TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Nidken Archive

View 2 posts and 510 comments by Nidken on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

HdfI0fYftw
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 05:57 PM
1

Nobody is talking about "exact man she wants". No man asking for advice is expecting "the exact woman he wants". These are strawmen. Just stop. Men who ask "what makes a man more attractive" are looking for genuine advice that increases sexual appeal. Being nice is noise.. A woman becomes more sexually appealing by accentuating her secondary sexual characteristics that signal fertility. Is that specific enough? If she has a child-bearing hip to waist ratio, breasts, butt, less wrinkles, men will…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 05:44 PM
1

Right, but lets say she does go to a plastic surgeon and she gets big boobs. Is that going to make her more sexually attractive to men compared to if she had none? Hot is subjective sure, but the physical qualities that associate with it are straight forward and openly communicated. Boobs, butt, hips. That makes you hot.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 05:27 PM
2

<image> let me know how many examples you want.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 05:10 PM
2

<image> satisfied? inb4: "hot doesn't mean sexually attractive, women find other women hot" lmfao
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 05:08 PM
1

There are more obvious requirements, just nobody seems to have the self awareness to be able to communicate it. Men are more upfront: she is attractive if she is hot. The rest is noise.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 04:50 PM
1

We don't disagree about the reality of niceness and attraction, but I feel that you are undermining the pervasiveness of this "be nice" advice. Things like "show kindness", "express empathy", "genuinely care for others feelings", "be compassionate" are all the same idea of niceness that dominate the spotlight when men ask for advice on how to attract women. Men who genuinely struggle with earning female interest end up 25 with nothing to show for it because all they have done is treat women nice…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 04:42 PM
1

I agree that "click well" is the main contingency in practice but I think the framing is incredibly problematic because it is buried under all of the unimportant noise about niceness.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 03:59 PM
1

Just a reminder, your initial claim was to find "women" (more than 1) that make this claim. I found 96 in agreement on this one random post.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 02:19 PM
2

I agree with you. If a man asks "how do I get a gf?" and misreads "be nice" as a guaranteed way to pussy, he is an idiot. If he is nice to the first girl he sees, she probably won't drop her panties and he shouldn't cry about it. Fair. However, that isn't the claim. Let's use your analogy. Imagine a man wants to find a job. He asks a ton of HR managers "I can't seem to get a job, what do I do", and they say "I find men who showers is an attractive candidate". What exactly do you think he is goin…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 01:57 PM
1

> 2. ⁠“Well that’s what matters TO ME” You were quoting from the original text that stated that the comment described her preference specifically. Not sure what you are implying I missed. > I said sexual attraction Since you are being stubborn, will you at least admit that women, at minimum, incorrectly suggest that being nice will get you into a relationship?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 01:48 PM
3

I'm honestly surprised at how blatantly and dishonestly you are trying to obfuscate. The post specifically talks about traits that make men attractive to women for relationships, not what makes them simply charming or admirable. Your excuse here is completely ridiculous. Your second point is a complete goalpost shift. You demanded evidence of "women" making the claim that niceness is attractive. You never required "all women" to make it. I gave you a comment with 96 upvotes. Learn how to be wron…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 12:30 PM
5

What kind of attractive was she implying do you think? Friendship attractive?? Are you really going to pretend that listing 5 synonyms of kindness and then stating "basically if you're a genuinely nice person" is not contextually relevant to the explicit context of men being "super attractive"? Give me a break.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 11:53 AM
3

Lmao what. All of these "insane" assumptions are true for every single relationship that has ever existed. Of course he would assume he needs to actually meet and spend time with the woman; that is completely reasonable in this context. Are you implying the comment should hedge: "but we have to actually meet and hang out for a little bit". That is self-evident. Your interpretation is denying the antecedent. Your claim makes the greater logical leap. You are assuming that the inverse of the claim…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 11:42 AM
5

No. Nice strawman though. The comment states that being a "genuinely nice person" is "super attractive". The only other qualifying threshold is "we click well", and this is framed as entirely subjective. Therefore, it would be reasonable for a man reading that comment to infer: "If I am nice, eventually a woman will find me attractive". That premise is false. Ergo, this demonstrates a clear example where women tell men that being nice is (sexually) attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 11:06 AM
5

<image> Do I win a prize?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/26 07:37 AM
1

Sure. The spell simply prevents him paying for her specifically. The kid isn't her, so he is able to provide for them. And yes he would love to help, but he can't help her with money.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/26 04:49 AM
0

It's a magical spell lol. The hypothetical requires that you bend your expectations a little bit instead of looking for exceptions. He pays for the child, because the child isn't her. She can't live with him because she isn't able go pay for her accommodation, that would be contributing financially.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/26 04:44 AM
0

The man would be able to provide physical and emotional support, but he would not be able to pick up any bills to cover her absence due to the incident.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/26 04:31 AM
0

Yeah and I disagree. There is no instance where two people like each other where they aren't transacting some kind of benefit.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/26 04:15 AM
0

You're not wrong, there is a practical conflict between how finances work in reality and how they work in the hypothetical. Ideally, the hypothetical would enforce that the man can never pay for anything if it contributes to the woman's finances. Practically however, this would include the woman's rent or mortgage. But how do you get the man to "pay for himself only" if you live under the same roof? Either the man pays for half (which now would be considered splitting or contributing), or the ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/26 04:09 AM
1

You suggested that people sometimes like each other for "no reason". I demonstrated that this is clearly impossible. I never never said anything about the morality of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/26 03:56 AM
1

All relationships are transactional. At a bare minimum you are trading affection for returned affection. If you offered affection and it was never reciprocated you would (hopefully) not continue with that relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 08:15 PM
1

You never "just like" someone. There are always conditions. For example, that they treat you well.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 08:14 PM
1

I do believe in caring for a partner. But I also believe all human emotions have a biological foundation and function. Fear (within reason) keeps us safe, hunger makes us consume food, thirst makes us drink water, attraction helps us filter for mates, and love ensures we invest into a partner long term. There is also nothing wrong with relationships being transactional (they all are, necessarily, to some extent), and it's kind of beautiful that we can give certain things to each other to provide…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 08:09 PM
-2

As a woman I would not sleep with a man who was not able to provide resources because I need to survive a pregnancy for my genes to pass to my offspring. Similarly, as a man I wouldn't provide resources for a woman if the prospect of sexual access was off the table because I need to impregnate her for my genes to pass to my offspring. The point of the question is to illustrate that biology has moulded male and female perceptions of attractive traits to optimise for the survival of the gene. A wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 07:42 PM
2

I'm trying to avoid suggesting "splitting" because my understanding is it implies an equal 50/50 even if the investment isn't equal. So for example, a dinner meal split 50/50 is different from each person paying for their meal.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 05:22 PM
1

This is valid.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 12:17 PM
0

?? The post always specified he "could never spend any money on you". He is free to spend money on himself.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 12:16 PM
-2

To be clear, the men could pay for their own expenses, just not for their partners. So you would remain single in a financial sense only. I still like your answer though.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 10:38 AM
1

A marriage sort of defeats the hypothetical because it assumes a joint partnership. You have to imagine marriage doesn't exist, and people just pay for their own food and expenses.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 10:32 AM
-6

Because thats not my question. My question is simply asking if women would date a man who could not, under any circumstances, provide financially specifically. It is possible women would say yes even if he doesn't share physical labor, so I am not including that as a variable. You can caveat with a condition about emotional or physical labor for yourself if that is something you would require to answer with a yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 10:08 AM
7

Yes, this is an inverse of that post. Surprisingly, you are one of the only people who seems to have realised this.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 08:53 AM
-8

Can you explain the difference between a man being magically incapable of spending money on you and not contributing financially?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 08:27 AM
0

How sufficient those "other purposes" are for you is the exact thing in question.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 08:17 AM
-2

Not splitting, he can't spend money on you so you always pay in the relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 06:35 AM
-4

Your situation doesn't really apply to the hypothetical because your husband ended up contributing (even if minimally). You have to imagine that he never did and never would.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/26 05:51 AM
-1

Why do you avoid answering the question directly before expounding? It looks like you feel guilty or something lol. Your comment reads: "yes my biggest dildo is bigger than my partner's penis, but I also own a smaller one for my other hole".
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/26 10:13 AM
–

The frustration comes from women conflating preferences and standards. It's the difference between: "I'd prefer she had D-cups, but any sort of tits are nice", versus "Any woman who doesn't have natural D-cups is not a real woman, I can't help that I'm only attracted to actual good mothers who can properly nourish my children".
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 04:51 AM
4

Nah I don't agree. Men are called shallow for lusting over physical female traits, but men don't deny it so society simply accepts it. Women are called shallow for lusting over physical male traits, but women pretend that they don't, that they aren't "dirty" like men, and that all they care about is "love", so society is more judgemental.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 04:48 AM
1

So a man can expect company while a woman can expect company as well as a free meal? That doesn't seem very fair. Is her company worth more than his?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 05:20 AM
1

Nah it makes sense, you just don't like it lol. You still haven't provided an equivalent male expectation, and you will continue to avoid engaging, despite being on a debate sub, because you are desperate to avoid accepting that you are wrong. It seems to me that you are simply entitled, and you will lie to yourself or use euphemisms like "high standards" as long as it means you don't have to face that truth.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 08:51 PM
1

I'll happily grant it, but to be consistent, it would entail that you believe expecting a man to pay because you do xyz is also immature. Hope that makes sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 07:57 PM
1

You seem like a reasonable person, so I will try and help explain the issue. "Liking" that men pay for dates is a biologically female tendency because evidence of investment (financial or emotional) helps woman survive pregnancy and reproduce successfully. The practice of men paying for dates is essentially a way to demonstrate "if you carry my genes, I will make sure they survive". Natural selection has a preference for women who "like" this behaviour, and so it persists in women today. The mal…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 07:21 PM
0

So your position is completely unjustified. You think expecting men to pay for food on a date is reasonable, and that 'going dutch' justifies rejection, but you can't articulate why. Children expect free food from their parents, not mature adults. Why do grown women believe having the same preferences as a dependent child is not "immature"? Try answering this, and you will realise the exact same principle applies to men's desire for sexual access. Be consistent. Either both are immature, or neit…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 06:15 PM
1

I'm making a distinction between a man who is asking out women on dates just for sex, and a man who is expecting sex as evidence of her interest in him. According to your framing, it is reasonable for a woman to expect a man to pay for her food as a prerequisite for her investment. My question is, since a woman doesn't pay for the date, is it reasonable for a man to expect the same evidence in the form of sexual access? And if not, what equivalent expectation does he deserve to have?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 05:57 PM
1

Couldn't he also expect sex as evidence of investment before entering a relationship? Same as a woman wanting a man to buy her meal.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 05:48 PM
1

So also not immature to not accept a date if she states she doesn't expect to fuck?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 05:26 PM
1

Is it also immature to demand a man pays on the first date?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 07:50 AM
3

I like how "Love" in this case is just the man that has even more money.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 12:47 AM
–

I just don't think I can get through to you here. Individual death is not relevant to survival unless reproduction is involved. This is because biology only selects for traits that allow for genes to survive. Genes will perish without reproduction. You seem incapable of understanding this conceptually. Please read Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene. Your standard is that the human race continues even if millions of people don't have sex. Guess what, the exact same thing applies if millions of peop…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/26 07:20 AM
1

I think you're just ignoring my premise now. Again, individual death is only relevant to survival in so far as it prevents reproduction, because people will die regardless of how optimal their individual survival is, due to aging. A woman who dies after giving birth has reproduced successfully. Her genes have survived another generation. A man who doesn't have sex will die, eventually, of old age. He has not reproduced so his genes do not survive.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/26 04:42 AM
-1

From that perspective what is stopping you from saying a portion of males/female in a species do not get to eat/drink? it doesn't impact your survival at all but it would affect women's Huh? Men need to impregnate women for their genes to survive. Women need to get pregnant for their genes to survive.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/26 01:49 PM
-1

Sure its not necessary for the survival of the individual but that just isn't relevant to our biology. The instinct for survival is focused on the continuity of your genes, not of your body. This is because even with unlimited food/water/oxygen your body will perish when you die of old age. The only way to guarantee your genes persist is to achieve successful reproduction. Survival of the individual is only relevant in so far as it leads to more successful offspring. If humans were solely concer…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/26 08:15 AM
-5

Reproduction is a requirement for survival. Sex is necessary for reproduction. Therefore, sex is a Physiological need.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/26 05:42 AM
1

I see what you're saying. I guess we share the same opinion after all.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/26 05:35 AM
5

Using the term "Parasite" implies frustration because it is obviously hyperbolic. By definition a parasite must be a different species from the host.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/26 05:15 AM
4

This is true but getting upset about it is the wrong approach. Women want men's resources for the same reason men want access to women's fertility: to ensure survival of genes. Women get upset about men being "pigs" and resort to cutting off their hair or refusing to shave their legs. Men complain about women being "parasites" and resort to porn and video games. You should instead recognise that while you personally might not value the same things, you can provide those things for your partner t…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/26 05:02 AM
–

Your standards are impossible to meet and you don't realise it. How can every man be exceptional if being exceptional is by definition rare? If every guy satisfied your requirements for exceptionality, that position would once again become average, and unexceptional. Exceptional being bare-minimum is a complete contradiction.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 11:04 AM
1

You keep dressing a social order up as biology, and then acting like that makes it neutral. I think you misunderstand my position. I haven't made any normative claims. All my positions are descriptive. Humanity requires reproduction to continue. Individual women do not require motherhood to remain alive. "Remaining alive" isn't really relevant to what I'm describing. Biology doesn't care about you as an individual; all it cares about is your genetic material. If biology was only concerned with "…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 07:00 PM
2

Why do you seem incapable of understanding that even if men commit the crime, male victims are more common than female victims which means men still have it worse. I can agree with your statement YES MEN COMMIT MORE CRIME. It changes nothing about the fact then men have it worse. Do you understand?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 05:13 PM
0

Yes. Men do not choose to be victims of other men's violent crime.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 05:07 AM
1

For most of human history the pathway to and through motherwood wasn't a very consenting one. This is entirely speculative (and likely not true). All living things are motivated to have sex because sex is necessary for reproduction and reproduction is necessary for survival. Motherhood was always simply a byproduct of sex, and only today do we understand the science enough in order to separate the two. If sex was forced upon women throughout human history you would expect natural selection to ad…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 04:43 AM
-4

While I'd agree that the social pressure comparison is equivalent, it's important to note that even though motherhood is fully unpaid women still do it willingly. I doubt the same would happen if men were not paid.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 05:31 PM
2

Mmm actually I think that's a fair interpretation.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 03:51 PM
24

Men's work is not more important than women's work. This is a straw man. The argument is: shitty jobs pay better, so men pick those jobs. To argue that men being paid more for harder jobs is unfair is to argue: "its unfair that the market provides incentives for shitty jobs", which is basically just communism. You could also argue that the social pressure for men to be successful unfairly pushes them into physically and mentally taxing positions, which is another example of men having it worse.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 03:39 PM
1

...voting?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 03:36 PM
1

True until you realise we live in a democracy.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 03:35 PM
3

Actually, that changes nothing. The premise doesn't depend on if they do violent crime to women, it only requires that they do it to men comparatively more.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 03:32 PM
13

Male perpetrators of violent crime affect the lives of men disproportionately more than the lives of women. This supports the position that "women don't have it worse". Your statement is irrelevant to the topic.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 02:38 PM
2

If we agree that men who are not physically attractive can become more successful with women by leveraging access to resources, it follows that a man who is sexually successful without leveraging resources must be incredibly physically attractive. So yes, the men that women fuck without investment are on average much "hotter" than the guys who get sex by buying in.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/26 10:03 AM
10

Would you prefer to marry a reliable but ugly and broke guy over a handsome and rich one with a spotted past? If not, you aren't any different to those men, or most women.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/26 06:27 AM
1

Argument is simple. If you believe deciding on how your partner dresses is "controlling", you should also believe limiting his ability to flirt is controlling. These two behaviours are functionally the same in society. Men pitch to attract women and women advertise to attract men. If you can "control" your man's behaviour to limit him from pitching, he can "control" your behaviour to limit you from advertising.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/01/26 03:55 AM
0

Sure thing. Just know that leaving without communicating your boundary is fairly immature. Explaining that you expect certain behaviours from your partner is just called good communication. You snuck in "already knows what she wears". This is irrelevant considering that you expect her behaviour to change in the relationship. The analogue (though you hate it, because it disproves your position) would be a man who flirted with you to get with you, but continues to flirt with other girls. A good co…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/01/26 02:32 AM
0

