that the lowest common denominator would go for. It doesn't matter if there's a ton of men that no woman wants, or vice versa. Marriage patterns by gender Men: 50.88% Women: 49.12% Marriage patterns by gender and educational attainment Bachelor’s degree or higher Men: 13.3% Women: 13.7% https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/marriage-and-divorce-patterns-by-gender-race-and-educational-attainment.htm
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/21 07:35 PM
13

What is the point of having such dysfunctional standards if you can never find anyone that meets them?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/21 07:29 PM
1

I have never fucked anyone near the top 20% Don't worry, it's obvious
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/21 10:37 AM
1

All that means is you're both bad at sex and bad at finding sexual partners
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/21 10:36 AM
1

Youth composes of a short part of a much longer life. Women are pursued and sought after for many years after their youth has passed. Nowhere near as much as when they were young, and not by the same men. Based on the graphs that were provided, you can already see women no longer seeking Chad's in their youth as their ideal man as they get older. "Chads" aren't defined by age, doesn't seem like you're familiar with basic concepts. Chads age just as much as anyone, and are found in every age brac…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/21 10:33 AM
1

In what environment are older women competing with younger women? None, that's the whole point. Youth is paramount for women, it's the ultimate indicator. You're using the word "older" when you mean "old." There is a difference between "young" and "younger" as evidenced by the sources provided. Also you said "go to clubs" twice. You must not have a very fundamental understanding of social dynamics if all you can think of is "clubs" and "tinder" and "gonewild." Men preferring to look at young wom…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/21 05:21 PM
2

If you're asking at what age women stop being able to compete with younger women and need to start changing their methodology to account for such (which is the definition of hitting the wall) for high value men pre-50s, the answer is about 30 or so depending on the given level of self-care and other considering factors. Youth is a direct fertility indicator, no two ways about it. There are men out there fucking animals, anthropomorphic objects, and shapely pieces of driftwood, women don't have t…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/21 03:23 PM
2

This is so directly ignorant there's just no way to address it other than: Yeah-huh
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/21 09:05 AM
9

Post-wall women are faced with the fruits of procrastination: being forced to choose between living alone or acceding their value is not what they claimed
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/21 12:11 AM
1

It's not neutral because there is no real BP sentiment. There is RP and non-RP. If you hate RP then it's ironic because you're here about RP. You're confused because you're coming into the game five years too late, when everything has been warped beyond its original conception too many times over.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/21 11:10 AM
4

"Too many" is the answer to the question you're trying to ask. You can't even spell the word correctly. Go look for someone else to argue you into reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 02:19 PM
6

It's easy to tell when someone's so salty they can't even bother reading the source. Since the answer to your baseless question is "more than zero percent" you obviously don't have a point. One of the most infamous examples of hybristophilia is the large number of women attracted to Ted Bundy after his arrest. He often drew scores of women at the jammed courtrooms of his trials each day. Bundy allegedly received hundreds of love letters from women while he was incarcerated, and married a woman, …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 01:16 PM
6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 10:46 AM
2

When the date doesn't happen, for any reason
/r/seduction16/01/21 05:31 PM
1

You're confusing the difference between a lack of red flags and an abundance of green flags
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/21 04:01 PM
1

Feel free to address the points in their entirety at your convenience
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/21 09:45 AM
1

Everyone absolutely and undeniably cares about the value of their partner. To use the criteria mentioned above, no one wants a partner who is genetically disease-ridden, fat and unhealthy with no exercise or nutrition, gross and unclean, poor and lazy, with a shitty attitude blaming others, bad communication skills, and violent conflict resolution. People want a partner with genetically functional health, who exercises and eats well, who takes care of cleaning their body, who works effectively a…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/21 09:07 AM
2

Love does not a relationship make. You need far more than just love to create a healthy, lasting dynamic. Do you think the capability and mindsets requisite for that successful relationship criteria are more common in low value people or high value people? Most people are absolutely discontent with the idea that they are nowhere near self-actualization. Your perception is flawed if you think everyone doesn't care about value, because it is a universal sentiment. Furthermore, the earlier posit st…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 02:54 PM
0

Well, "HVM" and "LVM" are not terms I personally use or a part of my vetting style. It's common sense anyone (so me as well) wouldn't want a bad partner. These are mutually contrasting statements. Comparative valuation is a social mechanic that every single last person engages in. You're not exempt from something so fundamentally human, and you're certainly not succeeding in using it as virtue signaling of moral superiority.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 02:45 PM
1

If you thought that reply was less embarrassing than just admitting you don't know what you're talking about, you were wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 10:43 AM
2

Keep tellin yourself that
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/21 10:43 AM
0

If you are going to base an argument on an axiom, you first have to prove that axiom. The simple answer is that it isn't subjective, and most people aren't high value. There are objectively valuable qualifiable factors in people that universally make them better partners no matter what: genetics, fitness, hygiene, wealth, attitude, communication skills, conflict resolution, etc etc. The reason you think whatever partner you were capable of getting is automatically high value is due to rationaliz…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 06:24 PM
2

You, obviously, or you wouldn't have commented. But to answer the question outside of the spirit you intended: everyone cares. No one wants a bad partner, and certainly not a worse partner than they would otherwise be able to get.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 06:17 PM
0

It's merely a matter of good filtering skillsets. After all, if you don't know what you want then you'd never be able to know if you'd found it or are even capable of attracting it.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 06:15 PM
0

So the answer to that question is no, you can't. That's the whole point. Value is objective. Compatibility is subjective. The fact you aren't capable of netting a high value man doesn't mean whoever you do net ends up high value.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 04:38 PM
1

Your answer doesn't address the question. Can you not actually describe an incompatible high value man?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 04:28 PM
0

Yes, idle day dreaming is a mental faculty known only to the most cerebrally gifted
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 04:27 PM
0

Either you're conceptually unable to fathom what "100% perfect" means or you're unwilling to admit it's not about the waiting
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 03:56 PM
0

Then you can't pretend it's about getting to know someone. It's about an inability to access your own emotional motility, and a general lack of processing insecurities.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 03:18 PM
1

Valuation is a fundamental social mechanic that literally every last person engages in. Comparative valuation is a tool we use thousands of times a day in every avenue of cognition. Assigning value to someone for their ability to perform as a partner is not a judgement on them as a person.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 03:14 PM
3

You can always recognize delusional rhetoric because the person most in need of its persuasion is the one spouting it
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 03:12 PM
2

It's not a discrepancy between the absolute bottom of the barrel and an otherwise average candidate. It's the discrepancy between an average candidate and an ideal candidate. An ideal candidate generally presents as an ideal candidate. An average candidate may present as an average candidate but could otherwise fulfill an ideal role. The point is that there is no purpose in putting effort into determining that an average candidate is indeed average, especially when that effort can be put into me…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 03:04 PM
1

Don't worry, your absence of a good history is the same as signaling a bad history
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 02:52 PM
1

He can also be the most boring person ever. He could be mean, either to you or others. Then he's not high value
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 02:51 PM
2

Would you rather have a compatible high value partner or a compatible low value partner?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 02:50 PM
1

Here is the difference: You are not looking for compatibility to accept. You are looking for incompatibility to reject. Also once you have found someone who is compatible, are you saying you would prefer they weren't tall, attractive, and financially secure?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 02:47 PM
0

If you could somehow magically know a guy was 100% perfect for you, would you still wait?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 02:45 PM
2

Not being good at sex would lead to poor sexual experiences
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 02:41 PM
2

The most significantly lacking attribute common in these demographics is an inability to be confident in vulnerability or even just comfortable in intimacy. This in turn is a result of a concomitant absence of filtering skills or the barest perception of how to get to know someone. So the reflex to be emotionally insular is more of a defense mechanism than anything; they can't tell the difference between altruistic and malicious people so they just bunker down to prepare for malice.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/21 02:40 PM
1

People delude themselves into thinking they can control others because they cannot properly deal with the fear of not being able to control others, or the fear of not being able to develop the requisite social skills necessary to get to know someone. Being rational about risk assessment and mitigation is not a gendered behavior.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 08:04 PM
3

Nothing about lying to people you think may be violent is cautiously-minded or functionally capable of protecting you from actually violent people. If you are lying to people because you think they might be violent without any causative evidence, you are being paranoid about people being violent.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 07:23 PM
3

No, assuming everyone is a violent homicidal maniac on the very sheer improbability that they may actually be one is A) treating people as criminals and B) horribly inefficient at actually protecting yourself from real violent homicidal maniacs
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 07:04 PM
3

You want to know why treating every single person as a potential criminal is a failing approach?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 06:57 PM
2

If you don't know enough to recognize criminality in a person, then what good is lying in the first place?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 06:50 PM
2

You're not getting the point. If you are engaging with a violent, deranged individual there is nothing you can do about it beyond escalating the matter to the proper authorities. Thinking you are safe if you communicate passively is not a salient resolution.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 05:57 PM
3

If someone is both mentally unsound and violently inclined to the point of persecution, it doesn't matter what you do (besides proper escalation of force like involving law enforcement)
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 05:25 PM
5

this is a cop out 100%. You cannot control people's behavior. Any notion towards this is a fallacy, because it's hiding some ulterior insecurity or failure of character. The proper response towards violent behavior is an escalation of force: calling authorities and/or law enforcement. The arrogant idea that you are somehow capable of controlling someone's actions is so conceitedly self-centered it's a wonder people even get out at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/21 05:24 PM
9

Rape is inviolably distinct from other crimes. It's justifiably acceptable to hurt or even kill someone else in self-defense, steal food for survival, and so forth. There is no context in which rape is acceptable.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/21 11:15 AM
2

The article seems to point out that men still message only women they find really attractive whereas women message even men they find less attractive That's not substantiated in the least, it outlines how hypocritical women can be: women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unat…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/21 10:56 AM
4

https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyourinbox.html More: https://old.reddit.com/r/gwern/comments/aapn1l/okcupid_blog_archives/
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/21 04:57 PM
6

Unionize the hamsters
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/21 04:48 PM
1

Notice how out of everything toxic that you do, you pick the one thing that you think doesn't make you look bad and attach that to the criticism
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/21 11:14 AM
1

Um what? You absolutely most certainly do need to confirm its validity. That's the entire point of the scientifically minded parts of TRP No you don't, there is no risk in a false negative, and a false positive will not pass finer filtering standards. Red flags i mentioned are actionable as well, and more effective in determining true negatives to boot. If red flags are getting past your initial approach criteria, then that's a much more salient point of improvement. Your short list should be co…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 11:05 PM
1

Going on those red flags is the closest to truly knowing you can get. I bet if a woman had none of the above red flags her rate of cheating would be under 5% The point is that you don't need to confirm the validity of an indicator for it to be effective, that's the whole purpose of actionable indicators. Yeah on OLD its a numbers game... Not IRL It's all a numbers game. If you're not meeting enough people in IRL, it still shouldn't change your methodology. You should be internalizing an abundanc…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 09:58 PM
1

You can't, though. There is know such thing as truly knowing, the best you can get is a very judicial educated guess. But that takes a lot more work and offers a very poor work:results ratio, which is substantially suboptimal with the methodology suited towards a numbers game. You can much more efficaciously invest effort into deeper filtering criteria once a candidate has passed through the initial barriers of entry cross-indexing basic qualitative deductions.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 09:42 PM
1

The difference in metabolism from an 80 year old obese grandma to Michael Phelps is about 400-600 calories. Eat a couple of poptarts and anyone is on even footing as far as metabolism. The reason he's not gaining weight is because he's probably binging and really only eating like 2000-2500 calories a day, all told. You both just sound like you're toxic people passing down your toxic traits to toxic children.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 12:37 PM
3

Doesn't matter. It's a good enough KPI to indicate a trend. No sense in digging through a pile of shit to see if there's a polished turd. There is no risk in a false negative. There is a world of risk in a false positive.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/12/20 12:30 PM
1

The report is in a different language and I cannot read it. https://translate.google.com
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/20 10:24 PM
1

Yes it does. Does the division of labor vary by socioeconomic status and regional characteristics? https://www.hioa.no/eng/About-HiOA/Centre-for-Welfare-and-Labour-Research/NOVA/Publikasjonar/Rapporter/2012/Gender-equality-at-home It would be apparent if you actually, you know, read the article and study.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/20 06:51 PM
1

Apology accepted
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/20 05:20 PM
1

It's very easy to tell you're not even clicking to read them when you don't realize they're three different links, that each individually address and disprove what you're talking about. But go off about it and keep posturing, it wouldn't be correct to say it's all you have left because it was all you started with anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/20 05:16 PM
1

Glad we can agree on how exactly you were wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/20 05:12 PM
1

https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/kms6s5/is_it_fair_to_say_most_women_wouldnt_have_swiped/ghigsmx/?context=2
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/20 05:10 PM
0

Yes that is why ALMOST was put infront of it. Do you know how read? https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/kms6s5/is_it_fair_to_say_most_women_wouldnt_have_swiped/ghigsmx/ Yeah... That's why I'm educated, with my educated boyfriend who we have no issues sharing responsibilities and we have a great sex life. Hm. Ok. Anecdotal evidence isn't, and lying to brag to internet strangers is pretty woeful. I'm only interested in conversing with low value men who wonder why they are struggling…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/20 04:49 PM
2

