TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

New-Dragonfruit-3349 Archive

View 0 posts and 21 comments by New-Dragonfruit-3349 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

It's not just vibes, there is research backing this. Multiple cross-cultural studies (e.g., Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Buss, 1989) show men consistently place a higher premium on sexual exclusivity and chastity in long-term mates than women do. Evolutionary psych theory explains this as men wanting certainty of paternity, while women prioritize resources and stability. That doesn't mean all men are like this or it's right, it's just a trend seen across societies. Also, recent studies (e.g., Mogilski …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 03:51 AM
1

I appreciate your thoughtful engagement and the clarity of your question. To answer it directly. yes, there is empirical evidence showing that a higher number of past sexual partners is associated with increased likelihood of both infidelity and divorce. This isn't just social stigma or moral bias; it's been demonstrated in multiple peer-reviewed studies. For example, Lehrer (2008) found that women with more premarital sexual partners faced significantly higher divorce rates, even after controll…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 03:40 PM
1

That’s fair, no one likes resentment. But it’s not always about being bitter, sometimes guys are just noticing patterns and adjusting what they want. It’s not hate, just experience shaping preferences.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 01:29 PM
1

I appreciate your perspective, and I agree that double standards and inconsistent expectations can be problematic. If someone expects a partner to have a low number of past partners, it’s only fair that they hold themselves to the same standard. That consistency matters. At the same time, I don’t think all preferences around sexual history come from shame or outdated thinking. For some people, it’s more about emotional compatibility, long-term trust, or personal comfort, not moral judgment. Ever…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 01:26 PM
1

I think we’re actually on the same page in practice, people should be free to walk away from situations that don’t align with their values or comfort levels. That’s all I’m really arguing. If your point is that we should avoid building rigid hierarchies or moralizing others' pasts, that’s fair. But isn’t it also valid for someone to see certain behaviors as personally disqualifying without claiming universal moral superiority? There’s a difference between having a preference and condemning someo…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 01:20 PM
2

Is it really shameful to acknowledge that people evaluate partners based on past choices? If someone had a very casual approach to relationships before, is it unreasonable for others—especially those who didn’t have those same experiences—to feel hesitant or incompatible? Isn’t that just human nature, not malice?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 01:15 PM
1

It’s a mismatch of timing and expectations. Studies show women often pursue confident, high-status men when younger, while men tend to value sexual selectiveness in long-term partners. So when overlooked men are later expected to commit, some feel resentful not out of entitlement, but from lived experience.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 01:12 PM
2

talking about those reddit threads that are shaming these men to oblivion. Even though there's no malice prior.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 01:06 PM
1

True
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 01:06 PM
1

Fair point and I can agree with that nuance. You're right that "society" isn’t monolithic. Maybe a better way to put it is: in certain circles, or on certain platforms, there's a noticeable asymmetry in how male preferences get labeled versus female ones. And that friction is what a lot of guys are reacting to, and not the existence of standards, but how selectively they're judged. Appreciate the civil back-and-forth, by the way. Conversations like this actually help move the needle.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 09:26 AM
1

Thank you, I actually agree with all the points you raised, especially that guys who date someone despite issues with her past and then weaponize it later are making both people miserable, and it's honestly pathetic. That’s not something I support. My focus was more on the early stages, when a guy finds out about a woman’s sexual history during dating and decides it’s a dealbreaker before the relationship deepens. You’re right that rejection is preferable to dragging someone through judgment. Th…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 09:23 AM
2

I get where you're coming from and to be fair, I think a lot of the disconnect here comes down to how people express their preferences vs. how they're interpreted. I'm not asking for some utopia where everyone gets perfectly distributed outcomes. I'm pointing out that when men express a desire for a partner with a similar relational background, it often gets moralized but when women express preferences (height, income, experience), it’s treated as acceptable filtering. As for “fairness” and “rec…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:48 AM
2

I get where you’re coming from, everyone has awkward, painful, or even embarrassing experiences in life, and it’s true that those shape who we are just as much as anything else. But this conversation is about sexual history in the context of relationships, not general shame or discomfort. People are allowed to have preferences when it comes to a partner’s past, just as others are free to reject that kind of filtering. You can define your own journey however you like and that’s valid but it’s als…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:44 AM
3

Let’s keep it grounded here. If you're mocking the idea of sexual history by equating it with microwaved fruit and bad bong rips, you're not debating in good faith you're just making noise. The issue isn't about inflating numbers or trauma comparisons. It's about people owning their past and pairing with partners whose values align with that. If someone's choices bother you, you're not compatible, simple as that. No need to rewrite the definition of body count to cope.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:05 AM
4

You're asking what's the problem with someone who had more options when younger? It’s not about “fumbling”—it’s about compatibility and fairness. When a guy's entire dating history is silence and rejection, and suddenly he's expected to not blink at a partner who had her pick of the bunch, it feels like the scales were never balanced. It's not about “insecurity,” it’s about reciprocity. And sure, religious folks date religious folks, nerds date nerds—that’s precisely my point. But when low-n guy…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 07:55 AM
1

You're asserting that the "pattern" I mentioned is a myth born purely out of confirmation bias and manosphere talking points. But ironically, your counterclaim that “most guys aren’t neurotic about body count” is itself anecdotal and rooted in your personal experience. You said you’ve “never once” been asked your body count, and you extrapolate from that to declare the issue largely nonexistent. That’s not objective, it’s a sample size of one. I’m not portraying this as an epidemic. I’m pointing…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 07:49 AM
4

I get the data—cool correlations and all—but you're kind of missing the spirit of the issue. I'm not saying people can't end up with someone different in "n-count" or whatever. I'm saying dudes who've had it rough—no attention, no validation—are being asked to just "man up" and accept partners whose pasts scream they had way more options. If people naturally pair with similar experience levels like you say, then isn’t it fair for low-n guys to want the same? Why are they shamed for preferring so…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 07:32 AM
1

I appreciate your persistence, but I believe you're missing the point of my question by narrowing it solely to rejection. Of course, nobody enjoys being rejected—that’s not the argument. What I’m pointing out is the disproportionate reaction and common rhetorical deflection that occurs when some women are rejected specifically because of a high sexual past. Rather than accepting that a man might have personal standards or insecurities rooted in limited experience, the typical public response (as…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 07:28 AM
0

I'm not pushing a narrative here though. because it already exists. You'd see so many reddit threads on women venting that they got rejected by a guy because of her past. Or their boyfriends dumping them after finding out about her past, and most of those times, the boyfriend is of low n count most of the time. not just reddit, it literally happens. I'm most likely referring to retroactive jealousy and it's a deal breaker for lots of guys (Im not saying this doesnt happen to high n count guys, i…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 06:31 AM
1

There may not be enough studies done, but it's a tale as old as time at this point. I'm talking about women wanting to settle for betas after they had their fun. And I'm also asking those specific women why not go for guys who also had their prime? one who had a lady in each of his arms. Aren't they literally the male version of themselves?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 05:54 AM
3

Why cant women with a slutty past just try and end up with the chad who had all the ladies back then? That's literally your counterpart! stop forcing dudes who obviously didnt have it all back then, of course they'd be bothered about it!
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 04:58 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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