How do you set a boundary about a partners behaviour...for yourself? If you actually believe what you say here, you would either agree that its wrong to disuade your man from messaging other girls on insta or flirting with them at clubs...orrr that a guy dumping a girl for how she dresses is not insecurity and is perfectly reasonable. If that is the case, I guess we agree :)
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/26 07:00 PM
0

Again, you've defined your boundary as perfectly reasonable and appropriate: "show them the door", but you've defined my boundary as insecurity. Why? By your standard you should call your own attitude to these men insecurity. You can't have it both ways. Either we are both insecure or we both simply have particular expectations when it comes to how people conduct themselves in a relationship with us. We are not different beyond where our exceptions sit on the spectrum.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/26 04:37 PM
1

Yes context matters, thats why one specific piece of clothing doesn't determine the signal, it would be the aggregate outfit. I'm sure you can follow and extend the metaphor in this case. But this is my point, it's not "insecurity" to have defined boundaries in your relationships. You think I'm insecure because I wouldn't let my woman wear lingerie in public. Someone else thinks its insecurity to not let your partner wear nothing but underwear. Another man believes insecurity is not letting your…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/26 02:37 PM
1

Definitely depends on the fit, but I'm happy this example made sense to you. If Mercedes = wealthy than you can imagine other car brands would signal the same thing but to different extents along the same spectrum. BMW or Audi might be signal less wealth, Toyota less so, and so on. So if lingerie = Down to Fuck, then there must also exist a spectrum that moves away from lingerie and towards sundress. If your fit sits too close to the lingerie side of the spectrum while you have a BF, it seems pe…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/26 01:56 PM
1

You seriously didn't put in more effort to look pretty on your date compared to every other day? Why not lol?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/26 01:29 PM
1

If you wear a Rolex it signals that you are wealthy. You could be broke.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/26 01:26 PM
0

I imagine how you dress to see your grandmother would be a little bit different to how you would dress at a club or on a date.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/26 05:29 AM
1

What they like usually depends on the reaction they gain from other people. If you dress a specific way because you like the attention you get from other single men, you shouldn't be in a committed relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/26 05:27 AM
1

We are talking past each other. You are correct to point out that if a woman dresses too provocatively as her normal, default style, a man shouldn't bother trying to change her wardrobe. Sure. But if your woman specifically dresses provocatively to attract men, and did it to attract you, she can't keep doing that to other men when she is in a relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/26 05:23 AM
2

I mean this in the nicest way. Your husband is a cuck. A man who finds sexual satisfaction in other men sharing access to your sexuality is by definition a cuck. Defining your own boundaries in your relationship isn't "insecurity". There are woman out there who believe you should let your husband have multiple sexual partners and multiple wives. If you didn't want that for your own relationship, would it be correct to call you "insecure" because of it? Would your husband be even less insecure if…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/26 05:16 AM
1

You're not thinking about this deeply enough. A feeling isn't random, its a response created by biology to inform behaviour. Your analogy of men wearing suits is a perfect example. You point out that men feel good when they wear a suit because it signals "status and power". Why do you think signalling status and power make men feel good? Because status and power are attractive to women. The behaviour is reinforced by the feeling because it leads to favourable social and reproductive outcomes. If…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/26 05:03 AM
1

That difference of material vs immaterial isn't relevant. Unless you genuinely believe your wardrobe is so full of skimpy clothes that you can't figure out how to not dress like a whore idk why it matters. Wear more layers, don't put on so much makeup. It's not that hard lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/26 04:40 AM
1

This strawman is frustrating. Clothes do not signal to men anything about their relationship status Yes, they do. Dressing in a particularly provocative or sexualised way will make people assume (many times incorrectly) that you are single or looking for something. I don't know how else to explain this to you. People establish impressions within a second of seeing someone. How you dress informs that impression. You can dress in a way where people define it as "slutty". You won't change my mind a…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/26 04:34 AM
1

In that case he clearly respects you and your relationship, and wants to demonstrate that commitment to you and the world. I hope you do the same for him.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 07:17 PM
0

This is simply not true. People curate how they dress to signal potential mates all the time. You are being dishonest or unironically autistic if you genuinely believe it's only ever "fashion sense".
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 07:14 PM
1

How you choose to dress and display yourself to the public is a type of behaviour.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 07:10 PM
1

This is correct. The two conflicting ideologies demonstrate incompatibility. What it doesn't demonstrate is that the man is being "insecure" or "controlling". It is simply incompatibility due to different boundaries.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 07:03 PM
1

How does dressing provocatively boost self-confidence if it doesn't appeal to some socially defined guideline for what being attractive looks like? It's obviously not other women who define what "attractive" is, because women are not attracted to women, unless they are lesbian. Self-expression is also a stretch. The look that women aim for with makeup follows the same general rules. Wings, contouring, all these techniques are designed to complement/improve features and amplify attractiveness. Yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 06:43 PM
1

Dressing up is a behaviour, my guy. Clothes and makeup don't magically arrange themselves on your body.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 06:35 PM
1

Sure. But if you ever went out (or posted on insta) in hopes of potentially finding a man, you, like most people, probably curated your appearance to look "attractive". Unfortunately, people seem to forget that the function of amplifying attraction is to signal your availability to other men--thats how you "attract" them. You can't continue to act that way and change only your intent, because other people will still respond to your signal and then assume either you don't like your man that much …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 06:32 PM
0

The implication here would be that actually, he left her because she dressed too provocatively. In order to be consistent with the idea that "you are free to end the relationship" over an opposing opinion would be to contend that him ending it over her behaviour was perfectly justifiable.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 06:10 PM
1

I would extend these questionable optics to a woman dressing a certain way that looks bad for her partner. I'm sorry, you seem like a smart guy but I don't see where we disagree? Would you mind pointing me to it?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 03:32 PM
2

Clothes absolutely signal certain things. Show up to a club in lingerie vs a suit and see if people treat you differently. Humans respond to signals all the time.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 03:28 PM
0

Lmao this is a debate sub genius. I don't need to be important to point out that comments get removed by mods if you don't respond with substance. I believe men and women shouldn't behave as though they are single when they are in a relationship. Giving off the impression that you are single when you are not is disrespectful to your partner, and calling it out is not controlling or insecurity. The fact is that in our society women and men get into relationships in different ways. Women advertise…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 03:22 PM
2

I never realised putting on specific clothing wasn't an action.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 02:56 PM
3

Who is she dressing "sexy" for. Other lesbains? What does sexy mean without the male gaze?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 02:54 PM
1

Do you not understand how analogies work? Obviously the exact circumstances are not identical. The comparison is used to show how in both cases the behaviour is interpreted as someone signalling being available which is disrespectful to your partner. In that way they are absolutely equivalent.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 02:53 PM
1

OH MY, YOU GOT ME. I FORGOT ABOUT THE MINISKIRTS AT THE SUPERMARKET. zzz come on bro, try and engage with the actual argument. Women going out in clothes that suggest she is single deserves the same stigma that men receive for going out while in relationships to hit on girls. Both are disrespectful.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 02:47 PM
1

Accepting drinks is a pretty common behaviour that women in relationships label as harmless because they can earn validation without intending to sleep with the guy. Wearing clothes to invite this type of attention is framed in a similar way. I'm not sure what made that so unclear but from the grammar you have here I would doubt even you know what you're trying to say. Good luck out there.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 02:42 PM
5

I agree. That's why there should be a stigma against women in relationships going to bars in tight/low-cut dresses to "feel young and attractive".
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 02:27 PM
1

Correct. Just remember to hold this opinion the next time you hear a woman complain that her ex was "insecure" or "controlling" about what she wore.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 01:51 PM
8

Sure. But a woman dressing "sexy" to get male attention doesn't magically prevent it from being disrespectful to her partner just because she "chose to" or has "reasons".
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 01:48 PM
3

Are you denying that women can intentionally dress to attract men?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 01:37 PM
8

Plenty of people use Tinder for attention. In fact, women routinely get attention from men on dating apps when they have no intention of sleeping with them. If you believe deciding on how your partner dresses is "controlling", you should also believe limiting his ability to flirt is controlling. These two behaviours are functionally the same in society. Men pitch to get women and women advertise to get men. If you can "control" your man's behaviour to limit him from pitching, he can "control" yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 01:35 PM
2

I'm not being obtuse. If you can get approval and validation by accepting drinks from single men, why can't men get approval and validation by chatting up single women? In neither case is the person cheating on their partner. Why is only one wrong? And sure I'll fund her wardrobe.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 01:30 PM
0

What's the difference? In both cases you are simply enjoying the approval and validation you get from the opposite sex without breaking any sexual boundaries with your partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 01:27 PM
4

Women can absolutely advertise looking single and available by how they wear clothing.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 01:25 PM
7

Your argument is that intent defines boundaries. If that is true, you agree that a guy talking to women with the sole intent to feel young and attractive is perfectly fine, because he has no intention to cheat.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 01:23 PM
5

Nope. You can chat up girls without having the goal of scoring. You can chat up girls without intending to cheat. In the same way you shut down the guy after he does his approach or buys your drink, he shuts down the girl after he knows she's dtf. What harm has he committed?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 01:18 PM
9

Whats the harm in getting girls numbers if you don't pursue anything sexually with them? It makes me feel young and attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 01:09 PM
-2

I'm happy to agree that it's insecurity if you agree its also insecurity to get upset at your boyfriend for dming girls on Tinder and Instagram or going out to get girl's numbers.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 12:58 PM
1

You don't actually believe this. You wouldn't maintain this position when the opinion involves monogamy, for example.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 12:26 PM
-10

if you date a girl who dresses a certain way, you're an idiot if you don't want her to dress that way after you stay dating Why? Why should my woman continue advertising by sexualising her body when she has me? If I attracted my partner by being flirtatious or really good at sex, why can't I continue to do that with other women if "thats what worked on her?"
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/26 12:03 PM
1

I believe Tate lost to a decision.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 01:47 AM
1

An instinct to desire successful men does not prevent you from settling for a broke one.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/25 02:16 AM
1

That's not true. You can be a moral relativist and still see mathematics as objectively true. Ethics and maths are not the same thing, again, because one is normative and the other descriptive.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/25 02:38 AM
1

Yes, so you agree if the metaethical framework you or others choose is unsettled then it can not be objectively true because the use of that framework would itself be a preference.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/25 03:46 AM
1

I appreciate the argument but it just doesn't work. Mathematical theorems have unequivocal proofs, societal rights are just "oughts" based on preferences. You have no way to prove that women voting is true, you can only state that women voting is preferred -- which is as valid is as someone saying women voting is not preferred. I could suggest that maybe a more intelligent AI being will eventually demonstrate that women voting is a net negative for society and not only could you not disprove tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/25 02:49 AM
1

A right is not a logical truth. A century ago women didn't have a right to vote. That doesn't mean 2+2 actually did equal 5 back then. Rights are normative, not descriptive, they describe should not is. Unless your argument is that a right exists so long as it is written down on paper, and not if people uphold it through action? In which case, it doesn't actually do anything and who cares? Your "right" to life is as valid as my "smishsmoth" to kill you, its all jibberish nonsense.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/25 02:08 AM
–

How is it "selfish" when both parties stand to benefit, but not selfish when only the women benefits?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/25 02:59 AM
1

Here you go :) As a woman, courting implies that you want your father to manage your dating prospects and limit your sexual freedom so that you remain a virgin until marriage...Women said they didn't want that, so society stopped doing it.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/25 05:46 PM
5

... Can you stop being a weirdo and engage with the actual argument? You are just misinterpreting what I wrote for a cheap gotcha; it's boring and childish. Of course women still want to be led down the isle. Nobody disagrees with this. I am specifying that "Courting" means something else. Jfc
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/25 04:08 AM
3

What I mean is that women said they didn't want their fathers to chaperone their dates or control their sexuality. The walking down the isle in a white dress is purely a performative remnant of history; women will wear white regardless of their actual purity.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/25 07:35 PM
8

Again. As a woman, courting implies that you want your father to manage your dating prospects and to limit your sexual freedom so that you remain a virgin until marriage. There is a reason why the bride is walked down the isle by her father in a white dress. Women said they didn't want their fathers to control their relationships, so society stopped doing it. Men paying for dates and being chivalrous is not courting; it's just social inequality against men. I'm sure every human wants to be treat…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/25 08:31 AM
15

Women don't want to be courted. Courting demands expectations from men and women. A woman that was courted was chaperoned by her father to remain a virgin for marriage. Women today date and sleep with multiple men at the same time. They don't want to do their part so why should men? Women don't want to be courted they just feel entitled to free shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/25 06:33 AM
1

Come on, you don't actually believe my argument is that not raping is benevolence. "Oh wow, did you see that? Steve didn't rape or abuse you! How nice is that?!" Obviously nobody thinks this. Seriously think about what is being said: Rights don't actually exist. Rights are just rules that are people uphold through force. Your "right" to life, for example, only "exists" because there are people who are willing to stop someone who tries to kill you. Since men hold a monopoly on force compared to w…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/25 06:34 PM
1

I don't think it's benevolence to refrain from abusing or raping others Thats not my argument. My argument is that it is benevolence to risk your own safety to protect the vulnerable. Men didn't just one day decide to stop suppressing women's rights out of the kindness of their hearts. Yes they did. A right only exists if there is a threat of force to uphold it. Women appeal to the collective of men to enforce their rights through force. The opposite has never been true. Here is an example. Imag…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/25 02:04 AM
–

If you want, I can grant your definition of subjugate being "control over freedoms". Unfortunately, it doesn't change anything about the premise. If men as a collective in the west have control over your freedoms, then men in the west are benevolent because they decided for you to have equal rights. I figured the comparison to non western countries made it obvious which collective group of men I was referring to. Yes there are bad men in the west, but as a collective/in aggregate, men in the wes…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/25 02:42 PM
–

You say that as though men throughout history have never collectively overthrown government or decided that women don't have rights and there is nothing the women could do about it. The inverse has never been documented. It's not a fantasy to say that men collectively enforce women's rights, its a descriptive observation of reality for every country on the planet. A lot of incels flirt with the idea of having government mandated wives. Some flirt with the idea that sex is a right. Biologically, …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/25 03:36 AM
–

You misunderstand. Men as a collective have the potential at any time to turn the west into a country like Afghanistan where women do not have any rights and there is nothing women could do about it. Women appeal to men for their rights because they can not defend those rights through force without men's help. The fact that men in the west choose to uphold women's rights to freedom and equality instead of doing what a majority of other countries do is evidence that men in the west are benevolent…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/25 03:19 AM
0

From other men. If your country stops defending its borders then men from a different country would just invade and claim the women as booty. A tale as old as time.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 07:37 PM
1

Having power over women doesn't necessitate that you keep them "under control" by forcing them to become wives. Globally, plenty of male collectives have decided that women should be forced to become wives. Just look at Afghanistan. The west is actually the minority in that regard.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 08:48 AM
1

You aren't even trying. I just defined what collective means and you demonstrate you forgot how to read. Do better. Male MMA fighters > female MMA fighters Male disabled > female disabled therefore collectively men > women
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 07:59 AM
-3

As a collective of the entire sex. If the entire collection of men, including those that could box, those that were average citizens, and those that were disabled, came together against the entire collection of women, including those that could box, those that were average citizens, and those that were disabled, the men would hold the power.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 06:43 AM
0

You're statement doesn't make sense intuitively. If I was a twink, I would be more reliant on other people's kindness for my safety. That should make me more grateful compared to if I was a 7ft tall trained assassin—not less. You're pivoting a bit. Being valued for sex is problematic but people generally are only valued for what they biologically provide for others. The thing that is valued is just different between men and women. As a man I might not be valued for my body, but I am valued for m…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 05:33 AM
0

Force > Manipulation. "Hey don't rape me and maybe I'll let you hit" probably doesn't work if you are a sex slave.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 04:49 AM
0

Whenever I am reminded that I can always call on a bunch of dudes to voluntarily protect me if needed I tend to feel gratitude, not misery. But feel free to pick whatever makes you feel better lmao.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 04:38 AM
0

"The statement is pointless unless the argument is that subjugation is good" Not true. The argument is that western society is evidence of men's benevolence. Women can and could be subjugated but are not, because men defend women's freedoms for them. "This isn't specific to men vs women". Yes actually, it is. The description specifies the collective force of the sexes. Men as a collective hold power over women as a collective. The fact that individual potential varies within the group is not rel…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 04:27 AM
6