Nobody said it was half Equal means half. If it's not equal, it's not half. This is basic math. You can positively hear the sheered steel shrieking from moving all the goalposts. Which means there is a still a ways to get there but it's close. Also, she already proved you wrong by letting me know the data said 35% to 65%. https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/kms6s5/is_it_fair_to_say_most_women_wouldnt_have_swiped/ghidivz/?context=2 Men need to do shit around the house because it is…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/20 04:33 PM
2

35% is almost 50 If you want to participate in an adult conversation and be taken seriously, be encouraged to give such egregious hyperbole a wide berth. And what's the problem with that? Since it's far and away from a mathematically equal split of both housework volume and housework duties while also still retaining traditional gendered function in the role demarcation, it not only does nothing to corroborate the claim but in fact contradicts it.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/20 04:04 PM
1

Seeing as the source listed does not corroborate this, and in fact supports the notion that men have the best sex:housework ratio by performing about 35% of the total volume, and of that still perform traditionally masculine roles such as sports and leisure with children
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/20 03:42 PM
1

The Sex Roles study is also decades old and does not examine frequency of sex (the word "sex" is only mentioned 23 times [including the title in page headers] and is only in the context of specifying heterosexual or same-sex relationships). The American Time Use Survey also does not examine frequency of sex. The UC Riverside study, despite not having the full text, does not refute any aforementioned stances, and in fact affirms the notion that sexually attractive men are treated better. Accordin…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/20 03:38 PM
0

Did you respond to the right post? That article above says nothing of the sort. If you referring to this comment then you're still wrong, that article only vaguely criticizes the age of the data and then goes on to use it in their own study anyway. You're making some very narrow posits without any substantial scholastic material to back up your suppositive conclusions.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/20 03:11 PM
0

But that study, “Egalitarianism, housework and sexual frequency in marriage” by Sabino Kornich, Julie Brines and Katrina Leupp, was conducted on data that was decades old. A) Human nature isn't changing very much in a few thousand years, much less a few decades B) The study has to be decades old because it tracked data over a period of decades C) The study you linked still used that same data https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/08/want-more-sex-split-household-chores Sassler points out that “s…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/20 02:22 PM
-2

It's entirely inevident, especially in the context of direct zero sum relative comparison. If you don't have anything to add to the dialogue, reconsider participating at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/20 02:01 PM
0

Two more recent studies indicated that men who do a more equal share of housework also get more sex. Source? What is "more equal?" Either two things are equal or they aren't. The More Chores A Husband Does, The More Likely The Marriage Will End In Divorce
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/20 01:23 PM
1

You've misread, and therefore misunderstood. Perhaps in your haste and zeal to feel validated by trying to catch someone out, you've lost your footing to your own embarrassment. No one is entitled to have sex. Everyone is entitled to the social opportunity to have sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 10:24 PM
1

You obviously don't have a basis of understanding to work off of, here are some resources to bring you up to a dialectical point so you can participate at a bare minimum: https://www.wordnik.com/words/need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Max-Neef%27s_Fundamental_human_needs Here's commentary on the distinction from another comment if you need furth…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 06:45 PM
3

The distinction between basic needs (food and water, shelter, etc) and social needs (human contact, education, economic security, etc) can be distinguished by priority of access. So, basic needs are guaranteed as a matter of fact but social needs can be guaranteed through opportunity. You have a right to directly receive clean food and water whereas you have a right to the opportunity to achieve education. So in this context, everyone has the right to fulfill their need for sex through the same …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 06:27 PM
1

No, I did not claim that all humans need period are the basic survival shit You said "Sex is not needed to survive. You won't die without it" which is the wrong way to define what needs are. you don't need to bust a nut to live a comfy life This is erroneous. and nobody ever is entitled to sex But they are entitled to the social opportunity to have sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 06:24 PM
3

Try this philosophical exercise: Would it be ethical to say that no one is entitled to more than what would keep a comatose body from dying? Or, in noting that there is a substantial difference between a comatose body and a conscious individual, that there must therefore be a concomitantly substantial difference between those two entities' needs? "To need" is a conditional statement. "Need to not die" is just one of a huge number of needs. You're trying to claim what humans need at all is what t…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 03:01 PM
0

No it's not conditional. Yes it is. https://www.wordnik.com/words/need "Need, noun, A condition or situation in which something must be supplied in order for a certain condition to be maintained or a desired state to be achieved." The reason it fundamentally cannot be conditional is that, a need can be infinitely extended to include all desires. That's why you need to conclusively prove it. You're trying to claim what humans need at all is what they need for survival; this is fallacious because …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 10:25 AM
1

No, the only thing people need is that for survival. Your entire argument hinges on this being true, but you haven't gone to the effort of proving this. "To need" is conditional which means you necessarily need to attach a condition to whatever you're specifying. "In order to not die" is not implied. You're not even speaking from an epistemological perspective here. It's obvious you have no background research on what you're talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 09:36 AM
3

"To need" is a conditional statement. "Need to not die" is just one of a huge number of needs. There are a great many things that won't kill you that would otherwise make your existence unbearable. You don't NEED to have more than 2x2 meters of space to live. You don't NEED anything more than the minimum amount of protein, fats, carbs, and vitamins to live. You don't NEED human contact to live. You don't NEED your eyes, your ears, your tongue, your teeth, arms, legs, etc to live. You're not spea…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/20 08:58 AM
2

That's it? One-hundred-fifty-seven female participants rated natural videos of 70 men in dyadic intersexual interactions on sexual and long-term attractiveness participants saw a short preview video, presenting facial pictures of all men they were about to rate for one second each. Participants were then instructed to evaluate the men in the following videos, the actual stimulus material, according to their attractiveness as they perceived it “in that moment”, independent of their own current re…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/20 07:10 PM
3

The idea that women prefer different types of men during their ovulatory cycle was actually disputed recently. Source?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/20 02:20 PM
3

/thread /subreddit
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/20 02:02 PM
1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/20 10:13 AM
1

What are you even arguing? That people should change their minds on the spot when presented with rational evidence? This isn't an argument, it's simply stating facts. If you're arguing with facts, that's on you. The point is that it's no one else's responsibility to make you accept facts. If you don't want to, you're only hurting yourself. No one else is being done a disservice for not having the facts they are presenting accepted as facts. Great. Wish it worked like that. It doesn't though and …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/20 10:01 AM
2

This is the furthest thing from a dating and relationships subreddit, the new crowd that came in around 2018 or so completely ran it off the rails which in turn had been run off the rails further back by a different crowd around 2015
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/20 09:44 PM
1

Yes, but when people are feeling attacked they will not accept evidence. That is no one's problem but theirs; they're the only ones being affected negatively and missing out on improving their worldview. The whole point of self-victimization is access to the special privileges that would otherwise not excuse impeding rational self-regulation. Moreover, there's plenty of "evidence" that gets thrown around and is questionable at best. First of all, that's neither here nor there, this is hypothetic…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/20 06:07 PM
2

You didn't say it was rare, you said women won't abandon their child if they have it which is factually and wildly incorrect
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/20 03:46 PM
1

Among ever-married adults ages 18 to 29, women are slightly more likely than men to be guilty of infidelity (11% vs. 10%).
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/20 03:44 PM
8

Women won't abandon the child if they have it. Do you think foster children don't exist or something? Or that no woman ever gives away her children for adoption?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/20 03:37 PM
1

You're taking about philosophy. Sure, it takes more than a single conversation for someone to realize that something wholly encompassing like racism is wrong. It does not take a long amount of time to realize when something is founded on bias and when something is founded on evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/20 03:32 PM
1

There are far more lurkers who come to learn than there are people willing to teach or others looking to find validation, especially on a topic as controversial as gender dynamics
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/20 12:36 PM
1

Relative position is immaterial when it comes to compatible debate. All it takes is a willingness to learn, that is not the sole territory of any side. Being open-minded is an immutable and deliberate characteristic of an individual. People prefer to argue over debate because hate and anger comes from a place of fear. The people who refuse to acknowledge truth outside of their comfort bubble are unable to properly process and overcome this fear. After all, this is all RP-oriented, there is no di…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/20 12:03 PM
3

Why PPD, While Sometimes Diverting, Is Ultimately Useless from the depthhub which is immaculately unrecognizable to the current state of the sub, off of the sidebar which no one ever reads
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/20 08:59 AM
0

Doesn't mean you can't be jealous, or project that delusion onto other people
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/20 07:12 PM
1

It's okay to be jealous, but trying to convince yourself you aren't is only going to make it worse
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/20 08:35 AM
1

Excellent follow-through, all you need for the hat trick is obsessing over personal anecdotes instead of empirical evidence
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/20 07:18 PM
0

Capital form, now talk about how N-count in relationships is different than N-count in hookups
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/20 07:13 PM
0

But you can’t disprove my point. There it is. Have some sources to ignore: https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/gqifng/excerpts_relating_ncount_likelihood_of_infidelity/ https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/jfikn8/womens_reported_sexual_partner_count_dramatically/ https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/j8wqdf/promiscuous_women_are_more_incompetent_cold_and/ https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/hvcbcg/to_conservativeminded_guys_that_expect_sex…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/20 07:01 PM
1

that fetish proves plenty of non-desperate men choose it specifically Niche BBW fetishes exist, do you think it's a good idea to get super gross obese just on the offchance you might end up finding a high value man who is attracted to that? Or do you think that the exception to the rule proves nothing, and it would be an awful idea to bank your likelihood on ending up happy on a tiny probability that is entirely up to luck? Also, you thinking that only LVM don’t care about n-count doesn’t make i…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/20 06:46 PM
5

I think you’re forgetting about.... the literal cuckold fetish. A niche fetish that isn't in any way representative of population samples as a whole? The thing is, is that not all men define open sexuality as “low-value.” Yes...the low value men, who cannot afford to care. My point is that not all men care. You care. Other men care. And that’s fine! But not every single man cares. And not even not caring in a desperate way. Literally in a “hey this person isn’t solely defined by one aspect of th…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/20 06:41 PM
1

Exhibit A for not wanting to own up to consequences of behavior
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/20 06:31 PM
1

It’s not lying if you just never mention it https://lmgtfy.app/?q=lie+by+omission Imagine being this deluded
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/20 06:30 PM
2

https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/gqifng/excerpts_relating_ncount_likelihood_of_infidelity/ https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/jfikn8/womens_reported_sexual_partner_count_dramatically/ https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/j8wqdf/promiscuous_women_are_more_incompetent_cold_and/
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/20 06:27 PM
1

What literature?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/20 06:24 PM
7

Desperate men cannot afford the luxury of options. If the decision is between loneliness and a low value women, they might take it. However, even the most desperate of men would rather be alone than be cucked. It is biologically repugnant to be unable to determine paternity. This is an instinct that has been honed over millions of years in many different animals; some males will kill all of the offspring from past males when taking over dominant hierarchical positions. There's a further element …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/20 04:39 PM
1

Excellent, young people on this subreddit could learn from the long term problems found in old people grown from the accessibly short term mistakes when younger. No one is going to argue you into taking an appropriate amount of self-care, self-respect, and self-love.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/20 10:47 AM
2

The opinion you think you are entitled to is not good for your mental health, and you serve as a useful object lesson to lurkers. The fact that you can't believe someone disagreeing with you isn't necessarily living that position belies your ego defense on this matter.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/20 10:14 AM
2

Sure, that's as good an excuse as any to avoid fielding a rational argument. Too bad you can't shut out the part of your brain that knows this.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/20 10:02 AM
2

Be encouraged to reflect on why you interpret your own admission of understanding nothing on the subject as a personal attack, and what you stand to gain by ego defense. Jealousy hangs an ugly curtain.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/20 10:55 PM
1

Maybe I am too old school for that (I wasn't born in the West); however, since when selling your body in such a way is defined as 'good'? You misunderstand. I am good, thank you :) It's depressing to spend a few years in fitness and now climbing legal career... just to outearned by 20yo who puts stuff in her vag :( Yes, because this is the dictionary definition of "good." However, I just don't see what kind of accomplishment it is. What 'marketing' has she ever done? So you assume that because y…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/20 05:00 PM
5

Secure, emotionally mature men are not attracted to women jealous of women imitating a combination of a cartoon (anime) character and a little girl, lol. who are younger, prettier, and more successful than them
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/20 08:31 PM
1

It's depressing to spend a few years in fitness and now climbing legal career... just to outearned by 20yo who puts stuff in her vag :( Yes, because this is the dictionary definition of "good." Stop using comparative value to other people as a reference for self-worth. You can disparage her accomplishments all you want but someone doesn't get where she is just by masturbating, it takes marketing savvy and a willingness to sell yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/20 08:10 PM
4

You realize the quote is from Paradise Lost, right? Not the bible?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/20 07:01 PM
4

The purpose of generalizing is to look at the full, holistic picture. If you feel called out then that's on you for self-inserting.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/20 06:59 PM
12

"She's not even that hot" said every secure, emotionally mature woman, ever
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/20 06:56 PM
1

Sources for those asking: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html https://www.psypost.org/2019/06/does-watching-pornography-as-a-teenager-harm-sexual-satisfaction-later-new-study-suggests-it-doesnt-53880 https://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/porn https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/porn-watchers-think-more-highly-of-women
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/20 10:19 AM
1

Like I said I dont care either way. Sure you do, you just think it's less work to avoid acknowledging that you care without realizing how much more effort it takes in the long run to undo all your cognitive dissonance. You care so much you're displacing how much you're trying to convince yourself by trying to convince random internet strangers. I personally see many beautiful woman and not many attractive men on a daily basis. The older a man is the more gross he is. That says way more about you…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/20 04:23 PM
1

you guys have to stop with this biology bs Imagine being this delusional. The sooner you accept reality, the sooner you can begin to create happiness in the viable boundaries of what actually is real.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/20 02:21 PM
12

