TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

PoopInMyBottom Archive

View 4 posts and 2,834 comments by PoopInMyBottom on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 2,834 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Weak response.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/17 12:55 AM
1

Are you trolling? This is elementary school mathematics.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 11:18 PM
3

That's not the reason. Aids is considerably more dangerous than gonnhorea and transfusions carry a 100% infection probability.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 06:47 AM
1

Yes? Secondary transfer is much less likely. We don't live in 1900.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 05:51 AM
6

No shit. The reason they put eye drops in infants' eyes is still pretty clearly due to mothers who lie.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 05:50 AM
1

It means there's almost certainly some, but how much is a different question entirely. Exactly. How much? I'm going to guess it's about the same amount as when the same situation happened last time. Probably more, because there is a higher level of anonymity. Which is it? Do they exist and show these guys crashing and burning? Or do they not exist at all? It was a typo. I meant none of the prominent pickup artists did it. Some less famous PUAs did it, and they came across as extremely autistic. …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 05:48 AM
1

Men cheating is clearly not why they changed the law.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 04:45 AM
1

...no it isn't. 49 men with two partners, one with one (as he hooks up with n50, then pairs up with her too). 49 women with one partner, one with 50. (2 * 49 + 1) / 50 = 1.98. Men have a mean of 1.98 partners. (1 * 49 + 50) / 50 = 1.98. Women also have a mean of 1.98 partners. It would appear in this situation sex is a zero-sum game, at least according to your (wrong) definition.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 03:08 AM
0

I pointed out your aversion to being percieved as creepy to illustrate that even though you are anonymous, you are still bothered by it. I'm not trying to discredit you, I'm trying to demonstrate an example of my elementary assertion about human nature being true. 3/4 of your "reasons" would be improved by not being creepy. I think you've forgotten your previous position because you're more interested in finding a way to respond to immediate arguments. I don't think you're looking for the most r…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 02:55 AM
1

I don't think anyone has contested that the advice "stop supplicating" is good advice. That they accurately observe some basic rules of social interaction doesn't mean they aren't creepy. RPers are consistently much more cringeworthy than Blue Pillers on this subreddit.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 02:36 AM
0

They both contain the vital element that encourages bullshitting: anonymous field reports about "how I attract women" with no requirement for proof. In fact, TRP is more anonymous as the men there don't do seminars. That seems beyond obvious, you're being deliberately obtuse asking me to spell it out for you. The primary revelation of infield was that no PUA was willing to film it. Not one. Neil Strauss wouldn't, Gambler wouldn't, David Deangelo wouldn't, Carlos Xuma wouldn't, DJ Fugi wouldn't. …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 02:30 AM
1

If they didn't care about the perception of people in a forum, why would they be on there in the first place? Why do they try so hard to persuade people? Obviously they do. Watch how people act. Not what they say. People aren't robots. They work the way they work. We don't like being percieved as creepy. Which, as a side note, is part of the reason you are so invested in defending yourself from the accusation. Edit: by the way, wasn't it me that started you off with the phrase ham-fisted? I'm pr…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 01:54 AM
2

Their internet posts are all we have to go on. They are probably creepy in real life too, but we can't assess that, can we? I think regardless of the medium, being creepy reveals a lack of social acuity. Whether they openly discuss sexual theory IRL doesn't change that.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 01:30 AM
2

Women are repulsed by creepiness. Guys who get laid purge creepiness from their vocabulary like the plague. Being creepy is a sure sign you don't actually know how to get laid.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 01:27 AM
2

Yes yes, clearly women absolutely cannot be at fault in this situation. It's wildly more likely to come about as a result of the woman's infidelity.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 01:18 AM
0

Every time I expand my argument, your hypotheticals become more and more convoluted to try and circumvent the criticisms. "Well maybe this particular person is motivated by this long-winded and bizarre reason that's different from the obvious explanation." Maybe. I doubt it. I doubt more that all of them are like that. I think if a bunch of men are consistently creepy, it's because they have poor social acuity. You clearly aren't going to admit when I've made a good point though so there's not m…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 01:10 AM
0

You assume wrong. When infield footage became standard fair, almost every PUA was exposed as talking shit. Watch some of their infield. They are unbelievably autistic. TRP does not "directly mirror" the PUA community. It mirrors it enough for this criticism to be absolutely applicable. You are acting like a religious person defending a sacred cow. The similarities are clearly relevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 12:53 AM
0

No, that's not true. When you're trying to be persuasive (for example, on a debate board), it's obvious that being creepy is a drawback. Look, any man even mildly good with women knows how to phrase an argument without it sounding creepy. It will be his default mode, since it's how he talks all the time. He'll also generally feel disgust towards himself when he uses creepy language, as the empathy circuit is what we use to mediate that behaviour. Creepy shit will fire it off, and make him feel b…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 12:48 AM
1

To be clear, you're telling me that there is no indication that this community, which directly mirrors a prior community that was outed as being made up of almost entirely bullshit artists, contains bullshit artists? Are you kidding me? Do you believe the stories about people being the victims of hate crimes from Trump supporters? What percentage of them do you believe? I hope it's at least 50% of them. You have no evidence they are lying
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 12:35 AM
0

This is a cop out. The vast majority of creepiness eminating from RPers is clearly not intentional.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 12:32 AM
3

Uncomfortable is a broader category than "creeped out." Creeped out is a fairly specific feeling. I think you're trying to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. Of course RPers being unintentionally creepy has no impact on the how true TRP is. It has implications. It reveals that TRP is less accurate than you believe it to be.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 12:30 AM
1

Details please
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/17 12:27 AM
0

I just defined it. The fact you can't identify when you will create that response is the point.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 11:25 PM
2

Both of you are autistic as hell but RPers are considerably worse.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 10:56 PM
3

It's the medicalisation of it that is creepy, not how explicit it is. "Fertile" gives people the impression you view women as laboratory animals. You probably don't, but that's why it's creepy.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 10:54 PM
2

Actually I guess he may have been. His comments are pretty messy.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 10:53 PM
3

No, it tells them not to be creepy, and it does so very occasionally. It doesn't seem to be particularly effective in actually making them not creepy.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 10:52 PM
0

Something that induces a feeling of being "creeped out." Trying to define an instinctive response with a formal category is not useful.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 10:51 PM
1

lmao
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 08:55 PM
1

And as if it needs to be stated, fluffy happy BS is much easier to filter through once you clock the basic human desire for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 08:54 PM
0

not every TRP man has trouble getting women. Really? Because I don't see any actual evidence. All I see are "field reports." When the PUA community was unmasked in 2006, it came to light that the vast majority of PUAs were sham artists - but boy could they write a field report. Don't trust written stories. TRP has zero standards for actual proof. There is only one result when those standards don't exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 08:48 PM
5

Except it actually does sound creepy. Pointing out that Red Pill dudes are often exceptionally creepy is actually a pretty strong argument against the idea that RPers are masters with women. It highlights the fact they obviously don't understand the emotional effect they are creating. Women are repulsed by creepiness. Guys who get laid purge creepiness from their vocabulary like the plague. Being creepy is a sure sign you don't actually know how to get laid. "You sound creepy" is a lazy argument…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 08:32 PM
1

Yes. Because you seem not to understand the standard male experience and "hands off the merchandise" is a shitty joke women use. Perhaps it's because you live in Latin America? From what I understand, girls there are considerably more sexually aggressive.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 08:29 PM
1

He's talking about slut tells that TRP teaches to him. He's an idiot, but I don't think that's contradictory. Most men struggle to pick up on those cues, and when they do they don't assume promiscuity will lead to unfaithfulness.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 08:27 PM
2

I'm telling you explicitly, I don't think you understand what the male experience is like.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 06:41 PM
2

You think that drunk partying makes getting laid easy?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 06:29 PM
2

That figure is beyond wrong, but that logic wouldn't make sense even if it were right. There are people earning $200,000 per year - doesn't mean it rains from the sky. The vast majority of them have to work extremely hard for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 06:25 PM
1

Jesus my butthole just went inside itself
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 06:17 PM
1

I don't see how that follows. The Alpha was bucked for the Beta.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 06:14 PM
3

Men who have no trouble getting laid are not even slightly common. I think you are overestimating how easy it is even for successful dudes.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 06:12 PM
2

Where does he say that?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 06:10 PM
1

I think the male faces exhibit a big progression, but the female faces... Well, they don't get much more "female" as they progress. They look different, but none of them seem particularly feminine.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 06:09 PM
1

Mmm, I like the foundations that theory sets out. It has an off smell to me but I think a good explanation probably comes from that direction.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 06:08 PM
1

The problem is, TRP has baggage attached to it and you can't tell the difference. Consider this argument: 'Jenny is the only girl who is hot and smart. Yes, Jenny is a crazy bitch who will screw up your life and make you believe things that aren't true, but so what? Saying "you can get pussy elsewhere" is meaningless.' See the problem? Jenny is not the only girl who is hot and smart - she's just the only one you know. She's the hot and smart girl who is easiest to find, largely because she's a b…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 05:20 PM
1

No. This is extremely clearly Alpha Bucks, Beta Fucks. He's more loyal to the less attractive partner who bought him with resources.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 05:13 PM
7

Also casual sex for many men is not that hard. You... Don't know much about being a man, do you?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 05:11 PM
3

That's not what he said. He said, "Unlike men, women who date high-risk men often go into it knowing the risks. They accept those risks, versus men who are unaware of them." Don't be obtuse.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 05:10 PM
1

You misspelt "good point."
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 01:46 AM
1

No it doesn't? Outliers don't determine standard deviation. I get the feeling you might be statistically illiterate? It's fine. Statistics are hard to grasp. You need a good brain on your shoulders to get it.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 12:48 AM
3

It's not a compliment. Men are fucking dumb. Men who knowingly marry gold diggers are usually pretty honest about what they want.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 12:42 AM
5

Why are you typing like a cartoon rancher? We don't marry women we think are bitches. Many men are just terrible at identifying when a girl is a bitch.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 12:19 AM
2

As many other people have said, the difference is that men tend to be honest about it. It's also worth noting her being a bitch doesn't make her attractive. She can just get away with it. On the other hand, a minority of women are actively attracted to asshole behaviour.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 12:15 AM
2

I liked fantasising about women taking responsibility from me and fucking me when I was a teenager. It was more that it mirrored situations I saw in my real life than anything else. Teacher-student etc. I never actually liked milfs. I just liked the situation.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 12:11 AM
1

I'll take that as a "yes," then.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 12:08 AM
1

Are you aware that we use standard deviation to measure variance?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 12:08 AM
1

Do you understand the concept of standard deviation?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/17 12:03 AM
1

Both of those define it as abnormal. Are you even trying?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 11:38 PM
1

...the Oxford English dictionary is the gold standard of all dictionaries but even by your own definition (which is bizarre, which I've never heard anyone use, and isn't even what it says on that website) you are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 11:33 PM
1

Lmao what the fuck are you talking about? "Fetish" is specifically defined as an abnormal attraction.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 10:47 PM
1

Sore loser?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 10:42 PM
3

It's still an interesting finding that development level may correlate with people's preference for gendered faces. I would have thought it was the opposite. Then again, not sure how robust the results were. Doesn't seem like they tested a lot of societies.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 09:40 PM
1

I would say he is categorically winning, primarily because you haven't begun to demonstrate that men are interested in a wider range than women. He provided around 30 examples. You mentioned... Fetishes? Fetishes tend to be for things like latex boots. Traditionally attractive women wearing latex boots. You're telling me the outlier of BBW is your argument? Seriously?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 09:25 PM
10

This is what the "neutral" faces looked like (middle image). They are both still clearly gendered faces. Even the least sex-typical faces are still gendered. Edit: and in none of the societies did the majority prefer the least gendered face. It never even exceeded 40%, except for one obvious outlier.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 09:13 PM
1

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/05/22/09/Ed-Sheeran-Rex.jpg /thread
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 09:11 PM
3

For what it's worth, in the only arguments I've ever seen between you and /u/BiggerDthanYou he destroyed you.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 09:10 PM
1

Probably because the documentary lied to you to create a more sensationalist story. BBW porn is not at all popular. I don't even remember the last time I saw BBW shit on my adventures.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 09:07 PM
3

Maybe all these men are lying about not understanding it. It's an autistic conspiracy
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 09:06 PM
5

Because they will be demonised for it by people like you, and they don't actually like the part where he mistreats her so they don't want to encourage it. Why do you think?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 09:02 PM
0

I'll take it as an "I'm desperate to salvage a win from this argument even though I was wrong," then.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 08:52 PM
6

Sorry, but how does this prove this is a new habit? It only seems to demonstrate the preference is more exaggerated in wealthy societies. Poor societies still have it. It also focussed exclusively on the face. You're telling me Roman men didn't like tits?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 08:45 PM
0

I'll take that as a "you're right."
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 08:42 PM
0

...so they pull punches. That's not the only reason at all but I don't need to argue the point. Sounds like pulling punches to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 08:33 PM
0

So to be clear, they are pulling punches?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 07:57 PM
1

There is a diffence between disliking a group and being a vocal activist in a group devoted to criticising them. You keep creating hypotheticals that represent the first category, not the second.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 07:48 PM
1

Well, yeah. They're dishonest and they are bullies. You have issues with bullies and you have issues with people who try to decieve others. Of course you will be angry with them.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 07:40 PM
1

You were triggered by me saying "most". Would you mind quoting this? I don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean the part of the discussion when we were talking about most MRAs? Uh huh. Sure. What about if it's a question raised in a debate sub you frequent? If this is the only time you've ever mentioned it, that doesn't really count as a "vocal supporter," does it? You're deliberately not addressing the meat of my points dude.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 07:37 PM
1

Ok. Still not the majority. When did I say it was the majority? I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. This was my original assertion: "The most vocal activists for any social cause that singles out a particular group as predatory are generally vocal because they have resentment issues towards that group." But clearly you would have issues with black people as evidenced by you complaining about that one specifically who hurt you? No, seeking out a discussion titled "should black people who s…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 07:10 PM
1

Uh, maybe yours can't. Most people can recognize that movies aren't real. Yes, obviously the cognitive brain can. Our subconscious does not differentiate. Are people 100% aware on every level that horror movies are not real? Of course not, or they wouldn't be scared. Yeah it's pretty shitty by the looks of it. Does it make you really, really angry like men's issues do? I doubt it. It probably makes you feel empathetic and sad. The morality of famine doesn't come up for discussion much since it's…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 07:03 PM
1

I disagree. Feminism is the Orthodox gender movement. So what? There are a very significant number of people who agree with MRAs, but don't invest themselves in the movement. This is like saying quiet atheists don't exist because Christianity is the dominant religion. Would it be fair to say then that you hate all black people? No, but this act will probably instill resentment towards black people. If you begin bitterly complaining about violent black people, that is a good indication that it di…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 06:59 PM
2

Why? You've never met them. Functionally, yes you have. Our brain can't differentiate between movie characters and people we know. I have never faced famine. I still think it's horrible when others do. Really? Because you seem to spend your time online complaining about female bullies, not famine. Although they aren't really comparable. There's no group being demonised in discussions about famine.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 06:52 PM
1

Given the fact you have artfully shifted to a literal interpretation of the phrase "pulling punches," I guess I'll have to respond to that. When men fight, do they tend to go for each others' balls, or is there an unwritten rule that you avoid that area? Why do you think that is?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 06:47 PM
3

Thing is most people are blind to men's issues unless they face them personally. I dunno man. A lot of people are, but a lot of people who don't personally face those issues are aware of them. They just aren't motivated towards activism. It's the same with feminists. A lot of people agree with feminists, but it's only capital F Feminists who march down the street with angry signs shouting about men. But I wouldn't say the majority have issues with women, but rather with specific women and a soci…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 06:43 PM
3

Did you even read the article? There's literally a video of two cocks fighting which illustrates how they hold back. This is a well-established fact in Zoology. Even when animals fight, they tend to hold back. As soon as you put the other animal at risk of death, he has a reason to do considerable damage to you in his defense. Did you even know about this phenomenon before I sent you that article? If not, would it be worth investigating it more before you turn this into an ego battle?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 05:04 PM
2

Are you implying the majority of men who are heavily involved in Men's Rights don't have issues with women? The majority are clearly motivated by having been fucked over by women. I think those are bad things and I like that MRAs are exposing them. I'm also perceptive enough to realise the vast majority of MRAs clearly have issues. The same goes for feminists. The same goes for any activist group that is based around anger.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 04:58 PM
3

Again, you're being a sophist. When a movie introduces you to a villain, it's normal to feel good when they die. Functionally, you may as well know them. People who regularly fantasize about hurting Nazis in their day-to-day life probably have personal issues with Nazis. I think I made that clear in my last post. You of all people should not be missing the point intentionally. I never said it makes you sick or a "weirdo." I have issues with bullies. I'm just honest enough to admit where they cam…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 04:54 PM
3

Yes, I agree. It's obvious virtue signalling.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 04:37 PM
1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agonistic_behaviour Agonistic behaviour is any social behaviour related to fighting. The term has broader meaning than aggressive behaviour because it includes threats, displays, retreats, placation, and conciliation. [...] Actual fighting in contests is rare because of the risk of injury to both participants. It is most likely to occur when individuals are similarly sized, or when the contested resource is essential for reproduction or survival. The full article ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 04:26 PM
2

I was being sarcastic. I'm pointing out the contradiction between saying "looks are the only thing that matter" and "status matters, but not as much as looks"
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 04:03 PM
1

Oh yeah I think that style looks gimp on pretty much everyone
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 03:59 PM
3

Yes. For status to matter, you have to have zero looks. Even a level one looks-man will beat you.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 03:57 PM
1

I just googled long hair nerd and he was perfect.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 03:55 PM
2

I think your risk can be functionally reduced to zero. It just takes a lot of preparation. You have to learn to recognise the signs which isn't exactly easy but that's that. The hurdle has to be hurdled. I don't think we really have a choice.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 03:55 PM
3