Living in a society where you don't have to defend your rights because people more powerful and physically capable than you will voluntarily do it for you is "miserable"???? What the actual fk is wrong with you?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 04:18 AM
-1

Nothing about this post implies men are terrible, in fact, it implies the opposite. It suggests men (at least in the west) are benevolent because they could collectively decide to remove women's rights but choose to instead defend and uphold those rights for them.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 04:13 AM
-6

If patriarchy is a system where women are considered equal to men despite men being disproportionally sacrificed to uphold and defend it, then yeah patriarchy exists.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 04:09 AM
-2

Both. You are too weak to take anything by force without the benevolent support of men and are pretending that you do not have the benevolent support of men.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 04:01 AM
1

I never said they did. I'm just pointing out the above comment is silly.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/25 03:32 AM
2

How do "stats" prove women aren't lying when you can lie on surveys. Nobody is taking swabs of your box to count DNA samples lmao.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/25 02:32 PM
8

You forgot about Hair extensions and Pushup Bras. By the way, the issue was never that you "can't tell" if someone is wearing makeup, the issue is that you can't tell what they look like without it. Guys wearing lifts is only a problem if the lifts hide that he's actually short. The "deception" bit is contingent upon there being a difference between your expectation and reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/25 03:59 AM
0

Can you explain how this is at all relevant? Are you saying the skew in followers for big vs small dick subs is caused by straight men? Theres just 1.1m straight dudes who can't help themselves but look at big cocks on their homepage? If it's only gay men, why does the cock sub have 1.1m followers compared to the 1.8m of the boob subs, if gay men make up only ~5% of the population? How is it not way more logical to just assume that cock subs have less followers because women watch less porn, and…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/25 07:16 PM
3

I don't see how that is relevant? Men consuming more porn doesn't address the fact that you defaulted to the idea that skewed dick preferences in NSFW subs must be caused by gay men even though less than 5% of men are gay. If dick subs were followed by mostly gay men you would expect to see a tiny follower count for those subs compared to boob subs, but you don't. You need to do some serious gymnastics to argue that the biased preference for big dicks over small dicks is caused by dudes. Do you …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/25 07:08 PM
0

I would imagine that straight women would spend more time on nfsw subs that align with their sexuality, and the same for men. I'm honestly surprised that you would assume something so blatantly sexist. Skewed preference = must be those judgemental men who happen to be gay Fairer preference = women are so supportive owo
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/25 08:25 AM
3

Breasts are fetishised in all sizes. If Big Boobs were selected for by men you would expect boobs to be large globally. Instead, we find A-cup sizes to be the most common size in Eastern Countries. Penis size on the other hand has consistently grown over time because they have been selected for by women. Compared to our primate ancestors, human penises are significantly larger. Just compare the most popular subreddits. * big boobs: 1.8m followers * small boobs: 1.3m followers. big dick: 1.1m sma…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/25 06:37 AM
1

Again you are thinking about this wrong. Your example illustrates my point, not yours. Gravity is a theory. We don't say that gravity doesn't exist just because because we can't prove that it exists. We provide evidence. Lacking proof is not evidence that gravity doesn't exist. The same thing applies to theories about evolution.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 06:40 AM
1

This take is itself flawed because it makes the exact same practice of over-simplifying anthropological data that it just condemned. Anthropology is complex, different groups show different patterns, and hunter-gatherer societies are not perfect analogues for prehistoric ones. Also, as a scientist should know that the absence of data is not proof against a phenomenon being true, so his premise doesn't disprove or challenge the contention in any meaningful way anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 05:47 AM
1

Did you read the article? The author says some good points, like some historical justifications can be too speculative, that we can't recreate ancestral environments accurately, that there are cultural differences amongst populations, but these don't agree with your premise that evo psych is dumb or a fake science, it just has flaws and bad takes like every other sciences does. Evo Psych has empirical studies and hypotheses that are tested and refined over time based on new evidence. If studies …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 05:21 AM
1

I have to assume you are just being hyperbolic. Evolutionary psychology has studies that support theories. The fundamental premise: "traits persist if they are favoured by survival" is purely rational (how can you continue to survive if you don't survive??) Yes they are imperfect compared to a more concrete science like medicine, but they are still built on evidence. The same applies to every other science I listed. Astrology is not built on evidence and persists despite evidence disproving it's…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 04:50 AM
1

Lmao. So what you mean to say is anthropology, sociology, palaeontology, astronomy, climate science, psychology in general, are all not actually real science because their assertions are not falsifiable? Epidemiological studies like Covid studies is not real science because they have confounding factors? Sure thing. Also, beauty and attraction are definitely not the same thing. I can say a car is beautiful, but if I say a car is attractive or hot, that would be concerning.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 04:36 AM
2

Everything is about mating because everything is about survival and survival requires reproduction. If it wasn't the human race would not exist. A no strings compliment from a guy is a compliment specifically because it highlights your reproductive value. It provides proof of future success with other men, which makes you feel good because success with other men is important for reproduction, which ensures survival. Every insult is an insult specifically because it diminishes your reproductive v…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 04:23 AM
1

You are moving the goalpost again; first attractive, then hot, now beautiful. These all have significantly different implications. I can't argue against beauty being a more neutral term but I hope you at least acknowledge the words you default to, they illustrates a lot about your unconscious thoughts. You imply culture defines what is considered attractive as though humans don't influence culture. It doesn't matter if you don't directly care about men, male perspectives determine the cultural e…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 04:18 AM
-2

How can your female friends find you "hot" if they're straight? They obviously can't be reflecting their own personal perceptions of attraction, so they must be echoing some kind of social perception of female attractiveness. How much of that is defined by the male gaze? Sure men appeal to other men by taking steroids and driving loud cars, and women appeal to other women by buying handbags and wearing sparkly shit, but appealing to your own sex would be beneficial biologically because competing…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 07:04 PM
2

Doesn't the word "attractive" imply the intention to interest potential mates?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/25 06:17 PM
1

A woman is "hot" because she signals fertility. Sex only feels good for men because women are hot when they signal fertility. Sex feeling good with fertile women is a biological adaptation that was selected for by survival pressures to encourage men to reproduce. The conscious suppression of fertility is not relevant to the premise.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/25 06:46 PM
1

The underlying signal that makes those interventions work is still at play. Women wearing makeup works because it signals fertility. Women using birth control works because it successfully shrouds her lack of fertility. In both cases, women are still using fertility as leverage, and men find it attractive because of that leverage. Regardless, suppressing your fertility during your fertile window is still a cost. It would be kind of like a guy taking a pill that makes him temporarily incapable of…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/25 06:48 AM
2

Men may also have a biological clock but they can successfully reproduce with multiple people in one night while woman cannot. The biological pressure to select the right partner is therefore significantly greater. Sure women can track their ovulation cycle or use contraceptive methods but these are new inventions that don't suppress the underlying biology. Sex and reproduction co-evolved; if you had sex you would expect to have babies. You give away your fertility when you give a man an egg. So…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/25 04:10 PM
2

Women trade fertility as a resource because the fertility window is finite and limited. Every time you have your period you have wasted an opportunity at successful reproduction. Men don't have that same pressure.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/25 09:23 AM
5

Sure, but why would a woman regret her casual sexual encounter? Perhaps, she regrets trading fertility without earning something of equivalent value? What you are suggesting here agree's with my premise. If women have more earning potential today then you should expect men to have less leverage to earn relationships because their trade of emotional or financial investment is less valuable. As a result, you would expect women to be more "picky", and be less likely to settle for average men withou…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/25 03:44 AM
13

Due to sex differences, men and women leverage different resources to ensure reproductive success. Women leverage sex (fertility), while men leverage investment (financial/emotional). If a woman has sex with you without earning your investment, it is often a compliment to your great genetic material. She is having sex at a cost to her fertility. If she only has sex because you provide some kind of emotional or financial investment, you had to earn her fertility by trade; your genes alone weren't…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/25 02:40 AM
2

Correct. The successful hunters in the community were praised by everyone when they shared their hunts. As a result, they were likely given the tastiest or most generous cut of meat when they shared, especially compared to the hunters that were considered incompetent. If you hunt a boar in a community of 50 people not everyone can have pork ribs for dinner. Some people will be having a bone broth soup. Remember that things are tasty because natural selection has created a preference for food tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/25 01:24 AM
5

Yeah, sex and reproduction co-evolved for that exact reason. And not all sharing is equal, which is why selecting a mate who is a successful hunter is a pretty good deal when food isn't always a guarantee. If being successful at gathering resources wasn't an attractive trait women wouldn't favour men for their income or "ambition" as much as they do today.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/25 07:09 PM
1

Yeah, sex and reproduction co-evolved for that exact reason. And not all sharing is equal, which is why selecting a mate who is a successful hunter is a pretty good deal when food isn't always a guarantee. If being successful at gathering resources wasn't an attractive trait women wouldn't favour men for their income or "ambition" as much as they do today.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/25 07:08 PM
3

Of course. But that still means women would want proof of resource acquisition for when they are looking to get pregnant. Successful reproduction for women demands a time time when they can't gather for themselves and their child.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/25 06:29 PM
2

Farming was only invented ~10k years ago, compared to the ~2m+ years of our hunter-gatherer history. Also, women probably don't do much while they are in late stages of pregnancy. I hear its pretty difficult. If someone wasn't bringing you food and water during that time things probably wouldn't go too well for the kid.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/25 06:14 PM
4

Because the premise goes against natural selection. Women selected men who could provide resources when they were pregnant and vulnerable. Men who were motivated to acquire resources reproduced, whereas those who were motivated to raise the kids with the tribe were not selected, so they did not reproduce. In modernity, this manifests as men being motivated to earn a living for a wife and children, but not being heavily motivated to raise kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/25 04:46 PM
1

Sure not every has to, but everyone has a drive to which dictated by a biological survival instinct. Yes you may not "die" without sex, but you will not "survive" without sex. So being unable to get sex should be absolutely destructive to people's mental health. If it wasn't, the human species wouldn't continue to exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/25 05:19 PM
–

Sex is a need but yes I don't disagree that nobody is responsible for supplying it. Same as seeing someone homeless or starving, you are not obligated to feed them.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 07:53 AM
1

You're just wrong though lol. Physiological needs are a subcategory of basic needs. Sex is a physiological need imprinted into every human being for the sake of survival. Sex satisfies the definition of "need" and more imperative to survival than basic needs like safety.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 07:15 AM
1

I mean, you can keep repeating it but that doesn't make it more true. Maslow put sex on his bottom rung of his hierarchy alongside food and water for a reason.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 06:54 AM
1

You misunderstand the instinct for survival. Survival is not just about your body, because your body is guaranteed to perish regardless of how much food, water and oxygen you have access to. If survival was only concerned with the condition of your body then no living person would have kids. Pregnancy is dangerous and your children need to eat food that could be used to sustain yourself. However, every living creature on the planet, including humans, is motivated to have children because having …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 06:48 AM
-6

Nice argument? Sex is a need buddy. Did I win?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 06:28 AM
–

The function of survival is to propagate your genetic material. If survival was concerned with the life of the individual parents would cook their kids on a pike for calories.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 05:19 AM
–

Wrong. Sex is a physiological need similar to food water and oxygen. Survival's primary concern is your genetic material, not your individual body. Even with unlimited food and water your genes will die without reproduction because you are not immortal. You must have offspring to survive, and to have offspring you must have sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 05:04 AM
3

Pretty funny that you think there is only either toxic masculinity of feminism
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 05:43 AM
2

Yes, obviously. People find relationships if they are sexually attractive, not if they are "good. The homeless vet who feeds the ducks at your park is good, but nobody will line up to have his kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/25 05:06 PM
1

Nobody has said that they don't find sexual stimulation from other attractive men/women. The difference is that most people don't condone or appreciate that behaviour while being in a committed relationship. You are effectively using your partner as a fleshlight to satisfy the physical portion of the fantasy while your actual motivation to fuck is sourced from your biology hoping it was going to be someone else. That expectation is not cheating. In fact, conservatives would say it is the exact o…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 06:32 AM
2

Whats the difference? Tell me where the line is that separates cuckoldry from "gaining sexual energy" because thats exactly what a cuck would call having a bull fuck their wife. When does watching someone for sexual stimulation become cuckoldry? Is it watching sexy women in bikinis in your room? What about watching them across the hallway--from the balcony?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/25 12:06 PM
1

Is it also insecurity if my wife objects to me watching a 21 year old porn star touch herself in the corner of the room so I can plow her with the proper intensity?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/25 09:35 AM
3

I'm just showing the absurdity in the argument. Your missus getting a libido from other men doesn't necessarily benefit only you. Getting cucked would be one example of how she could get horny and benefit other men. You don't actually believe your statement.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/25 04:57 AM
2

If that was true you would let her get all hornt up by fucking a random bull at the club lol
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/25 04:53 PM
5

If you want men to control their primitive urges why are you complicit with women not controlling theirs?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/25 06:47 AM
–

The argument is meant to illustrate the differences in reproductive goals between men and women. Men trade resources or "investment" for sexual access, women trade sexual access for investment. If you are trying to optimise your survival with this system as a woman, you want to trade as little sexual access for as much investment as possible. Thats why attractive women overwhelmingly dominate onlyfans and instagram- it's subtle suggestive photos for excessive emotional and financial investment. …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/25 08:25 AM
–

So you would be okay being with a man who lied about buying expensive dates/trips/gifts for other women but not for you? What if you found out he proposed with an expensive ring to some other girl after they dated for 2 years, but you're still waiting on yours after 5?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/25 05:52 AM
4

I don't know, it seems pretty limiting to be mute if you need every casual sexual partner to learn ASL or bring a notepad before you can have sex without getting accidentally raped.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/25 03:31 PM
3

So a mute person incapable of having a consensual relationship with someone who doesn't know how to sign in ASL or read?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/25 03:27 PM
8

I guess being mute makes you incapable of consent.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/25 09:56 AM
3

Because humans can choose to not be animals and instead suppress their biological impulses in favour of moral principles.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/25 02:53 AM
3

You can lie. But if you build your relationships on a lie it will inevitably fall apart.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/25 02:49 AM
29

It works and it's great as long as you are practicing it with every man, not just one man. Same applies for men. Cheap/free dates are fine as long as you do the same for every woman, not just some. Otherwise, hope they don't find out.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/25 04:42 AM
1

oh, well in that case that would obviously be stupid and hypocritical. It's just the inverse of what i've described
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 07:12 PM
1

Not regardless of consent, nice strawman. What day of the week can a man not buy dinner food for his wife at home if he stops feeling like it?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 07:01 PM
1

I don't disagree. If a man expects his women to submit sexually then he should also presume that she would expect protection and provisioning. You aren't arguing against me. You are arguing against people that say a man should pay while a woman should not be expected to submit.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 06:43 PM
2

So basically be single lol?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 06:35 PM
-1

That's not relevant. The analogy only serves to demonstrate that if you believe in one you must believe the other. If you disagree with one, you must also disagree with the other. If a man expects a woman to submit sexually, she should expect financial support and protection from him. The same works in the reverse.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 06:32 PM
1

Theres nothing wrong with answering the question. The issue is with how the question is answered. Yes, you can not express love without providing something. Nobody disputes this. I agree with this. The problem is that women are saying a man paying for stuff, and being a body guard, is love, which is self centered bs. If you believe that is love, you must also believe the male equivalent, such as woman giving head on command, is also love. No woman here would support that definition.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 06:26 PM
1

Theres nothing wrong with answering the question. The issue is with how the question is answered. Yes, you can not express love without providing something. Nobody disputes this. I agree with this. The problem is that women are saying a man paying for stuff, and being a body guard, is love, which is self centered bs. If you believe that is love, you must also believe the male equivalent, such as woman giving head on command, is also love. And nobody does.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 06:25 PM
1

"provide" work better?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 11:55 AM
3

Why not? Is a woman more likely to offer sex when her needs are met in a relationship? Perhaps a man is more likely to offer provisioning when his needs are met in a relationship too.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 11:29 AM
4

Straw man. Both the woman and man are expected to "contribute" and "protect a family". The issue is that it is considered unreasonable for a man to expect a woman to provide him with an income and to risk her life for him. However, that expectation from a man is labelled "love", or duty.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 11:23 AM
3

