TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Marksmithfrost Archive

View 1 post and 94 comments by Marksmithfrost on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

A high value Man is : Rich, not old, Tall, handsome, Mentaly strong, has a nice body, is funny, charismatic, loving, intelligent, is overall a good guy, and some smaller details. A high Value Women is : Beautiful, has a nice body, feminine, submissive, intelligent, low bodycount, no hoe behaviour in general (having male friends, and other bullshit which are low value like) and overall a very good and caring person and also some other details I think the "not old" part apply more to women than me…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/23 03:37 PM
1

"All of that", Come one is not even that long. In synthesis the question is not aroud women hating sex, but if you or women in general will be contempt and way less sexually frustrated than men in being sexless. The second part explain how women do seek and desire sex less than men. If you want a more detailed explaination is all there.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/23 02:49 AM
0

In reality the op question was made because some women have said, according to OP, that they enjoy and desire sex while others say that they don't want sex (as it is evil, disgusting, etc). In fact for OP:"women do not enjoy sex, nor do they desire sex" (which is wrong, since women do enjoy sex and have desire, but such desire is not on average the same as the one of men). Indeed the question was actually this one:"Would you say women are more content with being sexless?" It wasn't just why wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/23 09:51 PM
0

Are we now implying that all women have to be turned on at the sight of every Tom, Dick, and Harry walking down the street in order to like sex even once? You need to get some help, more specifically from an ophthalmologist, because i literally implied the opposite of what you just said and I asked her my question on purpose.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/23 09:32 PM
1

Seeking out sex as a woman is inherently more dangerous for women than it is for men. This is something that i indeed addressed previously. This type of enviromental is indeed the exact reason why you there will be now more evolutionary pressure to make you paranoic in such circumstances and develop the mating strategies that you ultimally end up having right now. Since women are more cautious, which is reasonable considering one of the highest causes of death for women is murder by a romantic p…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/23 09:29 PM
1

I did not say "as much" I said "more than they do" though you seem insistent on twisting my words. I used specific language and gleaned something I did not say or even intend my statement. I perfectly know that and i wanted to even point that out because that is your exact mistake. The reason why such phenomena exist is not because women do not have sexual desire but because they don't have the same desire as men, which create an imbalance due to the simply dinamics of demand and offer. Your poi…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/23 08:32 PM
1

Women don’t generally want/need sex if it’s going to be bad /painful sex. Women generally do want good, enjoyable sex. Women tend to have lower frequency in sexual desire in general, which your next statement prove further more Most women are not interested in fucking some rando just to “get “ sex because…see above… Which imply you are not attracted to most men, while men know that they will likely be attracted to the average woman. If this wasn't true, then by definition most men would be attra…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/23 07:47 PM
0

The question is why men settle more often than women and why they seek sex more. The answer interplay with anatomical differences, which make women often require more stimulation beyond penetration, enviromental factors (as many men may be bad at it or simply forget to stimulate the clitoris), epidemiological factors (as many women are physiologically anorgasmatic) and neurological factors (as men and women have differences in their reward system and men seem to have higher frequency in the desi…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/23 07:06 PM
0

It is their fault. And how do you know that your biology, behavioural tendencies and preferences do not contribute with that? Having spontaneous desire does not mean that men enjoy sex more You are conflating once again Desire with pleasure. One can really like something but not having currently the desire for it. If this wasn't true rape wouldn't be real. If you know what really spontaneous desire and responsive desire mean, you will see that your own point does not substain. Spontaneous desire…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/23 06:55 PM
0

Women like sex, but society will tell us we don't, men will tell us we don't The problem is not if you like sex, but how much you desire it. I correct you: women desire sex, but not as much (in terms of frequency) as men. At least in terms of frequency, men seems to have an higher frequency of libido (in their case indeed mostly spontaneous desire). Such thing cannot be only be the cause of enviromental factors, because the difference is cross-cultural, among LGBTQ+ people (and i would say that …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/23 06:15 PM
3

I explicitly stated that these numbers were specifically the number of men who viewed premarital sex as acceptable who didn't have sex in the last year. And now here comes my criticism. How many women prefer to wait until marriage or have restriction to wait for sex for a long time? How many men? The group of men with "moral quams" should not be relevant when it comes to a difference that is almost the double. To not skew the data and make them bias you need to assume that there are also a simil…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/22 03:35 PM
1