This is the appropriate response. It's still a super tiny minority of people who perpetrate in this scene, both as sellers and as buyers. The average woman isn't going around selling porn of themselves and the average man isn't going around buying it. That is reserved for people at the rock bottom of social opportunity, neatly demarcating the viability of broaching contextual borders by disqualifying both buyers and sellers from the conventional S/RMP. For a sub where analysis of behavioral mech…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/20 11:27 AM
1

You have horrible analytical reasoning. That's like saying people are hungry for poop because that's what food used to be. Have some sources to ignore: Men's age preference: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/10/1410377656574_wps_17_Must_link_here_http_www_a.jpg Women's age preference: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/10/1410379250399_wps_18_Must_link_here_http_www_a.jpg Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2751179/Are-girl-22-Then-don-t-bother-online-dating-Alarming-gr…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/20 08:28 AM
7

Doesn't matter. Youth in women, as a fertility indicator, is a hardwired biological impulse that directly correlates to visual assessment. In other words, it doesn't matter if you don't want children because older women still cannot compete with young women. Youth is prized much more highly in women than in men, just as muscle mass and resource accumulation is prized much more highly in men than in women.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/20 11:01 PM
0

You are making two mutually exclusive claims: you invest sexually before commitment and you invest sexually after commitment? Which is it? And if it's the latter, what makes you think there will be commitment at all? Be encouraged to reflect on what you stand to gain for engaging in ego defense if you think someone disagreeing with you is the same as gaslighting. That's incredibly disrespectful to victims of real gaslighting.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/20 03:28 PM
0

I agree that HVM are the most in demand. As a group, they are entirely irrelevant to the women in these subs and on reddit who are looking for LTRs. You realize these two statements are mutually exclusive, right? I agree that this is good, but it is not optimal on its own. Not only is it both optimal on its own as well as the most optimal methodology, it's the only approach. Waiting is essentially banking on luck. That's a horrible strategy. Most women who only pursue this will ruin their SMV by…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/20 01:32 PM
1

This line of argument is only intended to make women here feel low-value, and the truth (of course) is that they are far from top 5-10%. Also true for men here. This line of argument is only espoused by low value women who refuse to face reality. Perhaps your reading comprehension wasn't fully efficacious, but the fact remains that high value men are the most in demand partners from any gender/value combination. They have sheer luxury of choice and do not pick people who think they are deserving…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/20 12:46 PM
0

No, being high value as a woman doesn’t necessarily mean your filtering skills are infallible or perfect. That's exactly what it means. To a high value man, being attractive is the bare minimum. You have to offer far more than simply "being pretty" to even register on his radar at all. You still have every reason to wait for a decent amount of time before you have sex. Not only is this is pure fiction, it is also completely discongruous with the high value men who make these decisions. You can't…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/20 09:02 AM
0

Wouldn't have sex before committing My offer is that I will also invest those things Well, which is it? Those are two diametrically opposed approaches. Trust fam, no one here is remotely interested in that, or pretty much anywhere else for that matter. If you're unable to substantiate your ploys in a debate sub, be encouraged to refrain from participating.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/20 08:44 AM
0

You're expecting emotional investment BEFORE commitment. But you're also expecting sexual investment AFTER commitment. How do you have anything to offer? What makes you think this is appealing?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/20 11:55 PM
0

Nope. Waiting does nothing to accomplish valuation. All it does is ensure a man has no other options. You can be with someone for one night or one decade and they will still leave you at the drop of a hat. Men stay for one reason and one reason only: because they want to. You can do nothing to control this. If you want relationship security through the simple conclusion that no other women will want your man, then that sounds perfectly dreadful to build a neat little comfort bubble around your i…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/20 11:53 PM
2

An abundance mentality doesn't make her high value. Being high value affords an abundance mentality. Also, for the top tier of men all of their choices are of high value. Being high value in itself does not distinguish you to a high value man. High value in itself implies emotional intelligence and developed skillsets, so even among other high value women you won't find poor partner filtering skills. This means that no high value woman has a reason to wait for sex, because she knows she can and …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/20 11:51 PM
3

But you expect emotional investment, right? So transparent you're selling window cleaner.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/20 09:46 PM
5

The men that high value women want are also wanted by pretty much every woman. That kind of abundance mentality is not affected in the slightest by low sexual investment, baggage, poor filtering skills, etc, whatever you want to call it. They will pass you by for literally the next woman without a second thought because there is nothing special about what you can offer and none of it offsets the tumultuous downsides.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/20 09:43 PM
0

Perhaps if you were comfortable touching your and/or others' butts more, you wouldn't be so ... anal
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/20 07:24 AM
1

Consider the fear of socialization necessary for someone to conclude that their limited perspective of a butt is the only one worth considering
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/20 10:23 PM
0

My point is that the sexuality of a butt has nothing to do with shitting Gosh golly wow, let's not be hasty in poorly concluded posits
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/20 06:29 AM
1

When the peepee go sneeze
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/20 08:00 AM
1

When she makes you feel kind of funny, like when you used to climb the rope in gym class
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/20 07:58 AM
1

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pulchritudinous https://www.dictionary.com/browse/beautiful
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/20 07:36 AM
1

You're projecting so hard Microsoft is suing for PowerPoint copyright infringement. It'd be so much easier to show someone up by...you know, actually doing so instead of talking about it. The only remaining explanation is that you're incapable because you know you lack even just one source to substantiate your baseless claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/20 09:54 PM
1

Big brain energy
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/20 07:52 PM
1

Connect one source to one argument. If you were as good at parroting your rhetoric as you were at arguing, you'd heuristically be some ascetic hermit sage.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/20 07:52 PM
2

So list one. Do you really think this is believable behavior of someone who super duper definitely has a very real source that smack dab genuinely exists?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/20 07:50 PM
1

Could you paste all your links in a single comment for ease of parsing?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/20 07:29 PM
1

But you have yet to cite one fact or provide one sourced argument. Maybe you just like to think you're much better at appeals to reason than you actually are, which is entirely the stomping ground of tautological psuedointellectauls whose self worth is composed entirely of their inflated self-aggrandizement.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/20 07:25 PM
2

There are literally sources within it cataloguing how minorities are oppressed in the US and the world, those sources include female oppression List one
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/20 07:23 PM
1

If you are obsequiously solipsistic enough to be sharing updates on your personal knowledge base on a public forum, you'll be disappointed with the level of reception.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/20 05:04 PM
1

It's as much of a revelation as your opinions are based upon and persuaded by facts.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/20 04:44 PM
1

It's easy to tell you never bothered to read it because all of this is addressed in the source. You know, like a proper execution of the scientific method demands. There is no context for the words used So you want to try claiming that the majority of contexts for slurs is an academic consideration or pornographic ambience? Have you never been on Twitter? they guessed at the sex Do some research about google analytics before you belie your ignorance any further. it was not a study Yes, it's much…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/20 03:16 PM
3

Nothing in your source is about misandry, or even about patriarchies. It's all about racial, trans, and immigration issues. Did you expect no one to read the source because you never do?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/20 12:52 PM
8

That absolutely in no way addresses the source provided. Have another source to ignore: "The evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other's sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage"
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/20 11:35 AM
1

"All right, ladies, fine. You are not a whore. But you are wearing a whore's uniform."
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/20 11:07 AM
2

"The girl says 'Oh uh-uh, wait a minute! Wait a minute! Just because I'm dressed this way does not make me a whore!' Which is true. Gentlemen, that is true. Just because they dress a certain way doesn't mean they are a certain way. Don't ever forget it. But ladies, you must understand that is fucking confusing. It just is. Now that would be like me, Dave Chappelle the comedian, walking down the street in a cop uniform. Somebody might run up on me saying, 'Oh, thank God. Officer, help us! Come on…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/20 11:04 AM
1

You sure are tautological for someone who purportedly hates psuedointellectuals
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/20 10:56 AM
7

And no one is forcing people to trawl twitter for dumb shit women say either. I think porn, incels and slut shaming have real more real world affect than women bitching on twitter. Women tweet the words "whore" and "slut" at nearly double the rate men do
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/20 10:54 AM
2

If you think being realistic is the same as being pessimistic, that says way more about your ability to be positive than it does about existence in general
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/20 04:53 PM
3

What is your definition of hypergamy? How is this a different question than "Do you look in the dictionary, or invent your own solipsistically subjective definition to suit your own agenda?"
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 11:53 AM
2

That was not an offer to know you, your behavior is indicative enough. The difference between success and sexual harassment charges is emotional intelligence and actually being attractive. Why you lack that is not a question for anyone but yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 07:21 AM
1

Women don't wanna be fuckin bothered on LinkedIn by you
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 07:16 AM
1

If you don't struggle with common issues, Tinder has a much higher frequency and rate of return. If you can't frontload your status value, social media is an available recourse.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 07:12 AM
1

implying social media is professional
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 07:02 AM
10

Nice, keep up the good work. BCAAs Useful enough, obviously, but a bit overrated. Compare that label with the nutritional profile of a chicken breast. Animal products are complete sources of protein which includes red meat, poultry, fish, eggs, and dairy. For complete vegan options look to stuff like quinoa, buckwheat, hempseed, blue-green algae, etc. So, fine to supplement but what's most important is overall protein intake per week (from multiple sources if you can manage it) and to a lesser e…
/r/TheRedPill30/11/20 05:18 PM
3

If you hate social media, don't bother. One of the reasons OLD works is because the lens of information exchange is so narrow. You get a peephole into someone's life, so all you have to contrive is a spread of personal stats that cover the peephole. To make an analogy, you have to read the book but you only have to list the bullet points. With IG, the lens aperture is much wider. You have a small window into someone's life. To keep the analogy, you have to read the book and then deliver a full r…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 04:59 PM
3

Full body programs aren't that special. That's like saying eating a healthy diet isn't that special. It's not that there's anything special about them, it's that you can injure yourself through muscular imbalance if you do ego lifting. The more you train each muscle doesn't equal more gains. That's exactly how exercise functions. Encompassing progressive overload in increased reps and sets is one of the primary ways to push your limits, and overall thresholds are defined by your weekly frequency…
/r/TheRedPill30/11/20 04:33 PM
25

Hitting every muscle group 1 time a week is enough to maintain and 2 times a week is enough to grow. Most goal-oriented people opt for 3+ times a week depending on time availability and personal enthusiasm (so that can either be a split program where you go six days on, one day rest or a full body program where you go one day on, one day off). The most important thing for gains is BEING CONSISTENT and getting enough protein and sleep (and a full body program with progressive overload). How hard …
/r/TheRedPill30/11/20 01:46 PM
0

No high value man is going to be impressed that you spent your youthful years devoting yourself to low value men. Congratulations, you discovered the social equivalent of finding out water is indeed wet at the cost of your fecundity.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 08:03 AM
1

Maybe no men like you because you're bitter and jaded with such a warped view of the entire male gender. Whyever would a man stick around when he has to start off with your toxic jealous bullshit before the relationship hasn't even begun? Plenty of healthy men and women are forming reliable, long-lasting relationships without the issues you're suggesting. Sounds like you're thoroughly entitled to expect something without having to work for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/20 07:57 AM
0

It's patently obvious you didn't even open the article to read or peruse the study when you reply so quickly. Lots of horses dying from dehydration in close proximity to bodies of fresh water, huh?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 11:15 PM
3

Not at all, but if all you can manage is a mediocre relationship than it absolutely sounds like most men are better off single than with you.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 11:11 PM
1

It was only the first comment in the chain. Again, if you had even read the URL you would have seen the words "online dating" in it. But go off about burying your head in the sand. It's not going to provide any increased chances of success. Since you clearly need more help than most, try this: https://lmgtfy.app/?q=online+dating+is+the+most+popular+way+couples+meet
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 11:09 PM
3

Doesn't matter, you will never meet even 0.01% of men. What matters is the highest qualitative percentile you can attract in your geographic and temporal compatibility indices. If you're not finding any, it's because you're not attractive to those men. The notion that "barely any of those men are worth dating" says way more about your inability to find worthwhile men than it does about men in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 10:27 PM
0

Well you blatantly ignored the source provided, of course you aren't going to believe hard evidence that your entire perspective is wrong and fallacious.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 10:21 PM
1

Most people aren't dating, period. But of the people who are, OLD is the most popular way to start a relationship. According to the source you posted, the people who don't use OLD are older, lack higher education, have smaller incomes, and aren't starting exclusive, committed relationships as much as OLD users. If that appeals to you, by all means stay off of the best tool for forming LTRs. If you pay attention to low value idiots complaining about being low value idiots, that's your choice to s…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 10:14 PM
0

Sure, if you've resigned yourself to a life of stagnant, bitter loneliness. The people looking to grow and succeed will pay you no mind.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 09:34 PM
1

Yes like meeting on Facebook or whatnot. No, if you had cared to read the source (or even just barely read the URL) you'd find it regards OLD. Meanwhile most people, about 70%, have never used a dating app or website. That's not saying much. It's just a stark contrast of A) how many people simply don't date whatsoever, OLD included, and B) how old people don't use online anything: Experience with online dating varies substantially by age. While 48% of 18- to 29-year-olds say they have ever used …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 07:24 PM
-1