Great. So now you realise why an expectation for a man to always pay would be poorly recieved
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 11:15 AM
2

Ugh. Address the part of the argument that says the man should protect the woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 10:52 AM
3

Address the argument. I specifically said protecting the "woman" not the "children".
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 10:30 AM
6

Then you are a hypocrite. Why is "he has a duty to work for and protect me and my kids" reasonable while "she has a duty to satisfy me sexually or keep the house in order" is not? What day of the week does the man get to not provide or not protect the woman if he doesn't feel like it?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 10:25 AM
3

You're reading past my comment. I already agreed that relationships are transactional. The problem is with which transactions are being expected of the man, and which are expected from the woman. A man is supposed to expect nothing more than love and care and emotional empathy, while a women is perfectly within her rights to expect money, gifts, and a willing body guard. Either both people trade kind lovely feelings, or both trade stuff, like reliable money for reliable sex. Nobody wants that co…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 10:22 AM
2

Sharing interests and company would be a thing you do for your partner in that case. I'm happy your parents figured out something that works for them and I hope the same works for you :)
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 10:05 AM
2

Mmm you definitely don't have to but I don't think that relationship would be very successful hahaha. If you get nothing out of a relationship, why would you be in it?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 10:01 AM
–

You want your man to love you just for your personality? Just say you're ugly lol
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 09:58 AM
-7

"I want my woman to work hard and sacrifice for my family. That means servicing me whenever I want, cleaning the house and cooking, and making sure the kids are taken care of." Does that sound self centered or "prioritising my basic needs and comfort"?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 09:54 AM
5

How about...emotionally attentive, honest, respectful? I'm not disputing that every relationship is transactional, it's just amazing how some women will blatantly demand self serving things while claiming it is love, whereas a man's equivalent demands would be branded as incel misogyny. Imagine if I said a real woman loves a man by cooking, cleaning, looking after the kids and servicing her man without complaining lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 09:46 AM
2

So a real man is responsible for your happiness, buys things for you, is willing to sacrifice himself to keep you safe, and doesn't complain? That makes women sound slightly self-centered, doesn't it?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 07:27 AM
-7

How do you define "a good natured kind man who loves them."
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 06:51 AM
1

My bad you're correct. Just WW2 and Vietnam. WW1 the referendum almost passed but failed.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 03:41 PM
2

Interesting strawmen all round. I never said conscription leads to winning a war, I said the larger your defending body the more capable you are at defending your civilians...which is pretty self explanatory. Women getting raped in war doesn't dispute that women in a country with a sexist draft experience more bodily autonomy. Women in the US during Vietnam definitely have more bodily autonomy than their husbands getting killed overseas. As for the women getting raped due to warcrimes, they prob…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 03:31 PM
0

This is cringe. It's not a doomsday fanfic, it's just basic history. The civilian deaths in Vietnam are evidence for my case. If an opposing nation (USA) invades your country (Vietnam) civilians will die. Thats a consequence of not having an adequate force to prevent it. The women in that country are raped and forced into labor, while the women at home (USA) experience none of that, thanks to the draft. This is exactly my point. Ukraine actually disagrees with you. Based on some simple googling,…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 11:07 AM
2

As a man you have a duty to protect women and children. This is evidenced by the fact men must register for selective service in order to vote. As a woman, you do not have a duty to give birth. This is evidenced by the fact there is no government requirement to get pregnant or give birth to vote, even if reproductive rates are below replacement.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 10:49 AM
1

The point of nukes is mutually assured destruction. It's a deterrent.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:31 AM
3

Women have no duty to give birth. Nowhere is it shown that the government will force women to get pregnant if replacement rates are too low.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:31 AM
4

Opposing a draft is naive. The reality of war is that if an enemy nation imposes a draft on their citizens and sends them to a country that doesn't have one, that country will get absolutely annihilated. If China adopted an Iranian type regime and sent all men as soldiers to a country that just had "volunteers", that country would get fucking destroyed. The result is that all the remaining citizens who are men are executed, the women are taken as war brides or raped, and the children are stolen …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:28 AM
3

What happens when you run out of volunteers?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 07:35 AM
2

A standing army is the volunteers. So to be clear, your solution is that we start lobbing nukes? That sounds like a great idea.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 07:34 AM
4

WW1 was not a proxy war. Australia is part of the British Empire and fought directly. A British defeat would lead to poor outcomes for Australia indirectly.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 07:23 AM
1

So naive. You think an invading country is just going to say thank you and leave you alone? The fighting age men are executed so there is no risk of rebellion and the remaining women are raped to create more soldiers. You would rather that than force people to fight?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 07:12 AM
2

It's incredibly ignorant and naive to say that nobody should be forced to fight. It's just not realistic. If someone isn't forced to fight a country will get invaded and overrun by an enemy nation that wants to acquire land and additional resources.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 07:00 AM
3

When I say "can't abolish" I mean that a draft will always be optioned in the event that a standing army is overwhelmed. The question is: who should be forced to fight when a standing army is overwhelmed?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 06:40 AM
12

That's incredibly ignorant to say. If a country is invaded they will impose a draft. Look at Australia, it technically "doesn't have a draft", but it had one in 1914 for WW1, in 1939 in WW2, and in 1951 in the Cold War, and only men were drafted.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 06:36 AM
3

You can't abolish the draft. There needs to be a defending body to prevent conquest from an invading enemy nation.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 06:27 AM
6

This is only true if women have a "duty" to birth children. Women are not forced into having children to meet some kind of government quota. Also the draft is implemented all the time. Just look at Ukraine.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 06:20 AM
16

This is a luxury belief. If a country doesn't have a defending body what is to stop an opposing nation from invading? Who is supposed to defend the country from conquest?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 06:19 AM
0

Have you forgotten that people live till they're 80? 50 years basically means that men will have to risk dying for their country at some point in their life. The possibility that defending your country is the way you die is a real possibility for men, but not so much for women. The dispute isn't about women being able to choose to fight. It's about men being unable to choose not to.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 06:07 AM
0

I think the argument is an exaggerated retort against the supposed "feminist" position that women should be considered equal to men but should not be drafted. Voting for rights should come with civil duties and therefore responsibilities, such as being expected to defend those rights. If you don't have responsibility, why do you have the authority to decide on who should send other people to die through a democratic vote? "Nobody should be drafted" is a naive impossibility due to the reality of …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 06:03 AM
–

No men don't want money exactly. Men want beautiful women (as we have established) and money gets them beautiful women. Wanting "things" is more of a biologically female trait. Things help women and their children survive. The point of MONOGAMY (not marriage; you can have an open/polygamous marriage) is to stabilise society. Monogamy reduces intrasexual competition between men by forcing women to pick from only men that are available. Polygamy is literally illegal in most developed countries for…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/25 04:16 AM
1

Men can hate womanisers and sluts at the same time, both are degenerate. There will be single mothers even when men want to be fathers. Women can file for divorce too. Chicken or egg. Men wouldn't pay for onlyfans if women didn't post nudes. Next.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 06:45 PM
–

Men want beautiful women to provide for men? Surely this is backwards. Yes. Just like women want attractive men, among other things. Yes men's biology dictates a desire for a variety of women, similar to how women's biology desire's a top quality man. Men don't have to be animals though, and neither do women. Dumb people are disgusting Men do nothing but exist? Yaass preach queen, know your worth - sent from my mobile Nah, the chase is fun It's hard to have responsibility without any authority o…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 06:36 PM
–

Your statement "He's not in competition with me" reveals the difference between your healthy mindset and the mindset that plagues the modern woman. Not being in competition with your partner is a necessary precondition to establishing a successful relationship. The issue is when women claim that men are "insecure" for not wanting a woman who is competitive with them; that this is somehow an example of weakness. Competition isn't a fear for men, it's just obviously undesirable/unattractive when y…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 10:31 AM
1

Bro, being honest and explicit is literally the polar opposite of manipulative. How is it manipulative to say what you are feeling and act in congruence with it? That makes zero sense. You actually have no idea what you are talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 08:15 PM
1

Lmao "threatening to terminate the friendship"? Terminating the friendship IS THE GOAL. You aren't threatening it, you are terminating it regardless of outcome. You terminate the friendship because you don't want to be in the friendzone. Thats the entire point.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 08:03 AM
1

I think we agree then. Remember, you explicitly said: I can tell you what I like about my partner, and it has nothing to do with what he does for me. This is false. He makes you feel good mentally and physically. That is a thing he does for you. Men might not often care about their woman's career or education, but who cares? You don't have to moralise men's preferences just because they are different to women's preferences. We each want our partners to do things for us. They might be different, …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 04:15 AM
1

Every relationship is transactional in some capacity. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be in a relationship, obviously. For example, if he never talks to you and you never see each other, you would be together right? So something HAS to be traded. When you are with him, he does things for you, like or not. He might make you laugh, he might make you happy, he might make you feel safe. All of those things are things he does for you. So according to your definition you are exactly the same as every man y…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 08:19 PM
1

Polarising a person with romantic intention is not an ultimatum lol? Unless you define literally every relationship like that? You tell her that you can't be her friend so you stop treating her like a fucking friend. You stop messaging her like a friend, you stop hanging out with her like a friend, you stop being a loser in the friendzone and move on. What's the alternative, wait around like a chump and drop hints hoping that she gives you a go? How are you supposed to earn anyones respect when …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 08:13 PM
1

What do you like about your partner?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 07:14 PM
3

Theres truth to what you say, but you need to contend with the idea that certain behaviours become more or less common based on how we reward that behaviour publicly. For example, if it was acceptable to pick your nose in public you would see it more often. Approaching has so much negativity surrounding it that men who would normally put in effort to do so (in a more accepting environment) now instead have no incentive to. The only people approaching outside of clubs are men who are either incre…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 03:12 PM
1

Your framing is dishonest. I'm not suggesting you say: "i love you, do you love me?" thats much too strong. The correct phraseology would be similar to: "hey listen, we can't 'hang out' anymore because I like you more than a friend and I want to date you." This response is: 1. Honest, masculine and vulnerable (which shows you have balls) 2. Conveys value and abundance (since you imply you can drop/replace her) 3. Puts the ball in her court instead of forcing her to make a snap decision in the mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 12:04 PM
3

I know for a fact that isn't true because it worked for a close friend of mine. Admitting feelings isn't beta- the only thing that is beta is hanging around someone silently while you secretly hope they will someday like you. That's called being a simp/the friendzone.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 10:50 AM
0

Tell her that you can't be her friend because you have developed feelings for her. Not only is this true (you can't be a friend to someone you have feelings for), it shows that you are honest and respect her and yourself. There are only upsides. Either she is impressed by your assertiveness and self respect and decides to try out dating you. Or she rejects you, which saves you time moving on and gives you a free social boon (self respect) to take to the next woman. Never be indirect. Don't "give…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 06:30 AM
5

And how exactly does "never approached" equal, does not respect or desire?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 04:36 AM
1

Of all things you genuinely believe men don't care about or have interest for the women they date? I'm almost inclined to believe you are a Red Pill spy looking to convince the world that the "normal men are invisible to women" narrative is real
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 04:32 AM
27

Where do you people find these deranged ideas. Plenty of men love and desire women.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 06:06 PM
–

If you are against men using lifts you have to be against women using makeup, shapewear, pushup bras, or anything else like that. It's exactly the same principle at play.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 06:33 AM
0

This is reductive. You would have to establish a baseline expectation for what a penis should look like to have the perspective "who cares, just fuck me". It would be fair for us to assume therefore, that those men would have met that baseline expectation, since it did not surprise you. If it was overwhelmingly smaller or larger than your expectation you would obviously notice as it would leave an impression.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 05:18 AM
2

Congratulations on your successful relationship. Your chastity helped you separate the men who actually wanted to be with you from the men who wanted to use you for your body. The world would be a better place if more people were like you.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 10:42 AM
–

More visually attractive doesn't necessarily mean more effort, it just means more effort visually. Men are pressured to put effort into a wider variety of categories like financial success and social status.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/25 08:34 AM
-1

Reword this slightly and you just described the male experience. "Because despite the fact that most men actually hate themselves and spend our entire lives trying to appease society by increasing our success in whatever way that is possible, this isn’t enough for women and they seek to make men even more miserable." Welcome to biology
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/25 02:13 AM
1

...that doesn't make it good or desirable? Certain people are not equipped with as much mental tenacity or support networks as other people. W do you seem so okay with creating hurt in the world anyway? Are you a sociopath?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/25 01:36 AM
1

Oh man. Not telling someone why you broke up with them is a great way to cause suffering. When someone doesn't understand the cause of their emotional pain they might not correctly process it, causing rumination which can lead to mental illness.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 04:57 PM
0

If you break up with a girl you can't exactly stop her from telling her friends why shes not in a relationship with you anymore, especially if shes frustrated/annoyed or disagrees with your reasoning.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 08:31 AM
0

That's not true at all. The reason for your breakup can absolutely kill your dating prospects among all her friends and acquaintances. If you explain your breakup was due to him sleeping with another girl, he will be labelled a cheat and that will cost him socially. If your breakup was due to him not liking that you smiled at the boy who made your subway sandwich, he will be labelled controlling and that will cost him socially. If your breakup was due to you reading smut, he could very easily be…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 05:05 AM
1

You say "easily" and then when someone points out real potential social repercussions you immediately dismiss and downplay. At least try to hide the bias hahaha
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 02:06 AM
3

I disagree with the title. I think the specific problem is that women will say they want kind, emotionally available, and considerate men but they are attracted to incredibly powerful, dangerous and unkind men, as long as those dangerous men express kindness to them. It's the whole Beauty and the Beast archetype that Twilight and 50 Shades are built upon. Women want their beauty to transform, suppress or "fix" the dangerous man into a quality man for them, but the prerequisite is that he has an …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 07:30 AM
1

Because women don't realise that the pose is different. =.= The pose makes his traps and neck look smaller, making him look frail and less masculine. If the pose was the same women would say he was more attractive in the after photo because his v-taper would be better accentuated with a thinner waist.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/25 05:36 PM
5

If a woman won't swipe on you its because your first impression wasn't good enough to convince her otherwise. It will be very difficult (although not impossible) to give a better first impression with a cold approach. Warm approach is the best alternative.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/25 04:06 AM
1

No, not if it makes them mentally unwell. But nobody said that. I feel like this has already been explained but culture helps to informs people's standards. So caring about how a mass of people are informing cultural standards, even if they do not satisfy your own, is part of your own interest.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/25 08:31 AM
2

This is a privileged take. Beauty standards reflect cultural values. Only the most mentally tenacious (or autistic) people can afford to ignore or stand outside of cultural norms without it affecting their sense of belonging. When people are exposed to beauty standards that they do not satisfy it is completely normal (in fact, logical) to be insecure about that discrepancy. Why would you be confident about the fact that you were broke, for example? A person who is not accepted by the other sex i…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 01:33 PM
2

My assumption was that bangmaid meant "sex maid", as in "someone who is employed for daily sex services". It seems to mean "someone who is employed for housekeeping services who you can fuck". Regardless, this doesn't dispute the principle that is being suggested here. I believe that reserving sex after marriage is the best solution to protect men and women from their impulsive biological instincts. Yes historically this principle existed alongside men being expected to provide and protect for t…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 05:55 AM
3

Women automatically became bangmaids upon marriage back then, so no Incorrect. The utility of the principle is to have men only consider women who they are willing to marry. The men who used you for your body would not have had the opportunity to do so because they would not have married you.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 04:35 AM
1

Women automatically became bangmaids upon marriage back then, so no Incorrect. The utility of the principle is to have men only consider women who they are willing to marry. The men who used you for your body would not have had the opportunity to do so because they would not have married you.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 04:34 AM
3

Hmm I wouldn't actually disagree with that categorisation. Men's biology will try to preserve sexual relationships with women that they aren't planning to marry. Theres a reason why "no sex before marriage" was a popular principle in religious societies. It kept the women virgins for benefit of the men and protected women from becoming bangmaids for the benefit of the women.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 04:17 AM
–

Imagine the fallout if people began to argue that women who complain about unnatural beauty standards are too immature for a relationship lmao
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 03:54 AM
–

Hahaha. If you believe that having a stable population is political propaganda I don't know what to tell you. Apparently the UN has an obsession with Far Right conspiracies
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 03:13 AM
3

Why do you think it is uncommon for average men to be unselfish? Also, can you describe "a good one" for me?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 03:04 AM
–