Are you sure? Quoting The article of the original study: "Between 2000-2002 and 2016-2018, the proportion of 18- to 24-year-old individuals who reported having had no sexual activity in the past year increased among men (18.9% vs 30.9%; age-adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for trend across survey periods, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.39) but not among women (15.1% vs 19.1%; aOR for trend, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.89-1.18). Smaller absolute increases in sexual inactivity were observed among those aged 25 to 34 years for…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/22 03:35 PM
3

According to the 2021 GSS data there were actually more sexless women than men Can you link this data please? Because many peer reviewed sources that i found show that the rise in decrease of sexual activities is more remarkable in men (and it take 2 seconds to searcher the data for japan men on google, also see my direct reply to you) https://news.iu.edu/stories/2020/06/iub/releases/15-sexual-inactivity-young-men-united-states-no-sex-debby-herbenick.html https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebat…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/22 12:41 PM
13

No, that may not be that accurate or the data were taking into account other things while excluding specific factors or group of people (if you link the paper will be better) The CDC (a more reliable source) reports that virgins make up 12.3 percent of females and 14.3 percent of males ages 20 to 24. That number drops below 5 percent for both male and female virgins ages 25 to 29 and goes as low as 0.3 percent for virgins ages 40 to 44. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/22 12:08 PM
6

In fact, they don't https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/xsa0n4/comment/iqkgrui/
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/22 12:34 AM
5

The exact thing i wrote in my comment In fact check my other response https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/xsa0n4/comment/iqkgrui/ Plus, you said to be a researcher. What field? Do you have access to both papers? If so can you share the Pdf even in dms or show a screenshot of it? Because i believe that you stopped at the abstracts and ignore all recents studies
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/22 12:27 AM
7

Bruh. For now, let's ignore the fact that like other people said the papers are old and were (most importantly) inconclusive at the time (which expose high probability of better work soon after; it is not the simple fact that a work is old to undermine a study, otherwise we should dismiss any scientific discovery made in the past, it is how conclusive it is that can lead to raise 1 or more eyebrows when you start to take into account the time for improvements). First of all, the first study (the…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/22 12:25 AM
1

Lol. Not barely a day and i found you here. Anyway, yeah, but now the question is why crying is something worth mocking? That's after all the entire point on why crying is seeing such way even under gender stereotypes: there is a perception (subconscious or not) that crying is just related to weakness rather than empathy. Regardless of your intent (which is born from a similar bias, otherwise if you didn't associate crying with being weak, there wouldn't be nothing bad about that), you may indir…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/22 11:28 PM
1

I mean, the rudest thing that i think i said in my previous comment is "it's not that complicated to understand with simple deductive reasoning (or google)", which may be perceived as a little tease toward you but it was a more direct way to make you look up to the definitions to try to understand the meaning of the argument (especially since i really think that the meaning of valorizing and valorize can be reached easily). Like i said in the same comment, it is not my intent to sound meaner so …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/22 06:14 PM
1

Okay...? Again, someone else's standards are theirs to uphold. It'd be pointless to have standards and then get mad when someone doesn't meet them. Most men don't meet mine. That's never bothered me. You struggle a lot to follow the context of the argument of a discussion and you make a lot of confusion. That point was brought up to make you notice that even people that "settle" or have less selective standards are still using their own standards to decide what things they value the most and wha…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/22 12:30 PM
1

Then I would consider those preferences, not standards What's the difference? Aren't standards made by preferences? If this wasn't true we all have the same standards (even the ones that have selective ones). For me, standards function as the way to filter out people who I'm not compatible with under any circumstance. It can be true for another person that have a different standard than yours but think instead that the majority of people fit in his standards (because for example their preference…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/22 01:41 AM
1

Anyone can have whatever standards they please. But standards are only as good as your ability to uphold them and reject people who don't meet them. If you're going to change your standards to accommodate someone, what's the point of having them to begin with? Because one can also says that someone actually didn't change that much their own standards and they still have them but they may not care about certain things over other. It is not to accomodate someone, it is being comfortable in a parti…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/22 08:01 AM
1

I'm calling them pathetic for choosing someone with the intent of changing them. The context you used pathetic was in relationship to men changing or improve themself to impress a girl to make her happy. You also said that men are not respectable because of their current standards, meaning you are criticizing other people standards that are different than yours while putting your standards in a more higher ground I expect other adults to vet as well as I do. If they don't, that is not my problem…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/22 11:56 PM
1