The matter of age is not relative, just as fertility is not relative. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2751179/Are-girl-22-Then-don-t-bother-online-dating-Alarming-graph-shows-ages-attractive-opposite-sex.html Men prefer young (not younger) women. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/10/1410377656574_wps_17_Must_link_here_http_www_a.jpg Women prefer older (not old) men. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/10/1410379250399_wps_18_Must_link_here_http_www_a.jpg
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 06:30 PM
4

Meeting online is the most popular way couples connect these days. https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/21/online-dating-popular-way-u-s-couples-meet/
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 12:45 PM
3

You should be addressing your OLD profile bios to the person you're looking for, not the people you're complaining about.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 12:42 PM
-2

If you think real people actually behave like fictional characters in sitcoms, you don't seem to have enough real life experience to judiciously understand social dynamics. You can invent whatever definitions that suit you but no one else subscribes to this solipsism. You're describing bottom of the barrel worst case scenarios who are never "post wall" because they are never "pre wall." These men couldn't compete for worthwhile women with other men even when they were young. Men are not valued f…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 08:49 AM
2

It's okay to be upset that you will never net a high value man. Jealousy hangs an ugly curtain. Work on managing realistic expectations, and understand that growth is never pain free. Success comes with effective hard work, just keep your head up and stay moving forward.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/20 08:43 AM
5

Meh they still marry attractive women "Attractive" is literally the bare minimum for average value relationships, it is implied high value men only accept supremely good looking women just as a start with far more than that on top. When you have the pick of the absolute best to choose from there isn't any decrement of physical attractiveness; they are all top tier physically, mentally, emotionally, etc. OP is asking why attractive women who can attract earners are choosing sex work. There aren't…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/20 08:00 PM
11

High value men are the peak of the S/RMP. They literally have the luxury of choice, much more than any other gender/value combination. There is absolutely no reason they shouldn't be as discerning as they so chose to fulfill whatever criteria they desire, far beyond the usual high value standards in a high value relationship. Your assumption is a mighty hefty one, seeing as it's the answer to OP's question: it's very difficult to achieve high value men's standards whereas it's relatively easy to…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/20 05:35 PM
-2

The concept of "the wall" is not just some unisex notion of getting old. The wall is the point in which older women cannot compete with younger women. It doesn't mean they're unattractive. It doesn't mean they can't get men. It means they will generally be passed over for younger options because society unilaterally values youth in women due to fertility indicators. Men don't hit the wall because they aren't sexually valued by society for their youth. Frequently, older men are not only able to c…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/20 03:52 PM
33

And hard to get. High value men have high value standards. Sex workers need to be vaguely pulchritudinous, that's it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/20 03:45 PM
16

It's okay to do swears, no one's gonna tell your mom
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 04:53 PM
3

Hung like a tuna can
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 01:57 PM
4

I really think the size question is more of a personal preference thing. Holistic personal preference objectively being above average. In my experience I've seen that the whole sexual experience is more important that just the penetration part of it. Sure, after certain minimum dimensions are satisfied. Having a big penis is like having big titts. No it's not, genitalia are distinct in purpose from secondary sexual characteristics. No woman prefers small penises outside of humiliation fetishes. …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/20 10:01 AM
3

Who is more agrarian, the farmers or the people who eat food?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/20 11:33 AM
1

Never try to become a professional athlete, you will be very disappointed
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/20 09:46 AM
2

Tossing a ball? Hand-to-eye coordination. Engaging as a professional athlete in a team sport? Persistence in hard work both mental and physical, adherence to performance-based organized unity, commitment to self-development, personal responsibility and accountability, the pursuit of self-love, accepting personal limits and restrictions of reality, physiological and nutritional science, perhaps a sense of performance, and typically managerial experience as well as physical fitness education. What…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/20 12:03 AM
1

i said it does not matter when it comes to making most women orgasm. Yes it does. How could you possibly arrive at this conclusion without completely misunderstanding basic anatomy? Here's the earlier source you blatantly ignored: https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)33832-7/fulltext the clitoris is above the vagina No it's not, it surrounds it. The clitoris is mostly internal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris#/media/File:Clitoris_Anatomy.svg Never had functional sex ed, huh? …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/20 08:16 PM
0

Except for the 94.6% of men who do not meet the average preference of penis size for women. i’m pretty sure most women can’t cum from penetrative sex alone, so that‘s not an issue for the majority. i never said size doesn’t matter at all. You are implying that women don't care about penis size. The fact that most women can't orgasm from internal stimulation alone is irrelevant to your claim, because that's not exclusively why women prefer large penises. Furthermore, as larger penises are more li…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/20 06:58 PM
0

Feel free to address the points in their entirety. Rationalizing cognitive dissonance is not a sufficient reply, although it is vaguely entertaining. Zero men believe women don't care about penis size (because holistic actions speak for themselves), and the nonzero amount of women that think they prefer small penises have atypical reasons. If your idea of sexual relations is so dysfunctionally orgasm-centric then it's no wonder you're not good at relating sexually. Women don't necessarily like l…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/20 06:21 PM
1

a) huh? i don’t understand what you mean here. you think every woman wants her vagina to be stretched into oblivion? The reason you're overexaggerating into oblivion is because you have no argument, and so you don't have to admit that an above average penis is infinitely preferred by the vast majority of women. and i’m pretty sure the topic is women’s sexual fulfillment (orgasms). No, the topic is: "Except for the 94.6% of men who do not meet the average preference of penis size for women." whic…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/20 04:42 PM
2

Professional athletics is a respected profession with transferable skills and a generally steady paycheck that you can list on your resume which is attractive to the opposite sex
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/20 03:40 PM
6

Shaming tactic in order to avoid having to field a rational argument Also low hanging fruit to target when anything else would require knowledge, insight, and skill
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/20 03:33 PM
2

https://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-determine-the-minimum-size-needed-for-a-statistical-sample/
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/20 03:29 PM
1

A) It's not a matter of being able to climax, it's the matter of being filled out in depth and circumference when no amount of emotional intelligence or sexual skill can accomplish this B) It's also the psychological effect of being able to attract a man with high value genetic attributes (tall, handsome, hirsute, deep voice, etc) of which a large penis is undeniably preferred (as well as the implicit confidence thereof)
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/20 03:26 PM
0

You can readily have a relationship without sex. Asexual people exist, elderly people exist. Again: that's called a friendship. Also, a very small number of people would put up with that in lieu of a conventional relationship, so don't rely on expecting that. Also, elderly people fuck like rabbits so if you're banking on sex to decrease in demand during senior years then you're in for some disappointment. Why do you keep saying your points are "inarguable" and "factual" when they are neither? He…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/20 08:51 PM
-1

Because life and relationships are about more than sex? Because people have different confidence levels? "Life" isn't the topic, and you unarguably cannot have a relationship without sex. That's called a friendship. People definitely have different confidence levels, which is why you should be pursuing those with high ones because they factually make for better partners. No idea what you're saying. It's easy to say you don't want something you couldn't get in the first place. Not proactively wor…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/20 03:28 PM
1

Why would you be pursuing someone who isn't capable of the requisite skillsets necessary to have confidence in investing sexually? Not wanting to do something is not the same thing as not being able to do it, and not being able to do something is the same as neglecting it. Answer this for yourself: if you could somehow magically know if a candidate was 100% perfect for you, would you still wait?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/20 03:02 PM
1

Have some scientific value to ignore: https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/gqifng/excerpts_relating_ncount_likelihood_of_infidelity/
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/20 01:02 PM
0

If your approach is so devoid of control that a single criterion can shift the entire gamut between success and failure, then you're not taking control of a great many things that could influence a favorable outcome. Sex is vital as a dynamic for exchanging emotional investment, and if you are gunning for longterm commitment then you are absolutely remiss to neglect it.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/20 12:48 PM
4

https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/gqifng/excerpts_relating_ncount_likelihood_of_infidelity/
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/20 12:11 PM
5

If your method of determining information is to blatantly ask and then expect the given answer to be directly indicative, you're a fool
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/20 12:10 PM
0

Don't worry, you get past the anger stage with hard work and growth
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/20 12:09 PM
0

You can make whatever observations you like, you're participating in a conversation composed of one person.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/20 08:03 PM
1

None of that addresses the point, or is relevant to the comment chain topic.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/20 05:57 PM
1

And it fails again if the woman who is attractive enough is pursuing men she perceives as superseding her status because he will have the luxury of options such that he can pick the most proactive. Being passive is never strategically valuable. It's all about ego supplication.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/20 03:00 PM
3

There is a significant disparity, women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relatively to men's happiness across multiple datasets, and demographics and countries. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Happiness-by-Gender-over-Time-in-the-US-GSS_fig2_265230842 https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Stevenson_ParadoxDecliningFemaleHappiness_Dec08.pdf
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/20 02:55 PM
1

That has positively nothing to do with average attractiveness, and everything to do with female captiousness. Number of matches points to quantitative valuation, not qualitative. The reality is that high value men simply don't need to use OLD apps to get far more women than they could ever sort through. It is said that women control sex and men control relationships, but high value men control both.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/20 11:18 AM
2

Yeah, this is why it's obvious OP doesn't know what they're talking about. They really should be using the term "median" and not "average" because some of the men at the sheer end of the bell curve drive the average up way more than women ever could.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/20 06:39 PM
11

Facts. High value men play a completely different game that women, regardless of quality, simply cannot compete at. The average woman might be in more demand than the average man due to male selection principles, but the average high value man is far more in demand than any other combination of caliber and gender due to female selection principles.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/20 06:34 PM
5

They're just complaining about not being able to find and attract high value men, rather than improving
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/20 02:13 AM
2

Further reading: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201812/feminists-think-sexist-men-are-sexier-woke-men https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/study-finds-heterosexual-women-prefer-benevolently-sexist-men
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/20 12:04 AM
3

"What's your opinion on money when I have a lot of it"
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/20 11:41 PM
0

If you grease the brake pads you should be able to backpedal harder
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/20 11:37 PM
1

It's okay to be upset that you're too old to get memes
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/20 01:31 PM
1

Gottem with the catch-22
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/20 01:08 PM
2

Oh the one with sources? Righto.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/20 01:02 PM
0

No one's talking about needs, you're just deflecting. The context is that it is not hypocritical to not want to closely associate with sluts while still wanting to benefit from them.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/20 05:09 PM
0

You're missing the point. It's entirely okay to not want to be included in something that you would otherwise expect to benefit from. That's the impetus of society. Are you a farmer? If not, do you still expect to eat food?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/20 03:48 PM
-1

It's not hypocritical. Would you want to be married to an EMT, a fireman, or a police officer? Awful, demanding hours with immensely stressful duties in relatively high domestic fatality rates? You are perfectly in your right to say no and still expect societal structure to provide the benefits of emergency healthcare, firefighting rescue, and law enforcement.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/20 02:47 PM
4

Spoken as someone who has never been within a mile of your local VA center.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/20 02:38 PM
2

The truly disparaging element of the term "slut" is not just "being promiscuous." Promiscuity, while undesirable from either gender, does have different contexts depending on gender. Socially, it is more acceptable for men to have higher N-counts compared to women for obvious reasons; men have less to invest reproductively so they have to be much better at it. An average woman has a much easier time getting average sex than an average man. But that doesn't illustrate promiscuity, it defines abil…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/20 02:34 PM
1

Okay boomer
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/20 05:34 PM
2

Fortunately these ostensibly confusing terms are defined by universal standards of timekeeping, of which you seem to have hurdled by a substantial margin given your hostile defensive reaction to the notion that time has passed you by without your awareness. Who do you think is trying to market generational labels? Father Time? "Of age" is "the age of majority" which denotes the legal end of the intermedial physical, psychological, and sexual maturity period by which someone is old enough by law …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/20 04:57 PM
2

That way it's easier to fuel a superiority complex, and shove away those nasty insecurities. Besides, someone's gotta give shit tests, and it isn't the secure people.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/20 03:59 PM
1

If you have to ask... The current generation is the generation that is currently of age: Gen Z, born between the mid-to-late 1990s and the early 2010s. To be shortly succeeded as the current generation by Gen Alpha, born between the early 2010s and the mid-2020s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation#List_of_named_generations Are you trying to claim that people are still referring to boomers or millennials when using the term "current generation?" Truly nothing more cringe than the social dis…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/20 03:51 PM
3

The unmarried women will also take good care of their parents, if they keep on good terms with their parents. So like, people are productive if they are productive?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/20 03:11 PM
1

You're looking at population decrements in a single generation, which is obviously falacious. Effective population control could be nothing more than incentivizing never having kids. Over the course of many generations, per capita rates will adjust because there will be much less people per...people.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/20 10:52 PM
1

If you go looking for things that make you bitter and jaded, do you think you will be disappointed?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/20 02:01 PM
0

Plastic surgery is more socially acceptable for women, mostly because of the societal gender role focus on youth as value.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/20 04:33 PM
0

Do you think women get plastic surgery to not be ugly or to not be old? inb4 implying there's a difference
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/20 02:13 PM
-1

There's a difference between not being old and not being ugly.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/20 02:06 PM
2

Availability in that context was due to the demand, which gives evidence of its social import. The existence of it at all demonstrates the awareness of sexual consequences on a societal level, because it presented a much higher priority of problem on a societal level. From a certain perspective, it's much less of an issue today because it's not nearly as inaccessible.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/20 02:56 PM
4