Long hair requires a lot of care or it ends up looking like this. Nobody looks good with a cut like that. Most men who grow their hair out don't take care of it. Honestly, I think that's the main reason men with short hair look better.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 03:52 PM
3

I think that's a sophistic example. People who independently fantasize about bullies they have never met getting their comeuppance generally have resentment issues towards bullies. People who enjoy watching a bully that's been introduced to them by a movie get his comeuppance are probably just normal. Although you can normally tell someone with issues around the subject by how far they go with their gleeful reaction. Yes, fantasising about getting revenge on someone you've never met is irrationa…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 03:49 PM
2

It doesn't matter if I have the right or not. If you're in that situation, you've already lost. I think a smart man is gone by the first hint he might end up there.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 03:31 PM
1

No, I am suggesting cheating is difficult when you live in a feudal society where the vast majority of the population are peasants who have to work 18 hours a day to survive. They literally don't have the opportunity. The small amount of time they have to procreate, they are in bed with their husbands.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 03:27 PM
2

Pretty sure I explicitly said it was a good thing our society keeps those impulses at bay.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 03:25 PM
1

This confirms women accurately perceive traits. It does not confirm they are all into the same traits.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 03:20 PM
2

I think this may just be that long hair makes a lot of guys look like fucking nerds.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 03:19 PM
5

The most vocal activists for any social cause that singles out a particular group as predatory are generally vocal because they have resentment issues towards that group. Sure, there are some people who just dislike unfairness, but they don't tend to take glee in the revenge aspect. People who don't like bullies rail against bullies because they have resentment issues towards bullies. The kind of guys who primarily rail against women probably have resentment issues towards women. Or at least, fe…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 03:03 PM
2

I don't think what you said is a contradiction. Both of you are correct.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 02:58 PM
3

This question really highlights the difference between the reds and the bloops on this board. Didn't think so many bloops were pacifists.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 02:57 PM
6

I think this is the correct answer. I don't really like the idea of a dude beating up a girl although if she starts shit, go ahead I guess. But there's no way in hell I'd put myself in that situation. Not worth it.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 02:55 PM
3

Males of most species tend to pull punches, because of the risk of mutually assured destruction. They fight to see who's stronger, then they stop. Humans are the same. We usually only go all-out when the consequences of losing look worse than the consequences of going all-out.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 02:52 PM
11

No, it's the difference between anyone on enough adrenaline and a normal person in a normal state. Nobody is a superhuman. Anyone is capable of seeing red with enough hormones coursing through their body. We just live in a cushy society that thankfully keeps that (mostly) at bay.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 02:46 PM
2

A punch in the face. Probably a hard one. Edit: this isn't a facetious answer. I think that would be about the maximum response which is appropriate.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 02:44 PM
1

I didn't say they wouldn't have wanted it. But what actual chances would they have had?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 02:38 PM
1

Risky =/= high digits.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/17 03:22 AM
1

Honestly, I think in the vast majority of the cases it is deliberate. In order to lead someone on over any significant period of time, you have a better understanding of the situation than they do. And frankly, women have tremendous intuition. They know when a socially awkward guy is into them. I think a lot of women push it to the back of their minds, but it's the same as a CEO hiring a corrupt accountant and then deliberately not checking the books so he never formally knows about the fact the…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 01:54 PM
1

High sexual partners is often correlated with psychological problems and substance abuse among women. No, you've only demonstrated it is correlated with substance abuse. The second conclusion does not follow, as a very small number of women with mental problems substance abuse.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 01:50 PM
1

Oh come on. Most "nice guys" are social idiots who have been led on. They deify a woman, she happily obliges and accepts their favours with the vague implication that there's some progress he's making toward winning her over. Of course they rationalise that as them being "nice guys." It's easier than admitting the girl they thought was an angel is actually not all that nice. I don't know why the nice guy discussion is so devoid of that rather large swathe of "nice guy" situations. I really don't…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 06:19 AM
3

You aren't entitled to anything, but leading someone on is shitty. I honestly don't think it needs to be more complicated than that. Some women lead men on. Some men lead women on. Most of the time, "asshole men" and "women exploiting nice guys" are in fact leading someone on. They're both shitheads.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 06:15 AM
2

I dunno. I think it's much less exaggerated than people think. In Christian agricultural society, what chance would you actually have to have an affair?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 06:11 AM
2

You know, a significant part of that figure is explained by the fact only a certain number of men made it through the wars to father children. A significant percentage of men died in battle. In fact, if my maths are correct, one war where 40% of the men died in a population would create that marker in our DNA. I think that marker only represents the minimum diversity of the male gene pool.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 06:08 AM
1

So does that.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 06:04 AM
1

A more convincing way of making me seem naive would be to ask me some questions about TRP that expose my naivety. Being sarcastic just makes it read like I made a good point you can't respond to.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 04:33 AM
1

If the rhetoric is different to the actual idea, I would really question whether your forum is accurately discussing ideas. I think that's a cop-out to be honest.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/17 04:19 AM
1

I don't think that's true. Look at Stefan Molyneux. I'd call him an absolute God of manipulation, the guy is successfully running a cult. He still makes hairs stand up on the back of your neck. He creeps most normal people out, to be honest. Same with the guys in Scientology. Same with sham pastors. Shit, same with Obama. The only people who buy their act are idiots. Pop-culture has really overblown the "skill" of the "master psychopath." It's a myth that makes for better articles. Manipulation …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 10:40 PM
1

The fact they manipulate is the warning sign. It's not that they're good or bad, it's that they do it. The more someone manipulates, even well, the louder the alarm bells. Cluster B people are good at manipulating. That doesn't mean they're good at hiding it. They generally prey on weak (or rather, desperate) people because they're the only ones who are willing to play the game. One of the biggest problems with cluster B disorders is that the patient believes people don't pick up on the manipula…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 10:30 PM
1

So, to be clear: you know more than you ever want to know. But you still have to rely on N-count?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 10:28 PM
1

I'm not demanding anything. I'm saying if your fictional idea about how hard it is to read women is true, why aren't you training yourself? You're free not to. I want to know why you aren't.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 07:44 PM
1

You didn't answer my question. If that's the case, why aren't you training yourself?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 07:35 PM
1

Diagnosis was not the criteria. Awareness of a problem was. Although let's run with your suggestion. What is the logical solution? Continue using flawed measures, or go and study some clinical psychology?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 06:45 PM
1

Ryan Gosling makes it to the homepage of /r/gentlemanboners. Putin does not. Stop being obtuse.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 06:33 PM
1

Well the first method I use is observing the fact that women I actually know don't find him attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 06:23 PM
0

I think it's mostly to do with fatherhood risk. In the wild, if a woman sleeps with another man close to the time you sleep with her, there's less chance you're the father. The problem is, we then developed language and the ability to abstract from current promiscuity to historical promiscuity. A guy she slept with 10 years in the past triggers the same jealousy circuits, even though it's irrelevant. It's interesting, sexually inexperienced guys seem to care about chastity a lot more. I think th…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 06:08 PM
2

Have you seen Kim Jong Un's? He's a dictator. He will have attractive mistresses.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 05:21 PM
1

Usually it's a paper presentation. One of them used Google Drive though. It actually happens with all modern women. Didn't you know?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 05:09 PM
2

I would correct this to, "indications of the ability to hold status get you laid." Women don't trust status that seems unjustified. Nobody finds Kim Jong Un attractive. Putin is remarkably unnattractive to women considering he has a fairly solid body, reasonably good looks and an entire country behind him. It's the same reason being funny is attractive. It indicates the ability to climb the social ladder. IMO this has a lot of knock-on effects once you start applying it to getting laid. Among ot…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:42 PM
1

Good luck, lmao. People are motivated to join in the Gender War for selfish reasons. The reason Feminism and Men's Rights are popular is that a lot of people feel like they're being shafted. They get angry and protest about it. Feminism has the added bonus of being an opportunity to get laid, but the movements are basically motivated by anger. There just aren't that many people who are going to be motivated by taking action on behalf of both genders. There's no incentive for them. You're fightin…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:35 PM
1

You should develop a better work ethic. It will make you happier, you'll get further with it and it will stop you making yourself miserable by whining online.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:28 PM
0

I was pointing out that your proxy is insufficient. Sure, it's rare that a woman who's slept with 100 men is going to be a good pick for a stable relationship (although frankly, who knows. Maybe she's fine). That doesn't make N-count a reliable metric. Women with 100 partners are pretty rare. Women with 100 partners who will be honest about it are much rarer.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:26 PM
0

If you can't tell a woman has a personality disorder before you have sex with her, you need to develop your social intuition. That's a huge deficiency.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:24 PM
1

I think you might be approaching this different from the person I responded to initially. I disagree with that conclusion, but that seems like a healthy way to exercise it.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:23 PM
2

Yes you did. beta bux guys are the only ones left and are the only ones willing to overlook her past and commit "Obtuse" means "missing the point of an argument deliberately." I'm not name calling, I'm articulating the flaw in your argument in a flowery and offensive manner.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:22 PM
2

Thanks? I think I'm just better at verbalising it, to be honest. I don't think bloops are generally that good at putting their conclusions into a structured format, because they aren't autistically obsessed with it in the way me or Red Pill dudes are. I don't think this is that rare of a conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:20 PM
1

I actually met one girl who refused to sleep with me until I'd sat through a short powerpoint presentation about each of her prior partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:17 PM
2

Or maybe she sleeps with lots of men in order to narrow the playing field and find one she really likes. Or maybe she doesn't want to settle for a so-so relationship, so she doesn't date anybody until she finds a guy she really, really likes? You think a woman in that situation isn't going to be sexually frustrated?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:16 PM
1

No they aren't. You are just bad at reading them. Personality disorders are screamingly obvious once you actually develop social perception.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:14 PM
1

How many women do you meet? How quickly are these women giving you honest answers about how many men they've slept with? Come on man, are you actually using this as a filtering mechanism? I don't buy it.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:13 PM
1

You're the service professional. If they want to get out of the store, guess what? You let them. They want to pack their own bags? You let them, end of. You're in the wrong. You're their bitch, and you're inconveniencing them. Your job is not to do that. If they want to be nice to you? Be grateful. Grow up, Jesus.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:11 PM
2

N-count is an abstract measure. Stop being obtuse.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:09 PM
1

So you'd rather be alone than compromise. Well, (according to your value structure), that decision is your adaption. There's no point being angry about it. What's the point in loudly complaining as you leave the room? What's the point in being resistant? Pick the best course of action, and run with it. Why wallow in negative emotion?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:07 PM
3

Ding ding ding. They are also cherry picked, which nobody ever seems to point out.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:03 PM
3

I think you have a strange conception of how most men filter their partners. Most quality men filter their partners by intelligence, looks and general personality. They don't take abstract measures into account.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:01 PM
1

Variances are almost always high in any statistical measure. It's actually pretty rare for any measure to have low variance. When studies like this produce wildly variant outcomes and the studies which show a trend produce bumpy trends, it indicates the variance is high. When no researcher ever investigates that variance, it indicates the variance would undermine their results. Perhaps it's a low variance. And perhaps you should buy a property in Alaska because it might have Oil under it. Perhap…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 03:54 PM
2

This such a sophistic response. Them being correlated (very weakly, I might add) doesn't mean anything about whether or not they are harmful. Rape corrrelates with strong emotions. Does that mean strong emotions are bad?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 03:49 PM
2

Have you ever seen that N-count chart that is floating around? I tried to find it, but I can't. Here's another, less cherry-picked chart which will do for now. It's notable that, on this chart, more sexual partners is actually a positive. But that's not what I want to point out. Have a look at the averages. Notice how these bar charts are always bumpy? There is a high variance in the averages themselves. That indicates there is probably a high variance in the data. We don't know, because the peo…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 03:43 PM
3

It's abundantly clear. Anyone who actually knows women understands that they sleep with men for hundreds of different reasons. The biggest reason is just plain circumstance. Women who are extraverted sleep with more men independent of their other metrics. None of the "N-count" studies I have seen ever assess variance, because they are performed by shit researchers who don't understand statistics. It's on you guys to demonstrate the variance is narrow. Two things need to be proven in an indicator…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 03:18 PM
1

Or, you know, they like sex. Perhaps they sleep with lots of men because they want to be absolutely sure they've found the one they like once they actually find him? That type of woman would be a much better option than a low N-count woman. Your filtering mechanism in that case would actually be filtering out the best matches.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 03:14 PM
1

I don't think women are that good at hiding their crazy. I think guys are just bad at picking up on it. I used to be absolutely blind to that kind of stuff, but I practiced for a few years and honed my instincts. Now, crazy screams at me like a megaphone. I don't have much trouble seeing it at this point. I pick up a girl's vibe in the first 30 seconds, and it's not often that they do something later that takes me aback. Girls are the same. Unless you are funny, it takes them like 30 seconds to …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 03:10 PM
3

It is an unreliable proxy. It's an incredibly unreliable proxy. The predictive power is low because the variance is so high. If you really need a formal way to assess psychological traits, read the literature then apply psychometric tests. It's so much more reliable. Although you shouldn't need to do that unless you are autistic - most of us have strong instincts, provided you learn to hone them.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 03:04 PM
1

The world is hard to change. It's much easier to adapt to it. Why take the difficult route?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 03:03 PM
2

Yes it does. It entirely depends on the variance. If the variance is high (which it is), you need hundreds of options before it becomes useful. You also have no idea whether there are multiple clusters of data. It could be that all virgins are of average reliability, while slutty women vary massively. That would mean the best women all have high N-counts.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 02:47 PM
0

Let's say the 100-man woman seems relaxed, kind, smart and she likes you. The 1-man woman is also relaxed, kind, smart and she likes you. But the 1-man woman also dated a man for 10 years and he broke up with her for being manipulative and possessive. She claims she never cheated and only has one partner. Are the probabilities the same, or do they change?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 02:45 PM
1

You're attacking the metaphor rather than the idea it represents. I don't think this is a productive response. "It's pointless to get angry about it" was clearly my point. If the world doesn't want your skillset, the world doesn't want your skillset. That is that.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 02:42 PM
1

But you aren't comparing both. Read the rhetoric on TRP. It claims you should always drop high N-count women, no matter what.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 02:38 PM
1

Those things sound like people who are being nice or in a hurry, to be honest. Yes, it's a persecution complex.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 02:37 PM
2

I don't want a subservient wife or an aggressive wife. I want a wife who has control over her emotions. Both of those things indicate a lack of control. Aggressive women aren't unattractive because they are confident. They are unattractive because they are unstable.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:49 AM
1

This isn't how language works at all. MGTOW means more than "men who are different." Words have context. You can't strip away the context and push people into boxes. Yes, technically I suppose they are MGTOW. Obviously. So what? They obviously aren't MGTOWs. This is such an unproductive question to ask.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:44 AM
1

Because you don't have any option. The market is what the market is. If there are no cows for sale and you have to buy a sheep, then you have to buy a sheep. There's no point getting angry about it. It doesn't matter how many years you've put in preparing to raise a cow. The world is how the world is. Adapt, or lose.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:40 AM
2

Based on how you write, I think the more probably explanation is that you are imagining this behaviour because you have a persecution complex.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:36 AM
1

Yes, I think her status was a factor. But I wouldn't discount the importance of intelligence. JK Rowling comes across as a genius to some people. There are some women who are 10 years older than me who I find attractive because they are brutally smart. I don't think it's "ambition" or anything like that. I think it's ability. I know some super ambitious chicks who are dumb as rocks and they are not attractive at all. Humans have evolved to sacrifice a lot in the pursuit of a big brain. It's not …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:30 AM
19

What are you measuring with N-count? It indicates certain personality traits, right? That's why it's bad. Well, why not just measure those things directly? Does a high N-count indicate she might be borderline? Check directly whether she is borderline. It indicates she's unstable? Check directly whether she is stable. Does it indicate she will have trouble bonding? Check directly how well she bonds to people. It's a bad metric because it doesn't mean anything. It's a proxy for other traits, and i…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:19 AM
2

I think that's some of them, but anonymity is a big part of it. Men will be more honest about their preferences here than IRL. To be honest, any discussion on this board doesn't translate to discussion in wider society.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/17 04:09 AM
2

I know. I was pointing out that comparing data from this article is not a good idea. As presented, it's not reliable. It's too abstract.
/r/MensRights08/01/17 03:51 AM
1

Oh stop being such a pedantic turbo redditor. Yes, I know gay men. They are fucking mild.
/r/MensRights07/01/17 10:30 PM
12

Well, yeah. Men don't escalate to that point, because of mutually assured destruction. They fight until they know who is stronger, then they stop. Be realistic, a guy who's in shape could kill another man if things escalated enough. Nobody wants that.
/r/MensRights07/01/17 05:29 PM
23

"TAP OUT, WHORE!"
/r/MensRights07/01/17 05:27 PM
1

When no men are involved and the women are lesbians. You can't automatically extend that to straight women. Gay people are stereotyped for a reason. Lesbians tend to be more aggressive than straight women. Gay men tend to be less aggressive than straight men. It's not a rule, but it's inevitably going to affect the rate of violence in their relationships.
/r/MensRights07/01/17 05:19 PM
2

Or gay men being more submissive and less aggressive than straight men. I don't think you can transfer it linearly.
/r/MensRights07/01/17 05:17 PM
3

That doesn't mean difference in sample size matters. That means all samples have to meet a minimum criteria of validity. If one group has 10,000 members and the other has 1 million, the difference is irrelevant. Both are large enough to be valid.
/r/MensRights07/01/17 05:14 PM
1

Huh? Differences in sample size mean the percentage is the only robust statistic. Percentage is a control for sample size, that's the point of it. It's only flawed if the sample size is either too small or too biased to be statistically valid.
/r/MensRights07/01/17 05:13 PM
57

Well it also says this: Psychological abuse has been reported as occurring at least one time by 24% to 90% of lesbians So I don't think it's exactly reliable data.
/r/MensRights07/01/17 05:10 PM
1

Aren't you a woman? Your experience isn't universal. I don't really believe that you've talked about this with other men to be honest. Who talks about this?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/16 01:40 AM
2