Depends on the change. Take out some piercings? Sure. Quit my job and raise kids I don't want? No. I vet men to avoid things I don't like. If they had a trait I found unattractive, I wouldn't have chosen them to begin with. If a man does not do the same, he is far more desperate for a relationship than I am You notice that you would concede on things that you find of minor important. You will be fine in taking out some piercing because is not something that you mind too much. You obviously don't…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/22 10:14 PM
1

If I had been specifying "in a relationship" I would have said "in"...not "for." "For" indicates something I don't already already have. For doesn't not necessary indicate something you don't already have, it can also indicate something you already have and you need to change "for it" indeed (lessical examples: "i have a child but i wouldn't die for it", "i'm also in a relationship but i would never do this stuff for it"; this phrases can be represented also by these periods "i wouldn't die for …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/22 09:28 PM
1

I'm talking about people I'm not dating, not people I am. You seem to be confusing the two lol You literally said, quoting words by words:"The whole point is that a relationship isn't worth changing myself for (neither is sex)." You express you unwillingless to change yourself in a relationship because isn't worth it meaning in a relationship there is no chance that you will never put an effort to change or improve parts of yourself. If this isn't true, then that statement will become immediatly…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/22 06:55 PM
1

But that person who doesn't approve of me isn't entitled to expect me to change for them. Exactly, but you will never change anyway because you will always put your interest firsts. You made it clear that there is no possibility of an act of kidness towards your partner for that because it will not be advantagious for you under your standard. Your interest suppress any type of possible concern for others. This is selfishness because they aren't entitled to date me at all. But this is not just in…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/22 05:20 PM
1

You talk about selfishness but have yet to give a sensible example of how I'm selfish Bruh... I literally point it out more than time where you are selfish, made 3 or more metaphors and demostrate what i was talking about with multiple examples. But you are right, ypur lack of understanding of my arguments may be one of the problems. Refusing to change for a potential partner would only make sense if I expected the potential partner to change for me. No, because you can still selfish also when y…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/22 03:44 PM
1

Ah.....so you ultimately believe people should date people they don't actually want. I literally said before that your tastes are your tastes and you can do what you want. This doesn't mean that you are not stubborn and entitled. I don't know if this thing make you feel bad/bother you or not, but it is what it is. You criticize men because of their standards to the point that you don't think that they are respectable even if they are dating the people they ultimally decide and want to date, ther…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/22 07:32 AM
1

First and foremost, that'd make me lose any interest in them. Of course it does😂😂😂I already knew that. It does not match your benefits, you see as disadvantagious and as something not worthed and your tastes match such selfish inclination, so that should be the expected outcome, nothing special. So because men are pathetic, I have to accommodate them? Altruism is the "disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others". You see, because some of these men try to pleasure their partne…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/22 12:47 AM
1

Dating is fun..? Yeah, but it wouldn't be dating if there is no romantic expectations. That would be a normal go out with a friend, not a date. That are 2 completely different things. if I do find someone I like who likes me in return, that's pretty awesome. We are getting it. So you think it is possible that someone may like you (aka you are worthy for their standards) during dating and you actually prefer more to match the expectations of a person you like. That was the obvious answer that you…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/22 11:54 PM
1

It'd only be selfish if after being rejected, I was still demanding said thing. No, that would make you not just selfish and entitled, but also a whining, frustrated and a pretentious person. Plus, again, this isn't about being rejected. There are many contexts that a person can be selfish that do not involve rejection at all. Expectimg your partner to uphold your standards while not having any will to change yourself and your flaws for the relationship because this is not worthed (aka convinien…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/22 10:40 PM
1

How is it egotistical and selfish to not care if someone doesn't want to date me? Again, you still cannot see what the argument is refering to. In that case, it is not the fact that you don't care if someone doesn't want to date you the selfish part (this is like the 5 time i repeat the same concept in this conversation, then you will ask again why you are stubborn). The selfish part is to want something without putting the will to change yourself (which include your flaws that very likely you h…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/22 09:33 PM
1