Are you asserting that birth control cropped up sometime in 60s America or something? The Egyptian Ebers Papyrus from 1550 BC and the Kahun Papyrus from 1850 BC have within them some of the earliest documented descriptions of birth control: the use of honey, acacia leaves and lint to be placed in the vagina to block sperm. Silphium, a species of giant fennel native to north Africa, may have been used as birth control in ancient Greece and the ancient Near East. Due to its supposed desirability, …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/20 01:38 PM
2

No, your problem is that it works. You don't want it to work because you don't want it to be right. The fact that you're focusing exclusively on incels speaks to your inability to properly represent exactly what's fundamentally happening. RP is not overarching philosophy, it's a specific toolkit for a specific purpose. Men find out very quickly that BP is hot water trash, both in the short term and the long term. When they are told they just have to be nice, be yourself, just be confident, etc e…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/20 02:32 AM
2

If you want to try to make an argument that people don't know anything about improving their own lives, go for it. If people believe a healing stone works, then there is at least a placebo effect. If they only care about a placebo effect compared to nothing at all, they're entitled to that pedantic difference. However, that's uselessly irrelevant because the difference between successfully applying RP principles has a myriad of distinction from BP passivity. The difference might as well be a sto…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/20 12:42 AM
2

Most people don't care if it works for everyone because they aren't performing scientific studies. What most people want is stuff that works for them individually because the one who is living their life is them. You can't refute that by pointing at heuristics.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/20 12:33 AM
2

Where is the risk in being dependent and without options when you have an ideal partner? All of the examples you've given are assuming low value. What if a boss treats you amazingly? What if your career is perfect for you? What if your husband is a pillar of society? Why would you even worry about any of these at all...unless you couldn't get someone like that?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/20 01:10 AM
11

"You need to release the brake to backpedal that hard."
/r/PussyPassDenied20/10/20 08:58 PM
1

You can do it. Just set your expectations according to your reality and not someone else's. Define your niche and excel at it.
/r/askTRP20/10/20 02:25 PM
5

There is someone else who is using you as an unobtainable state to never try in the first place. It's all relative. Find your own meaning.
/r/askTRP20/10/20 12:42 PM
2

Sure, but there is no difference between "no algorithm" and "a sufficiently indecipherable algorithm" so what's the point in pretending otherwise?
/r/seduction19/10/20 06:33 PM
8

The only difference is that Cal never had to work for that poontang. His game was weak and his frame was externally contingent. He got lazy by letting his money and status do the pipe-laying. He literally employed another man to do this for him. Rose had the pick of high society, he didn't do anything to distinguish himself. Jack's only edge was sweet talking, and the novelty of overly romanticized greener grass. He knew how to drop trou and bottom out the cervix because that's the only way he c…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/20 11:19 PM
15

Billy Zane got done dirty. Nature isn't predictable, even the chaddliest Chad gets out-Chadded sometimes. Leo had the emotional intelligence quotient to spark those tingles. There's always a bigger Chad.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/20 10:54 PM
1

Abundance mentality. It is trivial to find women who have self-accountability and functional communication skills. There is no risk in a false negative. If you catch even a whiff of malicious intent, even and especially as a joke, run for the hills. It's never worth it, no matter how short the relationship is.
/r/askTRP18/10/20 07:07 PM
3

Fuck this gay earth
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/20 03:17 AM
1

8) Develop time management skills
/r/askTRP14/10/20 12:56 PM
0

Most of this isn't something talked about on first dates. Yes, because most people are terrible at valuation. Never use what people conventionally do as a barometer for what works. The results most people get should be indicative enough, at that. Even though 10.5 of those 30+ years have been in a monogamous relationship? If we take someone who is 34, subtract 11 years for easy math, that's age 23. Estimate an initial dating age of 18. If someone is an introvert, focused on college studies, plus …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/20 07:13 PM
1

Sure, which is why you consider more than just one variable. The default decision is always negatory until proven otherwise, so if for some fictional reason you somehow can't derive any data, then...so what? This is why an abundance mentality is crucial. But to address your contrived hypothetical that isn't really defining the proper criteria; look for religious upbringing or some other deviation from productive developmental formative years, a significant absence of fitness, and/or unbridled me…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/20 06:43 PM
1

Look at factors of key performance indicators from behavioral action useful for comparative valuation, then read between the lines to deduce what isn't being presented. For example, N-count demonstrates her level of discernment (useless on its own, vital when cross-indexed with almost any other criterion), her ability to attract and keep high value men, her skill at filtering partners, and perhaps most importantly, her goal preparation. There is zero utility in getting to know one person really,…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/20 05:03 PM
1

You don't need to know someone well to valuate them for partner compatibility. All you need is enough of an extrusive assessment to project a trend. It doesn't matter that correlation doesn't equate to causation. There is no risk from false negatives. Meanwhile, there is tremendous risk from false positives. You can point at outliers all you like, but the only thing this substantiates is your statistical improbability, or perhaps your willingness for self-denial.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/20 03:55 PM
2

9" bibliography
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/20 03:49 PM
2

Since there are alot more women in the workforce now,men are gonna have to work alot harder to meet women's financial standards. This is the error in your assumption. Very few men are going to go through the rigors of conventional self-improvement like exercise or diet or fashion style JUST to be attractive to women. An infinitesimally fewer still are going to complete higher education JUST to be slightly more attractive to women. So overall I would say men are gonna have to work alot harder. Bu…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/20 08:52 PM
2

It's basic math. Comparative value is relative. Over or under saturation will drastically affect representational viability. If there are fewer proportionally valuable mate candidates, then women holistically will have a harder time finding the cream of the crop.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/20 08:49 PM
1

It's nice if you otherwise have no options, sure. If you want salient practice for some reason, then you need to be on the other side of the transaction. But if you're the type of person to appeal to 40 year old women in the first place, with a little effort you can certainly appeal to younger women with infinitely more to offer.
/r/askTRP09/10/20 08:03 PM
1

Easy sex is bad sex, that's why it's easy. "Some" money is available in any gutter tier minimum wage manual labor, retail, or food service job. You can know the quality of companionship when it is a woman who has to pay for sex. It's not even lucrative prostitution from wealthy lonely heiress widows or anything.
/r/askTRP09/10/20 05:27 PM
1

Money is a fungible entity. It's easier to get better women and better money other ways. So, how is this a persuasive offer? It's literally prostitution.
/r/askTRP09/10/20 04:21 PM
2

If they don't have anything to offer without the money, what's the draw?
/r/askTRP09/10/20 03:34 PM
1

What answer? Are you affirming the question then?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/20 03:30 AM
4

So do you or do you not agree there is incongruity in a disparity of intimacy?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/20 03:15 AM
2

So you agree with the incongruity in a disparity of intimacy?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/20 02:55 AM
9

The accordingly suitable response would be something along the lines of: "Well he tried it but learned he didn't like it, so he isn't interested in ever trying it again no matter with whom he is dining." Does that help you arrive at a salient answer? Or maybe this: More importantly, dates sex of a reasonable frequency are a requirement for me. They don't need to be always paid for conducted by him her, or of the highest quality but both of those need to happen with acceptable frequency.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/20 02:42 AM
2

It's not incels, it's the mouthbreathing troglodytes who give them stage presence. This was barely a debate sub (because there is no contention) in the first few years, now it's just a shitty, edgy /r/askrelationships. People who aren't good at arguing punch below their weight class in order to feel superior. They then turn around and use this egregiously subpar example as paint for everything in their sights. So all the idiots at the bottom suddenly have a huge following with people who care ab…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/20 02:12 PM
3

I'm literally a woman. Un/fortunately, your sanctimonious privilege doesn't extend here. The MY experience of being a woman isn't that No one cares about your anecdotal evidence. It's not that one girls says no and then the rest join in to just spite a guy. You're right, it's about female sexual suppression because if her friends passed him by but she didn't, then they aren't getting the same market value for sex. So they shame her to control it. Here, have a source to completely ignore: https:/…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/20 01:01 PM
11

The difference is that women tend to use it as a barometer for personal worth (and correspondingly their peer groups' worth) while men tend to use it as a ranging tool.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/20 04:10 AM
28

A man does not want to fuck a woman who compares him unfavorably to some fling she had in the past Low N-counts are important because it demonstrates several key factors of behavioral action useful for comparative valuation: Her level of discernment (useless on its own, vital when cross-indexed with almost any other criterion) Her ability to attract and keep high value men Her skill at filtering partners Perhaps most importantly, her goal preparation Secure high value men aren't comparing themse…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/20 03:59 AM
1

This is a great example of how most women don't understand comparative valuation. They don't bother improving, they just get busy being jealous.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/20 03:21 AM
17

It's basic math. If you want kids, then you objectively have a window of effect to obtain sperm, protection, and resources. If you do not have those needfuls secured by a certain timeline, then you either give up your goal or lower your expectations. 30 is not just a fecundity indicator, it's also the beginning of a discrete social strata separating young adults and the middle-aged.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/20 03:01 AM
9

A) Celebrities are like the definition of "exemption to the rule" B) The wall is not binary, it's a (sharp) gradient, and it is not defined by "hot or not," it is defined by "being unable to compete with younger women"
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/20 02:58 AM
7

But most women never proactively initiate, and the ones that do only do so in positions free of risk in which they feel certain of success, which is also why rejection hits so doubly hard for them: it outlines their cognitive dissonance in shiny, glittering crayon. Men have no qualms about success through attrition. Your average guy in any given venue will scope out prospects and then just go down the line until someone is down (doesn't work in groups though, rejection by one woman is a rejectio…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/20 02:49 AM
57

Keyword here is "alpha widow."
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/20 02:43 AM
3

when supported
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/20 02:27 AM
3

It's just typical solipsism. They read it and immediately think about how they can make it about them. The implication of RP principles means that women who externalize responsibility must change just to keep their status quo, far and away from improving to attain high value.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/20 03:06 PM
2

Almost like it's completely made up and substantiated by nothing.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/20 02:56 PM
7

Just the tired old "it has to be natural" spiel.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/20 08:44 PM
8

It's as though you never had movie day in bio class
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/20 02:09 PM
1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/20 04:46 AM
9

Same reason any other evolutionarily advantageous behavior exists: it works more than it doesn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/20 04:20 PM
0

answer to yourself
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/20 02:23 PM
4

What is the point in caring whether or not someone doesn't like it? That has no impact on your own development. You might as well answer to yourself why you bother to empathize with someone you purportedly hate. Unless, of course, you are fine with a discrete limit on your own cognizance as it relates to the rest of existence.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/20 01:13 AM
1

The point of successful advice is to progress past the point of generalization and comprehend how it can apply in individual cases. It's only ever as efficacious as someone can understand how they can use it to advance their own understanding.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/20 01:05 AM
29

It's very easy to tell when someone hasn't spent any time at all interacting with mentally and physically challenged people in real life. There are huge differences between social inexperience (for example, not understanding a joke), social awkwardness (for example, telling a joke in poor taste), and social disorders (for example, not understanding that someone told a joke in the first place).
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/20 05:31 PM
2

Same reason for any delusion: tingle fuel.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/20 05:24 PM
3

Sure, but there's no corporeal way to communicate this. Right from the start, it smells of subterfuge. Doesn't matter how genuine you appear to be, it's still no different than someone acting with malicious intent. The only men who would agree to this are the ones who don't have anything to lose.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/20 05:23 PM
-1

That's not nearly as good an excuse as your others.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/20 07:01 PM
1

If you can't progress the dialogue beyond that line, there isn't anything more you can contribute.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/20 06:50 PM
1

Continue to feel free to address the points in their entirety.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/20 06:50 PM
1

They probably mean women don't need it in order to achieve a bare minimum of success because they occupy the passive societal role, which contrasts heavily with men who occupy the active societal role and must absolutely learn interpersonal mechanics in order to get anywhere.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/20 06:47 PM
1

Be encouraged to improve your reading comprehension: False. Anatomically modern humans evolved in a very small geocentric area, starting around 85 to 55 million years ago. You're probably confusing genus with phenotypes, which began variance about 100,000 to 30,000 years ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/20 06:44 PM
0

You're hammering away at this point because you think it somehow proves sexual variance, but you haven't even established that as a valid foundation for your posit in the first place. Even if humanity evolved simultaneously in every part of the globe, it would either be part of the same genus or it wouldn't. If it is, then they are not evolving divergently. If it isn't, then they are evolving convergently.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/20 06:42 PM
1

Don't worry, it's obvious. Feel free to address the points in their entirety.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/20 06:41 PM
2

You are not using the word "evolve" as though you understand what it means. No females are evolving independent of each other, that is a process that takes millions of years. Sexuality is absolutely a discrete trait, that's the whole onus of binary gametes in eukaryotic multicellular reproduction. Here's the sources you asked for before deleting your comment. It's a super obscure and difficult to find resource called wikipedia: Genetic studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/20 06:39 PM
0

The phrase used was "a very small geocentric area" and not "a single region/population with Africa." But it's obvious that you have to resort to egregiously semantic hyperbole to even field a posit at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/20 06:34 PM
0

You are very confused if you think "females did not all evolve the same." Do you know any other female people that aren't humans? Sexuality evolved long before phenotype variation, which is what you are suggesting by alluding to "geography, nutrient deficiencies, in group/out group breeding, cultural difference, climate and genetic differences."
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/20 06:28 PM
1