I think that is implicit within my original statement.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/16 01:37 AM
2

Normal growing up is evolutionary. If personality traits exist independent of your environment, they are by definition evolutionary.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/16 12:39 AM
1

No shit. I was hedging for the sake of politeness.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/16 12:37 AM
1

They don't need to identify the mechanism. The Gini Coefficient itself is causative, that's all you need to know.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/16 12:36 AM
2

if there's no attraction from the get go there's likely never be one That has not been my experience at all. The vast majority of girls I've slept with did not like me initially.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/16 12:34 AM
1

Good examples.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/16 12:33 AM
1

Woman's hour is a daily show on Radio 4 in the UK. It's one of the most popular shows on the radio. I sometimes catch it when I make a coffee mid-morning. I hate listen, it's awful.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/16 12:27 AM
1

Rejection.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/16 12:16 AM
3

I do and I literally do not give a shit. There's nothing wrong with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/16 12:12 AM
5

Women's hour is a live daily radio show in the UK. I listened to it live. I don't think it's available online but I guess it might be. Look for the 15th December episode.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/16 12:10 AM
4

Plenty of women do not grow out of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/16 12:09 AM
1

This is a very patronising response. I understand all that. You didn't answer my question.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/16 12:06 AM
1

We have evidence to show that is the case.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 01:55 PM
2

I never watched Drake and Josh, and I haven't seen doctor who for years. They were just examples off the top of my head. I figured you'd give clips. The only source I can find for the iCarly figure is this one from NPR. It's unsourced. Not sure I trust it to be honest, iCarly panders super hard to girls. 45% seems way too narrow.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 01:54 PM
1

Essentially, yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 01:43 PM
1

It makes the dominance heirarchy intraversible. Men on the bottom now can't compete. They have to become violent to stand a chance.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 01:08 PM
6

And other women sleep with them. So it works.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 01:06 PM
2

Have you ever tried to hit on a woman? Almost zero women show signs of attraction immediately. The vast majority of women don't start liking you until after you introduce yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 01:05 PM
3

I mean that acting like women experience things worse than men is a neon flashing red flag.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 01:03 PM
1

Sure, that's why I said "usually." The vast majority of anti-TRPers on here who actually post are pretty bad at arguing the case.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 01:01 PM
6

4 out of 5 of your examples are from Nickelodeon shows for girls. Boys don't watch iCarly and Victorious. The audience is mostly female. Any lessons from those shows are largely irrelevant. I don't think it's fair for me to pick out shows. You made the point, I think it's your responsibility to make sure your examples are robust. But let's go with Doctor Who and Drake and Josh.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 12:56 PM
19

I think the vast majority of direct advice that boys get about dating comes from feminists. They aren't exactly the types to acknowledge uncomfortable realities. In fact, I was just listening to woman's hour and they had a segment where they went into a school and talked to the boys about girls. They essentially told them not to be mischievous, not to misbehave in class, not to try and be providers, not to be tough and not to be masculine because girls didn't like any of that. They essentially t…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 12:47 PM
5

For what it's worth most of your examples of RP messages in the media are from shows that men just don't grow up watching. I don't know many boys who watch iCarly. Sex in the City has a lot of uncomfortable truths in it, but most men don't watch Sex in the City. I don't think they are good examples. You'd need to provide examples men are actually exposed to.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 12:20 PM
2

That's like saying you shouldn't apply for jobs unless you enjoy rejection. Nobody enjoys rejection. It's a cost that people are willing to endure. This is a very intellectually dishonest argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 12:06 PM
1

Ah, ok. Gotcha. I thought you were denying that.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 12:04 PM
1

I think a lot of anti-TRPers on this subreddit have an ideological bias that makes them want to disagree with TRP. People who disagree with it for honest reasons don't usually post here. I think I'm weird in that respect. I just like arguing. Although that's also why you shouldn't take the fact that most of the arguments here are weak as evidence that TRP is accurate. Most of the time, the good arguments just aren't articulated.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 12:02 PM
6

Except it does work, for some men. As far as I can tell, it's a viable solution.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 11:55 AM
3

I think I made it clear what I meant. They are not asking the guy to leave them. They are making the choice that the risk of that outcome is worth the payoff of having unprotected sex with him. They don't want that outcome. In most cases, it's the guy who left.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 11:53 AM
6

Sure. That's how I meet people. What if it doesn't work?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 10:34 AM
3

Yes, good point. I agree, dating a single mum is a horrendous idea. Most single mums are not that way by choice though. "Girl Power" is a rationalisation. It gives them the illusion that they chose to have the guy flunk out on them.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 10:18 AM
1

I can think of a very obvious reason why someone might lie about being asexual.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 10:16 AM
1

Asexuality is in the vast majority of cases actually just repression of sexuality. It's a coping strategy, possibly as a result of abuse. I don't think it's a good idea to take asexuality at face value. Any discussion that relies on that is likely to be misleading.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 10:14 AM
2

Red flags
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 10:11 AM
8

Well, what else are you supposed to go on? I mean seriously, how are men supposed to know what your personality is like before they talk to you? Relationships in general are a matter of "hot enough, with a personality I like enough to fancy you." You can't assess that all at once and some people have lower thresholds for personality. So what? That's how sexuality works.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 10:10 AM
4

I don't think this is true. Plenty of women find it upsetting that some guys would even be into them. It's teenage as fuck but it's also plainly observable.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 10:06 AM
3

Why is it awful to only care about how hot a woman is?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 10:05 AM
6

For what it's worth, most single mothers are in that situation because they fucked a shitty man and he left her. It's not usually a unilateral decision. Spotting those men is not that hard IMO but it's not as if they plan the act. That's also an massive exaggeration.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 09:44 AM
3

It's a lot easier to vet whether a potential partner will invest in your children than it is to vet whether someone will eventually fall out of love and divorce you. The problem with being a single mom is that kids are affected. A man who marries a woman who divorces him is an idiot, but it doesn't exactly affect anyone else.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 09:42 AM
1

The World Bank study disagrees. It isolates it as a causative factor, which from what I understand is the scientific consensus.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 08:31 AM
2

I don't think you're aware of how stark the change is. I have a game I play with some of my female friends where we'll try and turn women who aren't into me around by having them pretend to be into me. The fact it works is why it's fun. Although it doesn't really matter. The point stands whatever the mechanism.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/16 01:54 AM
1

I'm a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 11:37 PM
2

I have already linked you to a study by the World Bank demonstrating that the Gini Coefficient is a major causative factor for violent crime. I don't see the point in arguing with you since you are repeatedly ignoring that. Coming up with individual counter examples from a "Wowza! Top 10!" website is not a rebuttal. Edit: if you're going to add two paragraphs after the fact, please add a note. We can see the edit symbol.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 06:56 PM
1

This is why you look at correlation, not isolated examples. The correlation is very strong. You're being intellectually dishonest. I can point out a lesbian - doesn't mean most women are lesbian.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 06:47 PM
1

I have an alternate hypothesis. A while back, RSD (a pickup company) made a video where they showed that you could still get Tinder replies by sending the following message: Hey, I know this is kinda weird and pushy haha, but would you like to have sex with me? I'm not a creep or a pervert, just a genuine guy. I would treat you with respect and the sex would be good. I can even make you squirt if the connection is right haha. I will not judge you or think you're "easy". So yeah, excuse me if I c…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 06:43 PM
1

They live in gated communities because of violence. More violence = more gates. Why the violence exists is a different argument. I've already provided you with data showing the impact of the Gini Coefficient. You are trying very hard to deny this relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 06:34 PM
1

Ok. No worries.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 06:28 PM
2

Yes, they are. The World Bank study is. Which you would know if you had read it. The Gini Coefficient has a control for total poverty built into it, by the way. It's a ratio, that's the point...
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 06:26 PM
1

It's not fiscally conservative. This is why I'm less fiscally conservative than I used to be. If your community becomes violent enough, gated communities become a necessity. See: South Africa, Detroit, South Asia, the Middle East. Gated communities aren't there to protect against all poor people. They are there to protect against the subset who are violent. That subset becomes bigger and more aggressive when there is more inequality.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 06:25 PM
2

The rates I gave you are violent crime rates. They are all felonies and none of them are drug crimes. You didn't even read my links, this is why I'm saying you're looking for an excuse. I gave you those figures.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 05:25 PM
1

Inequality causing crime is not a myth, as I've just showed you. Thinking everyone can cope with college is retarded.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 05:04 PM
1

I don't know what The Spirit Level is. I'm just presenting data, none of these are refutations. I didn't say anything about college.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 04:56 PM
3

This doesn't explain why the correlation with the Gini Coefficient exists. If anything, it actually explains the majority of the noise in the correlation. Countries with unusually high violent crime rates are mostly either at war, or they are drug production centers. Have a look at the charts yourself. I really think you're looking for an excuse to ignore this relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 04:52 PM
3

Yes, the drug war is why Mexico and the US are such outliers. The correlation itself is still explained by the Gini Coefficient. It seems like you're looking for reasons to write off this relationship because of your political preconceptions.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 04:41 PM
3

From the World Bank study: Crime rates and inequality are positively correlated within countries and, particularly, between countries, and this correlation reflects causation from inequality to crime rates, even after controlling for other crime determinants. Material poverty is less important than inequality once you get above a very low level of wealth. It appears that rich people existing really is a threat to the safety of your society.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 04:34 PM
5

No. I don't know why he used China as an example. He's right about the correlation though. It's very strong. This is a good factsheet with charts. One thing to note is that it gets stronger when you drill down into smaller geographic areas (i.e, looking at the Gini Coefficient of a city, rather than a country). Basically, what appears to matter is the local dominance heirarchy. This is a good study by the World Bank that identifies the Gini Coefficient as a causative factor.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 04:25 PM
1

Why have you moved the goalposts from "getting laid" to "cheating"?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 04:15 PM
1

I don't align with a party. If the conservative party is nefarious, that's their problem. It's not going to change my underlying belief, and it shouldn't change yours.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 04:12 PM
1

I dunno man, I'm not convinced. I think a lot of their stuff is just being confident, fun and audatious. It doesn't need to be a complex breakdown, just a short summary of tactics from a short interaction. I'm asking because I'm skeptical. It's easy to say "ahh, they're using lots of psychological tricks" without breaking those tricks down.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 02:39 PM
1

centrist is the right term I guess? I don't think so. I was (mostly am) pretty extreme on both ends. Your immigration stance, is it universal? or just in the country you live in? Universal. I think the most important function of countries is to provide an environment where everyone makes about the same amount of money (edit: or rather, everyone has the opportunity to do so). Wealth disparity is fine, as long as it's segregated to different areas. In fact, I think that's the only solution. Wealth…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 02:30 PM
6

I used to be financially conservative and socially liberal, up until about a month ago. I thought it was better for the poor to be wealthier even if the rich got much richer. The problem is, that doesn't account for the fact that poverty doesn't really cause violence - relative poverty does. When men feel the dominance heirarchy is inaccessible to them - that they can never become attractive and find quality mates - we have an instinctive response. That response is to become hyper-aggressive. If…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 01:54 PM
2

How am I meant to respond to this? You haven't added anything to the discussion. You've just dug your heels in.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 01:40 PM
2

I agree. But your interpretation of the advice comes from self-help gurus reframing it into something useful. It's not what the advice actually means.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 01:21 PM
5

I'm speaking from experience. I've found women are generally very bad at distinguishing how much it affects their attraction, and studies back this up. I'm hesitant to listen when they say they're the exception. Most men know how the attention they get changes when they are in a situation where they're more popular than normal. It's the old "women want me more when I have a girlfriend." It's an old trope.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 01:17 PM
1

Not in this study, though. Which makes me think it's a shitty study.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 01:13 PM
1

Could you explain some of these tricks? Maybe link to a video of them and break down what they are doing?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 06:11 AM
6

I posted this below, but Tinder is not hard to install. There's a reason most women aren't on Tinder.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 06:01 AM
2

Even women outside of Tinder are still the same as if they WERE on Tinder. Tinder is not hard to install. There's a reason they aren't on Tinder.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 05:59 AM
6

No it isn't. The advice is exactly what it says on the tin, with a splash of "be relaxed" implied. It's cop-out advice. It's what people say when they don't want the stress of trying to solve your enormous attraction problems.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 05:53 AM
1

No. Trump promotes Christian conservative values, which only align superficially with TRP. If anything, it will reduce TRP's popularity, because he's promoting a competing ideology. As for his behaviour? I doubt it. The message most people are getting about trump is that women find him unattractive. They see him as creepy and predatory and old. I don't think anybody is going to try to model the guy to get laid. The tactic I usually see is that people do the opposite. They bash him to try and get…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 05:47 AM
2

I think a more plausible explanation is that there's no real shift in the guys going out there, this article is just manufacturing a story for clicks. They don't present any compelling evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 05:41 AM
15

I think you dislike the idea that a man would have sex with a woman who wasn't enjoying it. That's a scary prospect if you are a woman. It's especially scary if your partner is one of those men.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 05:35 AM
3

You're confusing cause with effect. In order to sleep around, your average man has to be more suave, confident, charming and attractive than the overall average. It's a prerequisite, not just a result.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 05:29 AM
5

The problem with this is that a significant component of a man's attractiveness is how popular he is with other women. The more women like a guy, the more attractive he becomes. Most guys have experienced this. So it's a tradeoff. You might want a secure guy, but the more attractive he is the less secure he is likely to be.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 05:27 AM
2

But facial symmetry didn't correlate with attractiveness. Nor did N-count. I think a better explanation is that it's a shitty study. We shouldn't be drawing conclusions from this data.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 05:19 AM
1

I agree with you but for what it's worth you can practically smell the codependence in those comics. I can't be the only one who thinks they're absolutely cringeworthy, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/16 05:15 AM
1

No it doesn't. People use the term "alpha" male because it's funny to simplify things to that level, and it also describes a certain kind of personality. People primarily use it to describe someone's level of asshole-ness, not their level of attractiveness. Nobody describes Russell Brand as an alpha male except on TRP.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/16 02:38 PM
1

No it isn't. Humans don't operate along the heirarchy of "beta," "alpha" and "omega." It's a false heirarchy, it doesn't exist. It implies way more than the core meaning of "level of success with women," much of which is wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/16 02:36 PM
3

In my experience, the only person who can really help someone with emotional problems is someone with less emotional problems. When two people like that get together, even if they try to help each other it usually just makes the problem worse. Which makes sense. If you don't have the skills to help yourself, how are you meant to help someone else? I think it's a really fucked aspect of life that this is the case because if you're stable, you aren't going to want to spend time around mental peopl…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/16 02:34 PM
3

I think you're right. And I disagree with this post. TRP isn't "aimed" at average guys. It's aimed at people who have serious problems with women. I've never seen a community more oriented towards "omega" males. I think this whole post is a rationalisation, to be honest. It's an attempt to write off the fact that TRP creates serious problems for most readers by saying, "well, it's not aimed at them. It works for the real target audience."
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/16 02:29 PM
2

I'll have a read. Thanks. :)
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/16 02:07 PM
2

If you don't mind me asking directly, what would you say your motivations are?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/16 01:35 PM
1

It's not that weird. Most guys who get laid are polarising. It goes with the territory.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/16 12:02 AM
2

Being dominant as a social ape means you have a large group of people willing to elevate you to the position of "leader". A leader built like a gorilla is still going to lose if the three people he beat into submission to get there decide to team up against him. You need to have friends in order to maintain any dominance in a tribe. If you have no friends in your tribe, you're vulnerable. If you are vulnerable, it's a bad idea for women to take genes from you. You can't protect the baby and the …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/16 07:20 PM
8

Have you considered the possibility that they see ideological thinking as dangerous? That it isn't feminism that they are against so much, rather the ideological thinking that underpins it? MRAs aren't exactly an attractive bunch. They have a reputation for a reason. I don't think women are likely to switch their beliefs in order to try and get attention from that social group. When you see women at MRA meetups, it's normally very awkward. They don't seem to like the men they're protesting with.…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/16 07:13 PM
1

Ah, brilliant. I'll have a play with the data in excel when I have time. Thanks. :) But these aren't distinctly the bottom group. People with lower ratings then them still got some bites. This seems very relevant. I wonder what caused those men to be left out.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 06:24 PM
1

I asked for a position because you're clearly bullshitting. Ctrl-F 22 also produces nothing. Disparity is not the figure I was taking issue with (edit: although it is huge - 71.6% of men are literate, versus 53.6% of women). Your raw numbers are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 01:59 PM
1

This implies each individual woman only finds 1 out of 3 men attractive. It does not imply they all like the same man. If each woman ticks one man - a different man - then the selectiveness is not a pareto distribution. It is that women have more diverse "types" than men do. Each man still gets a match, and no man gets left out in the cold. The authors, of course, don't analyse that. They never do in these studies. It's extremely frustrating - that's the only figure that matters. Before you guys…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 01:48 PM
1

Page number and position, please. That document literally says the female literacy rate in sub-saharan Africa is 53.6%.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 01:04 PM
1

...I literally linked you to UNESCO. The figure is not 7-11%. You need to cite all your claims here. I have no idea where you are getting your figures.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 12:06 PM
1

Ah, I see. Yes, the statements themselves are half-truths in relation to the real world. They're honest representations of TRP's beliefs though.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 12:02 PM
1

In that case you're using a flawed definition. They are separate things. There's not really any way to respond within that framework.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 12:01 PM
1

Awww :(
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 01:45 AM
1

I'm not sure how to explain beyond the definition. Both of them reduce reality to an absurdly simple premise, and both of them are half-truths.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 01:44 AM
4

Aww come on, I beat her so well too
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 01:00 AM
1

"Men are romantics pretending to be realists; women are realists pretending to be romantics" and "Men value love, women love value" are perfect examples of reductionist half-truths...
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 12:58 AM
2

Nahh, Atlas is right. It makes women look like trannies. They think it looks good because they only see it when it's stationary, in the mirror. It's like painting on a six-pack.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 12:54 AM
2

you forgot to make it funny
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 12:52 AM
1