Nah, I think you're reading way too much desperation/desire into what I've said. Literally states that is not about desperation or extreme desire You:"well i think you are reading way too much desperation and desire in what i said" No offense, but i don't think it is the case, expecially since i'm not the one that is literally not reading the statements of the other person in this context Being open to something doesn't mean I'll be upset if I don't get it. Yeah, you definitly have read all the …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/22 08:55 PM
1

I don't perceive of relationships as either deserving or not deserving. Which doesn't make sense and it is an inconsistency with what you said before, because if you don't perceive to want or hope to have the exact thing you have specified (i.e. deserving) then dating for you should be pointless. I don't think this is quantum physic and you are in a superposition (multiple states at the same time ) where you both hoping (or have hoped) and not hoping at the same time, because rationally that wou…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/22 05:08 PM
1

That's for them to decide. The argument is not if they are able to decide or if you take rejection personally but rather if you hope to deserve this in the first place. If you say that you will date a man that meet your standards then you are by definition hoping that for some of the men that fit your standard you should be worth of that date, otherwise your phrase wouldn't make any sense because you would know damn well that there is no man under your standard that think you are even worthy. If…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/22 09:42 AM
1

I didn't miss that part...since it is the exact thing i pointed out to expose some holes in your reasoning. If you think you don't deserve to be with such people, then even when you find them you shouldn't even try to date them since you know that you are not worthy (and i have assumed that you have never dated in your life because of that, right?). You have stated in your text that you want to date such man if he fit your standards. This suggest more that you think to be worthy for your dream m…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/22 03:29 AM
2

Bruh. You litteraly said that women like you want someone that it is up to their standard and a man that also doesn't want a woman that is beneath to his standards. This is called "Expectation" An expectation is:"a belief that someone will or should achieve something." Deserving mean:"appropriately having or being given something specified." (Merriam-webster) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deserving You said to only date people that are not beneath your standard (only when you "appro…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/22 12:56 AM
3

Who said that you feel entitled to someone that doesn't want you? Entitlement means:"the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges, special treatment or something" You believe that you inherently deserve someone that meet or is beyond your standards. If such thing does not happen, you will stay single and no one will change your idea about it. The fact that you don't go out of your way to have that thing or to force that thing to be with you (whether he wants it or not) doesn't mean …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/22 11:54 PM
2

Have you even read? Can you explain or do you need a more understandable summary? Because i can also claim that all of what you have said doesn't make any sense without providing an explaination and i think arguing where you disagree is way more understandable than screaming "fallacy!" and go away. I think it does make sense, so if you want me to rexplain it i would have no problem with that
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/22 11:44 PM
2

Women like me who would rather be single than date [..] Which match with yours mating strategies and reinforce the various hypotesis that this indeed relate to your wiring and lack of libido, infact... Men would be able to uphold standards, thereby becoming respectable This is based on the mating strategies you find advantagious. Obviously for men the contrary would be true if women would settle more easy like men do instead of following potential unrealistical expectations, which in the eyes of…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/22 11:33 PM
2

stupid behavior and violence by men. The problem is that, if that "stupid behaviour" (since you are likely refering to behaviour related to libido) exist by evolution, it may be necessary and not that stupid from a naturally selective standpoint...otherwise that behaviour itself should have been selected much more sooner after all these years of evolution.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/22 10:56 PM
1

Having casual sex costs me more energy to keep my commitment out of it Understandable, but in this case it seems something slightly more than casual sex The good part is they do it too if they are a good partner. Fair enough Having to attract people to have casual sex with actually does Then it seems more a matter of attraction. In theory, if you are an actual girl with average looks and you ONLY SEEK casual sex, then it shouldn't take time to find someone to have sex with ( you can run an exper…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/22 06:54 AM
1

That's quite toxic, expecially since you try to invalidate an opinion (which i don't completely agree with either) by making an assumption that wasn't stated in the reason in which he had such opinion in the first place. By doing that you also leggitimate his arguments more, since if women love a person less because they feel they had better experiences, then his reasoning start to not seems totally illogical from his standpoint.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/22 02:35 PM
3

Too much energy to spend regularly. Just a curiosity, not defending any side here, but what you mean by that? Isn't a contradiction since you theoretically have less commitment to the random encounter? I can understand it only if you were the one pushing the bar, because after all casual sex should be sex when you want, while an emotional relationship require constant commitment and support to your partner, even sometimes in moments that you don't feel like it.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/22 02:23 PM
2