Actually the entirety of humanity would prefer that there is a stable level of reproduction to prevent population collapse. If society isn't reaching replacement rates then everyone should have a vested interest in figuring out why, especially if the reason is something as simple as encouraging healthy and realistic standards.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 02:55 AM
4

Assume the bloke is average but isn't selfish or demanding. How is that not a net positive? You have someone you can confide in, someone who contributes to the house and expenses, and someone to start a family with? How are those not net positives for a persons life?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 02:49 AM
–

I would suggest that his standards are probably too high for what he can negotiate himself. I would point out that the qualities he idealises are not conducive to a successful long term relationship because those qualities will invariably fade over time. I would assume that the guy is terminally online because real people don't look like fitness models who are photoshopped to sell products. And yes I would argue that finding genuine connection and building a family with someone who isn't a fitne…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 02:45 AM
–

So there would be a problem if they frequently complained "where are all the good women?"
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 05:18 PM
–

I'm not suggesting anything is equivalent, but I'm curious - hypothetically, if every man was homeless and 300lbs, but demanded that they would only be with women who were virgin fitness supermodels with DD tits, would you say there is problem with their standards?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 05:09 PM
6

OP is arguing that average and below average men bring "nothing" to the table. If you believe this you are literally arguing that 84% of men bring nothing to the table, and don't qualify for a relationship. This is absurd. Plenty of average men are able to offer quality relationships; being average isn't nothing. If OP wants to argue that women are only attracted to the top 16% of men and average men have it tough then thats on her. But it's Red Pill, 80/20-rule hypergamy 101.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/25 07:45 AM
45

average looks...and a non impressive job and status isn't going to get a woman in 2025 Most people are average. Having an attractive appearance, or an impressive job or status is necessarily reserved for only a small percentage of men. This is statistically inevitable. Congratulations, you just affirmed every Red Pill belief that is argued to plague the standards of the modern women.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/25 05:06 PM
–

How is it physically possible to not compare sexual encounters? Does all sex feel the exact same for you?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/25 03:49 AM
–

You don't understand biology if you believe reproduction and attraction aren't inherently linked. Women are generally more attracted to men who are tall and handsome because tall and handsome men are more likely to guarantee reproductive success for your offspring. That doesn't mean when you meet a man who is attractive you are consciously thinking "wow my kids with him will do well". Same thing applies to men in regards to female bodycount. Promiscuous women are unattractive because they signal…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/25 03:44 AM
1

In the first article you linked there was a statistically significant difference between how women respond to anonymous surveys on bodycount questions and how they respond to polygraph surveys on bodycount questions. The effect size was small. Regardless, it doesn't address my point that people aren't lying when they misrepresent sexual history. To lie is to knowingly deceive. Women don't consciously recognize the sexual encounters that they discount because doing so would be inconsistent with r…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/25 05:51 AM
2

Yes I do think so. Because the impulse to convince yourself about biologically favourable outcomes is instinctual, only the impulse to "lie" is cultural. By the way, the author in the blog you linked is very dishonest. They assume a conclusion and skew the evidence to support that conclusion. They justify removing a bunch of data (high bodycounts, numbers without perfect recall, lifetime bodycount) to equalise the ratio when it is perfectly reasonable to assume that those factors could hint at a…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/25 04:19 AM
2

People don't lie on anonymous surveys to deceive other people. They lie because they have already convinced themselves of the lie and are looking for a means to reaffirm it. I knew a girl who said her bodycount was 7 but she had given head to so many men that she literally could not even estimate the amount when I asked. She was almost confused as to why it was a followup question. If she volunteered on a survey about bodycount she would say 7 and she would believe it. If she did a polygraph she…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/25 04:00 AM
3

Based on surveys that are incredibly vulnerable to social desirability bias*
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/25 12:57 AM
5

A cuck is someone who is unknowingly raising the children of another man. Contemporarily the definition has extended to include a man who finds sexual satisfaction in their woman having sex with other men. Being in a relationship with a sex worker indirectly satisfies that definition. Cheating also demands that some kind of agreement is being violated. You can have an agreed upon open relationship as a cuck and it would not be considered cheating.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/25 07:48 AM
8

Men can do sex work what are you talking about? The mentality exists because both men and women continue to believe that female chastity is valuable. Just look at the insults women use against each other, "slut" and "whore" are defaulted to for a reason.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/25 07:29 AM
25

This "real man" stuff is always just narcissism and shaming in disguise. You might or might not be a gentleman depending entirely on what expectations or standards the other person has. Nobody seems to knows what it means to be a "lady" and even insinuating that there are specific conditions for that title will get you cancelled. Maybe it's time men start getting treated the same way.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 07:07 AM
-3

Your little tirade is cute. Love doesn't go away when a woman gains weight. Attraction does. Love doesn't go away when a woman denies sex. Feeling desired does. Love doesn't go away when a woman ages. Lust does. I believe men and women love differently. Love for men is deep, grounded, dense. Love for women looks bright, colourful almost, intense. Men continue to feel love despite how they feel in the moment. Controversially, they can even cheat while still feeling love for their partner. For wom…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/25 03:58 PM
1

Assuming that this is true I would guess it's because men being "bigger" is not necessarily bad. Being big and being able to impose yourself is a masculine quality so it lowers men's attractiveness less compared to women. Same reason why a skinny dude is called a twink while a skinny girl is just thin.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/25 02:45 PM
0

It is impressive how many straw men you just created in so few sentences. Nobody is talking about filming TikTok's while your partner gets murdered. You clearly aren't comfortable engaging with my actual position so I can only assume you can't think of a good response and aren't arguing in good faith. For anyone else, imagine that two people need to walk alongside a road where a car has a tiny chance to lose control and swerve onto the pavement. If that were to happen, the person further from th…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 01:37 PM
0

Please try to read and engage with my arguments properly. For the third time, frequency or incidence is not relevant. Read that three times if you don't understand. I specifically said: Nobody is forcing you to do anything, but the expectation is still there. I've been witness to and have been personally questioned by a number of different women "what would you do if someone was trying to attack me". Be it an abusive ex boyfriend, a crazed drug-addict on public transport, or a scene from a movie…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 01:00 PM
1

Did you even read the comment? Frequency does not change the dynamic; frequency is entirely irrelevant. This would be like saying security workers are not expected to enforce safety if the suburb they work in is overwhelmingly peaceful. The expectation is that men protect women and children. The expectation is that women leave the boat first, that the female hostages are released first, that men risk their lives to check the bump in the night first. The expectation is that men stand on the side …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 11:13 AM
-1

a guy walks past and slaps your girls ass or says something slick walking on the interior side of the path near the road first off the boat Ukraine "That barely happens" isn't the point. The point is that the expectation is there. Men are supposed to defend the honour of women and sacrifice themselves for women and children in the situation where safety is in question.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 07:34 AM
–

The biggest lie told by society today is that men are simply born more toxic, lazy and exploitable than previous generations. Evolution doesn't occur that quickly. If unhealthy masculine ideas are resonating with men, there has to be a reason for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/25 09:24 AM
3

Men frequently say that the only woman who loves them unconditionally is their own mother. Men are the children of their mothers. Makes sense to me. I will push back against the premise that men don't have an instinct to care for their offspring. Men have an incentive to reproduce. Creating life through multiple women or investing into one are both viable strategies, and both are used depending on the man's options. Women have an incentive to reproduce, but they can not create many offspring lik…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 02:48 PM
2

I'm very sorry but you're just wrong about this. The core driver of the survival instinct in all organisms, including humans, is the drive to perpetuate one's genes through successful reproduction, ensuring the continuation of their genetic legacy. The assertion that survival is only concerned about sustaining your own life is patently false. I encourage you do to your own research and you will reach the same conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 02:05 PM
3

Women's faces and behavior might change during ovulation to make them more attractive but the ability for individuals to recognize this change and accurately differentiate it from normal appearance is just not feasible. In this manner fertility is concealed. I think you have it backwards. If women could accurately recognize when they were fertile then unwanted pregnancies would never happen, because they would know when or when not to have sex. But women themselves are unable to discern when the…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 01:27 PM
2

Can you give me an example of how women don't conceal ovulation because as far as I can tell the consensus is that: "Humans are considered to have concealed ovulation because there is no outward physiological sign, either to a woman herself or to others, that ovulation, or biological fertility, is occurring."
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 12:49 PM
1

Nobody is disputing that oxygen, water and food take immediate priority over reproduction in terms of their order of importance. What I am disputing is the idea that reproduction doesn't take precedence over employment in terms of instinctual survival impulse. It doesn't matter what it's called lol. Parenting is still a manifestation of survival instinct. Parenting is just a word to describe what animals do when they invest into their offspring to guarantee their survival and reproductive succes…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 12:34 PM
1

You are almost there. If it is as you say (that humans prioritize their own survival over the survival of their genetic material) why do parents consistently sacrifice food, water, sleep, and sometimes literally their own lives, for the sake of their children?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 11:59 AM
2

With all due respect, you completely misunderstand the instinct for survival. The instinct for survival is concerned with the preservation of your genetics material, not for you to live forever (which is obviously impossible). If survival was only concerned with sustaining your own life, parents would murder and eat their own children for calories. The opposite is true. There is a reason why Maslow places Reproduction in the same Physiological Needs category as oxygen and food. Reproduction is a…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 11:55 AM
3

Who said I'm complaining? The human desire for sexual access co-evolved with the human instinct for survival. I'm not saying women not desiring men is wrong. I'm saying men who want sex and suffer an existential crisis without it makes perfect sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 10:05 AM
-2

Correct. 3 Minutes without Oxygen. 3 Hours without Shelter. 3 Days without Water. 3 Weeks without Food. All of these are necessary for survival. As is reproduction. Employment is not necessary for survival.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 09:16 AM
-1

Those two things are indistinguishable from a biological perspective. Finding a woman who is willing to have sex with you satisfies the existential need to reproduce and survive because female fertility is concealed.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 09:12 AM
-5

Reproduction is effectively as important as shelter, and more important than employment, at least according to biology. Edit: Reproduction is a biological imperative. Employment is not. Your genetics can not survive without reproduction, but they can survive without employment.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 07:39 AM
20

Perhaps not alleviate, but there is evidence already to suggest that AI Companions Reduce Loneliness
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/25 04:53 AM
2

Depends on how you define vulnerable. Vulnerable as in "willing to express yourself honestly" is attractive and sexy. But I would probably call that honesty or self-assuredness. Vulnerable as in "I don't feel worthy of love and I'm scared and don't know what to do" is disgusting to women and repulses them. I think every guy here would attest to that.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/25 08:38 AM
3

I don't disagree but the implication here is confused. If the difference in your capacity to consent is meaningful then why should anyone below the age of 25-30 be able to consent to any sexual relationship with anyone at all? Either you are mature enough to make a sexual decision or you are not. If the issue is manipulation or predation (which I agree is valid), you have to contend with the fact that this could exist in any relationship at any age. Also, you would logically need to hold that if…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/25 06:37 AM
6

But you can never tell me what "fully developed" means because it definitely doesn't mean "has the capacity to make rational decisions".
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/25 06:12 AM
20

In a monogamous society if women want to have children (due to the instinct for survival) they will lower their standards out of necessity because there is no option to share the genetic material of the top man.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/25 09:35 AM
47

Yep. OP has it backwards. Monogamy leads to more sexual opportunity for low smv men, polyamory does the opposite.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/25 08:25 AM
–

You forgot the without social stigma part
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/25 11:48 AM
–

No, women just don't have to say it because society doesn't permit men to be unnatural. Men don't get away with deceptive practices like makeup or plastic surgery without social stigma. Wearing lifts will get you named insecure. Men can't wear fake jewellery or flex a rented car or airbnb.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/25 11:41 AM
–

You seem upset. Most women like men who are tall, handsome, smart and successful. All of those features necessarily represent the top percentage of men as well. Maybe you can share some sympathy for the short, small men who get slighted by natural selection but don't have an option for surgery. If women said they prefer natural men, that assertion would not be incorrect. And I would not argue that women actually prefer men who were unnatural because limb lengthening surgery makes men taller.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/25 11:35 AM
–

But your assertion was never correct. Men like natural women, they just have a preference for natural women with quality features. Men like naturally wrinkle-free skin, not botoxed wrinkle-free skin. The only reason why botox works is because it is trying to emulate the natural wrinkle-free skin that men like. Same thing applies to BBL's, facelifts, boob jobs, makeup and everything else you have on that list.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/25 11:28 AM
–

Your argument isn't sound. You are implying that having little body hair, perky boobs, no wrinkles, good skin, a round butt, or small labia is not natural. This is false. All of those features can be natural, they are just rare for women to have. This is like saying "women don't like natural men because they don't like men who are short, small, bald and stupid", which suggests that being tall, big, intelligent or having good hair is intrinsically unnatural. It isn't. These features are just rare…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/25 11:14 AM
1

Hmm I guess I see what you're saying. My point is only that I believe it is unwise to moralise the difference. People overwhelmingly act according to incentives and even genetic differences need an environment to manifest. Women have a preference to nurture not because they are the more virtuous sex but because biology has demanded it so. Mens preference to provide is not because they are the more generous sex but because biology has demanded it so. Why are we trying to punish or take credit for…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/25 02:57 PM
0

It definitely isn't. People commit crime for a variety of reasons beyond biological/hormonal differences. Cultural and social influences are massive factors as well. Poverty is a great predictor of crime and is a more significant factor amongst men (because men are expected to provide). I would never argue that African men who commit more crime due to increased socioeconomic pressures are worse people than white men who commit less crime due to less socioeconomic pressures.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/25 12:10 PM
–

It's not race baiting it's pointing to the fact that evidence of more crime doesn't mean a certain population is worse than another. Making that claim is as sexist as it is racist.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/25 11:19 AM
–

You will find that across all different countries men commit more crime than women. Not disputing this. The point is that certain people committing more crime is not necessarily evidence that they are bad people. Men wouldn't need to keep people safe if they didn't as a gender commit the crimes to begin with. Naive. You need a male defence force to protect women because both men and women can take a country to war. Because as I said men desiring young women leads to said young women ending up pr…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/25 11:12 AM
–

1. Men commit more crime than women. There's a comparison to African American populations here that you would be uncomfortable making. 2. Women raise kids and care for the elderly This is an arbitrary distinction. Men overwhelmingly build the infrastructure that enables the standard of living that women, children and the elderly enjoy. They are responsible for moving food between farms and supermarkets, for keeping the lights on, and keeping society safe from the minority of bad men that commit …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/25 09:26 AM
4

Women don't care about it*. Women select men based on their ability to provide resources and that is something that oftentimes comes with age. This is why women show a preference for older men even if sperm quality decreases. Men select women based on (mostly) surface level genetic qualities because men's sexual strategy has different demands. This makes fertility and appearance much more important than resource acquisition, and leads to men selecting younger women.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/25 02:46 AM
1

When she offers is she actually ever paying or are you covering for her? If she follows and sincerely believes in misandrist views she probably knows how to manipulate men to get free stuff. And it sounds like it is working against you.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/25 04:43 AM
46

Lol misandry is a hatred of men. For a man to be misandrist he would need to hate himself for being a man. What you are describing are male narcissists. Most men don't hate men for being men, but many women do.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/25 04:34 AM
1

I wonder if makeup was part of that study.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/25 02:30 PM
5

This might be true but it ignores the fact that there are trends for what characteristics are desired amongst women. I think OP is specifically referring to the trends.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/25 03:32 PM
2

I asked this question in the sub not too long ago. Generally the women couldn't agree, but "social repercussions" was a common answer.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/25 03:05 PM
15

It's only a problem if you complain. If your "standards" are a top 1% man, the point isn't that you need to try to find him, it's that he needs to choose you out of everyone else. The fact that he doesn't pick you should be expected, since he has the same "standards" that you have. Are you a 1% woman? Probably not, so lower your standards or stop complaining.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/25 04:14 AM
5

Yes women are more emotionally inclined but that doesn't make them necessarily better friends compared to men. Women tend to express themselves emotionally, so emotional empathy is useful for female bonding. Men tend to prefer solutions to their problems, making action oriented bonding more useful.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/25 04:21 AM
2

10% of rapes that are reported to police are proven false. That's fucking terrifying. So it's likely at minimum 1 in 10 tweets alleging rape are false allegations. Wonder what the real figure is?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/25 03:53 PM
15

Especially true if the man doesn't see himself having a future with the woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/25 06:27 PM
2