Women absolutely shame each other for that. They just don't use that particular insult. They use the name of those guys.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 12:51 AM
2

Because it's long and clumsy. They'll usually use the name of the ugly guy.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 12:50 AM
1

Social pressure isn't something that is conscious. People don't think "I should start smoking so I can fit in," they just start smoking. When they tell women they are feminists, women smile. To their subconscious, that's positive reinforcement. I don't think feminist men are explicitly thinking, "I should get into this so women will like me." They just do it instinctively.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 12:46 AM
3

Contouring only works for one angle. It's an illusion. It doesn't work outside of pictures.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 12:38 AM
8

I think I'm just good at calling you out to be honest. If your argument is "this is why people use the term shallow," make that argument. It doesn't change the actual meaning of the word. You didn't say that because you wanted to post a verysmart definition flip like RPers do all the time. It's low-quality thinking.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 12:33 AM
1

Treating girls like bros only works if you could flirt if you wanted to. It doesn't work if you can't flirt in the first place. It's the same as being strong and silent versus terrified to speak. The reason it works is that it shows you aren't desperate and it puts girls at ease around you - and it shows you can decide how to pace the conversation. It also usually involves subtle signs you are interested, which are more powerful because they're subtle. It's not as simple as just never mentioning…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 12:26 AM
1

Have you actually done this or are you trying to make excuses that mean you don't have to try in the first place?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 12:21 AM
2

Someone needs to invent a drug which has no hormonal imbalance side-effects but is able to erase a man's sex drive and attraction to women. It would increase productivity rates to incredible heights. I don't think this will quite have the effect you think it will. The only reason I work as hard as I do is so I can facilitate getting laid.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 12:16 AM
1

Yes God forbid a good body and a cocky demeanour were something changeable
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 12:15 AM
2

I think this is true but I think you're misdiagnosing the cause. Male attraction is relatively straightforward. We largely know what we are attracted to (sexy women) and we know the basic personality traits we want (nice, caring, loves us more than other men). We have less requirements because it's easier for us to isolate what we want. Female attraction is a lot more abstract and much harder to nail down, even for the woman experiencing it. She probably won't know a lot of what she's attracted …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 12:14 AM
2

Although I agree with you I think the style of argument you're using is dishonest. Women are physically attracted to men, and yes, they also want their partner to be well-rounded with a full, interesting life. This shouldn't be mind-blowing to anyone. Come on. You're implying they care about that the same amount as men. Everyone knows that isn't true. By and large, women care about their partner's mind and lifestyle a lot more than men do. Looks are less important to women. That's a reasonable o…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/16 12:02 AM
2

Where on earth are you getting the idea that this is rare? More than 50% of women in Africa are completely illiterate. Many more have barely rudimentary ability. Those women are quite literally valued for their ability to be wives, and in a limited capacity to farm. For a woman in that situation, sex is by far your most valuable commodity. Many of them do go into prostitution - which the primary reason the HIV rate is so high. That statistic includes South Africa, Egypt and Morocco, which signif…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/16 11:48 PM
7

Come on, Atlas doesn't even believe what she's writing. She's just being adversarial and provocative. Everybody understands what "shallow" means, twisting the definition doesn't change the fact we've had the actual definition beaten into us since the age of three.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/16 11:39 PM
1

Yeah, I figured your tastes were very individual. You're also selling in a very particular niche, so people looking for that have to go online to find it. They'll probably seek your kind of platform out specifically. I've been trying to reconcile this for a while. I want to project my personality since my worldview isn't something that is easy to communicate quickly, but I also want to make sure the audience is made up of people I actually want to sell to. Any ideas on how to bring that kind of …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/16 11:30 PM
6

Looks fade. Judging a long-term partner on looks is moronic.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/16 11:26 PM
3

If your wife nags you, it's because nagging works. It's exactly the same as a child bugging you for a toy. If bugging you eventually gets you to buy Pokemon, guess what? Your kid's gonna bug you. If bugging you makes it less likely you'll buy Pokemon, your kid isn't gonna bug you. Nagging is a sign of someone with bad communication skills trying to get something - usually something they feel you've promised them. It's dysfunctional but it doesn't mean she's lost attraction for you. It's just a s…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/16 11:24 PM
1

The main reason we like stories is that they are examples of how to act. Your average story has a hero who overcomes some kind of adversity in order to achieve something. The reason we like that is that we are instinctively drawn to explanations of how to overcome adversity. Men like stories were the main character earns their love interest because they see it as instructional. Given the rules of the game, we want to know how to win. Whether we like that dynamic or not is kinda irrelevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/16 11:14 PM
3

No. Because they don't love him, they're just attracted to him. A certain level of attractiveness is a prerequisite for falling in love, for most people. It isn't the sole reason, it's one component. Very few people are going to fall in love with you if you have a chiselled jawline but you are mute. This is a strawman question. What do you hope to achieve by asking it? Are you really advancing your knowledge?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/16 11:12 PM
1

Do you know many attractive women who read blogs? I like the basis of this idea but providing you are looking for someone particularly physically attractive, it doesn't seem like it casts a wide net.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/16 11:06 PM
1

Eh, the other advice is shit. Mine is the only one you need to listen to.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 09:30 PM
1

Oh come on man. You wrote an 832-word post, clearly you care about our response. You talked about yourself at length, it seems to be about you. Don't write a post about your limits and then get mad when people tell you they are self-imposed. I'm a writer and I know how to write. Whatever your background, your writing reads a certain way. It doesn't matter if you can write copy or whatever else - when you write in your own voice your voice carries through.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 09:16 PM
1

Wub, the reason you struggle is probably that: You're not actually pushing things forwards all that much. Your social skills aren't up to scratch. Reading your posts, I get the vibe it's the second one. You don't write like someone with solid social skills. You write like a nerd. Your sentences are full of cliches and overly-formal talk. It suggests you don't have a solid conception of how you're coming across. I'm not trying to be a dick about that man but you need honest feedback. I have a que…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 06:45 PM
3

80%. Vet your goddamn baby daddy. Don't go off birth control until you know both of you want kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 05:19 PM
2

Your layman's explanation is thousands of words long. Can you provide a quick summary? What did they discover?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 05:18 PM
1

Your message reads as though you're calling me the moron. Fair enough, I guess.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 02:29 PM
1

See, this is the problem. I've explained the distinction between a bad metric and a good metric, but TRP makes it black and white. Either all averages are good predictors, or none of them are. A good group metric is one with low variance. If membership of a particular group is a very strong predictor of some trait, then it's fine to use it to evaluate people. For example, women with blue hair and hornrimmed glasses are probably going to be feminists. Likewise, someone with tits and a vagina is p…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 01:25 PM
1

Pointing out a single instance where a teenage boy fell in love with his teacher isn't a strong argument. I wouldn't go around calling people morons because you saw an outlier on CNN.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 01:18 PM
1

Looking at what someone has to see whether they are happy is a terrible way of judging it. Look at how he acts. Look at the expression on his face, particularly when he isn't in the middle of a rally. He obviously isn't a happy man.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 01:14 PM
1

This entire conversation is about inferring things about a person by the groups they belong to rather than the traits they display as an individual...
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 04:52 AM
2

I think there are more teenage girls with crushes on old men than teenage boys with crushes on old women.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 03:15 AM
1

I doubt it, but so what?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 02:29 AM
1

All of these are individual evaluations, not group evaluations. This is literally you reading her on an individual level.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 02:29 AM
0

So clearly you have to evaluate that individually. Case in point... What even can you filter before you've spoken to women?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 01:52 AM
0

No they don't. They're usually young. Yeah, some boys will probably fuck a 40 year old. Most won't.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 01:50 AM
0

"I guess I'd fuck her if she was literally naked and grinding on me" is not the same as "she's so hot, I'm in love with her." That's part of the joke. Although to be honest, no, most teenage boys would not fuck a 45-year-old. They're horny, they aren't that horny. Men don't find it easy to get it up for people who are 30 years older than them.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 01:46 AM
1

That was always a joke at my school. Nobody took it seriously at all. Teachers were old.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 01:43 AM
1

...how do you filter people on prior sexual history before you've even spoken to them?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 01:42 AM
1

Does he? Trump doesn't seem a particularly happy person to me. He seems insecure and power-hungry.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 12:52 AM
4

You can't pin all the results of a study on feminism. If it's influenced the results, then yes, you can. If a cigarette company funds a study, we generally discard it. Sure, it could be correct, but we don't take that risk because there's no way to trust the results. We discard them wholesale, because it's the most logical thing to do.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 12:49 AM
1

In high school all the guys wanted to plow my English teacher who was probably ~45. She was a classy MILF (and you could tell she had thinner days, they all wanted her anyways), ice blue eyes with auburn hair who could probably be a phone sex operator with her voice. Guys generally joke about being hot for teacher. We don't actually want to sleep with her. The were a lot of "the hot teacher"s at my school and none of us really thought they were attractive, except maybe the blonde PE teacher who …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 12:45 AM
3

Before I opened the video I thought, "she is going to be black." Yep, she is black. "Black don't crack" isn't just a saying. Black people really do age differently, especially if they take care of themselves. She also seems to have had botox, judging by the lack of expressiveness around her eyes. She could well have had plastic surgery. She could also be flat out lying about her age. Look at the skin on her arms. She has a distinct lack of ordinary wrinkles, even for a 39-year-old (when she star…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 12:39 AM
1

I think they are idiots. It doesn't work, all it does is subcommunicate insecurity and low status. Females cheat on those kinds of males in almost every species on the planet, and those kind of relationships tend to be very short lived. You're setting yourself up for neuroticism and unhappiness, I don't know why anyone would ever want that.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 12:31 AM
1

The thing about the ick factor is you can't really spread it to other people. Not much at least. What grosses us out is fairly immutable. A logical framework, though? That can convert other men. You can start making other men hesitant about marrying that kind of woman too. That's a big threat for a woman who is like that.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 12:24 AM
1

I'm not sure I agree with that but that's not really the point. That's why it's a circular argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 12:21 AM
1

I'll take that as a, "no, I haven't."
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 12:19 AM
1

I think red pillers are extremely bad at spotting when women are tricking them, which is why they are so afraid of it. That's why they use group generalisations to assess women. They are trying to compensate for their inability to read people on an individual level.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 10:33 PM
2

That's a circular argument. Provided you demonstrate those things, date formalities are not relevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 10:31 PM
1

Have you read a single post-modernist essay or are you parroting what you heard on a youtube video? Do you even know what post-modernism means when they talk about uncertainty? They talk about the uncertainty of knowing itself, and that all forms of communication are based around power. Post-modernism is retarded but it's actually a lot closer to TRP than mainstream viewpoints.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 10:26 PM
3

You seem very difficult to argue with. I don't think there's anyway to make this productive.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 10:07 PM
2

We are saying the assumptions are less reliable than TRP thinks they are. Red pillers are usually hesitant to drop their assumptions in the face of individual differences, and they are also hesitant to test their assumptions about any one individual. They overrely on their assumptions and that leads them to being wrong. The reason is that they are less willing to say "I don't know."
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 10:00 PM
1

Well, yes. I'm surprised it's not more common advice. It really should be.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 09:55 PM
2

The point is that you have two ways of evaluating someone: Try to evaluate the person in front of you using individual measures. Evaluate them individually. Try to evaluate the person in front of you using group measures of groups they belong to. Evaluate the groups they belong to and infer individual traits. If there is a lot of variance within a given group, the second method is considerably less reliable. So it's a bad way to evaluate them. The reason red pillers like to do it is that it make…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 09:52 PM
3

I think you're giving radical blue pillers more credit than they deserve. You and me might reject TRP's sweeping generalisations because we recognise that the variance is so high that they have terrible predictive power, but the people who reject all generalisations outright aren't thinking that way. They are rejecting those generalisations because said generalisations clash with their ideology. Radicals on the blue side are equally irrational, if not more so, than radicals who are red.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 09:49 PM
1

How else is she meant to differentiate? She can't see how you are in a group until she sees you in a group.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 09:41 PM
1

This is old PUA advice, it's not unique to TRP. It also doesn't rely on the sketchy parts of TRP at all. I wouldn't give them credit for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 09:39 PM
3

I don't think that situation ever happens. Not really. If it does, you should run from it. For one thing, you should be looking for a girl who likes what you provide more than other girls. You're looking for a girl who prefers you to other guys who are equally attractive, because she likes your specific personality or your mind or (probably most important) the way your phenotypical expression compliments hers. If date formalities swing it, you're looking at the wrong partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 09:35 PM
1

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. This entirely. The first thing I look for in any date is how to cut away social obligations. We're kicking back and getting to know each other. That's it, any barrier to that is a bad idea.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 09:31 PM
1

I think dinner dates are much harder to make interesting than casual dates like running. If you go out running with someone you're in a relaxed situation and you actually get to know each other. Going on a dinner date is putting yourself in a hotbox with them for three hours with a random stranger who comes over to your table every 20 minutes to make things suddenly-a-bit-awkward. Not to mention the fact that a massive part of what makes you attractive to a woman is how you interact with people …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 09:26 PM
7

There is a selection bias for it among naive men. If a girl genuinely likes you, splitting the bill isn't going to make her reconsider a relationship. If you need to pay to get a girl to date you, you shouldn't be dating her in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 09:16 PM
1

Maybe. I don't see how it matters. You can be a prostitute and only have sex with people you are attracted to. You're just trying to fit them into a box, as though fitting them in that box makes them identical to everybody else in that box. Women who expect men to pay on dates are not the same as crack whores with syphilis standing in miniskirts by the side of the road. If you don't want to pay for women on dates, don't. I don't. Most women don't give a shit but it's a remarkable way of filterin…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 09:12 PM
5

Single mothers are a product of welfare for single mothers. If it's affordable for women to get pregnant by men who might leave them, or it's affordable for them to leave their men themselves, more of them will do it. I don't think it really needs to be complicated beyond that.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 09:08 PM
1

Hah, ok. Yes, from that perspective it is funny.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 09:04 PM
1

A lot of what you are saying makes sense but it feels like you're trying to avoid acknowledging when I've made a point you hadn't thought of. It's kind of hard to engage when that's the case.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 07:33 PM
2

All good points.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 07:31 PM
1

Eh, healthy people still do things that leave them dissatisfied in the long run. Most of the time they cut it off and find a boyfriend not too long after. I've found it doesn't happen so much when I take care to express a deep appreciation for them, especially if I show them I'm feeling protective. Which makes sense, I mean fundamentally that's what investment is about. I'm lucky in that a lot of what I'm attracted to aligns with what I appreciate on an intellectual level so I don't find it too …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 07:30 PM
1

The difference here is: the eel probably isn't hoping to get eaten, but I get your point. Why do you have to try and find a way to one-up me when I make a good point? Is that really relevant? You can just say, "good point." OK first of all: why all the lying about how great casual sex/ONS are then? If they suck, why are women telling OTHER women they are great? Well that's the point. They aren't actually saying that. Most women tell their friends the same thing they tell you and me on anonymous …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 06:11 PM
1

Mentally stable people filter, hard, against people with emotional deficiencies. You don't generally meet them except through other mentally stable people. It's the same problem. I think you're making excuses.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 05:31 PM
3

I said "have experience with," not "have mostly experienced." If the majority of women you know are like that, it's because you attract that kind of woman. Don't try and put it on them. If you can't attract mentally stable women, it's because you have a deficiency in your own personality.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 05:24 PM
1

Well let's look at the two hypotheses. Which of these is more plausible? Women love casual sex but regret it afterwards. Their friends tell them it's not enjoyable but they do it anyway. It is extremely enjoyable, as it was for her friends (who all lied about it). But she feels bad afterwards. She procrastinates, gets drunk and does other things that make her feel regretful but it only takes once or twice before she develops superhuman self-control around this one area of her life. She is then o…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 05:21 PM
3

Yes, good point. I think that's a possibility. It could be that sleeping with lots of men reinforces the fact that none of them want to date you, which is probably going to be bad for you. I guess I struggle to put myself in their shoes on that one.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 04:30 PM
1

And they say so to other women, who STILL insist on trying anyway. ;-) Novelty is interesting and women get horny when they're single. Men say "don't stick your dick in crazy" but other men still do it. The fact they only do it once or twice in their entire life says a lot more about how much they enjoy it. I don't think red pill is a particularly effective route. It encourages theorising, circle-jerking and neuroticism. I think it makes men paranoid and miserable and aside from the basic advice…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 04:19 PM
2

I don't really feel any jealousy if someone I'm seeing casually sleeps with other men, but I get very possessive if I care about her. I wish I was polyamorous because I think it would make things a lot easier. I really like variety and more importantly I really like the way that the chase forces you to improve yourself. I think polyamory is about the only way to maintain those things while you're in a relationship. I thought about maybe finding a bisexual girl and being polyamorous just with oth…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 04:13 PM
1

Eh, it changes the argument substantially. His argument was (roughly) that most women enjoy having sex and then find a man to lie to. If they only have one exception, that implies they really do prefer having sex with their boyfriends (which I would say reflects reality for most women). Otherwise they would have more exceptions. I think the more plausible explanation for that is that women in general enjoy sex, but most realise once they try doing it without a relationship that they don't enjoy …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 04:09 PM
2

In general, yes. I mean for example I'm very attracted to mental stability, (although I've only really been like that for the past few years). When I sleep with girls who are perfectly healthy but I don't want to have a relationship, I can see the reaction. It's not just disappointment. It's a real dissatisfied vibe. It happens even if they agree that they want something casual. I have to work to mitigate it. One difference is that the women I know who are polyamorous have a very different vibe …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 04:02 PM
1

I don't think that's true. I know a lot of healthy women who sleep around, same way I know a lot of healthy people who watch shitloads of porn or spend all their time on Facebook. You can be mentally healthy without much self-awareness. Same with willpower. I know happy, healthy people who are weak-willed. But yes, if you get caught in the cyclic aspect of it you are fuuuuuuuuucked.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 03:29 PM
9