I was talking about men, not women The first comment of this thread was rationalizing the behaviour of men by taking into account female fertility. You replied to that comment by saying that also male fertility does decrease while the previous user (likely a woman from what we can tell by her statements) wasn't even focusing about male fertility. Really, no hate, but if you allow me to make a simple question, what was the point that you were trying to make there? Was the fact that the other user…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/22 03:57 PM
1

I think the other guy was tho. "The thing is that men’s fertility doesn’t really drop at the same rate although it still clearly does drop" I think the point he is trying to make is that since women fertility decline faster and women age may contribute more than male age to birth defects, there may be tendencies in mating strategies that may reflect that. Although in my opinion can be a possibility, obviously it cannot be claimed as conclusive.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/22 04:18 AM
2

It does, because even if the age Gaps is about of 2 years, the couples with menopause women (ex, 58-60, 48-50, 57-59) are not counted . At that age, the TOTAL inability to have a child mostly fall on women and less on men. Notice that menopause today take mostly half of a woman life time (assuming it start at 45), while women fertility start at puberty (at around age 12) and there are only precise moments in which a woman can have very likely a baby during their mestrual cycles (around 12 to 14 …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/22 10:49 PM
1

"A degree of mental immaturity, regardless of perceived social immaturity, is something to take into consideration." But the question here is if attraction is affected by that. Attraction is thought to not be the product of a conscious choice, so you should expect that indeed preference will be affected by that. Like you said a 25 years old may provide almost the same physical appeal of a 20 years old, so the question here is, why a 35 male years old may not be attracted by that? Yeah, sure, you…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/22 07:51 PM
1

"Half of couples who have issues conceiving do so because of the man" I dunno what is the study you are refering to, but notice what you are saying here: "half of the couples that have issue conceiving" Which mean you accounting the couples that are able to potentially conceive in the first place. You (or the study you are refering to) are/is not accounting for the couples that are unable to conceive. A 55 years old couple with both partners 55 or 60 years old cannot have a child, not necessary …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/22 06:12 PM
1

Pharmacist here, assuming that my accademic experience is even relevant to state here. Althought Aging affect the onset of birth defects in both sexes, older women have an higher risk in onset of a child with birth defects than older men. Quoting:"For congenital anomalies, the effects of parental aging are stronger for the group where the mother is older than the father, suggesting that advanced maternal age could have a stronger influence than paternal age." Sources: https://link.springer.com/a…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/22 05:31 PM
1

i just said it was a little odd when a much older adult has a specific preference for such. Since you talked before about cognition, brain and other things related to the field of neuroscience, can you explain to me what natural biological processes that are beyond social considerations should lead an adult to lose attraction for people around the age of 18 and 25 to the point that doing that is odd or even, indeed, unnatural?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/22 05:15 PM
2

Yeah, but there is a clear average and tendency. See indeed my comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/wuuma1/comment/ile0d85/
/r/PurplePillDebate23/08/22 12:09 AM
3

Younger people are not “inherently more attractive” because of their age. Debatable, since young women may not be inherently more attractive but they can tend to be more attractive for most men, which is probably the point of their argument i guess (you need to understand that people tend to make generalizations mostly to imply averages and sometimes for the sake of it). Again, i will not go in deep with your other opinions on the subject as it is your view on the topic (expecially since it seem…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/22 11:42 PM
1

"In life there are more pretty women than men" Even if there are common traits that a lot of humans find attractive (hence the entire point of the scientific field of neuroaestetic), attractiveness is litterally based on perception. There is no Physical law that define beauty, but what it is define as beautiful can only decided by your own brain and brain chemical reactions. It is more likely that indeed we have such perception because potentially humans are more incline to neonateous features, …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/22 09:58 AM
6

Where did I say that we should ignore the clitoris and only do PIV sex? Where did i say you said that? This was just to make you notice (like anyone else did) that being able to have an PVI orgasm as a woman is not the same to being able to have as much of a probability to have PVI as a woman. This is indeed the concepts that are against each other and can implied by someone generalizing such event. That's why, despite i indeed supposed that you refer to the people that completely deny the exist…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/22 04:34 PM
9

I mean, i can do the same thing. Quoting:"Research suggests that concurrent clitoral stimulation during intercourse increases the likelihood of orgasm, yet most surveys of orgasm during intercourse leave unspecified whether vaginal intercourse does or does not include concurrent clitoral stimulation (assisted intercourse or unassisted intercourse, respectively). Using an online sample of 1569 men and 1478 women, we tested whether phrasing of questions about the occurrence of orgasm in intercours…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/22 03:56 PM
8