This is true. Social desirability bias is a massive influence on people's answers, not because they are insidiously trying to deceive others, but because they feel the need to deceive themselves.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/25 06:24 PM
0

I've never seen this take and would love to read an example. The only take i've seen which is somewhat related to this is the RP idea that "female orgasms aren't necessary for reproduction", which I guess is true but isn't really useful. After all, you could say the same thing about consent.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/25 04:15 PM
2

Despite the fact she isn't as attracted to him, she still wants the relationship to succeed because she can't lock down those previous men anymore due to aging or she could never lock them down because she was just a fling in their eyes. The girl realised she needs to find a husband but the men who she can attract as long term mates don't give her that immediate involuntary desire. That's where you would find this problem manifesting.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/25 04:40 AM
–

You can sell pictures online without leaking your identity. This idea that everyone would know you were on Onlyfans is simply not true. Now would it impact your future relationships? Absolutely. But thats a different beast entirely. The point is supposed to be that you act based on principles, not on consequences.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/25 04:04 PM
1

Romance and flirting is a thing that thrives in obscurity and chaos. Balancing between that zone of certainty and uncertainty is what makes it fun, but it also shows social calibration because navigating that space demands experience and practice. I imagine you are a very upfront person. You probably like a guy straight up saying "hey, do you want to fuck?" A lot of people would be off-put by that straight forward of a question. So for some, no it would not be a Green Flag.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/25 11:46 AM
6

If we are completely honest, exemption from selective service is absolutely an example of privilege and not sexism, because women are not actually prohibited from registering to join the military. Exemption from selective service is simply having a choice to not serve in the event of a draft. My body, my choice, is for ladies only.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/25 04:19 PM
3

It's both. Men wish women were happy to partner with average men. This way they wouldn't feel like they were settling when they partnered with average men.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/25 04:40 AM
0

Virginity is a term used to describe someone who has not had sex. The term describes an intangible concept so you can't exactly prove that it physically exists. Kind of like Freedom or Honor are concepts that don't physically exist in the world. Culturally, being a virgin (as a woman) is typically associated with notions of purity, innocence and integrity. When you lose your status as a virgin those associated assumed qualities also usually go away with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/25 05:57 PM
2

You've just argued that: Gay/lesbian people are illogical, because attraction can be rationalised. Women are essentially prostitutes because they overwhelmingly prefer men to pay for the first date. Good job I guess?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/25 06:33 AM
5

This is dumb. Attraction isn't supposed to be logical, its almost exclusively a biological mechanism to help humans pick a mate. If a women doesn't invest in a man without reason that man has every right to disqualify her. Sex or sexual interest is the biological investment that men are looking for to prove attraction. If a man doesn't invest in a woman without reason, that women has every right to disqualify him. Commitment or providing resources is the biological investment women are looking f…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/25 05:01 AM
0

You ask. If the question is: "what if she lies", well that relationship will be built on lies and the truth will come out eventually. The world likes to set itself in order. You will only maintain the relationship until the truth is eventually revealed in a big argument, or when you get drunk at a friends party, or when a drunk friend makes a small joking remark to reminisce, etc. And when it comes out that you lied about something that he should have known to make a determination about you from…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/25 03:41 AM
2

First of all I just want to say I'm really sorry you went through that. I can't imagine what it is like to feel as though you had to do something that you weren't actually agreeing to. I hope you understand I would never argue that men should feel entitled to any kind of sexual act that someone was forced into or experienced non-consensually. In my example, I used "planned" to specify when a woman has enthusiastically prepared for the experience herself. The difference would be that with her new…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 03:27 PM
3

Nobody is jealous of felons lmao?? Men are jealous of men who have access to sex. It turns out that being a bad person doesn't exactly bar you from your access to sex, and in some cases actually increases it. This would be frustrating for men who are expecting that kindness will lead them to favourable outcomes. It's waking up to the fact that the "just world fallacy" is indeed a fallacy. Being jealous that something happens to a certain group is very different from being jealous of a certain gr…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 12:32 PM
1

You've entirely missed the point. You wouldn't be jealous of doing sex work. You would be jealous of making good money. Men aren't jealous that felons are in jail and commit crimes. They're jealous that felons are having sex with women.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 12:17 PM
0

I mean...you must enjoy being bored then? Most people would rather travel the world than spend all day at a boring desk job just to get a 2 week holiday each year. I would think it would be pretty annoying to find out that selling yourself online is a better method of achieving that outcome than actually contributing to society.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 12:00 PM
5

You really don't feel any injustice in the idea that you might have to work a boring job for years just to cover your student loan while other women who sold themselves on Onlyfans might never need to work a day in their life ever again?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 11:46 AM
10

Would you be annoyed with the world if you saw countless rude and morally corrupt girls getting copious amounts of free gifts and financial handouts from rich men, while you, despite being a kind-hearted and virtuous woman, got nothing?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 11:17 AM
2

True. Relationships are fundamentally transactional. There is something you must give and receive, otherwise why are you with them. Some people trade money for beauty. That's fine, but eventually when your looks fade or your money goes away, so does that relationship. If people want to take that chance, so be it.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 09:34 AM
10

That wouldn't be an accurate analogy either because there isn't a time constraint on his investment. To be equal, something about your attractiveness is making him withhold investment from you, whereas with another woman he offered that investment immediately because the benchmark for attractiveness was satisfied. Maybe the girl who was sexier got gifts and trips immediately, but you who isn't as sexy but has a good personality earns the same gifts only after waiting a handful of months because …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 06:44 AM
3

That's actually very fair and I appreciate the perspective. In that case I imagine that you would understand why men would feel a certain way about a girl who rejected certain sexual acts with them but did so with a previous partner. For example denying anal if she planned anal for a previous partner, or denying a threesome if she planned a threesome for a previous partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 06:28 AM
6

The girl who makes you wait multiple dates but hooked up with a guy she just texted on Tinder. The girl who makes you wait but didn't make another guy wait. Thats the girl. Glad that you think the guy is a loser and that he gives you the ick because that means the analogy worked. Now you understand how guys feel about girls who make them wait when they didn't for other men.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 06:13 AM
10

"Isn't as overwhelmed" doesn't mean he isn't overwhelmed or attracted at all. Key word "as": He just isn't spoiling you because his decisions are more rational. Same as a girl who accidentally fucks the hot guy she just met in the bathroom at the bar but says she wouldn't sleep with a guy on the first date without getting to know him.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 06:07 AM
15

Intentional and authentic are euphemisms for calculated and responsible. He doesn't spoil you because he isn't as overwhelmed by your beauty.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 05:55 AM
21

Intentional and authentic are a euphemism lol. You are assuming intentional and authentic means just as expensive when there is no indication that it does mean that. He might pick you some wild flower from the side of the road instead of buying an expensive bouquet from a florist. That would be "authentic".
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 05:25 AM
3

Presumably then you have no issue if you knew that weren't someone's first pick then. You wouldn't care if someone openly admitted that there was another girl that "got away" and they they had settled for you?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 05:20 AM
22

Nope, no lavish and expensive gifts. Only cheap and affordable gifts because whats important is that your time together is special.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 05:15 AM
5

Well it might not be, but it can be. Sometimes being treated differently compared to a previous partner can suggest that you are viewed differently compared to that previous partner. It's a bit naive to assume that if you weren't given the same special treatment as another that you are valued in the same way.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 05:12 AM
12

That's incredibly mature, I guess? You don't wonder why he took 12 months to take you when he immediately took another friend? You don't wonder why he didn't take you to the Taj Mahal instead of the Eiffel Tower, when he's already been there so many times with other women before? You don't wonder why he didn't pay for first class tickets or a better hotel when he could have easily afforded it and did so with other women?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 05:01 AM
15

Interesting. Let's try this last analogy. You meet a guy. He's not your ideal type but he's alright, is well-off financially and has a decent personality. While dating, you tell him that your love language is gifts and trips, and that this is something you expect while being in a relationship. You also tell him how it's your dream to travel, that you want to see the Northern Lights, the Taj Mahal, and the Eiffel Tower one day. You ask him if he has ever travelled. He says that he has been to Eur…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 04:52 AM
21

You misunderstand. The guy still gives you gifts and trips. Only, it requires that you had to wait until you were in a mutually agreed upon relationship after seeing him for 2 months, and the gifts and trips aren't very expensive. But another previous partner was spoilt from the moment they met, and the gifts and trips he planned for her were expensive and lavish even though he wasn't compelled or pressured to do it.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 04:09 AM
53

I understand the premise but the idea that men won't recoil at it is a difficult sell. Imagine you are a woman and you find out that your partner's previous ex was frequently spoilt with lavish gifts and expensive vacations from the moment they met, even before a relationship was agreed upon. When you ask him why he didn't do the same for you he responds that he thought his ex was "sexy" and that he impulsively spoils sexy girls, but because you are "cute" and not "sexy" his spending on you is m…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 03:58 AM
2

Being "authentic" is actually good advice. Being "yourself" is just a less correct synonym which suggests that you are perfect and should never change.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/25 03:36 AM
2

You could explain it by satisfying your own theory. Fat woman who is more attractive (prettier) than most fat women, matches with fit man who is less attractive (shorter, bald, broke, etc) than most fit men.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/25 08:41 PM
2

OP is struggling to process that women are simply attracted to men at the top of the hierarchy and tries to justify it by saying men at the bottom are bad people lol
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/25 02:53 AM
2

How can this statement be possible if wealth and attractiveness are linked?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/25 07:41 AM
–

I've never personally seen men use the "choose better" line to this example. I've heard female friends do the "sis, you can do better", but usually men saying "choose better" online only appears as a retort against women who complain about absent fathers or abusive/narcissistic boyfriends.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/25 05:42 PM
–

I disagree that these two things are necessarily contradictory. The typical complaint from women is that they are frustrated with the lack of commitment from a man who they perceive as high quality (maybe he is rich, stereotypically attractive, has options). The men who were ignored tell her to "choose better" and to give the less attractive guys a "chance" because they would have given her the commitment she desires.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/25 02:46 PM
1

Theres a famous Chris Rock bit about this. Unconditional love is reserved for only women and children (and dogs). Thats why men love their mums and their dogs.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/25 04:58 PM
1

I don't know if I agree. Maybe in some circles men complain about makeup but I find that generally men are much more accepting of cosmetic costumes than women are. Just take a look at the industries and trends that sell to women. Women have fake: eyelashes, lips, hair, nails, tits, ass, height (heels), physique (corset's/shapewear), face (makeup), jewellery, other accessories. Men have fake: hair? Men can't fake the qualities that make them attractive. Unless (funnily enough) you are gay, in whi…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/02/25 03:57 AM
1

Makeup is the way that women glow up. Why are you presenting this claim as though it was self evident without first properly substantiating it? The fact that men disagree with the premise would be enough to explain why they call it deceptive. I disagree that makeup is how women glow up. Glow up is losing weight and acquiring beauty naturally, makeup is a cosmetic costume that makes up for natural shortcomings, hence the name.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/25 09:31 PM
–

Sorry?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/25 05:03 PM
–

I'm going to just assume you are actually autistic because it should be obvious that I was not using an old tumblr meme as a genuine argument. I will say though, since it somehow managed to upset you this much I think maybe you should take your own advice and put the phone down for a while.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/25 11:01 AM
–

Lmao this is such an incredibly privileged take. For men in many impoverished countries the only thing they have is work, and they do it for their wives and children.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/25 04:47 AM
–

People are motivated to survive. Reproduction is a biological necessity for survival. Therefore people are motivated to reproduce. Reproduction requires a genetic pair. People are motivated to find a partner. Women want to have kids. Men want women because women have kids. Thats basically it.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/25 12:47 PM
1

World cold and hard, tiddy warm and soft. Really though, there is a strange sadness and beauty in the idea that life for men can often be an overwhelmingly difficult and arduous struggle but having a woman to come home to makes it all worth it.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/25 10:36 AM
1

Men might be putting less time to the type of dating you describe but so are women. It takes two to tango. You acknowledge that women don't put in effort to dating but fail to recognise that by women putting in less effort men also have less opportunities to meet and interact with women organically. People in general are less social, have less purchasing power to spend money doing stuff, and there are less young people to begin with. When men attempt to integrate with the current trend for meeti…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/25 05:30 AM
–

Women can be shafted by genetics pretty hard as well. Imagine being a woman that has an ugly face and a body that likes to store fat in your stomach and face instead of your chest or ass. Squatting can build you better glutes but without testosterone the upper limit of that growth isn't going to transform your sex appeal in the way you suggest. Shredded muscular glutes would immediately lose to an ass that naturally stores fat well. Yes the genetics game is tougher for men and women seemingly ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/25 10:38 PM
0

I specifically stated that there is a population of women who are open and honest about their shallow preferences. My comments about the two extremes comes from a genuine position of confusion. I'm not sure why Smart and Christian would be considered unreasonable lol. Very happy that you found a nice one and get married though :).
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/25 04:33 PM
0

Even though it was a bit hyperbolic I am being sincere when I say that women do speak like this. I know a girl personally that swears that her expectation of men is only that they "be nice" to her. I'm in a bit of a lose-lose situation here. If I search the internet to find Tweets or Clips of women saying that "the bar is in hell" or that "men just need to learn how to shower" you would call them chronically online and not representative of women. If I use personal anecdotes of real people you w…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/25 04:25 PM
6

The paradox of choice
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/25 03:27 AM
1

Do you even know what a cougar means lol? Usually cougar refers to a woman who dates or romantically pursues men who are much younger than they are. So a woman in her thirties chasing a teenage boy would be a cougar. you'd have to be seriously mentally challenged to look at a 30 year old woman dating someone her own age who's just inexperienced in sex or relationships and call her a "cougar" True, which is why that was never said. the difference is that these men might not have had much success …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/25 08:01 PM
9

Nope, thats why I said you are framing unfairly. A 30 year old dude grooming an inexperienced girl would be the same as a 30 year old cougar grooming an inexperienced guy. A 30 year old woman giving a chance to a guy her own age after juggling cock in her 20s would be like a guy marrying the mid girl and spending his days in the pub after squandering his inheritance in his 20s travelling the world with and buying shit for the girls who were hot.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/25 06:40 PM
11

Your framing is imbalanced. Be consistent. If you believe the male version is wrong then admit the female version is wrong as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/25 05:26 PM
6

Can you explain to me why people will criticise TRP for focusing on self-improvement as an avenue for dating benefits? TRP is a dating strategy; of course it focuses on attracting women. What is wrong with improving yourself to attract a better partner? I don't get it. When anyone on this sub or irl asks for advice on how to get more dates the advice is always "improve yourself". What is the criticism?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/25 05:19 PM
4

Do you disagree that someone with less experience is easier to manipulate? I must imagine you are perfectly happy with barely legal teens getting into relationships with senior aged men
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/25 05:02 PM
2

How he handled the conversation itself was definitely not perfect but having the conversation was definitely healthy. If the dude wants his girl to do the dishes after he buys and cooks a meal for her family I think thats valid. She responded by completely avoiding his comments and instead brought up some irrelevant shit from their past. That's just immature. If you are trying to one-up your partners instead of addressing them first you probably shouldn't be in that relationship. Ending it was m…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/25 04:02 PM
1

Agree.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/25 02:55 PM
1

Men are more biologically disposable than women yes, this is true until artificial wombs are invented and is the core reason for sex discrimination in the draft. Differences in biology necessarily result in these differences, not the manifestations of men like you suggest. Men aren't blaming women for the draft lol it is just evidence of female privilege that women seemingly refuse to acknowledge (like OP for example). Has it ever occurred to you that maybe men are benevolent in their desire to …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/25 05:28 PM
2

Absolutely you are ideologically possessed. You are so blinded by bias that just in this reply you've revealed how little capacity you have to view me as an individual. You only see me as a category, a man, which in your eyes makes me equally responsible for the creation of the selective service system even though it was founded over 100 years ago, countless decades before I was even born. Sometimes angry men online will justify their existence by saying "men built the world you live in". But ju…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/25 04:37 PM
2

You're deflecting. I get that you don't like Trump, but if every man did what Trump did you would have no country. Men sacrifice their lives to keep you safe, selective service is necessary for a countries defence, and it exists due to differences in male and female biology.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/25 07:19 AM
1

You don't go to war on home soil to protect a god king you idiot, you go to war to protect your family and your country. Masculine men get drafted just as much as non-masculine men, and you follow whatever order your superior gives you, otherwise you might get a court-martial. If all fighting men left Ukraine with the women, Ukraine would now be Russian. You need to have a defending force. What other option do you have? Abandon your country and go somewhere else until every country is named Russ…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/25 07:02 AM
0