I think it's a vicious circle but the mechanism seems to be that women are hardwired to want stability for their children, and sleeping around removes that stability. The body's defence mechanism is to make you miserable. It's the same reason men who jerk off to porn end up depressed and people who spend all their time on Facebook end up feeling socially deficient. It's a dirty substitute for the real thing, in this case a stable relationship. I think it confuses the brain. I'd like to see more …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 02:52 PM
2

I think a lot of virgins are virgins because they're crazy. I have a few friends like that. Virgins until the age of 20, then they went absolutely wild. One friend stands out. She was just bad at socialising with men. I don't think that's an uncommon story. TRPers do seem to find virgins on occasion, but they usually seem crazy. They seem like the kind of virgins who are only virgins because they're terrified of dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 02:45 PM
1

That's from one of Arch's glided comments. It's also wrong. The vast majority of women don't have casual sex. On OkCupid. This has been debunked multiple times, it's literally the premise of this thread. Women rate pictures of men worse than men rate pictures of women? Are you surprised? Ugly people who go out, get laid. Going out is by far the shortest path to sex. TRP is hyper aggressive Have you ever been to TRP? Yes. That's literally what the "anger phase" is. It's the instinctive reaction m…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 02:42 PM
6

I'm not red but I can explain their reasoning. They think that if a woman has a lot of partners, it impairs her ability to pairbond. Some red pillers think it's a symptom rather than a cause, but the point is that they think it makes her less suitable as a prospect for a long-term relationship. Personally, I don't think it's a particularly effective measure. You can measure someone's ability to fall in love and how likely they are to stay there much more directly. I've also heard a few opinions …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 02:17 PM
1

I think it has to do with bloops. A lot of them are women and they don't like the idea of men turning them down because of who they've slept with in the past. They bring it up, and red pillers argue with them. I don't blame them for being upset by it. It would bother me, and I don't think red pill's reasoning on the issue is particularly good. But I think that's the main reason. It's just a scary prospect that men would have such a strong framework for rejecting you if you've slept around.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 02:01 PM
1

The 80/20 rule has a lot of concepts implicit within it that are just wrong. It implies women's primary criteria for sleeping with a man how attractive he is. That is misleading. Most women's primary criteria are that he has bonded to her. That places a hard cap on the maximum attractiveness they can actually hook up with. It implies the skew is a result of attractiveness distribution rather than just who is going out and trying to get laid in the first place. It implies it's a waste of time to …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 01:45 PM
1

Not red, but I'm probably closer to it than most bloops would like. Yes, I've done it. It wasn't a problem. It was obvious she liked me even when she was with that boyfriend and she thanked me for trying not to make her cheat on him when we did eventually hook up. I think a big part of sexual chemistry is how well your genitals match. If you have a dick that's bent slightly to the left and she has a sensitive spot 4" in and slightly to the right, you're going to stimulate her more. The bigger yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 01:29 PM
3

I'm not sure that there is a reason to distinguish between love and having a stable relationship. They go together. I think one thing TRP has right is that if a woman has had a large number of boyfriends then it's a red flag. It's an indication that she has some kind of emotional disorder which means her bonds aren't stable. It means her emotional reaction to you is likely to change on a whim. Certain women form relationships with men and when those men go through periods of being less attractiv…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 01:18 PM
1

I'm pretty sure when we did the height survey you were something like 5'9.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 12:42 PM
1

Do you know the concept of Motte and Bailey arguing? That is not the extent of your claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 12:41 PM
1

Could be, but the non-hormone affected brain is closer to a female brain so it's relevant to look at. It could be that a lot of MTF transsexuals have a hormone deficiency that FTM transsexuals don't mirror. That would also explain why their are more MTF transsexuals.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 12:37 PM
1

If 40% of the men get 60% of the sex, that means the bottom 60% get 40%. 40% is 2/3 of 60%. Let's say there's 100 "sex" to go around. In a 60/40 split, the bottom 60% of men get 40 "sex" units between them (2/3 of the total "sex"), which means they get 0.67 "sex" each. In an 80/20 split, the bottom 80% of men get 20 "sex" units between them, which means each man gets 0.2 "sex". It's a considerably smaller amount, and the skew in the second case is considerably greater.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 12:35 PM
2

And the goalposts move. Can you please just acknowledge that these are legitimate problems with your viewpoint? No, but I also don't think it's down to attractiveness. Particularly attractive men seem to get specific subsets of women throwing themselves at them, but for the vast majority of men it just correlates with how much they put themselves out there.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 04:47 AM
1

Well, with the 60/40 rule the bottom 60% get around 2/3 the sex of the top 40%... So it's substantially different. Although there's no evidence there even is a split like that other than "it seems likely." The OkCupid study is the only evidence ever presented.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 04:08 AM
2

Yes, as long as I didn't know the guy. I'd probably enjoy the thrill. Fuck that, I'd definitely enjoy the thrill. If I knew him, no chance. I wouldn't touch anyone if I knew their partner personally. It would make me feel awful.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 02:42 AM
1

Aren't you like 5'9?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 02:30 AM
1

As well as the ones you ended up liking.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 12:55 AM
1

Look I don't want to be harsh on anything but that sounds like a rationalisation to me. How many women have you gotten to know? How many women have you been attracted to?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 12:39 AM
1

It's hard to fake. Just try and imagine how you would act if you had lots of options. Have you got a rough conception of what that would feel like?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 12:33 AM
4

I would say the number matters a great deal. If the distribution is 60/40, you have pretty good odds across the spectrum. In fact, if you aren't in the bottom 20% of guys you're pretty much golden - you don't have to worry. Here's another consequence: a 60/40 skew is also explained by a certain group of women acting differently to most and fucking the hottest guys like rabbits. When the skew becomes more even, new hypotheses become plausible. Why, when RPers get proven wrong about their statisti…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 12:16 AM
2

Why would the bottom 50% of women message men who are on an even level of attractiveness, but not the top 50%? This isn't an explanation. If women on average rate men as less attractive than average, those women would also message up. Even if you only look at the bottom 50% of women, you would expect to see the same pattern. I don't see how this is an objection.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/16 12:14 AM
1

Part of decoding codified language is understanding the difference between indirect communication and not communicating.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 11:51 PM
1

Do you have lots of options?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 11:50 PM
1

Oh right. Couldn't say. I just proceed as normal and women generally run with it. As long as you pace the conversation women will fall into your frame, at least in general. They might still like you but it doesn't negatively affect the relationship. If you show you have a lot of options, it will probably send the strongest signal. They'll like you more but it reinforces that you're unavailable.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 11:28 PM
1

You can't display empathy as a skilled manipulator. Empathy in the context I mean is accurate modelling of another person's emotional experience. You can't really fake that.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 11:24 PM
1

I do it instinctively, so it's hard to give specific advice. Honestly most of it comes with experience. What can you do to make yourself seem a safe option?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 11:23 PM
1

You can't fake empathy. You can fake sympathy, but IMO you don't really need to. You just need to display empathy.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 11:18 PM
1

Communicate that you have other options, or be gay. Seriously though the best way is to display receptiveness to signals in general. If she knows you risk losing social capital by making an unreciprocated move, she will trust you.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 11:16 PM
2

Hah, yes. I meant these brain regions.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 10:41 PM
3

Two studies, unless they are the same study? The last one dealt with a very specific reaction to a single drug. I don't know who funded it but it's worth bearing in mind that it may have been a drug company. I don't want to be patronising or a dick or anything like that but I feel like a lot of this is new information that I'm giving you. I mean the fact that this is new information should tell you a lot about how accurate the mainstream perception is on this issue, especially within the left.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 10:04 PM
3

How did you get that impression? Have a look through the research literature. The studies you've posted directly scanning the brain studied MTF subjects. Don't take that too literal. I know that they don't have exaxtly the other brain but it's a good way to get the point across for someone that thinks that transgenders are just mentally ill individuals that fight against their nature. I mean that's true to a degree but it's actually quite good evidence that their nature is to be the gender of th…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 10:00 PM
3

If further research needs to be done, you can't use this study to prove anything except for "we don't know." think the consensus is that transgenders have a brain that's different from both men and women. The consensus is that some regions are different, and IIRC it's only in some transgendered people. The overall brain structure aligns with biological sex. MTF also seems to be the direction that is primarily studied. What if it is similar to the effect of prenatal hormones on sexual orientation…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 09:43 PM
3

I think a more plausible explanation is that they recommend disregarding subtle communication because most of the people in the community have a social disability. It's physically impossible for them to decode it. Men who are good with women are generally uncommonly good at reading their subtle signals.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 09:28 PM
3

Which is due to a brain structure that's closer to other sex. That's not what that study says. What that study says is that certain, specific brain regions differ in transgendered people (and only when it comes to grey matter). That does not mean the overall brain structure is closer to that of the other gender. Given the difference in hormonal makeup between men and women, that would be extremely unlikely. Edit: In fact, that's exactly what they found: Results revealed that regional gray matter…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 09:22 PM
1

Well fine, let's run with these numbers. 99% is greater than 80%, but I feel less creeped out. Because I'm at considerably less risk of being attacked and having my genetic legacy put at risk. Intention is what matters.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 09:19 PM
6

This is why TRP teaches to ignore what a woman says, since her imprecise language makes her words effectively useless. You know, there's actually two conclusions you can come to from this. One is that imprecise language makes her words useless. The other is that you just can't decode it. One way of tackling the problem is to disregard women's language completely, but that's the less effective option. You would do better to just learn to decode the coded language women use. It's notable that TRP …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 09:17 PM
2

Thanks. I'll have to investigate that. Did they control for age here? People become more conservative as they get older, and I wouldn't be surprised if brain regions change in size too.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 09:13 PM
2

I have more like a 99% chance of losing to my friend in the army. Women do not have a 99% chance of losing to that emaciated Starcraft player who smells and quite literally has muscle atrophy. Many women would actively struggle to lose to him. Likelihood of being attacked is way more important.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 09:11 PM
1

Owning up to your mistakes is a useful trait in being an attractive wife.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 09:09 PM
2

Not really. If it's clear he'll win, it's clear he'll win. I'm always going to lose to Joe Rogan or my friend who's in the Army. We'll still (in general) be less scared. Motivation is by far the biggest source of danger IMO.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 08:24 PM
3

You have literally used that study in arguments with me.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 08:23 PM
3

The thing is that us TBPers (or liberals in general) have a less rigid brain structure and thus are more likely to accept new information and adapt to a new environment Do you have evidence of this? My understanding is that liberals are more open to experience but not that they have a less rigid brain structure.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 08:21 PM
2

"We can write off this proof that I am wrong because the overall conclusion doesn't change. I will now continue to use the evidence that is wrong."
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 08:19 PM
4

You would need to look at the numbers for this to be meaningful. What is the actual difference in consensus? What is "substantial" crossover? What are "meaningful" differences?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 08:18 PM
1

Clearly you aren't. That link isn't a criticism of MBTI, it's a demonstration that: Being INTJ doesn't preclude you from BPD BPD does not appear to predict your MBTI Which you would have realised if you had actually read the argument against your position, rather than sneering at it to get your rocks off.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 08:09 PM
4

It's a retarded heuristic. The bell curve is a more common distribution than pareto, hence it is retarded to assume a given distribution follows a pareto curve. Your saying "well duh, the pareto principle is a thing so it obviously applies here" is retarded, especially when you don't apply that same heuristic to the other gender.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 08:05 PM
1

Added now
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 08:02 PM
4

Absolutely accurate. Here are some more problems with that study. I wrote my own issues here. TL;DR women like way more than your looks, which is about the only thing you can convey effectively on OkCupid. Of course they rate floating pictures worse than men do.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 08:00 PM
2

By this logic men also abide by the 80/20 rule. "Pareto principle by analogy." Wtf.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 07:56 PM
1

You might also be interested in this link which shows the moronic nature of using MB type as an indicator of BPD.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 07:54 PM
1

I am judging on nothing but your advice. Your advice is very artificial. I wouldn't date a women that was following your advice.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 07:50 PM
1

Fuck that, I'm not about to go digging. Your entire subreddit is basically "how to hide borderline personality disorder: a guide."
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 07:46 PM
1

Good marriage counselling has an astonishing success rate. Christian counsellors do not, and they tend to espouse RP advice. "Be hotter" does not work if your partner cares about stability. Increasing the disparity decreases stability. Increasing stability is the primary reason mentally healthy people get married in the first place. It's why people form relationships rather than fuck the entire world like Bonnie Rotten until they give themselves an anal prolapse.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 07:44 PM
1

I think they are low value specifically because of their emotional problems. They aren't married to 250lb hambeasts, probably because their looks are fine. They don't seem stupid either, which immediately puts them above the bottom tier. They married crazy women because they have mental issues. Trying to fix anything other than those mental issues is naive.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 07:29 PM
1

I agree with you. Most of my slutty friends are great fun and when they're having sex with me it's amazing. I honestly don't see the problem. I think it's mostly motivated by jealousy. If she isn't claiming to be exclusive with you, who cares?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 07:27 PM
1

Interest is implicit for a man with shitty social skills. If a guy has no options, it's likely he's interested and willing to risk more to quell that interest. Instinctively, we aren't likely to make much of a distinction. Expressing interest just increases the response.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 07:22 PM
2

Men have the privilege of knowing they can most likely fend off a potential attacker We really don't. If an attacker is bigger than you, you're fucked. We have the privilege of knowing there's much less reason for him to attack us.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 07:19 PM
2

Most of them are married to BPD women, and they were attracted to them because they didn't care about emotional stability. They never talk about the obvious implication of that, which is that they couldn't attract people who were emotionally stable. Why not? It probably isn't that they were unnattractive. It's probably that they themselves have emotional problems.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 07:16 PM
1

...good marriage counselling is usually as simple as "make date nights" and "appreciate what your partner does for you" and actually serves bitch men way more than women. "Don't be snippy" isn't advice for men. Women decline in attractiveness faster than men. If your marriage is on the rocks, it probably isn't that you are less attractive than your wife. It's probably that you resent each other because you have shitty interpersonal skills. "Be hot" is not going to be a solution. Hell, do you hav…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 07:11 PM
1

Well no shit, it's really obvious advice. Most men are pretty open about wanting those things. TRP is just somewhere you can see them talking about it. It has zero bearing on their ability to give advice to men.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 07:07 PM
1

or married "right" women and then proceeded to royally fuck up themselves and thus the marriages They might try and paint this narrative but it's the equivalent of fat women saying "men like meat on their bones." It's a rationalisation. Nobody becomes naive. Almost all of them married awful women and are refusing to admit that or tackle the issue of why they were attracted to them in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 07:03 PM
1

/r/redpillwives is culty as fuck and a terrible place to learn about marriage. Anyone with an ounce of perception will pick up on the dishonesty you guys encourage. Lurking /r/theredpill is a considerably better option because you are reading actual male opinions, not the proxy opinions of a bunch of borderline women trying to hide their emotional disorder.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/16 07:01 PM
1

You can explain it all you like. You were defending them and for some reason you aren't willing to admit that.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 06:58 PM
1

It seems like you've changed your position because I called you out on defending them. Read back through this thread. It certainly seems like you're defending them. You've done this on a few threads now. When I make a solid case as to why your position is wrong, you back off and pretend you had a different position. It's better than doubling down I guess but I dunno... Seems kinda dishonest.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 05:22 PM
1

That's like saying "don't go to a casino if you want to keep your money." Yeah, no shit. Rigged games where you can't win are still illegal.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 05:15 PM
1

Given the fact we were arguing about reasonable expectations, I'm not sure what your point is.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 03:34 PM
1

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you think we perceive him as nice because he's good-looking? I wouldn't say that's true. He grew up being an emaciated nerd who was very unpopular for the majority of his life and he hasn't changed except that he's gained social skills. The reason we think he's virtuous is that he is extremely consistent in his morality, and his morality is altruistic.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 03:30 PM
1

I worded that carefully. "Interested in considering" means a reasonable part of her is curious about you. It does not mean someone who is specifically looking for free food and nothing else. I don't know what is hard about this. A girl doing that is unreasonable, period.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 02:34 PM
1

I don't really buy their explanation either, for that reason.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 02:30 PM
1

I don't think it really matters. The point is, virtue is getting him laid.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 02:23 PM
2

Utilitarianism is an incomplete philosophy. It's impossible to practice because it's impossible to work out what is the best way to be utilitarian. You're preaching to the choir, I don't think his abstract philosophical structure is meaningful. What she likes is that he has a strong moral character. He's nice, and he isn't about to sacrifice that. Morals are clearly a positive in his strategy.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 07:29 AM
1

That is probably selection bias as well. Your family is probably dysfunctional.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 07:24 AM
2

In theory. In practice he just has strong personal principles.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 07:22 AM
1

every young woman has either been hit on or has friends who've been hit on by married men
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 06:42 AM
2

Whether he is right or wrong is irrelevant. You're arguing semantics when it's clear those semantics aren't what he meant. That's a dishonest method of arguing.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 06:40 AM
1

The question specifically deals with women who have no interest.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 05:30 AM
2

The eternal cry of people who are wrong but don't want to argue in enough depth to reveal that fact.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 05:30 AM
1

Toxoplasmosis could have a totally independent effect, like making people more restless. That would make more sense as a pathogen. They often make people restless. It could just be toxo patients needed to be more interested in sex to sit down and do the study.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 05:27 AM
2

Hold up - do you have any evidence that it doesn't work? None of us have shadowed a guy who catcalls for a day, a week, or however long it takes to get one success. The truth is we have no idea whether it works or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 05:22 AM
2

Sure you could say that, but not responding negatively doesn't mean they're responding positively either. Most women tend to just ignore catcalls altogether. This is a dishonest argument. His point was clearly that they respond positively. You're taking his words more literally than he meant them and you're smart enough to know better.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 05:19 AM
1

objectively immoral Non-Aggression Principle Someone's been reading Stefan Molynuex. I'd encourage you to take a closer look at the part where he turns morality into something objective. Make sure you aren't falling for any cognitive tricks. There is a reason why people elevate Hegel, Nietzsche and even Ayn Rand as philosophers but Molynuex gets nowhere near the same amount of respect.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 05:12 AM
1