I will post this also as a direct reply to the post. I mean, i can do the same thing. Quoting:"Research suggests that concurrent clitoral stimulation during intercourse increases the likelihood of orgasm, yet most surveys of orgasm during intercourse leave unspecified whether vaginal intercourse does or does not include concurrent clitoral stimulation (assisted intercourse or unassisted intercourse, respectively). Using an online sample of 1569 men and 1478 women, we tested whether phrasing of q…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/22 03:55 PM
1

I will also soon make a question/statement on this sub quite related to that just to see something. I will send the link later when and if it pass mod moderation
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/22 06:54 AM
1

I guess one of the potential factors that lead them to such thought is in to thinking that having sex with +40 men can affect the vagina or hymen shape to the point that the sex may feel different for a guy and it's a phenomenon that lead to the assumption that it cannot happen to men due to the nature of the external organ (and the overall dinamics of sex and penetration). The first assumption about vagina it's extremely likely to be false (it's like saying that masturbating will change irrever…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/22 03:28 PM
1

Partly true, but do you know that a lot of the behaviour of the incels is the result of Sexual frustration and that sexual frustration is a product of libido? Do you also know that sexual frustration is not exclusively the result of virginity or lack of a relationship (since you can be frustrated both because you wanna know what you are missing, because your libido makes you feel your are missing something -which evolutionary make sense- or because you know what you are missing and in this momen…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/22 06:09 PM
1

I mean, libido, aggressiveness and onset of sexual frustration are also quite remarkable differences. Spatial cognition it is also another difference but its relevancy can be debated depending on how your "almost equal" apply
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/22 01:15 PM
5

I know that and this is likely a fair point...it is not exactly what we are discussing about, but it can still potentially true in many circumstances.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/22 08:47 AM
3

Sorry, best i can do for now
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/22 06:54 AM
2

Things that make you look attractive (gym memberships, healthy food, good outfits, etc.) typically cost money, so those who can afford it, would make more than the bottom You used enviromental things that improve physical attractiveness. From what i understood he was refering to innate traits of physical attractiveness. Also a fit and athletic body can be achieved throught much cheaper ways and many women are attracted also to normal or fit body, meaning that body type is not the main elephant i…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/22 06:54 AM
3

Things that make you look attractive (gym memberships, healthy food, good outfits, etc.) typically cost money, so those who can afford it, would make more than the bottom. Yeah, but at that point you are using phenotypical characteristics that are the result of enviromental factors rather than genetic reasons (especially considering that many women can be obviously attracted by people that do not have a high muscular physics, since their are attracted by other relevant traits as the face; accord…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/22 06:32 AM
12

why is there always an assumption that whoever is stable/makes good money is unattractive … I don't know what statistics he took, but we can assume that he made a broad generalization based on the average tendency, like you also did with: except that attractive guys are also stable guys who make good money since not all attractive guys (in this case attractive is used to refer "physical attraction") are also stable guys who make money. You made a generic assumption like he did to prove your poin…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/22 04:56 AM
1

Having sub-human levels of intelligence doesn't CAUSE female dominance in species and I never said it did Then what's the point to state that in the first place if the argument is around female biased dominance (and thus that sentence adds nothing to the main topic)? The reason why i draw that conclusion is because you replied to my statement where i said "Indeed female bonobos are weaker than males ones but their species still have female biased dominance" with: Because they're all dumb as fuck…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/22 03:32 PM
1

Yes, and you think what you quoted means something different than it actually means. No, i have simply applied the literal definition of your phrases. "they're utter morons that don't have the capacity for complex reasoning" how many meanings this phrase can have? Unwilling. I will not engage you any more on this topic. Fair enough, your choice. Like i said for me you could at least address the question "Why other less intelligent species without complex reasoning do not develop female biased do…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/22 02:40 PM
1

No, I'm just moving on because you're not capable of understanding what I write, even after I explain it. I just quoted you word by word. I also asked a simple question that you were unable or unwilling to answer. You simply repeat that I am unable to understand without focusing on the elephant in the room (i.e. why other animals like beetles have developed male biased dominance; remember that they are mostly guided by chemicals). Oh, and it's annoying to read your replies because your English i…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/22 02:18 PM
1