We argue instead that Homo sapiens evolved within a set of interlinked groups living across Africa, whose connectivity changed through time. Did you even read what you thought was a source for your pithy diatribe?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/20 06:27 PM
2

False. Anatomically modern humans evolved in a very small geocentric area, starting around 85 to 55 million years ago. You're probably confusing genus with phenotypes, which began variance about 100,000 to 30,000 years ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/20 06:20 PM
1

Simple: they're not actually being realistic. Thinking you can do better when you can't is just as delusional as thinking you can't do better when you can.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 10:14 PM
1

You should never let fear dictate your decisions. Instead, accept that some things are beyond your control (and more importantly, some things are not), and seek to create happiness inside the outlines of reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 10:11 PM
0

Yet.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 10:04 PM
1

The reason people are unhappy is universal: they are not being realistic about what they need to be satisfied with their happiness. Happiness without facts is just delusion, which isn't actually happiness. You're merely describing the onus of hypergamy yet missing why people so often choose to be delusional over hardworking.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 10:01 PM
1

Given the choice between hard work for a better result and delusion, you don't seem to realize how many people opt for delusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 09:57 PM
1

You're misconstruing two things: FOMO is irrational and will never be satiated. Leveraging the best result is tangibly realistic and demonstrably achievable.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 09:52 PM
1

Again: how do you KNOW you don't?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 09:52 PM
1

Happiness is created for the self by the self based on facts.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 09:51 PM
1

You're arguing semantics. The point isn't to FEEL the emotion of satisfaction. It's to satisfy your requirements for happiness, which is why not basing it on facts can only ever fail.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 09:43 PM
1

For men? There isn't one, directly. Generally, men do not directly struggle with hypergamy. The ones that prioritize it are either perpetually single or eventually cheating. For women? Generally, they cannot fathom being satisfied with "good enough" (pretending "good enough" is somehow "perfect" doesn't count). This also creates indirect problems for men.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 09:25 PM
1

Are you asking for the male perspective? There are generally two answers to your question: Men looking for commitment are completely satisfied with "good enough" (notwithstanding the BP ones that are not good at filtering or valuation, or relationships in general who will inevitably have the evidence of a better woman eventually) Men not looking for commitment have no impediments to finding that better woman
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 09:17 PM
2

Of course it depends on the motivation, but you can't discern that from a forum post. That's not true, but why do you need to know people's motivation? It's irrelevant. A good argument stands on its own no matter who delivers it. With all due respect to lurkers, I really don't think anyone comes here to be persuaded. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's not the case, it just means you don't understand most people's motivations. It doesn't take stellar skills of perception …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 09:11 PM
1

Again, you're misconstruing two things: FOMO is irrational and will never be satiated. Leveraging the best result is tangibly realistic and demonstrably achievable.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 09:09 PM
1

You're not demonstrating comprehension of the question. It is not "Are you satisfied?" It is "How do you know your satisfaction is valid, when you don't know that you could have easily gotten something better?"
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 09:02 PM
3

That's going to depend on the motivations of any given individual. Most people just like to argue, and people who are good at arguing like to coherently present a rational perspective with a better appeal to persuasion. The most salient reason is because lurkers vastly outnumber participants and are usually here for more investigatory, educational reasons, with honest questions that need hard truths. So to all the people struggling with societal dissonance, OP is just demonstrating why there are…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 08:55 PM
1

You're misrepresenting the amount of work it would take to eke out that last amount of leveraged potential, but regardless you are claiming that you're satisfied because you don't want to go to the effort of achieving more. Right? Which is a great point, most women cannot field the value that the partners they are demanding would correspondingly want. However, that doesn't mean you're not wanting more. It just means that you've accepted an excuse for why you shouldn't be feeling that (even thoug…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 08:43 PM
0

The question is posed in a scenario where you are satisfied. The question is addressing your conclusivity; how do you KNOW (not think or feel) you should be satisfied? In your example given, how do you KNOW you have the best house available for your price point? You admit that you probably missed some better opportunities because of your limited awareness. So how can you feel satisfied knowing you didn't get the best available result for what you can offer? Are you satisfied with "good enough" e…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 08:30 PM
3

Again, if it's such a poorly formed argument then it should be even easier to dismantle. So there's no reason not to absolutely destroy what you're claiming is such a paltry attempt. The only explanation would be that it isn't poorly formed, rather the opposite, and you simply just don't like that you can't refute any of the posits. That is because this means that the beliefs you've accepted are not based on anything realistic. So what does that say about the feelings you've achieved with your b…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 08:24 PM
4

That's not an answer to the question, but regardless: how would you know?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 08:19 PM
2

Blue pill- believing the narrative that society tries to sell to people. The key word here is "to sell." BP is one big commercialization machine. And just like every good advertisement, it sells happiness. The diamond industry is a great self-contained example (and object lesson) of the principles involved: in order to be happy, a woman must be beautiful enough to attract a man wealthy enough to propose engagement for lifelong contractual commitment with a fundamentally useless crystalline carbo…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 07:59 PM
4

Maybe this will be more easily accessible: How afraid are you of working for an end result that was not the best you could have gotten?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 07:47 PM
11

That's not a good excuse, it should be all the easier to refute if it's so invalid and shallow. So now you have double the absence of justification for why there are no good replies.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 07:45 PM
13

The reason you can't answer that question is the same reason you're now latching on to this comment chain rather than continuing the dialogue with the earlier comment. If he truly wasn't saying anything, then it would be easy to refute. But you can't because, of course, he is saying lots of things. It's just that you don't like how accurate they are.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 07:43 PM
3

Yet those women don't usually have issues finding men. A) If they don't have any trouble, why do they hate being held accountable for their past behavior? B) No woman has the slightest ounce of trouble finding men. It's literally the easiest thing in the world for a woman to attract a low value man. What those women do struggle with immensely is being able to both find, attract, and keep high value men. Why would those women want to be with men that compare her in that way anyway Because they ar…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 07:41 PM
2

That's actually a great example, because women compete through the male lens of valuation and there's nothing more obtuse than a beauty pageant which is historically comparing the only thing the male mind cares about: youthful pulchritude. The trivia questions and variety show tricks are tacked on after the fact by people like you to pretend it's not male valuation. It's not like women holistically compete with arbitrary stuff like who can find the coolest rock or who can grow the most food or w…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 07:29 PM
3

It's not that people can't change. It's that you can never compare to women who never made those mistakes in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 07:18 PM
14

What's more likely: You didn't receive a single good argument You don't like that he rebutted beyond your ability
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 07:16 PM
2

The simple answer is that people ARE capable of improving themselves. The distinction is so discrete that you can even demarcate groups into winners who improve and losers who stagnate.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 06:19 PM
23

Sure, that's as good an excuse as any to avoid having to field a coherent, rational argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 06:18 PM
22

And radio silence. To be fair, at least they replied once which is one more than usual.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 05:56 PM
4

YOU can't.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 05:47 PM
4

Let's say you're selling apples at a farmer's market. But the booth next to you is selling the same exact apples for half the price. It's not a sustainable model, because you know how much money you need to make in order to produce the next batch of apples. Why would anyone buy from you? And why would anyone care if it's not sustainable after they've already purchased their apples? Men have nothing to gain by disparaging price gougers. They are the buyers, it doesn't affect them one bit. But wom…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 04:42 PM
1

I already did, to another poster. You think people follow you around hanging on every word? If someone wants to put up a false persona, those questions are super easy to game. Sure, if you're bad at it. I’m in sales, I lie all day long to appeal to people’s emotions. Again, most people are terrible at valuation. I understand that you can interrogate a person before you meet and if those questions match your values ...then what? I’m obligated to fuck them on the first date? Further more if any du…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 03:13 PM
2

Never taking responsibility will always leave you out of control of your problems, like being passed by for better women more confident in their filtering skills. You can try to shame women better than you and the men they interact with as much as you want, no one cares and it won't change SMP mechanics one bit.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 12:19 PM
1

Feel free to address the points in their entirety.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 12:17 PM
1

The fact that most people are bad at valuation doesn't mean it's impossible to be good at it. Excuses prevent growth. High value men benefit just as much from filtering for correspondingly worthy partners more than any other demographic.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 04:10 AM
1

A lot of people use dating apps but of course this is a poor tell before meeting—even if you’re “good at it”. On the contrary, this is only said from the position of not being "good at it." When I used to date, I met people when I was out—generally brief encounters where I’m asked out right? Yes, as is evident by your narrow stream of passive contact. Going into a first date people often don’t know much about the person. Even if we think we do. Again, this says more about your ability than the e…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 02:42 AM
1

It's okay if you don't know enough to know what question you should be asking. There isn't much more to it than using deductive analysis to extrude data for projecting trends in pursuit of actionable valuation. The crux of insight is available to influence from understanding someone's character through their choice of actions in any given instance, past or present. The better you are at getting to know someone then the more you can know, and the greater your capacity to know them fuller. Start h…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 12:30 AM
1

The point is that in such cases, there is no accessible value of man that would provide the necessary influence on internal states of mind.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 12:01 AM
3

All of interaction preceding the date. Under what occasions do you receive no data about someone before going on a date with them?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/20 12:00 AM
1

Same way you get good at anything else, adhering to improvement of good form and practical application.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/20 11:58 PM
-1

How does a woman completely filter and vet for everything on the first night when men are on their best behavior trying to get a piece? Filtering starts way before the first date, but the answer to your question is "By being good at it."
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/20 10:53 PM
1

What value does a woman who is not confident in her partner filtering skills offer?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/20 10:44 PM
2

In that context, it only works if she feels that it works. It all boils down to tingles.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/20 10:43 PM
9

Bingo. You could drop Henry Cavill naked, glistening, and erect in front of a woman and so long as she's thinking about her insecurities, it ain't happenin.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/20 10:19 PM
1

It works on men without options. Even if the guy only has one other option, he will still choose the better choice. But the thing is literally anything works on men without options...because they have no options.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/20 10:12 PM
1

Great example of futilely trying to control the SMP. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Cultural-Suppression-of-Female-Sexuality-Baumeister-Twenge/26cf592c500860d43ceab39d21816654e53e9c6c
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/20 10:06 PM
4

Respect has nothing to do with it. It's strategically unsound and fundamentally fear-avoidant. If you could somehow magically know a partner was 100% perfect for you, would you still wait?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/20 10:01 PM
0

I have emotional regulation. You can't even regulate your emotions in an internet forum with total strangers you'll never meet. Two different people doing the exact same physical things will elicit different reactions. Yes, the inability to be able to pick good partners has already been addressed.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/20 07:41 PM
0

I communicate where I like to be touched just fine. Obviously not fine enough if it's not resulting in an enjoyable experience for you. Do you mean force your hormones to find the other person pleasing? Force emotional desire? That seems both unlikely and undesirable. Be encouraged to educate yourself about emotional regulation. And maybe just sex in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/20 03:30 PM
0

Define what you mean by being good at casual sex. Why, you only have to steer yourself back to the above comment: "Emotional regulation skills and communication skills" I would bet most women don't orgasm during casual encounters though Yes, because they're bad at it, and bad at choosing partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/20 03:22 PM
0

Being good at casual sex is much more than successful sexual experiences, which you would know if you actually were. I don't see the point in doing things that 100% benefit the other person and 0% benefit me. This just confirms it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/20 03:15 PM
1

There is a difference between being able to do something but simply not caring for it, and pretending you don't like something because you can't do it. Tangentially, lots of things that are good for you are not enjoyable. Exercise, vegetables, and education for example.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/20 02:37 PM
1

How convenient that you choose not to engage in something you are not good at.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/20 02:29 PM
1

Keyword: hypoagency https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hypoagency
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/20 01:36 PM
1

If you're not good at casual sex, the most salient improvement is going to be: A) Emotional regulation skills B) Communication skills
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/20 01:29 PM
3

You're only considering the scenarios that wouldn't lead to attraction because you want to feel better about yourself for giving a certain answer. Functionally NSA scenario like a deserted island, you wouldn't even wait for the plane fuselage fires to cool off.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/20 01:24 PM
6

That's the onus of FDS valuation. High value: willing to be put into a controllable position of vulnerability, never stimulating or challenging in any way "Low" value: won't put up with that
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/20 06:02 PM
4

How are you thinking critically about the methods you are using? That is to say, how are you comparing it to some hypothetically perfect methodology? If you try something and get a result that's not completely terrible, how do you judge whether it's sufficient or whether you could do better?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/20 05:59 PM
12

It's true in this context, but outside that it's not totally wrong. So long as you can field the requisite value to fulfill those standards, having more discerning standards is itself higher value. For example, one of the reasons promiscuity is such a high risk indicator is because that person is not discerning at all (doubly so when all they have to offer is sex). Whereas someone who knows exactly what they want and knows they can make that kind of person happy is a positive attribute.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/20 05:26 PM
9

Objective value is not subjective. No man out there is going "Oh wow the way you chose to interpret 'glow up' is really provoking and attracted my attention." They're out there going "Women who exercise, eat healthy, and meditate for positive mental attitudes look the most attractive and offer the best company" down to the last man.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 07:52 PM
0

The fact that you can't just say "No, my friends are fit and strong, and hot as hell" belies your tone deaf approach to refuting the fact that you don't see the behavior described because men do not want fat women much more than they don't want unhealthy women.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 05:46 PM
2

Even if that were true, which it isn't, you are at the very least admitting that men do pay more.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 05:42 PM
6

https://www.fatherhood.org/fatherhood/fathers-behind-bars-the-problem-and-solution-for-americas-children-infographic https://tcf.org/content/commentary/incarcerated-fathers-and-the-children-left-behind/
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 05:13 PM
2