I don't think that's true. I think the majority of women understand that sleeping with a guy doesn't necessarily mean anything. There's no pretext with sex unless you've been on a bunch of dates beforehand. People have casual sex and everybody understands that. Nobody takes a woman on a date if they think she is just looking for a free meal. What I think you're trying to compare it to is when men deliberately create the impression that they want something more with the girl in order to get in he…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 04:42 AM
3

That's a considerably worse analogy. Delivery drivers are happy to deliver pizza whether or not they get a tip. I know precisely zero men who would be willing to go on a date with a girl if they knew she just wanted a free meal.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 04:20 AM
4

What he expected was a meal with a woman who was genuinely interested in considering him as a partner. I don't know why you're all being so obtuse about this.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 04:19 AM
2

Ah, ok. Fair enough I guess.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 02:53 AM
1

Not if you are currently creepy. If you have bad social skills, your options are either be creepy forever or run the gauntlet and be a bit creepier for a few years while you solve the problem. If you live somewhere you can't do that, then your only option is either stay as you are, or move. It sucks but that's the way the world works.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 02:51 AM
1

Oh, yeah. If you live in a small town you're fucked.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 01:30 AM
1

Again, if a woman in a relationship allows herself to be drunk and alone with a strange man, she's either a naïve idiot or she's at least open to the idea of cheating. That's a much lower bar than "has decided to cheat", but it's not really true. Most people don't decide to cheat until their emotions are pumped up. You're implying humans are more consistent in their beliefs and choices than they are. You're ignoring the core point, which is "women generally have to make a much smaller leap to ch…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 01:22 AM
1

If you don't have disposable social circles, you need to create them. It's not too hard, you just have to join a club or a society you don't intend to go back to.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 01:19 AM
1

I think it's clear I wasn't distinguishing.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 01:18 AM
1

I think that's kind of the point. You do it with a social circle you can burn. That's how I got good. I was a nerd, tried things out, got a reputation as a creep then left that social circle. Then I did it again and got less of a reputation. By the third round, people liked me. Now I can hold my own and I don't have to worry about that. It's not like you have any alternative. If you're a sperg or ugly, the only way out is to run the gauntlet.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 12:43 AM
1

Fucking what? You'd rather stay alone than lose one job and have mall cops have a conversation with you? These aren't even prerequisites, you can obviously implement his plan without taking on those kinds of risks.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 12:40 AM
1

Covert contracts can be legally binding (for example, common law marriage) but I don't think it matters. Covert fraud is still fraud. Fraud is not restricted to the legal term.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 12:35 AM
1

Yes, hence the word "tiny."
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 12:35 AM
1

I think you're trying to create a distinction that doesn't exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 12:34 AM
1

I think you're looking to make excuses to be honest. No, that is not the presupposition of a birthday present.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/16 12:20 AM
1

One of the presuppositions for the transaction is that she is genuinely taking the date seriously. That presupposition doesn't need to be stated. It is implicit. If that isn't true, then she is bargaining on false terms. You can claim she isn't obligated to do anything but you're just playing with definitions. She's lying about her intentions and both parties know it.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 10:27 PM
1

Agreed. I used to be an introvert, now I'm an extrovert. I think a lot of it comes down to how intimidated you are by social situations. If you find socialising scary, it's going to drain you. Get rid of that fear and you're going to find it energising.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 10:22 PM
1

Percentage of men who say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught - 74 % Percentage of women who say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught - 68 % Jesus Christ. Well, at least we know they were probably being honest.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 10:19 PM
1

Nobody ever tells extroverts to become introverts because being introverted is a bad thing. It's not useful. There is no point in becoming introverted. The only benefit it brings is the ability to be alone, and that advice is given to extroverts. "You should learn to be comfortable being alone" is common advice. This is like saying, "Nobody ever tells rich people they should try to become poor."
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 10:01 PM
2

You aren't very good at losing arguments.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 08:53 PM
1

A lot of that was because academies were held responsible for their students' actions. Your ability to fight isn't really affected by your morality. They were mainly avoiding liability.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 08:51 PM
3

The problem with this belief is that it ignores the fact that morality has value in the transaction. Hooking up with someone who displays a strong moral character means you have a dependable parent for your offspring. They are less likely to cheat on you, they are less likely to hurt you and they are more likely to do well by the children. They're also probably going to be more popular in the tribe. People like other people who are nice. It also implies they are generally healthy, happy and have…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 08:48 PM
1

Morality is indifferent to sexual success I think you mean irrelevant, but that's not really true. Strength of character is attractive to a lot of women because it shows the ability to control your impulses. It also makes you safe and makes you a good prospect for providing for offspring. All of those things help your sexual success. I have a friend of mine who has a girlfriend who wants to jump his bones almost constantly because of his moral structure. He is a utilitarian and he's totally unwi…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 08:43 PM
1

I agree, people never use words in both legal and moral contexts. The moral act of fraud is definitely not where the word came from.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 08:39 PM
1

His damages are the cost of one dinner. The damages are tiny but it seems pretty obvious that they exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 08:36 PM
3

I believe it is fraud, but it's small-scale and I wouldn't want it to be codified in law. That sounds like a law that is very open to abuse.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 08:35 PM
1

You're assuming decisions are clean. Many people have no intention of cheating while they are at a party talking to someone attractive, and they can go and talk to that person in a more private setting while still consciously thinking they aren't going to cheat. You can test it pretty easily. Would she go back to his hotel room if he openly propositioned her at the party? Probably not. What about four hours later, in the hotel bar? Maybe. Her threshold has changed. People aren't universal creatu…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 07:00 PM
1

What you just described is literally selection bias.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 06:55 PM
1

I misread you. I thought you meant currently cheating, as in engaged in an affair.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 06:32 PM
1

Women backing out when you make it overt what is happening.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 06:31 PM
1

Because they want to believe that it happened more spontaneously than it did. So why doesn't this happen to the same degree when women aren't in a relationship? Provided you have the ability to be funny, calling out a girl for trying to sleep with you is usually actively helpful.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 05:35 PM
1

Thanks. I'm pretty curious to be honest, I'm young so I don't have exposure to it myself.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 05:33 PM
1

You're assuming that decisions are clean. We don't make decisions in a clean way. You can apply boundaries but that's your own construction. Psychology is messy. You seem aggressive, so let me put the ball in your court. If women make the decision to cheat well before they are in the bedroom with you, why does making it overt (or implying she's made that decision at all) before that point cause her to leave?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 05:00 PM
1

I would need to give me a few different specific examples of men you know (preferably, average men) cheating. Examples of when they have cheated. Successful cheats only - trying doesn't count.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 04:25 PM
2

You're confusing incel and "can't get laid." Most men can't get laid without offering commitment. That doesn't mean most men can't attract women. When you're in a relationship, you can't offer commitment to anyone else. It's very difficult for that type of guy to cheat even though he can find a girlfriend. It's a relatively small percentage of my friends who are able to find women willing to sleep with them before they are in a relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 04:21 PM
1

Yes, I think this is a very good example.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 04:20 PM
1

This is why I asked for examples before. Could you provide a few specific examples?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 04:09 PM
2

No, it's a cliche, and the fact you bleat it means you don't understand the context. Don't get aggressive when people question your experience. It's a surefire way to stay ignorant.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 04:07 PM
2

Good reply. Thanks. :)
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 04:05 PM
1

I know. That was my original point.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 04:01 PM
2

I would even go so far to say that the majority of men prefer a relationship to sleeping around, provided they met the right girl. I agree, although for most guys that basically means a girl hot enough to make other girls unappealing. Not sure if I'd say that's my criteria. I'd probably turn it in for a girl who was just smart and non-manipulative. It's hard to nail down though. Good point. But I disagree that notions of romance aren't really strong motivators. In my opinion they are. I think pe…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 03:58 PM
2

Do you have much experience seducing women? Women in relationships generally need plausible deniability before they'll do anything. They don't make the decision to cheat until they are actually cheating. I understand that it's simpler to say that she makes the decision as soon as she goes back with him, but that isn't how it works. Up until you kiss her, the decision she's making is "This feels good. Is it cheating? Well, I'm not actually doing anything with him so no." She will genuinely believ…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 03:51 PM
2

I don't put much stock in looks, especially once you get past 30. Past thirty I think status is vastly more important. The average man has a lot of trouble getting laid. The average man struggles to ask a woman out for a date, let alone proposition someone they are aren't dating. I think you might have a skewed perception of what the average man is like. The average man goes to work in his mediocre office job, drives over to Walmart and then goes home and watches television for four hours, with …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 03:45 PM
1

You can't make a claim like this without citing one of those studies. Many married men have cheated. That doesn't mean they are currently cheating. Ongoing affairs are much rarer than a passionate romp at a conference.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 03:37 PM
1

The key point being you reject them...
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 03:36 PM
2

I wonder whether it's selection bias. Women sleep with a married man or see their friends do it and assume all married men are roughly equivalent without considering the fact they all went for the same guy.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 03:16 PM
2

I don't really believe you. Can you provide a few examples of your male acquaintances cheating successfully? Are they average men?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 03:15 PM
2

That's the only response you could have given which was less detailed...
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 02:25 AM
6

They really can't. Stating it firmly doesn't make it true...
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 02:24 AM
1

And I tried to remind you of the dynamic present at trailer parks so I didn't have to spend time writing out a detailed response.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 01:58 AM
2

Have you ever been to a trailer park?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 01:41 AM
3

for women it's much harder and takes a lot more to make the decision to stray than men Could you explain this in more detail? I don't know whether men or women cheat more. It probably is men. I'm just pointing out that OP's logic is flawed.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 01:40 AM
1

Your point was that other women found her attractive. Not to be rude but you made this distinction. Are you sure you have your position straight?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 01:31 AM
2

I know. That's not what I was taking issue with.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 12:10 AM
2

Who said she was attractive? We're talking across all men in all relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/16 12:08 AM
0

"A progression" = "escalating slowly." I know what I meant better than you know what I meant. "Progression" = "a progression from other kinds of flirting." It's a progression from verbal flirting. At this point you're describing red pill ideas but insisting they aren't red pill. I don't get it. No, I'm explaining the flaw in the ideas. Could you post a link to them acknowledging this flaw?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 11:47 PM
4

Huh? Your position doesn't seem coherant. I think you've already come to a conclusion and you're looking to justify it. These aren't very good justifications though, they aren't even internally consistent.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 11:25 PM
3

I think you have a strange perception of the dynamics of most marriages...
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 11:23 PM
5

I assume you mean "than men." I mean, I don't want to be rude but that's a seriously delusional belief to hold. Not sure how I can really respond to it.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 11:19 PM
2

Women.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 11:15 PM
4

The average man is terrible at getting laid. Most men don't really have sex with women outside of relationships. I don't think that belief is delusional.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 11:13 PM
8

No, I think it's probably perfectly reasonable (/sexist) to assume men cheat more - for the most part our sex drives run at ludicrous speed 90% of the time. Seems like flawed logic. Men also have to try considerably harder to cheat. Most people don't make a conscious choice to cheat. They avoid making any decision until crunch time, when they're actually in someone's hotel room and Mr./Mrs. Mystery starts kissing them. They're way more likely to do it at that point. Men might want to cheat more …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 11:08 PM
2

I don't know about most guys but I know I'd prefer a relationship to sleeping around, provided I met the right girl. It's nothing to do with values. Intimacy is just a really nice feeling. Messing about with girls is fun, but it gets lonely. Why does seemingly nobody think of romantic reasons as an answer to "why do many men have problems with a high n-count / her sexual past" and instead think of insecurity, jealousy and whatnot first and exclusively? Because those emotions are strong, deep and…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 11:04 PM
0

As a man? Don't. It's a waste of time. The women on online dating are there for a reason. Most of the time, it's an emotional issue. And women consistently rate men much lower on dating websites than in real life. You're fighting a losing battle from the beginning. Online dating is a horrible way to meet someone for a serious relationship if you are a guy.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 10:58 PM
1

He doesn't pay for the lambourghini. He pays to improve his hustle. All hustlers practice their hustle. Are you saying that, if you have to work for something, that means it isn't an achievement? It sounds like you're looking for a reason to bring men down for having one night stands, to be honest.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 10:55 PM
1

It's what is established in academia. Again, it's something I haven't studied for a while so I couldn't point you to a specific author. There was a professor who did a podcast on here about a year ago and he went into more detail but I can't remember his name or the episode.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 06:39 PM
1

It's been a while since I read up on the subject, but it's pretty well established that women have more variance in what they are attracted to. I'll see if I can dig something up. I don't remember specific authors anymore.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 06:37 PM
0

"Kino" is a different concept. It is about escalating the touch slowly so as not to spook a girl. It doesn't explain why escalation has to be slow. It's a very abstract way of explaining escalation. It actually leads to very bad habits. First, most people will not react immediately when you go to far with kino. You often have to freak them out before they give you a sign you can understand. I don't know if you've ever been out with PUAs, but kino guys are fucking creepy and they do not realise i…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 06:32 PM
0

Both of those things are reasonable evidence given we would struggle to get anything better, but autism diagnosis tests have literally been posted on here before and an extremely large number of posters have scored below the threshold.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 06:27 PM
0

First, stop downvoting me. It's pathetic. Second, you claimed (unprompted) that TRP advises this. If you want to discuss that, you need to provide examples.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 04:12 PM
0

Many of the posters here openly admit they are autistic. They also exhibit a limited ability to understand metaphor as well as other autistic tells. What kind of evidence do you want? Medical papers? Ability to read emotion is the most reliable test for autism. If a man has a lower than average ability to read women, there's a high probability that he is autistic.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 04:11 PM
1

The problem is, we have no way of knowing because nobody analyses that aspect of the data. On the other hand, disparate "types" for different women is a documented phenomenon. Women vary wildly in what they are attracted to. It's much less homogenous than men. This is why it's possible to get turned down by 30 women, then take one home and make her squirt. This is also why women talk about "crushing" on guys - and they each have their own crush - more than men. That means any conclusion that wom…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 04:05 PM
1

It's not even uncommon. Time spent as friends is a really strong predictor of whether a girl will hook up with a guy. Most people date within their inner social circle - going outside is actually quite rare. TRP has a very warped view of this. It's one of the biggest curiosities in academic evo-psych.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 04:02 PM
1

There is plenty of evidence for that and it takes willful ignorance to not believe it. The meaning in this sense is clearly that they are bad at the specific skill of reading people (which, by the way, almost always implies autism, unlike other social impairments). I think the merit of his statement stands.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 03:58 PM
0

OP said "CMV" so I posted a diatribe to change his view. I don't see why it needs to go beyond that. I haven't been on TRP in a while. It would probably be easier for you to post an example of them also coming to this conclusion and I'll explain if I think it's foggy. That would also align with the burden of proof.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 03:57 PM
3

I don't think the people who read this subreddit are a normal slice of the US population. Autistic men are vastly overrepresented here. I'd say adding footnotes for them is a good idea.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 02:02 PM
1

I don't want you to prove it. I'm not asking for proof. I'm telling you you're a bad liar.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 01:50 PM
1

What is the "payment" a guy is giving the lambourghini for a ONS? A mor apt analogy to me seems like buying the car for an exorbitant fee vs. getting to drive it around for the weekend without paying a dime. I would say the latter of those is definitely an achievement.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 01:48 PM
2

That's not the same as being totally open about how many guys they've slept with. It's also not the same as actually revealing that information. Is there better data on that?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 01:47 PM
3

Spot on. They also assume women can't detect their manipulation, which is interesting. When people clock that you are manipulative, they generally feel a lot more comfortable using you, which makes you feel like you need the manipulation even more. It's an interesting one.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 01:45 PM
0

The OP literally says "it's the best way to get a girl interested." I was responding to OP, not to TRP. But on that point, they don't advise "exactly" what I described. They occasionally advise something similar, but their explanation is a lot messier.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 01:40 PM
1

I think you're missing what I was really trying to get at. The point is, average is an unreliable metric because women's interest in men tends to be very particular. What you should look at are the 5% of his ratings that are highest.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 01:38 PM
1

Familiarity over a long time is not an anomalous variable. It's one of the strongest predictors for whether a girl will hook up with a guy.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 01:36 PM
2

The problem with "average" is that it ignores the following situation: 20 men, 20 women. The men think every woman is a six. Each man is rated by one woman as an 8, and a 4 by the rest. Each man gets a 6. Each woman gets an 8. In that situation, the men all end up with partners and their partners actually find them more attractive than they find their partners. But if you just look at the average, it will seem like the women will never be satisfied.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 01:32 PM
2

The entire challenge of judging character is learning see through lies and deceit.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 01:27 PM
2

So look for signs that she has impaired pairbonding abilities. That's much more effective than trying to search out the proxy of "how many cocks."
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 05:20 AM
1

You missed the point of the thought experiment. She is a 6 as rated by other people, and he managed to land her. It doesn't really matter how she rates him.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 05:14 AM
5

Why do you people always have to turn descriptions of reality into value judgements? This is why people with autism find it so hard to date people, yes. I didn't say that's a good thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 05:10 AM
0

It tells you the age of subreddits in the sidebar. Check for yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 05:08 AM
3

Aren't you deliberately creating that impression? Most men who give off that vibe genuinely aren't judgemental.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 04:35 AM
5

I have to very specifically make it clear to women that I don't give a shit how many men they've slept with before they will even hint at their numbers IRL. Why do you think your experience is different?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 04:31 AM
3

All of those "guys date out of their league" studies miss a really vital point. Women are interested in a relatively small number of men regardless of how attractive they are because they are more particular about their types. Let's say a guy is a 6 because he is dating a 6. That's how it works - our rating depends on what we can land. His average rating is probably going to be a lot lower than "6," because the 19 sixes he dated before her rated him as a 4. But she still rated him as a six. It i…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 04:30 AM
7

Otherwise they wouldn't be bragging about their n-count and adventures. Most girls don't. Girls on Reddit do, because it's anonymous.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 04:21 AM
1

Those women who are prone to ideological thinking to the point of delusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 04:11 AM
6