Are you Ai? This response doesn't address anything I have said. Countries face existential danger all the time from other nations that wouldn't mind acquiring land and other resources. A military power and the draft is what discourages that. If the US faced a full on invasion, women would leave to safety and yes, the overweight, pasty, underprepared men would go through express training to defend and die for you. If they did not have a draft the enemy would come in, kill all fighting-aged men, a…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/25 06:41 AM
1

If your country faced a full on invasion from an enemy that planned to kill all of your men and claim and rape your women to repopulate, what do you suggest your country do? This has happened an infinite amount of times throughout history. A military is what deters this from happening. Nobody is talking about "signing up" we are talking about the draft.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/25 06:23 AM
1

Are you serious? Go to the gym and build muscle, lose weight, improve your skin, get braces or dental plates if you need them, whiten your teeth, buy some flattering clothes, make more money, become competent at something you enjoy, etc etc
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/25 06:19 AM
1

Absolutely I am grateful. Women grow people inside them to viability and men protect them because they are vulnerable. Biological necessities lead to societal outcomes. War is a choice that men make. This is a massive oversimplification. When Russia invaded Ukraine the Ukrainian government doesn't really have a choice. Defending your citizens is a duty of the government, men will be drafted to accomplish it. For democratic Governments that initiate wars, those leaders and their administrations a…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/25 05:52 AM
29

You just posted a very similar meta thread like 24hrs ago. Niceness isn't the problem or the complaint. Niceness is a baseline expectation for all people, but it doesn't make someone attractive. The frustration is that when unattractive men want advice on how to get girlfriends they are told to "be nice, have a shower, get a haircut". This is terrible advice and honestly kind of insulting; if it was that easy incels wouldn't exist. When you make the claim that being nice gets you girls and then …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/25 03:29 AM
-2

It's the women's not the men's minds that need changing. I'm grateful for the men who sacrificed to protect my access to a safe country. I would hope the idea that there is a system in place where men are sacrificed to protect you would make you incredibly grateful as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/25 03:04 AM
2

Answer this. Is a man who pretends to be kind to manipulate you a good man or a bad man?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/25 02:49 AM
0

I'm happy you no longer fail to see how women aren't disposable. I don't think "fault" is the correct framing. Selective service is a biological necessity for a nations defence. It's also not fair. This is a genuine reality for men in society and deserves at minimum empathy and probably earns additional benefits. Imagine if we sent Black men to war to protect White men. That is what we do with men for women. Women are incredibly privileged as a result. OP claiming it isn't an issue because Ameri…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/25 02:46 AM
3

As soon as someone pointed out a concrete instance of men being disposable through social action you move the goalpost to the idea that this is mens fault because a small minority of male leaders ordered this outcome. Three things: 1. You are ideologically possessed. This is demonstrated by your inability to recognise the goalpost shift as soon as someone satisfied your demand for proof. The problem being "mens fault" isn't even relevant to the premise of the thread. Social systems are skewed ag…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/25 02:33 AM
5

Women aren't disposable because they are biologically more valuable than men. You can repopulate a country with a lot of women and few men, but you can't do that with a lot of men and few women.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/25 02:20 AM
–

Why do you say that like I would disagree. Yeah ugly insecure men pay for prostitutes, so do attractive successful men. They might pay for prostitutes less because they are more likely to have the opportunity to cheat with someone without paying for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/25 02:12 AM
2

Girls in these situations will hold onto hope that a narcissistic or abusive man will change even though they know deep down that he won't. An abuser will often convince her of this by admitting that they are toxic but say they are "seeking help" or "getting therapy". They become deeply infatuated with him because he shows bouts of remorse or kindness. The truth is that these instances of kindness only have as much impact as they do because the emotional swing between torment and decency is grea…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/25 02:06 AM
–

That isn't really relevant. Schrodinger's asshole. Was a man who pretended to be kind to manipulate someone into liking them an asshole before he was known to be an asshole? Regardless, the point I am making is that women stick with men who turn out to be assholes. They recognise it objectively, complain about it to friends, but they don't leave and continue to go on dates with them and give away sex. The simp does not have this opportunity. That is the complaint from these men.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/25 04:10 PM
–

Pretty sure this would be a black pill take if anything, and I don't disagree with your assessment but I don't understand how it relates to what I said.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/25 04:01 PM
–

Again, I never claimed that women don't date nice and respectful men. I claimed they date and fuck assholes. This is because when nice and respectful men turn out to be abusive assholes they continue to get dates and sex. Both claims can be true at once. What it is about what I have said that makes you believe I am contradicting myself?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/25 03:57 PM
–

You've conflated opportunity and desperation without justification. Why exactly are men that are in committed relationships desperate and lonely if they are ugly, but not so if they are attractive? Tall men are statistically more likely to cheat than short men. Is this because tall men are more desperate and lonely. Is it because tall men are considered less attractive? or do you think maybe it's because they have more opportunity?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/25 03:25 PM
–

Logically, it doesn't make sense that a man who has more opportunity to cheat would cheat less. Why would an average guy who can't regularly access sex, risk regular sexual access by cheating on his only option? This thread was supposed to be about men coping about their sexual undesirability but it's turned into women coping about their commitment undesirability.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/25 02:55 PM
–

I've made the claim that: women date and fuck assholes. Nothing about what I've said disputes this claim. It doesn't matter if someone slowly became an asshole or was secretly an asshole. To be clear, you are the one victim blaming. You made the case that women who get abused are "mentally ill". I reject this premise. You've missed the point. Both the boyfriend and the simp could progressively turn out to be assholes. The difference is that when the boyfriend is outed as an ass, he still dates a…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/25 02:22 PM
–

Women don't date and fuck the asshole though. If given the chance, the simp would treat her exactly the same way, if not worse. You are incredibly biased, and I'm genuinely confused as to why. Firstly, women do date and fuck assholes. It happens all the time. I've seen it personally only a handful of times but it's apparently common enough to make women collectively claim that all men are trash. Secondly, the Simp could be abusive but "would" is a wild claim. There's no reason why someone who ki…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/25 02:10 PM
–

Not really. It's usually not initially clear that a guy is going to be abusive. Abuse is tolerated due to a combination of charm, charisma and manipulation, and it usually grows slowly over time. To simplify being abused to "clearly has mental issues" is disingenuous and unfair to survivors.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/25 02:00 PM
–

Sincerely, I don't think I've claimed those two things are equivalent so I'm not sure what you disagree with. I'm pretty sure the whole Halo Effect argument is a Black Pill take. The rebuttal to your argument would be that people are nicer to those that treat them better. Since people unconsciously treat someone better if they think they are attractive, it would make sense that attractive men are on average nicer to others.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/25 01:42 PM
41

This is a red herring. The contention is that being an asshole is often not the differentiating factor for desirability. Many women date and fuck the asshole, and complain about him to the guy in the friend-zone. Hell the boyfriend might be downright abusive and narcissistic, but she will still choose him over the simp. The guy in the friend-zone might also be an asshole but he doesn't get laid. Why that is can be chalked up to a lot of things, but not being an asshole usually isn't it.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/25 12:51 PM
1

Nobody is saying you are insisting on the same behaviour. You would however have good reason to question her changed behaviour because the motive for the changed behaviour is important. If your husband never does the laundry because "he doesn't want to" but you find out he would routinely insist to do the laundry for an ex partner you would probably be a little annoyed, and rightly so. Again, assume both ex and current boyfriend want the same thing, and both are perfectly normal and non-abusive.…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/25 02:48 PM
0

Fair. Tbh I didn't know that was the rule of the sub. Generally I find that men are blamed more and are forced to undertake responsibility more often but thats my own internet bubble talking so who really knows.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/25 11:19 AM
7

I don't know what internet bubble you are in but all of these points, excluding maybe 2,7 and 9, men are blamed for. I would be careful with the content you watch on tiktok and social media in general, as even "top comments" are different for different people to fuel engagement.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/25 11:09 AM
1

Because you wouldn't mind having more. Thats the crux. You might be satisfied with a vanilla sexual relationship but you wouldn't mind trying new things, like maybe anal. You bring it up with your girlfriend and she says "no I don't want to do that", so you don't pressure any further because you aren't an asshole and you respect her wishes. Then you find out that your girlfriend frequently did anal with an ex partner to satisfy him, and that it was her idea every time. Why does he get better tre…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/25 07:59 AM
1

Sex is an arbitrary distinction. Answer this question, I'm genuinely curious: Imagine you are a girl and you love getting gifts. Your boyfriend gets you a gift for your 1 year anniversary. You feel great. Later, from a friend of a friend, you find out that your boyfriend would buy anniversary gifts for his ex for every month instead of only every year. You confront him, saying "you know I love gifts, why did she get gifts every month but I don't?" Does this complaint hold any water? If no, what …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/25 04:42 AM
1

Ugh. The first argument is building an expectation for their current partner from their current partner's past behaviour. The second is building an expectation for their current partner from the behaviour of someone who is not their current partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/25 03:12 AM
1

The first argument is building an expectation for their partner from their partner's past behaviour. The second argument is building an expectation for their partner from the behaviour of someone else. This is objectively not the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/25 03:16 PM
5

Right...so they are not the same argument. The first argument is: I want to be afforded, at minimum, the same benefits that you afforded to your ex "If you tried anal with him, why won't you try it with me?." A more equivalent situation as a girl might be: "You took your ex on a holiday trip for your anniversary, why won't you take me on one for ours" The second argument is: I want to be afforded from you, at minimum, the same benefits my ex afforded me". "If I was allowed to peg my ex why am I …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/25 01:17 PM
8

You are arguing as though your examples are logically consistent when they are not. Example 1: Boy 1 wants anal, girl obliges. Boy 2 wants anal, girl denies, boy 2 protests about boy 1 Example 2: Boy 1 wants pegging, girl obliges. Boy 2 doesn't want pegging...why would boy 2 protest about boy 1?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/25 06:22 AM
5

I mean...yeah? If she pegged a previous partner and you want to be pegged she should be open to it with you too?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/25 03:33 AM
2

The motto of the Red Pill is "enjoy the decline". It doesn't advocate for what you speak, it isn't idealistic, it is a sombre surrender to reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/25 05:06 PM
36

Women have more matches and poor options. Men have less matches and poor options. Women have it easier.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/24 06:11 AM
1

If women out earn men they can have financial responsibility in those relationships. I have no qualms there. Men are traditionally burdened with the responsibility of safety over women and children because they are on average biologically stronger. Some societies can be progressive and draft women as well. This doesn't change the biological incentive to draft men? Nothing I have said is inconsistent.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/24 09:35 AM
1

My views are expressions of reality, men and women being drafted may equalise the societal expectation but it doesn't equalise the biological difference which can still inform responsibility. In the circumstance where an Israeli couple has a woman who is stronger and more physically capable than her husband, I would assume she has the position of responsibility, and therefore authority over their safety
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/24 08:36 AM
1

When you get married, your husband will have responsibility over your safety. Because when the war starts he has to go while you get to stay. Authority is the just logical consequence of responsibility. It's not something you manifest into existence. You are arguing with the universe, not me.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/24 08:21 AM
1

If men and women were physically equal this wouldn't be a problem. But because men are on average stronger than women society has burdened men with the expectation and duty to protect women and children. This is why men go and die in war and women do not. If you have responsibility you must have authority to enact your responsibility. It is simply a necessary consequence of responsibility. If you want to change the social perception of who should be responsible for protection start a protest for…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/24 08:15 AM
1

Assume my grandmother is completely well physically and mentally, but she is simply weaker due to age. If shit hits the fan I would still take the burden of responsibility because I am more physically capable of protecting her. "Nan, run for your life and don't turn back". To be clear, you are free to have the position that men shouldn't have a duty to protect women and children. All the more power to you. You would just disagree with most of society. You would probably disagree with selective s…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/24 08:09 AM
1

If she has responsibility and therefore authority? Absolutely.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/24 08:02 AM
1

The premise is you need to submit to authority. How can you submit to someone who doesn't have authority over you. Like if a student convinces a teacher to not do something because its logically unsafe, "you shouldn't cross teach theres a car coming", are they submitting to their student? I don't think that makes sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/24 02:55 AM
–

There are plenty of situations where couples will not and can not agree to a disagreement. One parent wants to move to the suburbs, the other wants to live in the city. One parent wants to circumcise the child, the other does not. One parent wants to raise the children as Christians, the other parent wants to raise the children as atheists. One parent wants to vaccinate their children, the other does not. How do you reconcile these disagreements without authority?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 07:50 PM
1

All of this is wrong. Women in patriarchal societies avoid signing up for selective service when they reach adulthood. Men are required to sign up and can be drafted to defend the women and children of their country in the event of a war. A teacher that imposes authority over her students for the sake of their safety is not abusing her students. A parent that imposes authority over their child for the sake of their safety is not abusive. A tour guide imposing authority over his tourists for the …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 07:47 PM
–

Women aren't inherently inferior to men. They are however weaker than men on average, which means men have the capacity for greater violence and therefore protection, on average. This dynamic demands that a man has responsibility over the protection of his partner. If he has responsibility over her, he needs to have some kind of authority over her behavior, otherwise he can not enforce his responsibility for her. Men don't see women as inferior, they dutifully see them as precious and worthy of …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 07:35 PM
–

In the hypothetical we need to assume that the couple will not agree, ever, regardless of his capacity to convince her. They disagree full stop. The situation is irreconcilable. Authority is the final stage after negotiations and compromises are not possible. If two people fundamentally disagree on an unresolvable position that involves both of them, someone has to have the final say on what happens. She has all the right to leave by the way, and he should not physically prevent her from leaving…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 07:22 PM
–

Authority justifies why women submit to men in matters of safety. Authority is the enforcement arm of responsibility. Authority does not require violence. A student can submit to the authority of their teacher without violence or abuse. Why can't submission come from a position of trust or respect for authority? Submission does not always need to be malicious.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 07:15 PM
–

Yes unfortunately. That's why for example only 40k islamic extremists were able to revoke the rights of nearly 14 million women in Saudi Arabia. Just compare photos of Saudi women in the 70s to photos of them today.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 07:09 PM
–

To be clear, men should not use force to enforce authority against woman. Think on this: if you don't have the capacity for violence, is your lack of violence a virtue or is it simply weakness? To be able to protect is to have the capacity for violence, but to choose to wield that potential for good.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 06:56 PM
1

Can't find a source about consecutive shot comparisons, but the Olympics literally doesn't have 25m rapid fire pistol category for women when it does for men for the sake of "gender equality", whatever that means. However, even if we grant that light/low recoil weapons are equalized between large and small individuals, it doesn't change the fact that a larger individual will have access to greater violence anyway because they are better able to handle more dangerous, higher caliber weaponry.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 04:58 PM
1

You are assuming I would side with the husband when I would actually side with whoever has responsibility over the situation. If the woman was the breadwinner for example, she should probably have final say on where they live because it heavily impacts how she is able to make money. Nobody's decision is right or wrong, but someone needs to make a final decision. The person that has responsibility and therefore authority should make that decision. It just happens that men are most often in positi…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 02:55 PM
1

Incorrect. If the wife is financially responsible for her husband then she has authority in matters of finance. She should have the final say.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 02:28 PM
1

In a marriage you are agreeing to a pre-made set of rules that dictate that it is a mans duty and responsibility to protect his wife.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 02:26 PM
1

It isn't always possible for inaction to be a solution. Sometimes doing nothing is doing something. One parent wants to move to the suburbs, the other wants to live in the city. One parent wants to circumcise, the other does not. One parent wants to raise the children as Christians, the other parent wants to raise the children as atheists. One parent wants to vaccinate their children, the other does not. Assuming both parties are steadfast in their position how do you resolve these issues?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 02:21 PM
1

If you are sincere about having a greater capacity than your partner to solve violent situations then you are by extension more capable of enforcing safety which gives you a greater responsibility to enforce it. If you have a greater responsibility to enforce safety then in situations where safety is a concern you should have the authority to decide how it is enforced.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 01:59 PM
1

I would say that is likely the case yes. In the example where you are armed and trained to be armed you have responsibility over his safety because you have the greater capacity for violence. If you were faced with a real life-threatening situation I would imagine you would have the authority to command your boyfriend while you go check out the noise. I'm curious if the dynamic changes while you are unarmed. I would extend the same logic to the financial situations as well yes. If you were finan…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 01:54 PM
1