"What the fuck? I said absolutely nothing of the sort." Because they're all dumb as fuck they're utter morons that don't have the capacity for complex reasoning I dunno if it is because you are ironic, you are scared to admit some debatable statement you made or you legittimally forget these phrases. That is not a paradox and that is not logically sound. I've already explained why. Then explain your definition of paradox and try to see if your statement create an absurd. Notice that a paradox do…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/22 01:56 PM
1

The definition of paradox is defined as something "seemingly absurd or that is self-contradictory in a way". Your reasoning is that since bonobos are morons, stupid and dumb compared to humans they have developed a female biased dominance. The paradox, or the contradictory thing is, if that was the case, under such logic animals that are dumber, morons, stupid and therefore less intelligent than the bonobos should have developed the same female biased dominance. Since dumber animals and animals …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/22 01:33 PM
2

Paradoxically, bonobos are ones of the smartest animals after humans, with an iq that it's similar to the chimpanzee (some scientists even believe that their intelligence is the highest among primates, other disagree; obviously we are escluding humans). Behavioural differences are indeed the ones that help us to understand what are potentially the neurological and cognitive traits of a species (which does not only relate by intelligence). By your logic, a more "dumb" mammal species should have h…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/22 03:59 AM
1

Your degree is in the same place where you left the biochemical explaination. Joke aside, i get your argument, maybe you are trolling or being ironic a little bit but my question to you was seriously in effort to find an explanation to the biological mecchanisms that lead to such phenomena, not the evolutionary etiology. If someone ask you "how the heart work?" you can understand why someone who responds with "Survival -> Adaptation -> Evolution" may seem like a person giving an explanation out …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/22 03:44 AM
2

You have essentially explained mating strategies. I don't know if you already knew it, but you theory perfectly align with the scientific observation around mate choice. So yet again you are correct so far. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_choice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mating_strategies#:~:text=In%20evolutionary%20psychology%20and%20behavioral,%2C%20attract%2C%20and%20retain%20mates. I will address now the statement that is more based on personal judgement. "For as long as we’…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/22 12:04 AM
1

"Women like taller men. This is scientific fact." Yeah but why? In this case i asked you the biological reason and not the evolutionary etiology. The dinamics you have described can be valid under specific view, but they do not explain what have caused such type of attraction in the first place: are environmental factors or biological factors to cause all of these and if they are biological factors what biological component and reactions in the brain or body lead all of this? Why taller men are …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 09:18 PM
1

Understandable. It may be absolutely irrelevant to you but take my upvote, yours it still a quite good theory
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 09:00 PM
0

Yes. How does it work and what are the neurochemical drives that lead women to select dominant men and men to be dominant in the first place?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 08:20 PM
1

"I think for most of history the “oppression” of woman was simple necessity. " So essentially for the same reason they are the ones who drive the reproduction of a species they end up to the ones to be more oppresed from the initial stage of humanity, right? Anyway, i understand most of your statement and it is actually quite rational for the most part. I have to add that men have sperm to offer. Despite they are more expendable their value is not zero. It's true that even if men dissapears huma…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 08:11 PM
1

" even the most radical feminist now that males are stronger then females" Indeed the question is not about knowing if males are stronger than females but rather explain how and if such biological difference is the only factor that lead society how it is today. I'm not a bonobo expert either but i know if a neurological difference in behaviour is present in that species and it can replicate in different enviroments away from other groups, it may be possible that such specific variable is still a…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 06:49 PM
1

That women are less expendable than males it's not a unique concept. Exactly because women are less expendable than males, males tend to go under more selective pressure that lead to males to have also specific advantages and more genetic variation rather than genetic stability (see x-linked genes; for instance women have more alleles, which translate in more genetic stability, while male have more genes, which translate more variation for specific traits). So, yet again that concept around Male…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 06:03 PM
1

"You have to be stupid to even ask this, it’s literally basic knowledge" It doesn't seem tho. I asked this question in different subreddits and comment sections and i got different answers. Subreddits that have more Egalitarian approach or near femminist beliefs obviously gave theories that rely only on social values. Other individuals were more close to biological factors or an interplay of biological and social factors. For example, you also didn't answer the question completely. Female bonobo…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 04:15 PM
2