I'm not giving you money. Go away.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 04:01 AM
1

I think you're trying to make it seem like I am talking about them.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 03:59 AM
5

Just so you know, the fact you are trying to get us to buy into your fantasy is very transparent. You only included two sentences in this comment and it was enough to scream the fact you are lying louder than if you'd done it with an actual megaphone.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 03:36 AM
6

Flirting isn't just about guaging and communicating interest. Half of it is, sure. The other half is showing that you are skillful at flirting. The reason flirting is subtle is that subtlety is the easiest way to distinguish between people who have good social acuity and people who don't. The reason we don't immediately jump on each other's laps when we meet someone we find attractive is that we (usually the girl) need to assess the other person's personality. The biggest risk to a baby is anoth…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 03:25 AM
9

"Punching up" vs. "punching down" completely ignores the fact that status is situational. More importantly, situational status is way more important than the status of your group at large. A group of black lawyers kicking a homeless white guy? The situational status is obviously more important. He's weak, they're cunts. A group of black homeless guys mugging an emaciated white lawyer? He's weak, they are cunts. Where we stand in the progressive stack is absolutely irrelevant to 90% of our day-to…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 03:20 AM
1

I find women who don't make feminism a part of their identity generally get along pretty well with men.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 03:16 AM
2

Why would a girl rent herself to a shitty guy for the night? It's not hard to find a lambourghini for her to sleep with. This whole concept relies on men being more interested in relationships than women. Your analogy really should address this.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 03:13 AM
1

Why does it matter if she's been railed by 100 cocks? Presumably because getting railed by 100 cocks changes women. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a problem. You don't need to worry about looking for the 100 cocks. Look for those changes.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 03:10 AM
1

Then you learn to get better at unmasking people. That's what being a good judge of character means. This isn't really something you have a choice about. Either you learn to judge character better, or you will get taken for a ride.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 03:09 AM
1

I think you are spot on. The world is how the world is. If women are shitty, you need to work hard to protect yourself. Being a better judge of character is your only option, so work on it.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 03:08 AM
1

One night stands are hard for men, easy for women. Women can literally stand on a city street at night and get laid. The average man has to work hard for it. They are bragging about being better than the average man. I feel like you might be trying to rationalise away from that because this seems like a very obvious fact.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 03:06 AM
1

Because they aren't actually getting laid. They are men who are lonely. They want LTRs because they don't have the option of sleeping around. Come on, the vast majority of them are clearly not suave womanisers.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 03:03 AM
1

Most men want LTRs tho. Not with the majority of girls we hook up with. Very few women I sleep with would turn me down for a relationship. When they do, isn't because they are too hot for me or whatever else. It's usually because they are looking for something specific which I'm not. I want an LTR, but I don't want an LTR with Briony the primary school teacher from OkCupid or Sally the fuck-your-brains-out feminist.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 03:00 AM
1

I don't consider women like that victims, nor do I have any sympathy for them. They are disgusting. I'm just saying, if false rape accusers are delusional then encouraging their delusions with blurry and overreaching rape rhetoric is probably going to be dangerous.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 02:56 AM
1

"Slut" is a label people try to apply to people they don't like. A slut is a girl who (people think) sleeps around a lot and who someone doesn't like. Don't wrap yourself in knots trying to formalise the definition. Trying to disect a smear is pointless. We can easily talk about the implications of the term, but it's not really possible to define it. It totally depends on context.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 02:45 AM
1

The kind of women who charge for false rape aren't normal women. Those kinds of women often do need the distinction to be made clear. Malicious false rape allegations that actually get taken to trial are much rarer than allegations by mentally ill women who suffer from delusional thinking. I don't know that instructional classes are necessarily gonna help, but making sure those delusions are tackled would absolutely reduce the problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 02:40 AM
1

They hate them because those women like something they aren't. They think they are shallow because what those women like is different to what they like - in men. It has nothing to do with hypocrisy. They may be hypocritical, but it is irrelevant to their motivations. They like certain things in men, therefore they think those things are valuable. When a woman is taken by a man's looks or his superficial charm, she isn't judging him by the metric that our bitter dude cares about in men. Ergo, he …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 02:38 AM
3

I'm 26, and I've only seen a few of the girls I know flip. Most are holding their own against guys the same age. They're declining, but they still seem to have the edge looks-wise.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 02:33 AM
1

Does anyone actually have relationship experience with the actual "Unexciting, but nice." kind? If so, was it birds of a feather, or more opposites attract? I don't think the women on this board are "unexciting but nice." I wouldn't assume their answers come from that perspective. The exciting ones aren't nice. They're horrible. Look at Atlas. The ones who are nice, aren't exciting. They tend to be emotionally erratic feminists who are cookie-cutter identical to every other feminist.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 02:27 AM
4

You sure? Almost all the guys I know that don't work out look like twigs. Very few look good without working for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 02:22 AM
3

Do you have a source for those studies? I'd be interested in looking at the data. From what I understand, it varies wildly. Some women prefer a handsome face, some women prefer a meatsack with biceps. The latter is rarer, but they definitely exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 02:10 AM
10

I don't think this is true at all. The average non-working-out man in his 20s looks like a twig. It doesn't look good. The average non-working-out woman is still pretty hot. Once you get to middle age, it flips. The average lazy woman will look awful because she'll be carrying far more weight than the equivalent man.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 02:09 AM
5

The standard for what is "normal" is too high. The standard for what is "adequate" is too low. I don't think there's a contradiction. Most people shoot for adequate in themselves, but they expect to date normal.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 02:06 AM
3

Then say that. Don't be caustic.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 02:00 AM
1

I'm fully aware that I am also susceptible to bullshit. That's why I practice vetting of information. Sounding convincing, seeming like it is proven by hundreds of examples or suddenly appearing to explain the world is not and should not be enough for you. None of those are unbiased judgements.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 01:52 AM
3

How can 150 thousand people (or however many readers TRP has) be wrong? You tell me. People are idiots. We are bags of meat looking for a way to feel like we understand the world and we're incredibly vulnerable to all kinds of cognitive biases. Christianity, Islam, Homeopathy and the diametrically opposed political opinions of the United States should be proof enough of this. Communist Russia was an excercise in just how far that can take us. People are really susceptible to bullshit.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 01:22 AM
1

RPW didn't exist three years ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 01:19 AM
19

TRP turns women into comedy supervillians. They don't humanise them in realistic terms, they exaggerate and hyperbolise. Yes, you treat women as flawed, but that's the problem. You treat women as just flawed. Women are a bunch of flaws in a bag with buttons on the front. Everything they do is motivated by one of those flaws, and viewing them on a deeper level is buying into a nefarious illusion they have created. I wouldn't exactly call that "humanising."
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 01:14 AM
3

What purpose does this comment serve? Seriously, all you've done is tried to make people feel stupid for reading the article and tried to make him feel stupid for linking it. Trying to get clicks? Are you kidding me?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 01:09 AM
1

I'd say soulmates is more two people who compliment each others' genetic profiles. Personality is only a part of that. Phenomes are more important.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 12:54 AM
3

I agree with this. If you're intimidating, that means you have something of value. If some men can't handle it, that means some men will get more hot for it. If nobody likes you, it ain't that you're too much of a godess.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 12:53 AM
2

"Men are just intimidated by you" is very helpful advice, if you understand its implications. The reason certain women are given that advice is because it's very obvious that they are emotionally fragile. People try and build them up because that vibe is so strong that the person giving advice is afraid to hurt them. It's a canary. It means you're probably very emotionally erratic, which is usually the real problem. Men don't like people who have crazy emotions. The problem is nobody ever explai…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 12:47 AM
1

Read autobiographies. You'll pick a lot of social stuff up by osmosis. Osmosis is the only effective way of learning social skills, at least in general. Instruction manuals aren't that helpful except for learning specific things. It's too much of an instinctive skill to be communicated that way.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/16 04:50 AM
1

It gets a lot better. I came from the bottom and I'm much better than average now. The key is persistence. Social practice is by far the most important thing in becoming attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/16 04:11 AM
1

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think it's better that I be bluntly honest. It's probably that you have bad social skills. It carries through in the way you type. Keep practicing. When I started dancing, almost every girl hated me.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/16 03:40 AM
1

I don't see how this addresses what I said. We have instincts. Those instincts make us scared of people who are likely to hurt us. This is why we feel creeped out by schizophrenics, and it's why we feel creeped out by desperate people. What did you say that contradicts that?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/16 01:19 AM
2

Hah, not meaning to blame you. But yeah, it's definitely the element to single out. They need to agree with the costs and have the strength of character to follow through on that decision. I wish TRP would address the fact that a lot of women genuinely do lose all desire for other men once they're in a relationship, even when they're long distance for months at a time. Ah well, selection bias and all that.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/16 01:16 AM
1

The primary criteria for women choosing a partner for casual sex is "safety." For the majority of women, this comes before everything else. Are they safe, or are they going to hurt you? That actually makes their options pretty limited. The liquidity of the market is low because it takes a long time to check for safety. That means you get a large variability. Most women who have casual sex do it with men they know. It depends on who is available in their immediate social circle. Some women sleep …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/16 01:06 AM
0

If someone can openly call you a bitch without getting fired, you can shove a shit covered finger under their nose. It's already clear the workplace has horrendous disciplinary procedures.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/16 12:58 AM
1

Our instincts are adapted to tribal society regardless of where we live now. If something is instinctive, it's because of that environment.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/16 12:57 AM
0

They're less dangerous in a tribal context, but they're also a lot harder to detect. Most people are actually repulsed by people like that, though. The kind of girls who go for psychopaths after they've revealed themselves are not normal.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/16 12:55 AM
1

Hah, I am still reeling
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/16 12:53 AM
1

It does to eliminate losers.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/16 12:51 AM
1

1 to 20 is incredible odds. Go to a dance class where you rotate between partners. You only need to have 20 girls there and you can get one date per class. Just ask the one who's giggling at you and giving you eyes like a bush baby.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/16 12:49 AM
0

The other answers are bullshit. It's because they are dangerous. Desperate people are more likely to do something harmful to us in order to get what they want. We dislike them because they are risky. This isn't such a problem now but it would be a big risk in tribal societies. It's an instinctive response. This is also why lonely men are ostracised more than lonely women. They are more dangerous.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 06:43 PM
1

If you try and evenly distribute relationships, people will be in unhappy relationships. In that case, they are the losers. Doesn't solve the problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 05:15 PM
1

There is a period at the beginning of a relationship where we lose interest in other women, but I'd say it doesn't last longer than about nine months. Depends on the guy and the specific relationship. Did you want to hook up with other men during that time or did you lose interest completely? Plenty of men will stay loyal even if they have the opportunity not to. It's a cost-benefit analysis. You just have to pick a guy who will choose to stay loyal.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 04:00 PM
1

1 in 10... That's bad enough odds for you to think they're unicorns? Jesus Christ...
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 03:56 PM
3

Do you spend your entire life trying to ignore things that contradict your world view?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 03:55 PM
3

She's a suicide girl. They don't have brands, they're glamour models. Yeah.. so you struggle to get one match on tinder a week and you get to bang a model huh ? Yes. What do you want me to say? She didn't like me off the bat. It took a while. You sure she just didn't have extremely low self-esteem? She had awful self-esteem. Women who like me tend to be polarised. They either have terrible self-esteem, or it's uncommonly high. Usually it's terrible. I've slept with hot women. Based on your belie…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 03:51 PM
1

No, 90% of women care about looks. 10% barely care. Usually those ones like intelligence.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 03:43 PM
1

Isn't this the exact same catch-22 for men?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 03:30 PM
2

When I have sex with a girl I definitely get more protective of her and I feel warmer around her but I've had flings in the past where I didn't care at all. It basically depends on whether I feel connected to the person or not. I've fucked hotter girls and felt nothing because I didn't like them as people. We can definitely separate love and sex. If I had a really great girlfriend and a hot woman was hitting on me, I'd obviously want to sleep with her but I'd resist it for the same reason I'd re…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 03:29 PM
1

You can be a shitty person with good looks and get laid. No shit. People who think all women only care about looks are delusional.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 03:16 PM
3

No. I do those things, and I am demonstrably not physically attractive. I get laid. I note that you didn't reply to that comment I made to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 03:14 PM
1

Make the process of bullying you unpleasant. Make it overt that if they bully you you will make their life difficult. Tell them. Tell them "if you do that again, I'll spit in your coffee." Put your finger in your asscrack, take it out, then hold it under their nose. Tell them "if you fuck with me again, I'll wipe this on your lunch." Work out something unpleasant, that they can't stop. Then use it as a threat. I don't see why people struggle with this. The way you deal with any bad behaviour is …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 03:11 PM
2

Red Pillers claim women only care about looks because it's an easy excuse. "It's not my horrible personality that puts women off - I'm doomed from the start because I'm bad looking." It's an excuse.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 03:06 PM
1

This subreddit is a roller coaster.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 03:01 PM
4

Why? Probably: They are relaxed. They aren't needy. They have a genetic profile that combines well with hers in particular. They are funny. They are smart. THEY ARE SMART. They don't feel the need to project masculinity by being "ALPHA MALE", which subcommunicates insecurity. They are high status. Most often they are smart.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 02:57 PM
3

I hooked up with a model the other day and I am not a looker at all. I have arms like sticks and my hairline is halfway up my head. I struggle to get one match on Tinder a week. She liked me because I was uncreepy, funny, and presumably came across as intelligent. Some women need looks, but a lot really don't give a shit. I think your model is kinda bullshit to be honest.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 02:53 PM
2

No. This is how it works for some women, but not for others. I'll use myself as an example. I do horrendously on tinder and Internet dating. I'm not a looker and have a body like an assortment of twigs. I can barely bench the bar on its own. I redeem myself by being smart. I'm good at making people laugh, at least IRL. Most women don't find me particularly attractive. 90% think I'm disgusting, no matter how attractive they are. But the 10% that like me? They couldn't give a shit what I look like…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 02:47 PM
1

the SMP is fine For who? Improving yourself only works when you can do it more than everyone else. There will always be some people at the bottom of the ladder, and is generally going to be more men than women. When you improve yourself, women don't suddenly give out more attention. You are knocking somebody else off their perch. Even if everyone is improving themselves, someone is always going to be lonely. The SMP doesn't work for them. Saying anything "needs" to be fixed is naive. There's no …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 02:31 PM
2

Women tell you they go and don't want to be bothered. They don't tend to tell me that. My female friends tend to tell me who they're trying to pull before they tell other girls. They want to be approached and they don't care if it's natural. The reason they say this is that either: They don't want you to approach them. They don't want to look like sluts. Here's the thing. Girls are fucking neurotic about seeming like sluts, because everyone and their mother drills it into their heads that it's w…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/16 04:15 AM
1

Sure, I'd agree with that.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/16 07:00 AM
2

TRP works very well for thousands of people So does homeopathy. According to them.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/16 11:02 PM
2

If it works then there is no need for improvement. Are you a homeopath?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/16 11:02 PM
1

I didn't say anything about TRP, but I will if you like. Self-help is ridden with scams because it pitches to people who can't differentiate between good and bad advice. By definition, if you need self-help you probably don't understand what good self-help is. Bad advice is easier to write than good advice, and easier to sell because good advice is normally boring. Any sector where consumers can't tell quality from crap is likely to be ridden with poor-quality products. This is true of finance, …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/16 10:48 PM
2

When I was younger, I thought that if I liked a woman she must be pretty flawless, because otherwise I wouldn't like her. I was never taught to question my emotional reaction - in fact, society taught me not to question it. That was wrong. I recognise where that belief came from, and it's my responsibility to fix it. I believe both. So do RPers. I actually agree with your other examples but the reason is that they are delusions. They aren't true. The problem with them is that they are delusions …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/16 08:51 PM
1

People say most self-help guides are scams because most self-help guides are scams. You don't need to look deeper than that. Go on amazon and look at the majority of self-help they sell. Sort by date so you get an even mix. Do you think most of those results are trustworthy?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/16 08:41 PM
1

Similarly, a simple way to analyze whether TRP works is to stop applying TRP principles, ie, be BP and see if you still have dating success. How RPers do you know that have actually tried this? Serious question, here. Every Red Piller I know who is still "Red Pilled" has never actually tried going back. People turn to TRP when BP doesn't work so by extension this means that it is not some blind luck but TRP that works. Red Pill advice includes: Be outgoing and assertive. Be interesting. Project …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/16 08:36 PM
1

Most people aren't Christian, but churches do well. How do you explain that??????????????
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 11:41 PM
1

Sure, but they also have lots of women wanting to have sex with them which was his original contention.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 09:59 PM
1

They are marketted towards women as something that is easier to drag your boyfriend to that straight-up romance. This is pretty widely accepted...
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 09:55 PM
1

Could you provide an example?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 08:08 PM
1

It's to do with societal stability. Men who have no hope of ever having a sexual relationship will eventually get violent in pursuit of reproduction. It doesn't happen so much in modern society but in the Middle Ages we had a lot less law and order. Allowing polygamy means there are a large number of men who end up with no wives, and there is a significant risk those men would lead some kind of rebellion against the power structure. If you're a smart king, you want to make sure as many men are m…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 07:31 PM
2

Forgetting Sarah Marshall was notable specifically because it was a romantic comedy for men. Most romantic comedies are marketed towards women.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 07:25 PM
5

Beauty and the Beast is a girl's movie, but whatever. Belle is the protagonist. The movie is from her perspective. I don't really see your point.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 06:57 PM
2

Belle is the protagonist. It's a story for women. They aren't going to write the Beast a harem.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 06:48 PM
2

I don't think that's true. The bad boy is normally fun, charming, interesting, uninvested and exciting. The good guy is normally a bit shit. You need to provide some examples. The winner is usually deficient in all of those ways when there is an overt competition. That deficiency makes him accessible. Look at Bridget Jones' diary. The winner is a nerd. His only attractive qualities other than looks are that he is rich. A lot of men watching that movie don't realise she is settling.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 05:58 PM
2