Feel free to address the points in their entirety. You will never argue other people into making you happy.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 05:13 PM
0

I generally don't associate obesity with ones health That's gonna be an oof, a yikes, and a wowie zowie trifecta. I also said two of my friends are overweight, either way none of them are unattractive in my opinion. Of course not, that would demonstrate low value on your part. They aren't anywhere close to morbidly obese or anything like that. When "They are not morbidly obese" is literally the one thing you can say in their favor...they're fat and unattractive. The rest if my friends are what i…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 05:12 PM
2

That's a really small survey poll. Of course it is. That's the only way to collect that kind of data. Are you seriously expecting a peer-reviewed, evidence-based double blind clinical study on whether men actually do pay for dates more? Scientists behind one-way mirrors furiously scribbling notes in a Denny's? From your third article, written by a man. Last article was written by a man and is an opinion piece If you actually cared about educating yourself, you would find the studies in question …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 05:08 PM
1

Everything you are listing are risk indicators, which is just proving the point.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 05:02 PM
-1

Normal people see sex as activity people do when they are attracted to each other. Is there a nuanced gamut of attraction in that dynamic? If so, it is based on comparative factors. That is called a non-fungible exchange i.e. a transaction. If not, then there is no point in trying to offer literally anything beyond asking "Would you like to have sex?" to random women on the street.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 05:01 PM
2

The point of generalizing is that correlation doesn't have to identify causation in order to still be useful. There are no risks of a false negative in dating. There will always be another person around the next corner with equal or better value. Whereas there are MASSIVE risks from a false positive in dating. Neither does stunted social growth in "late bloomers" have anything to do with social leverage. People who want to reproduce should prioritize that because your ability to go to school and…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 04:56 PM
0

None of that has anything to do with whether or not your social group is unattractive, which would certainly explain the disparity of your perspective.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 04:51 PM
1

Imagine being this obtuse. A) Either you honestly don't think this is true, which is sad, because you could just google to fix your inadequate social self-education B) Or you do think this is true, which is even sadder, because you could just google to immediately learn how wrong you are https://metro.co.uk/2018/02/16/men-still-paying-women-first-dates-7317856/ https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/finance/who-pays-first-date-gender-roles-couples/ https://verilymag.com/2017/07/men-should-pay-on-a-date…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 04:47 PM
1

Are your friends fat by any chance? No we are healthy That is a class ten kaiju level dodge. You can absolutely be fat as fuck and still technically healthy.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 04:38 PM
1

A) Generalizations are the only way to speak about large numbers of things, no one is going to end every sentence with "disclaimer for unsavvy idiots, hyperbole is actually just exaggerating for efficacy" B) Anecdotal evidence isn't
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 04:36 PM
3

It filters out reactions exactly like this. If you can't field an entertaining interaction in an empty 2D plane, then something as milquetoast as coffee shouldn't present any problems. Unless, of course, you're as vapid and boring as an empty 2D plane. Alternatively, if you need a price tag on a set dynamic, then you're selling yourself for an egregiously high price that will never be able to compete with actual sex workers.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 04:32 PM
1

You don't need sex. Frontload your dates with this opinion and see how much it works.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 04:30 PM
1

lying your way into pussy would do the job. That's not true. Being authentic is far more strategically viable than lying, if for no other reasons than social networking or filtering for compatible goals.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/20 04:26 PM
1

Temporary and also external. Given by other people. Not part of who you are but a result of your actions. Anything that comes from that is being valued for what you do, not for what you are. A good social circle evolves with you for the rest of your life. It provides opportunities that would never, ever have been remotely accessible otherwise. Your inclusion in a high value social circle is necessarily dependent on what you can bring to the lives of the people in those groups. Same as above. You…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/20 05:57 PM
2

I say the same about the innate value women are born with. But this is both temporary and also external. They are given this by other people, so they have no control over it. Please elaborate. Present examples. Being in high value social circles is probably the most salient. Any aspect of something that constitutes more than two people will be superior. This goes double for professional networking. All of those a man gets if he performs and does what society expects from him. WOmen get similar p…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/20 02:49 PM
3

I don't consideer anything that requires action from my part a positive. At the very least regardless of your ambition, better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. They only get this "pasive value" if they actively perform the role society expects from a high value male. It is not pasive, and for that reason not a positive in my eyes. Not really, lots of high value attributes can be passively accumulated. You're also not thinking of all the positives from the halo effect i.e.…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/20 01:29 PM
-1

Forced homogeneous value. You can see it blatantly with military spouses. OUR rank. OUR billet. OUR salary. Not to mention that, to date, no one has bothered substantiating personal experiences that are as easy to write as they are to make up. All of em partnered up with high value men not because the men are actually high value, but because the man that they partnered up with needs to be. It's very convenient. Edit: spelling
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/20 01:26 PM
7

High value men have the best of both worlds. They have the societal backing of the active role, yet the passive value to receive beneficially unfair treatment.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/20 01:20 PM
1

Nothing about what you said has anything to do with why male attention is useless.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/20 04:08 PM
1

What relevance do women under 35 have?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/20 03:44 PM
2

It doesn't matter whether it's online or IRL, attention from men is easily obtained merely by existing as a woman. That means it takes no effort, skill, or experience to get which means it is completely useless for drawing conclusions about value. Attention from high value men is another thing altogether, which is why so many women like to pretend that their partner is high value just because he is her partner, and not that he is high value according to valuation principles.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/20 03:41 PM
5

That's a useless distinction.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/20 02:38 PM
2

Only for the desperate cases. It's too much effort for casual dating, especially when you can get comparable or better results with conventional OLD. This is because video chat is still just pixels on a screen, and you can't fuck a screen.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/20 01:34 PM
1

This does nothing to filter out incompatible goals. There is nothing about waiting an arbitrary amount of time that disincentivizes men who "just" want sex; all they do is...you know, just wait that amount of time, fuck, then bounce. People can and do leave anywhere between one night and one century together. You will never have any iota of control over whether men stay or not. The only reason a man stays is because he wants to, for whatever reasons he's accepted. The only real efficacious filte…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/20 01:29 PM
3

Half true. Men and women are lied to in equal measure about societal function, but it's much easier to discover and identify those lies when you have sex goals versus relationship goals. This is because the cause and effect relation is much less shorter (sometimes even instant) for achieving sex compared to the cause and effect relation for achieving relationships. If you can figure out why BP bullshit doesn't work for sex fifty times over in the same time span that you can figure out BP bullshi…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/20 01:07 PM
13

Male attention is the most useless social currency there is.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/20 12:48 PM
7

No, there's just a prize for fastest landspeed record for hitting the wall.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/20 12:45 PM
0

Oh, you're looking for this then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy Don't let the cognitive dissonance hit you on the way out.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/20 03:28 AM
1

The human brain both exists too incomprehensibly to conclude it is typified and also presents categorically recognizable patterned behavior. Try Weber instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_type
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/20 11:01 PM
2

MBTI is garbage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism The idea of an easy button for self-reflection and mindfulness in general attracts a lot of indecisive, alexithymic people in this current generation of egosyntonic or egodystonic aimlessness. The only arguable "benefit" of MBTI is that it puts the person onto a path of progressing their pursuit of self-knowledge. But this is entirely unnecessary when people could just get to it without all the hassle. I…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/20 07:44 PM
1

Q: What's the difference between not wanting someone who doesn't want you, and pretending you don't want someone who doesn't want you? A: How attractive they are
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/20 07:31 PM
1

I expect exclusivity the moment you like someone. Frankly, this is toxic behavior. You cannot hold someone to an agreement they never even participated in. What you are describing is borderline obsession. Perhaps you've been fortunate never to have made a mistake if you don't see the intrinsic utility of practical valuation before emotional investment. And tangentially, the only people who would be okay with IMMEDIATELY giving up non-exclusivity are the ones who don't benefit from it. That is to…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/20 07:20 PM
1

I wish there is a more concrete definition of what is considered too early to be more clear. This ultimately depends on each person's partner filtering skills, and their value in general with respect to emotional intelligence, psychological savvy, social drive, etc. There are two concurrent methods to filter; one requires skill and the other requires time. Most people are absolutely horrible at the former, and so have no choice but to rely on the latter (which is only just better than flipping a…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/20 07:14 PM
2

He goes on to say how asking for exclusivity is manipulative, yet playing these games and following all 16 of these lessons isn’t? There is a difference between overt manipulation and influencing the available variables in your favor. Asking someone to pass the butter is completely manipulative, but you wouldn't give it the same connotation. It's the demonstration of needy desperation that repulses women. Ever had a homeless person aggressively wash your car windows, then demand payment? Absolut…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/20 06:50 PM
7

Any option is best when the remaining options are absolute garbage. This is just the cheerleader effect in text form.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/20 01:13 PM
5

Sex isn't everything, but everything is sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/20 01:00 PM
1

And miss the social status of public validation?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 11:26 PM
8

Bingo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 06:05 PM
-1

Newcomers just see this sub as an edgy /r/relationships but can't fathom where the tabloid drama exists.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 03:26 PM
1

Who do you think stands to gain more (and be penalized less) from delusion, men or women?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 03:24 PM
3

Generally, men are persuaded by an appeal to logic. This manifests in structural frameworks of analytical insight into behavior. Generally, women are persuaded by an appeal to emotion. This manifests in empathetic exchange of personal experiences. But there are very few women who properly understand holistic RP concepts, so there is really a complete absence of mentors for the female perspective. Yet, women and men are lied to in equal proportions so there is no disparity of need for actionable …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 03:03 PM
5

Advice and comfort are often mutually exclusive. Growth is never pain-free. The fact that so many people simply don't put any effort into self-development end up in positions where they desperately need self-improvement guidelines just provides the illusion that actionable advice is "mean" because it targets delusion, passivity, and other behaviors shirking responsibility. You cannot change something you are not in control of, and you are not in control of something that you aren't responsible f…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 02:43 PM
1

Some people never get past the anger stage, women included. Statistically, there will always be losers.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 02:40 PM
1

Some guy that only cares about youth and looks will go for a 20 year old over a 40 year old, but that's not most men. Oh no
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 11:22 AM
0

Post a pic or quit braggin
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 11:08 AM
1

Half right again, poor communication skills are commensurate not only with poor filtering skills but also poor attractivity in general. No self-knowledge + no communication + no pulchritude = bad sex. This also contributes to the sexual skill disparity because it means a high value man very good at sex can still carry the experience for women who otherwise couldn't punch at that weight class. This also explains alpha widows.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 03:20 AM
2

You're actually half right in theory for the wrong reasons; this is why so many women are horrible at having good sex, especially good casual sex. So the caveat to the earlier question would be "high value women confident in their ability to have good sex, casual or otherwise, and all accompanying traits, attributes, and skills thereof."
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 03:12 AM
1

Can't fail if you never try.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 03:01 AM
1

Only low value women define a high value man as "one who is solely interested in me."
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 02:59 AM
1

https://i.imgur.com/wSOFXE1.png
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 02:56 AM
2

I suppose, but that's how you have miserable people staying married for the kids. Or divorce. No, that's what poor filtering skills gets you. The gamut between sensibility and risk is not a binary choice between two extremes. Fertility is generally fine for people in their 30s and even early 40s. Scholastic potential is generally fine for people in their early 80-90s and even early 100s. Youth is more than just fertility rates, a 30-40 year old woman is simply not going to be able to compete wit…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 02:42 AM
1

Non-married is not better than single when it comes to comparative valuation of motherhood.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 02:32 AM
1

If you are a woman looking for casual sex (or, you know, any remotely satisfying sexual experience whatsoever) are you going to choose the forever alone virgin or the preselected high value man with successful history?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 02:30 AM
2

Considering that you will never even meet more than 0.01% of men, what is more likely: All men are trash You can't find or keep high value men
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 02:23 AM
0

Male attention is one of the least valuable social currencies there is.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 02:21 AM
0

If your goals include a LTR, you're not going to land the ideal LTR candidate by being completely inexperienced. No one will ever just come along and make you happy for no reason.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 02:17 AM
3

What's the difference between "secure" and "no options" in this context?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 02:16 AM
1

One of these two things does not decline with age: Ability to succeed academically Ability to optimize fecundity If your goals include making a family, you are best off using youth when it is most valuable.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 02:13 AM
2

Sure, that's as good an excuse as any to avoid having to field a rational argument. Feel free to address the points in their entirety instead of making the mistake of assuming anyone cares enough to pay attention to your ire.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 02:06 AM
1

The distinction here is not your behavioral frequency. It's that you can't find high value men with mutual interest.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 02:02 AM
2

Post a pic or quit braggin. It's very conducive and not at all contrived to find a man who doesn't challenge railroading social skill progression and to keep a man who doesn't have options. Women with superior filtering skills and self-confidence in their partner choice will always get the real high value man. No one is begrudging you painting whoever got stuck with you by whatever alpha color you like, it's just transparent that you immediately jump to polarizing hyperbole when you wouldn't hav…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 01:56 AM
3

Well more's the pity, that's like baking a cake that you neither have nor eat. How convenient that you're not interested in men who expect more self-development with interpersonal mechanics.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 01:41 AM
4

Categories women view more than men https://www.pornhub.com/insights/what-women-want Categories viewed more by women compared to men https://www.pornhub.com/insights/women-gender-demographics-searches inb4 how do they tell: your google analytics footprints are hiding nothing
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 01:28 AM
7