This was an actual good theory (doesn't mean that i agree 100% but i recognize that it may be possible even as a very simplified explanation of the phenomena), so i don't have too much to say. The only thing i can """criticize""" is the fact that you consider the west to be the closest thing to natural relations. I dunno what is your personal definition of natural, but if males evolved such traits in favor of their mating strategy, doesn't that mean that such dinamics are natural in humans by de…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 03:58 PM
0

Indeed the arguement is not whether it have existed (althought anthropologist strongly debate that now) but why patriarchy was undenaibly more diffused accross different regions of the globe, even in cultures that didn't interacted with others yet at that time. I will quote the sources that explain why many of the previous studies around matriarchy are not value so much by current anthropologist: "The consensus among modern anthropologists and sociologists is that while many cultures bestow powe…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 03:41 PM
2

Indeed, in that case there is monomorphism, where minor differences can now play a more significant role. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species (fortunally not as much as other ones) and not monomorphic, so the difference between yours and mine example is that your example represent a monomorphic species while mine still maintain sexual dimorphism, which mean it account for multiple factors that indeed relate to our species. Essentially, what i'm trying to say is not that gestation cannot be a…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 03:26 PM
2

Exactly. That was what i was trying to talk about. Obviously this is all speculative, since we may not have strong proofs for many theories we can make, but i wanted to see under current data and findings what are for people the explainations for these phenomenon: essentially how much for the people nurture is relevant and how much nature is relevant and how it work for them. I also tend to challenge the views of each side to see what rational conclusion can come up with and infact i was able to…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 03:14 PM
0

I already addressed a religion comment before, so i will do a semi-copypaste. Also notice that my statement didn't said that ALL of the cultures were historically patriarcal, but there was a strong tendency towards patriarcal societies that seems to not match explainations based only on radomness. I am critical with the religion part since the question at that point is why different religions in different places develop to be Patriarcal and to favor males in the first place (since a religion tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 03:06 PM
2

True. My observation was around the fact on why strenght is rewarded and why men may use it more (throught aggressiveness or assertive behaviour) in the first place. I used hyenas and essentially all mammals to highlight the possibility that some of these behaviours can potentially be the result of neurochemical differences. Exactly because bonobo do not act like the standard average (for mammals) despite the gap in physical strenght, this may suggest potential factors at play that do not stop a…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 02:41 PM
2

This is also a respectable view on how biological differences between the sexes influence social behaviour. What i'm questioning is if that would be the main factor at the genesis of patriarchy. For instance for many years scientist have theorize that in the past many societies were matriarcal and women were almost idolized and seen as being with divine properties exactly because of their abilities to give birth (many of these theories rise from Paleolithic artifacts like the Venus of Willendorf…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 02:28 PM
1

No problem. Thank you anyway. Have a nice day
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 01:56 PM
1

This is actually a good explaination and i hope this comment is not seen as an attempt to invalid yours. Often times when someone use "How" with such questions, the question itself is interpreted like if it was refering to an evolutionary etiology rather than a neurochemical one. What i'm saying is that i'm trying to understand why this happen, with the purpose to find (or not) an answer that does not just stop to address "What cause this?" but also address the question "How does it work?" from …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 01:55 PM
1

Yeah, it is understandable and it actually makes sense. Althought, indeed, at that point is physical strenght that influence patriarcal traits of a society and it's not the religion itself that played a role in that (since in that theory ultimally it was physical strenght that influenced religion behaviour). Summary:yeah, you are right. Also, if you have the sources i want to see them so i can confront them with the ones i have
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 01:41 PM
3

I agree with physical difference (like i said this is a remarkable obvious advantage), even if we have to keep also in mind that having a physical advantage may not be enough to determine sexual dimorphic dominance. Indeed female bonobos are weaker than males ones but their species still have female biased dominance; this mean that there can be also a factor that leads males in some species to use such strenght and be more aggressive/assertive in the first place; strenght is nothing if you don't…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 01:26 PM
2

I agree with physical difference (like i said this is a remarkable obvious advantage), even if we have to keep also in mind that having a physical advantage it may not be enough to determine sexual dimophic dominance (indeed female bonobos are weaker than males ones but their species still have female biased dominance; this mean that there can be also a factor that leads males in some species to use such strenght and be more aggressive/assertive in the first place; strenght is nothing if you don…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/22 01:08 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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