You can have this position if you like, it just isn't held by most of society because men are on average stronger than women. Just like the two sisters, if one is stronger than the other, responsibility will likely fall on her shoulders, and so will authority by extension. Most of the time society puts the pressure of protection on the person that has the greatest capacity to maintain safety. The person with the capacity to maintain safety is typically the person with the greatest potential for …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 01:30 PM
1

Regardless of how much kick-back a gun has it will still be favored by an individual that is stronger because they can aim more precise consecutive shots.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 01:23 PM
1

Correct. It just typically isn't the case because men are on average stronger than women. If a woman is a carer for her husband who suffered brain damage and is schizophrenic, she should have authority over him, absolutely.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 01:21 PM
1

It's not hand to hand combat. It's the capacity for violence. Even with a weapon a man is more capable of violence because on average he is stronger and can utilize the weapon with more competence. Even a gun has kick-back and favours a strong build. You can protect your partner if you want, all the more power to you, but that responsibility isn't assumed to you by society. If your man gets jumped and you run away nobody is going to judge you for it. If your woman gets jumped and you run away pe…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 01:02 PM
1

A tour guide takes 5 tourists down into a cave. One of the tourists says, "hey I want to see whats down there". The tour guide says "HEY, absolutely at no point in this tour are you allowed to veer from the path I am taking. What you have suggested is incredibly unsafe. If you refuse to abide by my rules I will call security and have you escorted out". A safari guide has taken one individual on a tour. One of the tourists says "I want to go out and touch the lion on the nose". The tour guide say…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 12:55 PM
0

If you are inclined to yield to authority, that means at the end of the day, you go with authority. It doesn't mean you can't voice your concerns, give good justifications to reconsider a decision, or argue for a different compromise. It feels like you assume that the man in this situation is entirely selfish and narcissistic. He should listen, he should be open-minded, he should be empathetic, he should be conscious of her opinions and her desires, he should be doing everything he can for the s…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 12:47 PM
1

Is it your partners responsibility to keep you safe and protect you? Is it his responsibility to protect you if another man tries to hurt you? Does he have to check the front door in the middle of the night? If he is responsible for your safety, he must have authority over decisions involving your safety by extension. The two sisters is just an example. It works the same in any other situation where someone is given the position of responsibility over someones safety. If they are given responsib…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 12:37 PM
1

Why do you assume I believe I could protect someone from 5 armed gunman. It has nothing to do with being successful. And yeah kind of. My grandma has dementia. I am responsible for her safety is I ever take her to the grocery store. Because I am responsible I have the authority to tell her "no gran, you can't drive" even if she protests. You say "authority has been assumed" as though authority is arbitrarily granted to anyone, independent from any other factor, but in reality it is very simple: …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 12:25 PM
1

Women do not have the duty to protect their husbands as far as I know. This is news to me. If your man gets in a fight it is not your duty to go and punch the dude. It would be cool sure, but socially it is not an expectation placed on women. This is specifically because if you go try to fight a dude it might not go so well. How? Teacher is responsible for the safety of her kids. The kids want to do something unsafe. She can tell them no, that they aren't allowed. That is called authority.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 11:50 AM
1

If you are responsible for someone's safety, how can you ensure safety without authority? Your younger sister wants to climb a tree. You are the older brother and are responsible for her safety. If you don't let her, you are doing so because you have authority over her. A teacher takes her students to the beach. The students want to do a cliff jump. She says no. The teacher has responsibility over her students, therefore she has the authority to tell them no.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 11:46 AM
1

A man isn't using strength and force against you, he is not intimidating you with force. He is assumed to have responsibility over you because he has greater access to force to protect you, than you have access to force to protect him. Its the same logic that an older sister is responsible for a younger sister. She is bigger and therefore must look after her sister. That means she has authority over her. The younger sister might want to climb a tree, the older sister has the authority to say no.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 11:42 AM
1

He can't take them. That's not the position. He could go to the bar and get skinned alive and end up on some gore subreddit. That isn't the point. The point is if the woman is not responsible for his safety she can't have authority over him. Since men are assumed to have authority over women, that is "men must protect and children" or "it is your duty to protect and honour your wife", then you must have authority over them by extension. A teacher is responsible for the safety of her students. Ho…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 11:39 AM
1

I copied that definition from some dictionary on the first google page. To answer your question, maybe. It depends on who has responsibility. If a man is responsible for the safety of his woman, he must have authority over her. If a mother is responsible for the safety of a child, she must have authority over them to protect them. If a teacher is responsible for the safety of a student, they must have authority over them.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 11:34 AM
3

Typically the man has responsibility because he has a monopoly on force. In most cultures, for example, it is considered wrong for a man to not want to protect his woman. In most cultures it is agreed that men have a duty and responsibility to protect their partner, and women and children in general. To have responsibility, you must have authority. Otherwise you can't enforce your protection. Without authority, responsibility makes no sense. It's not magical penis. It's magical testosterone, bon…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 11:30 AM
0

That's fair and I'm sorry for anything like that happening to you. Jehova's witness' are notorious for taking small portions of the Bible out of context, like the idea that peacekeepers will literally inherit the earth on the day of judgement, because thats what the passage in Matthew 5:7 says. There is a passage in the Bible about women submitting to their husband, but in the same segment the bible states (I'm shooting from memory) that a man should love his wife and treat her like he would tre…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 11:23 AM
1

Capacity for violence against other men not against his own woman. Jfc
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 11:19 AM
1

I'll try and make it simple. If someone attacks or tries to attack your woman. Is it your responsibility to protect her? Yes or no?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 11:18 AM
1

That men have a monopoly over force?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 11:17 AM
-2

If a man in a position of authority wants to go get drunk at a local bar and the woman protests against it, he would just go anyway. If the woman convinced him not to go using logic, that would not be submitting, it would be agreeing to reason. Submission assumes a fundamental disagreement that cannot be resolved. The woman (typically) doesn't have the capacity to demand authority over his safety because he has the greater capacity for violence, therefore, he has greater responsibility over thei…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 10:33 AM
1

It depends on whether or not she has responsibility over her safety. Imagine a female substitute teacher who is 22 taking her students to the beach. One of the female students, 17, says she wants to jump off the rocks into the water. The teacher says no. They argue and cannot negotiate a compromise. The teacher has the final say because she has responsibility over her safety, and therefore authority. The girl has submitted to her teacher. Where she to not submit, she would jump off anyway. If tw…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 10:27 AM
1

In the example the wife still wants to go. She disagrees with the logic. She might pout and complain for the rest of the night. The man says "no we aren't going" despite her disagreement. For all we care she might still go to the beach anyway. Here is the crux of the issue. If she instead submits, despite her disagreement, has something wrong occurred?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 09:52 AM
1

I'm happy that you think that, but that isn't an argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 09:43 AM
1

You misunderstand. The man has greater strength to protect her from other men, not to prevent her from leaving the hotel. He has assumed a position of authority because he has greater responsibility over her safety than she does of him. Therefore he gets the final say. Her agreeing to his decision is a matter of respect, that is, she would respect his authority. She is not "second" to him, in fact, the story assumes he cares enough about her safety to warrant that he would likely fight to protec…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 09:39 AM
1

My apologies. A person is granted a position of authority when they have status, specialist skills, or knowledge over a particular area. In the caricature, the husband has specialist skill (the greater capacity for violence) and knowledge (the cartel) so he is able to assume the position of authority. A partner should have authority in matters of safety. That is one example. A woman who disagrees with authority or refuses to submit would go to the beach anyway and the husband would have to risk …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 09:31 AM
-2

All of what you say here is true. But if it is the case that men are stronger physically, does that not demand that he has greater responsibility over a decision that might impose a risk on her safety? With great power comes great responsibility right? If he has a greater capacity for protection he has greater power over decisions involving protection. If he has greater power over protection he has authority.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 09:25 AM
1

You didn't ask a question lol
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 09:20 AM
-3

You haven't answered the question. The man makes the final decision and the woman submits. Has something wrong happened here?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 09:15 AM
-7

Copying from a different reply. A wife and her husband are on a holiday in a remote part of Mexico. One evening the wife says to her husband, "hey lets go to the beach at night, I want to dance in my bikini under the moon with you". The husband replies "no I don't think that's a good idea. The locals said to not visit the beach at night because sometimes the cartel kidnap tourists from there." "Aww" she complains, "but I really want to go, we will be quiet, nobody will even see us". "No" he reto…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 09:14 AM
-7

A wife and her husband are on a holiday in a remote part of Mexico. One evening the wife says to her husband, "hey lets go to the beach at night, I want to dance in my bikini under the moon with you". The husband replies "no I don't think that's a good idea. The locals said to not visit the beach at night because sometimes the cartel kidnap tourists from there." "Aww" she complains, "but I really want to go, we will be quiet, nobody will even see us". "No" he retorts" I want to protect you and k…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 09:11 AM
-7

Submissive - "inclined or ready to submit or yield to the authority of another" I think "not inclined to fight you over your authority" is exactly what it means. Where in that definition does it say you can't respectfully disagree or question a decision? I would agree with your position if OP only said "submissive" or "completely submissive" but they added context with "agreeable" which to me suggests someone who is more passive, soft, demure with their confrontation against authority.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 08:56 AM
-7

Genuinely, I have no idea what you are talking about. If someone asked me to describe submissive/agreeable I would imagine a person who is inclined to not fight you over your authority or your decisions. What does it mean to you?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 07:16 AM
-14

You are conflating two terms that are intentionally bunched in the same category to make your argument. This is an obvious straw-man. OP said agreeable/submissive, likely meaning, don't be a "bad bitch". Don't be a "I don't need no man" feminist. Don't be aggressive and combative. Is that asking for much?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 06:31 AM
5

Men who are looking to invest into you for the long term will value your virginity. Men who are looking to hookup will not value your virginity because they want to pump and dump but sex with you requires "teaching", so they look elsewhere.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/24 05:51 AM
17

It isn't that women don't want men who are emotionally intelligent and have relationship skills. Men are not saying that. What men are saying is that those qualities are not enough by themselves to attract a partner. There are men who have emotional intelligence and relationship skills who you would never date. So the obvious question instead is what are the traits that actually make you attractive. What are the traits that allow you to get into a relationship to express those other qualities li…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/24 05:46 AM
1

Basically yes, it helps to get your foot in the door.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/24 05:12 PM
2

The Halo effect is an error in reasoning in which an impression formed from a single trait or characteristic is allowed to influence multiple judgments or ratings of unrelated factors. Getting a positive reaction from a cold approach might actually be informed on something as trivial as height. Could also be a persons car, their facial attractiveness, etc. Basically the psychology goes something like this: "oh he's a bit awkward, but he's tall, so he's probably being nice". Someone with identica…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/24 05:07 PM
3

The entire premise against cold approach as a successful strategy is that it is heavily skewed towards shallow traits that inform attraction based on first impressions. Height is positively correlated to attraction in first impressions. Thats why it is so heavily idealised on dating apps.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/24 04:57 PM
1

My guy you is 6"4.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/24 04:49 PM
-1

Every woman I have ever known who has said "men will fuck anything" has had multiple sex toys or has used a shower-head, cucumber, or hair-comb to masturbate. Honestly seems like projection to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/24 02:33 PM
11

And just a reminder, these studies do not reveal the age of the subjects, they just present their appearance. Men are attracted to youth and beauty, those things just happen to most often coincide with the 20-24 bracket.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/24 05:28 AM
1

Is there a r/womenwritingmen lol?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/24 05:23 AM
1

To be clear, I'm not making the argument that it's not worth it to try. I do however think you have abandoned your position and made a very black pill claim. What you have suggested is that to a large extent the quality of your future partner is predetermined because her attraction to you is limited by your genetic potential. Since Chads have the best genetic potential they are considered the most desirable mates and therefore have access to the greatest variety of partners. The average men with…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/24 08:24 PM
1

Two men decide to go to the gym. The first man has incredible genetics for muscle building, more baseline testosterone, and has aesthetic, symmetrical muscular insertions. The second man has inferior muscle building genetics, lower testosterone and has unaesthetic, asymmetrical muscular insertions. Both men invest 2 years into the gym. Both men have the same routine, they put in the same effort, eat the same food, have the same sleep. At the end of the 2 years the first man has gained 24lbs of m…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/24 07:04 PM
2

We mostly agree but there is value in someone expressing themselves about being proud of their achievements. I'm not saying its okay to gloat and relish in your success and always seek approval. But people should be proud to overcome whatever addiction, to be grateful for their progress. Whenever someone talks about the hardship they overcome I try to be extra considerate and congratulatory. It's fair that you might not want to listen, that you might not care, but it means a lot to a lot of peop…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/24 08:53 AM
1

Lol wtf. I'm not saying women are prizes to be won. The punishment is negative reception, the reward is positive reception. It sucks that a guy who has worked very hard to get where he is can't proudly express himself without drawing negative reception. The guy that doesn't work hard but got his attractive traits from his genetics gets rewarded for it. That's not very fair. Not that it's wrong, just unfortunate lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/24 08:16 AM
1

This point is mute. A man born with attractive traits is considered attractive. He may have put in no effort. If attraction was relative to effort this would not be the case.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/24 07:33 AM
2

Is it fair to punish someone for being proud and wanting to express the effort they put into themselves? Is it fair to reward the man who was born attractive and doesn't put in as much effort so feels no need to flex?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/24 07:05 AM
2

I think the premise is more like this: appearance is 80-90% of what men look for when evaluating a woman. The other 10-20% are personality traits like kindness, empathy, politeness, loyalty, etc. Women investing deeply into appearance is logical because it reflects mens preferences. Men are judged by far more aspects like competence, income, social standing, charisma, but appearance is also judged very harshly. The complaint is that women are harsh judges of the appearance of men even though it …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/24 06:52 AM
–

The advice for Red Pillers is "enjoy the decline". It advises men to have their own hedonistic adventure while the marketplace crumbles. It's only hypocritical if you attempt to justify why it isn't wrong. "Enjoy the decline" is not denying that it's wrong. It's just conceding that there is nothing you can do to stop it.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/24 05:09 AM
1

Nothing you have said disputes anything I have said. I would need to assume that you therefore agree with me and believe that most modern women are accurately perceived as less valuable in the sexual marketplace because of their promiscuous sexual histories.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/24 04:40 AM
–

True, thats why moral convictions are important. A girl who is enthusiastic about sex will probably want to please all of her boyfriends for no nefarious purpose other than the desire to make him feel good. Thats why a religious dogma that pushes against premarital sex is good for society, it helps protect the consequence of women's biology from the consequences of mens biology.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/24 04:37 AM
–

Nothing about what you are saying is wrong. I would completely expect a virgin to be "bad" at sex and require "teaching". Also, I would completely expect a woman with a high bodycount to have better sex the first time than someone who has no sex. All true. But thats where it ends. A woman with a high bodycount is good at first time sex because thats exactly what she has practiced doing. For her to be amazing at sex she will need practice and "teaching" anyway because I have specific desires and …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/24 04:29 AM
3

Good on you for having the self respect to stick to your convictions. To answer the question, a sexually attractive woman who is a virgin is more desirable than a sexually attractive woman who is a slut because her sexuality is perceived to be more valuable when its more difficult to obtain. Same thing applies to men but the inverse, a mans commitment is more valuable if lots of women want it, but not many women get it. A man who gives away his commitment freely is a sugardaddy or an onlyfans su…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/24 06:43 PM
–

Would you prefer your husband proposed to 10 women before you, or just you? If you said you prefer it was just you, why? Do you not want him to have more experience in proposing? Are you insecure?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/24 05:44 PM
–

Sure. But you learn best how to please your partner by learning to please your partner, not by learning how to please 20 different random guys who all have different bodies and liked different things. The only important thing is that you are open to new experiences with your man, that you are enthusiastic with trying new things and feel comfortable communicating your and his preferences with him. Women seeking to justify a high body count by saying "men like experienced women" is cope. A high bo…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/24 05:41 PM
–

Why would I want my woman to have "experience" in giving footjobs if I personally don't have a foot fetish? Why would I want my woman to have "experience" in taking two dicks at the same time if I have no interest in a MMF threesome? Why would I want my woman to have "experience" shitting on peoples chest if I'm not into scat? You get the idea. A woman who is "good at sex" because she has fucked lots of guys is only good at fucking a lot of different types of guys. Her "experiences" don't benefi…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/24 12:17 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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