Women misconstruing disagreement from men as hostility? Well that's certainly never happened in the history of interpersonal mechanics.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 01:19 AM
10

Lots of people never get past the anger stage. They never realize that once the boundaries of reality are outlined, they have drawn plans for how happiness can actually be created.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/20 01:16 AM
1

How does that change the fact that a man who has a lot of sexual partners either, a.) may have slept with someone more attractive than his current partner, or, b.) is potentially not selective, making the woman feel that she has been pursued simply because she has a vagina, and could be left for anyone else with a vagina? Those aren't facts when you have to use words like "may" and "potentially" to throw in your unbridled ire, because what constitutes as a substitution for your analytical deduct…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 04:18 PM
1

It's easy to tell when women have never met a high value man.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 04:10 PM
7

So your point is that a man needs high qualities to have a successful sex life but a woman does not? Yes. So do you mean men with high N-count are better long term partners? Not necessarily. Some people in this thread say that men with high N-count are equally bad because they make terrible fathers, have a lot of DUIs, ect. Some people in this thread have never seen a high value man in their life. Given that any average woman will never interact with even 0.01% of men, what's more likely: All me…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 03:00 PM
9

If something is difficult then it takes more effort, skills, experience, resources, and better inherent starting positions to accomplish. Women have a much easier time getting casual sex partners. It's just that they have egregiously higher expectations, so average women aiming for high value men is just as unobtainable as average men aiming for average women. So while similar distinctions can be drawn between higher risk male partners and higher risk female partners to a certain extent, there i…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 02:41 PM
2

If every student needs a teacher, why are teachers teaching more than one student? If every worker needs a job, why are companies employing more than one worker? It's the same disparity of distribution of straight women fucking high value men.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 02:35 PM
8

It's idiotic to be delusional, but they are not at all the same thing. You're just describing how people engage in delusion. Observation is not by any means comprehension.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 02:33 PM
17

It's not idiocy, that's just very basic mental deficiency. Denial is nuanced and complex. Delusion is something that must be actively and continuously perpetrated in order to exist. Learning more about RP will not solve idiocy. But it will absolutely contend with delusion, which is the whole point of the name. Men aren't thinking "Gee she's plum awful but I really like the peepee action so here goes." They think something like "Wow I sure love her" and just let themselves fall.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 01:57 PM
2

You can't see loyalty, certainly not in a single instant. The whole point of tracking a trend is to extrude data from what you can't see. At the end of the day, it doesn't have to be causative. Correlation is enough to make an informed decision. There are no punitive results from a false positive, whereas there is a world of damage from a false negative.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 01:53 PM
19

Do you think average men can get casual sex as easily as average women?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 01:50 PM
1

Women technically do often ask out guys. If you remove the word "technically" and have a false statement, it's not a technicality.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 01:44 PM
1

Absolutely none of this is proactive or direct, which is the whole point. Women are people, and people are best suited towards actually putting effort into achieving their goals. https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/e4pos6/new_female_flirtation_study_suggests_that_direct/ https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/social-instincts/201911/the-pick-lines-work-best-men https://www.xonecole.com/go-get-study-shows-women-make-first-move-better-dating-success/
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 01:38 PM
56

More to the point, men love idealistically. They want to believe a woman will endear herself to him as a person and not for what he provides.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 01:34 PM
1

If all the cow can do is give milk, why consider buying it at all?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/20 07:47 PM
4

This only works on low value men, which is the whole point: waiting ensures a man has no other options and must jump through hoops into order to get physical intimacy. High value man don't even think about it. They just move on to the next available interaction.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/20 07:44 PM
1

Sure, that's as good an excuse as any to avoid having to field a rational argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/20 06:11 PM
0

Feel free to address the points in their entirety at your convenience instead of making the self-important mistake of assuming anyone cares about your opinions of them.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/20 04:37 PM
2

The waiting time weeds out the minimally invested. You mean, the men with no options with which to compare you?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/20 04:32 PM
0

That's a crutch that inevitably fails. The only way to emotionally self-regulate is to develop emotional self-regulation skills. Women wait because it obliges female slut-shaming.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/20 04:29 PM
3

Feel free to address the points in their entirety at your convenience.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/20 02:06 PM
3

It doesn't, in fact, go both ways for the very reason you're unwilling to admit when your "theory" is pivoted back upon itself.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/20 01:08 PM
3

Sure, just like how so many women believe that not having sex immediately will somehow yield rewarding emotional investment, that women who do make a big show of their interest in immediate sex would be more successful, right? If men are crack addicts for sex and women are trying very hard to be the "super special princess" to their demise. Right? That's how your intelligent, well-considered theory is, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/20 12:51 PM
1

Sure, and how to shop the number on his bank account too, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/20 12:46 PM
2

Post a pic or quit braggin
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/20 07:18 PM
2

When you assumed there was a difference between men who "just" want sex and men who don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/20 07:17 PM
2

News flash: most men will want to have sex with most women.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/20 12:21 PM
8

Not when you choose to completely disregard socially disenfranchised men. It's not like they're real people or anything, right? Icky!
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/20 12:17 PM
3

Men and women are fed lies for various discrete reasons but in equal portioning. The key difference here is that it generally takes much less time to discover what actually yields good sex than it does to discover what actually yields good relationships. Factor in the disparity in valuations between gender roles, and you have short term indulgent behaviors acting as a significant detriment to LTR goals. For completely extrinsic reasons, men holistically have an easier methodology of noting cause…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/20 03:05 AM
6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships#Statistics 51.5% of women are with a man at least two years older than them. 31.6% of women are with a man at least four years older than them. Meanwhile, 14.8% of women are with a man at least two years younger than them.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/20 01:13 PM
4

Imagine doing anything but shitposting
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/20 11:59 AM
2

Now loading de_stroyed
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/20 11:58 AM
2

Disintegrated into radio silence.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/20 11:49 AM
2

Just because you're young doesn't mean you're connected with your peers.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/20 11:44 AM
1

Sorry, your attempt at trying to infer a strawmen is actually indecipherable, could you use more words to describe how you're deluding the aforementioned comment? The takeaway is that whatever work women have to do for high value mate selection, men have to do at least twice as much. Why you're talking about employment seems to be an issue with comprehension and general irate confusion on your part.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/20 04:55 PM
0

Any way you'd care to consider, except perhaps youth.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/20 04:50 PM
1

Obviously, but women get away with less work in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/20 04:41 PM
1

Being high value is not a product of anything but effort.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/20 03:52 PM
1

Nothing about submissiveness requires a lack of effort. Perhaps you've just, rather understandably, conflated the two and never had a partner who was able to show you a better perspective.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/20 03:50 PM
1

Social media is a tool. If you use it poorly, you will get poor results.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/20 01:27 PM
1

the branch swinging and shallow behavior many in this subgroup say exists in women doesn't exist with her Oh no I have seen serious American Christian women here act the same for their husbands who by no means are wealthy. Being a religious woman able to find a single religious man at all is an accomplishment. They know they can't afford to be as picky.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/20 06:29 PM
1

One of the reasons why my wife was interested in me was because I did not have a swarm of women following me, so she figured I wasn't a player and was a good guy to get involved with. She has a very strong dislike for players and such guys present that image. Her sister married someone who also didn't have a swarm of girls following them for similar reasons. A couple of my wife's friends married similar anti player guys. Translation: she did not want a man for whom she would have to compete with…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/20 03:06 PM
1

It seems to actually push more matches away because they see it as trying to actively demonstrate you get chicks. This is very useful for filtering out insecure neurotics.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/20 03:04 PM
3

Look to at evolutionary psychology to understand why pre-selection does not work for women. Multiple women can become pregnant from one man. Paternity is not an issue and in fact, it is more highly desired due to the man's factually proven ability to reproduce and provide resources. Multiple men cannot make one woman more pregnant than "already pregnant." Paternity is a huge issue. Notwithstanding contemporary social norms, such as how many average guys will simply not bother if a woman already …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/20 03:01 PM
2

The difference between 1 and 2 is largely semantics or more accurately just a second, further consideration. It is all a binary valuation: would or wouldn't.
/r/askTRP13/09/20 12:45 PM
4

GOTTEM
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/20 12:17 PM
1

Be encouraged to consider what you have to gain by ignoring facts.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/20 10:00 PM
1

The same reason anyone should care about misanthropes.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/20 09:33 PM
2

From that very page: The age-adjusted prevalence of severe obesity among U.S. adults was 9.2% in 2017–2018. Women had a higher prevalence of severe obesity (11.5%) than men (6.9%). The prevalence was highest among adults aged 40–59 (11.5%), followed by adults aged 20–39 (9.1%) and adults aged 60 and over (5.8%).
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/20 09:28 PM
2

Post a pic or quit braggin
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/20 12:42 PM
3

Not subscribing to "high value talk" doesn't make you not low value.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/20 12:14 PM
2

Only low value people pretend they're satisfied with a low value partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/20 12:05 PM
2

Yeah poor financial decisions and mountains of debt just screams "high value."
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/20 11:57 AM
15

That's half the fun, nothing juicier than denial
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/20 09:59 PM
4

/r/PurplePillDebate
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/20 06:43 PM
1

She did not dispute that she was a "reddit woman." She disputed that "reddit women" could not get a good looking high value man. Either way, it's useless to participate without factual proof. Be encouraged to work on your reading comprehension. Edit: spelling
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/20 05:45 PM
1

Yes, and not only did she not dispute it, she claimed to have persevered despite being low value.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/20 05:17 PM
1

Don't worry, just give it time. It's not like you can take more time anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/20 04:32 PM
2

Words are meaningless when it comes to describing personal experiences. For quantitative replies to have any substance, you need to provide proof. Of course it's idiotic to post personal information in public spaces online, which leaves zero reason to "point out" any personal details without substantiating.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/20 04:32 PM
1

You're vastly underestimating and blatantly disregarding the reproductive impulses men experience that ensure paternity. This isn't social conditioning or societal trends, it's fundamental biological imperatives.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/20 02:48 PM
3

What's worse: Marrying an ugly, low value man Bragging about a fictional husband on an internet forum to random strangers you will never meet so as to desperately squeeze out any remaining iota of external validation
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/20 01:50 PM
1

Some things are resistant to external manipulation tactics like shaming. Even the lowest tier of disenfranchised men would rather be single than have a prostitute for a partner. There's absolutely no way legislation will comprise employment history as a protected class. That's not even provable, what would be the evidence?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/20 01:41 PM
2

If all men, down to the very last member, were 6' athletic tanks with 5% body fat then women would still go for the top 20%. Men's preferences are mostly objective, somewhat subjective. Women's preferences are relative and comparative.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/20 01:12 PM
3

Post a pic or stop bragging
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/20 01:07 PM
1

Most didn't become sex workers before the internet, and most still won't now.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/20 01:50 AM
2

OnlyFans itself won't even last long enough to see your posit become falsifiable.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/20 06:57 PM
6

$4,000 a month (which is in the vast minority of earners) isn't worth the risk of forever ruining future career prospects and killing your chances with any worthwhile candidate pool.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/20 06:55 PM
8

Truth. Sources: https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/e4pos6/new_female_flirtation_study_suggests_that_direct/ https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/social-instincts/201911/the-pick-lines-work-best-men https://www.xonecole.com/go-get-study-shows-women-make-first-move-better-dating-success/
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/20 06:52 PM
1

Unless you propose NSA sex, you don't know. You think, you interpret, you assume, you make all matter of favorable inferences that perpetrate this denial. But you don't know.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/20 08:24 PM
1

they are not attracted to me What makes you think this? You still haven´t answered why it matters to you whether some friends would hypothetically want sex with me or not. Because what you are having trouble admitting is that you're just assuming that because you are not interested they must also not be interested, and using that as a basis for the veracity of your "platonic" friendship.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/20 07:41 PM
1

some no What makes you think this?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/20 04:39 PM
2

Far and away from the fact that your ideal is statistically outlying, you claim what you want is nowhere near what you are offering yourself. Isn't it convenient that what you managed to land is also magically your perfect idea of the male form?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/20 03:30 PM
1

But the question is that, hypothetically, if there were magically no consequences from that choice, would your friends accept a proposal for sex with you? Because refraining for reasons of monogamous relationships is perfectly understandable but does not address whether or not they are attracted.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/20 03:26 PM
1

So you are trying to price in your devaluation with your asking terms? You don't think that's not transparent?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 10:11 PM
1

I look down on women that do that Ahhh, there it is. LOL at thinking not fucking early on is an emotional issue😭 Do you think you are superior to a hypothetical clone of you in every way except she wouldn't wait if she knew her partner was 100% perfect for her? Because that 100% perfect man wouldn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 10:08 PM
2

"The top tier men that woman want" Elliot Rodger had tremendous mental health issues, and no frame which is the most important trait of them all.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 10:07 PM
5

that woman want
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 09:58 PM
2

So you care more about what other women think of your behavior to the point that you would remove yourself from contention for this 100% perfect man? Protip: if he's perfect for you, he's also perfect for many other women, many of whom are not weighed down by baggage preventing them from investing emotionally.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 09:58 PM
0

Eating healthy at caloric goals and exercising regularly is going to attract way more high value man then smoothing wrinkles, which is something only women care about in order to compete socially. You want to be and look youthful, not carry a sign that says "Youthful."
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 09:45 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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