Normally the nice, good-looking guy wins over a bad boy she initially liked more. The strategy itself is percieved as winning. It doesn't really reflect real life. In real life, women usually go for one or the other straight away and stick with that type.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 05:41 PM
5

The nice guy gets the girl at the end of the vast majority of romantic movies. Either he finally wins her over, or he becomes nice. This gives men the idea that being nice wins over other strategies. I don't think you need to complicate it.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 05:26 PM
1

I brought up porn because a subset of women (the majority) have learned things from it despite not watching it. It was in response to your question, "how can men learn from Romcoms if they don't watch them?" I think the "be physically attractive" part does stick. I think men come away from romcoms thinking they should be cute and doting.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 05:20 PM
3

Maybe, but it also shows what she wants is for him to be nice to her. Guys make the assumption that it would be effective to just be nice from the outset.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 05:13 PM
1

Good point. I figured that was "never" because of the order. Do you think women and porn is a fair comparison to men and rom coms? No. Romcoms are harder for men to understand than porn is for women to understand. I've explained this elsewhere in the thread.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 04:53 PM
1

Your actions don't align with this post...
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 04:38 PM
1

91% of the respondents were women - it's hardly about "people, not women Yes, it is. You can immediately subtract 8% from the total number who watch porn, because something like 90% of men watch porn at least weekly... Man, it's not worth breaking this down to you. You are looking to disagree. If you were interested in honestly assessing these figures you would have looked at those problems. 73% want to get off So why aren't you correcting for that figure? 73% of 61%-8%.... That's much less than…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 04:31 PM
1

An educational resource that makes you figure it out on your own? Take a step back here. Are you defending TRP because of an ideological allegiance to TRP? Have I highlighted a genuine deficiency with the subreddit?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 04:23 PM
2

70% of people answering that poll were under 34. 35% were under 24. That's wrong, but the point was that these Marie Claire readers are much more likely to like things that are explicit, given that it is in the sex section and did a poll specifically for a story about how women watch more porn than you would expect. The poll show 61% of people (not women) watch porn a few times a month. It also counts 39% of these respondants are watching it to learn about sex. Only 63% of respondents watch stra…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 04:19 PM
1

If you want to attract a girl, being the "average" between abusive and not abusive is a bad strategy. It is worse than being nice and being full-on abusive. If TRP were interested in good advice, it would explain that polarising yourself to one or the other is necessary. That is why understanding divergance matters. A one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 03:52 PM
1

Only 1/3 of women like porn enough to watch it once a week, and that is a survey of Marie Claire readers. The real number is probably significantly lower. (Edit: that survey also counts "erotic stories" as porn.) Yes, the point is that women understand what men like because porn is extremely clear about what men like. It is less ambiguous than a romcom. I explained that overtly above. Women like porn less than men and watch different porn to men. I think you are deliberately missing my point.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 03:46 PM
10

I think this is a naive response. Most people are going to look at what the protagonist is interested in, because that's how protagonists work. We identify with their wants and desires and those wants and desires are what is important. Gaston is attractive to the fictional women in the show, who are protrayed as dumb and bizarre in their tastes. The beast is attractive to the real girls watching the movie. Men aren't stupid, they know the interest in Gaston is fictional.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 03:43 PM
1

That's reasonable. I would agree with that.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 03:40 PM
1

Most women dislike porn, but it's still an influence because they learn from it. Men learn from Romcoms even if they don't watch them regularly.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 03:39 PM
2

AWALT is built on the idea that women are homogenous and pavlovian and all respond to the same thing. I think the most obvious example is the fact they don't distinguish between women who like being abused and women who don't. Why don't they? It's a fundamental difference that's observable in the population. Some women are turned on when you treat them like shit, and some women are turned off. I don't think I've ever seen TRP actually acknowledge that, let alone try to explain it.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 03:35 PM
7

You can deliver it in a way that works, but if you already had that ability you wouldn't need to ask the question.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 03:27 PM
3

That's not really true. Most dads don't talk about sex at all (at least in the west) and teenage boys are smart enough to know their friends are equally clueless. They watch movies and ask women. That's why videos where teenage girls explain what they like get vastly more views than videos where men whos' job it is to explain it break it down in excrutiating detail.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 03:26 PM
3

That's... Not true. Where do you think teenage boys get their advice?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 03:12 PM
3

Yes, that's probably something that's worth mentioning. Women are interested in a much wider range of traits so generic advice for how to be attractive is just not as useful for men. There is less incentive to make yourself generically attractive because it has less of an effect. I think this is where TRP falls down. They don't address the massive divergence in what different women are attracted to. They try and unify it into one Rosetta Stone when it just doesn't work that way.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 03:09 PM
2

They should. But most men won't, because doing that requires being lewd. And they think women don't like that.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 03:02 PM
4

I'm not sure that's the reason. I think it's just down to what women want from relationships. Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be this: "When women give you advice, they usually imagine a man they are already attracted to and then imagine what he would need to do to convince her that he genuinely likes her." When you ask a girl what she wants in a man, she probably won't think of what she has. She'll think of what she doesn't have. Most women have plenty of reasonably attractive men wil…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 02:53 PM
7

Well it's much more obvious for women. Women are wired to be better at understanding subtext that men, and they tend to get much stronger feedback on why men don't like them. They also watch more Romcoms, so they begin to pick out the patterns. When a girl watches a Romcom, she's not thinking "ok, this is what men like. I'd better take notes." She's living out a fantasy. One thing that is worth mentioning is that men generally aren't interested in romcom leads, which is one reason they don't wat…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 02:41 PM
2

I don't think even TRP claim it is deliberate.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 02:17 PM
14

Almost every romantic comedy is about an intimidatingly attractive guy revealing a flaw that makes him accessible to the protagonist (and the viewer). The fantasy is that there are attractive men who are flawed enough to be accessible. When men watch that, they don't realise that the flaw is a flaw. They think that kind of submissive, anxious behaviour is the attractive part. They don't realise it's only attractive because it's attached to an otherwise unnattainable guy. There's also the problem…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/16 02:17 PM
1

One of the other answers confirmed this is true, but religion is actually a relatively small factor.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/16 06:13 PM
1

Precisely.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 10:57 PM
1

He's poor. You are rationalising. Stop it or you will end up unhappy.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 08:48 PM
1

My best mate is the same height as you and has a skeletal disability that caused his face to be deformed. Today he phoned me while he was chatting to a girl who's been trying to cheat on her boyfriend with him for months. His last girlfriend was tiny and had tits the size of my head. She's also one of the coolest girls I know. They dated for years. These are all excuses.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 08:30 PM
1

I've seen people take this route to justifying it before. I don't think it's a good idea. You obviously care about women, or you wouldn't be posting here. I think you may be fooling yourself to avoid admitting you have a deficiency. That's a baaaaaaaad trap to fall in to.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 08:16 PM
1

Yep. As you should. That's why they come here.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 08:10 PM
1

What? I mean women. Don't marry them. Don't marry anyone. I assume you're straight, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 08:09 PM
1

Sure, but that doesn't make sense once you control for other predictors of those traits. high conscientiousness If that was a big factor, you'd expect to see a large fall when you control for income. low openness Maybe, but I dunno. Someone who is closed off might be more likely to cheat because they are less close to their partner, and better at hiding it. Could we isolate this? disgust sensitivity Why would this make a difference? If you're attracted to someone disgust isnt a factor. I wouldn'…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 05:50 PM
1

It's hard to explain. Mostly it's just too formal. Take this for example: Women are indeed all genetically instructed to seek out for the highest quality of men. Two things pop out: The words are in a strange order that implies you aren't great at communicating smoothly. You've used the word indeed to sound more intelligent, but you didn't realise that it comes across as pretentious. That implies you aren't so great at predicting how your actions will make people feel. That's going to sound pern…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 05:38 PM
4

Men who eat McDonald's multiple times per day, wear shirts literally stained with grease and have trouble climbing single-floor staircases still manage to find girlfriends. They don't get laid, but they do find girlfriends. Incels are an anomaly. Look i don't want to be harsh but reading this post, it's clear your social skills are a bit off. Your writing is overly formal and badly calibrated. It sounds weird. If that vibe carries through text posts on reddit, it's probably pronounced in real li…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 04:20 PM
1

I don't think I've ever seen you make a comment that wasn't intended to be rude, unless you're covering yourself. I'm gonna call bull.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 03:11 PM
1

It would probably be interesting but I'm looking for more reliable data.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 02:53 PM
1

I think the fact those controls made almost no difference is very surprising, but feel free to look for opportunities to be smug because you aren't surprised by things.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 02:48 PM
6

One of the interesting things about incels is that most of them say all women react badly to them, even women who are very unattractive. When you see photos of incels, the striking thing is that they don't look that bad. To be honest, most are above average. But when you see them on video or in person? They are creepy as fuck. The thing is, the kind of guy who repels all women, especially if he's average looking, is probably a guy who has bad social calibration. Baseline social ability is a prer…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 02:40 PM
1

Yeah sure that makes sense. I'm the opposite. Totally expressive, I love casual sex. I do prefer casual sex with girls I know though, and I value the emotional intimacy of it. I haven't seen much of a skew with my conservative friends, but I probably pick them because they're like me. Are most of your friends like that?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 01:11 PM
3

I find that liberals generally have a stronger moral code than conservatives, once you control for religion. It breaks down once you get to the ends of the spectrum but close to the center I definitely see a skew. This is coming from a conservative.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 01:07 PM
1

So don't marry anyone. Like I said, this problem is trivial to solve without eschewing any semblance of a relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 01:05 PM
3

TRP is a description of why they are alone, not a justification, and even then it's inaccurate. Most incels are alone because they have bad social skills.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 12:59 PM
6

I hate to be "that guy" but do you have evidence of that? Seems like a tenuous statement. I doubt there would even be enough data to establish a link.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 12:32 PM
1

I haven't really observed that myself but let's take this premise as true. Why not?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 12:30 PM
1

If it were that simple, I think the relationship would be mitigated once you control for income. They saw no change though - not even a slight decrease.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 12:28 PM
1

So don't marry them. This is an easily solvable problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 12:26 PM
1

What attitudes do you think make liberals more likely to cheat? They controlled for IQ, race, age, birth cohort, religiosity, education and income.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 12:24 PM
4

There is a direct correlation of incel threads on TBP and PPD. What does that mean? When incel posts on TBP increase, they increase proportionally on this subreddit? Or do you mean there are lots of posts about it on both? I don't think TBP is particularly pro-incel.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 12:21 PM
3

Once you remove religion? Yeah, I think once you control for that factor there are shitloads of sex-positive conservatives. Although the fact it doesn't change is what is interesting.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 12:18 PM
2

Yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 12:16 PM
22

Because TRP gives incels a way to justify why they are alone. They come here because this is the only place they can agree with the parts of TRP that reinforce their delusion while disagreeing with the parts that tell you to improve yourself. They're angry at women, so TRP's lack of empathy for women attracts them. TRP gives them a lot of theories about female nature that they can latch onto to say "see, it's not my fault, women are just bitches." They use the ideology to avoid taking responsibi…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 12:09 PM
2

They attempted to assess how likely respondents were to lie later in the analysis and what they found was that conservatives were marginally more likely to lie on one metric, but it doesn't account for the difference. I think that's as good as we're going to get really.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 12:04 PM
3

It turns out, however, none of these are the reason for the association between liberalism and extramarital affairs. Simultaneously controlling for IQ, race, age, birth cohort, religiosity, education, and income does not much attenuate the association between liberalism and the propensity to engage in extramarital affairs, and, in fact, slightly increases the association among men. Damn. Now that is interesting.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 11:59 AM
1

Do you have the study? Did it break it down by gender?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/16 11:47 AM
1

Ok, look. If you're actually interested in the research, follow the citation trail from those articles. They link studies. Follow the author's publications. Look at their departments and co-publishers. If you aren't doing that, the impression it gives is that you are more interested in crafting a post full of indecisive sources than actually investigating sources.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/16 02:05 AM
1

Look, all of your responses in this thread have been extremely obtuse. You're giving people zero credit for their arguments and deliberately trying to catch them out on technicalities, while ignoring the thrust of their points. At no point have you acknowledged any merit to anyone's arguments but your own. You are also obviously lying in a few posts about why you made empty arguments. Given how you are engaging, do you really think people are going to spend the hour it takes to compile a well-so…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/16 01:51 AM
1

You didn't look anything up, Internet radio is podcasts, but all of this is tangential. You know what my central point is, and you have ignored it. Why did you start this CMV?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/16 01:41 AM
1

But the warnings themselves are irrelevant to their opposition. They'd still be opposed whether there were content warnings or not. And trigger warnings give them license to enforce their desires. This is like saying the star of David didn't hurt the Jews. No, it didn't - but public acceptance of it made it easier to get to the latter stages of the holocaust. Censorship is a progression. By the way, you don't get to replace chainsaws with knives. The point is that perceived danger can be used to…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/16 01:12 AM
1

You posted a thread where you called for research. Do you actually want to investigate the subject or not? Digging up sources takes forever. Look it up yourself. I gave you a summary.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/16 01:04 AM
1

You described a guy putting his hands on a girl's throat, her "recoiling" and him stopping in response to that. Yeah, that was hyperbole. I figured it was clear but fair enough given the context. No, you don't ever get to the point where your partner actually recoils in horror.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/16 01:01 AM
1

And we got to that point mostly by talking about it, not by him trying to choke me and me slapping his hand away. See, you're deliberately painting a different situation, repeatedly. This is why I think you're lying. Someone else in this thread mentioned doing it during a ONS. I have a hard time believing that level of trust has been established after a few hours of knowing someone. I didn't say that. It's usually pretty easy, but you don't go forward unless it's clear. If I wanted to choke a on…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/16 12:28 AM
4

Yes, because obviously the way to go about it is to grab her like The Rock and suplex her into the bed by her neck. Christ...
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/16 12:23 AM
1

Include in every warning that the warning will not be comprehensive. Why would publishers add the warnings if they weren't mandatory? Which is why I proposed conducting research on efficacy and practicality before implementing any kind of content warning system. This research exists. The consensus is that trigger warnings are: Inneffective. PTSD victims aren't idiots - they clock where passages are going before they get there. If you would be triggered by the passage, as soon as you realise what…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/16 12:19 AM
1

There are warnings on coffee cups: 'Caution: Contents are hot and may cause burns.' Nobody is saying coffee is dangerous or that it should be banned. Because nobody has an incentive to. Nobody is ideologically opposed to coffee. People are ideologically opposed to many ideas that would require trigger warnings. You yourself differentiated coffee warnings, by the way. They are liability protection, not an actual admission of moral responsibility. Same thing with thousands of other products. For e…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/16 12:09 AM
1

Easy, I just assume he's not into those things until stated otherwise. That's not really the question. How do you know he has the same standard? I presume the answer is that it was obvious. It was obvious what you wanted, despite it never being communicated - and you trusted him to understand that. It was clear he was on the same page. But actually yeah, I wouldn't have a problem having this conversation in the future if I started dating again. Not what I asked. Will you do it with everyone, bef…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/16 12:02 AM
0

Yes I did. I said I've never done it because it's not something it's ever occurred to me to do. I can't really elaborate beyond that. Why not? How is he supposed to know otherwise? If spanking without asking is ok, how is he supposed to know where the line is? Now I've suggested it, will you ask all future partners? No, it's because until today it seemed obvious to me that someone would ask before they did something rough or violent to me in bed. You are asking. You are just doing it non-verball…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/16 11:52 PM
1

It's not trial and error. It's "I'd like to choke you. Are you into that?" Except you do it with your hands. Communication via body language is considerably sexier than communication via words, to 90% of the population. Especially people who are into rough sex. When someone is uncomfortable with non-verbal communication, that is also extremely obvious and, surprise surprise, you adjust. But something like choking that's borderline violent (or at least mimicking violence) is really scary to imagi…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/16 11:43 PM
1

As soon as you add a trigger warning to a product, you are implicitly acknowledging the product is dangerous. That makes it a lot easier to ban your product in the future.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/16 11:37 PM
1

Two problems you introduce with any mandation of trigger warnings in any context: The added expense of going through a text and labelling trigger warnings, which quickly becomes non-trivial because: You necessarily introduce consequences for missing warnings, even inadvertantly. If content warnings are mandatory, you have just added a burden to the publisher. Why bother? A much better solution would be a program that scours digital copies of textbooks for trigger words and produces a list of pag…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/16 11:30 PM
1

But why not tell them. You know, just in case?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/16 11:24 PM
-1

Ok, let me rephrase: you might not be lying, but you have very abnormal standards for behaviour if not. Do you tell everyone you sleep with that you have these standards before you start?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/16 11:08 PM
0

Eh, I think you're running with it for the sake of the argument. I've never met a girl who would cuss a guy out for proposing something via mime rather than language. The meaning is exactly the same.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/16 11:03 PM
0

If a guy put his hands on your throat, you recoiled (rather than wrapped your legs around him in ecstasy) so he stopped because he's not a retard and it's extremely obvious you aren't into it, that's a dealbreaker? I don't believe you.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/16 10:58 PM
-2

I imagine the reason you prefer it when people ask probably has something to do with the fact you are autistic. Making things clear and explicit is going to be reassuring to you in general. Most people can cope with (and prefer) reading body language.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/16 10:51 PM
2

The way you check is you put your hand to her throat and see whether she creams herself or recoils in horror. People don't normally say "yes please" when they're being submissive but the signs are hardly subtle. Unless you are literally autistic, it's pretty fucking obvious when a girl likes rough sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/16 10:47 PM
1

Whoops, I was confusing you with the other person replying to me, who posted this reply This is the relevant article: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php Sorry about that, it wasn't a reasonable criticism. Also, speaking of that testosterone thing - so there's correlation between being smart and having low testosterone That was their theory. It was specifically IQ, not other forms of intelligence. They thought testosterone suppresses IQ. The papers they cite that su…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/16 05:38 PM
1

The thing is, that in school/university there are not so many gang members, ok? You brought up gang members. I was saying that conflicts with research that shows the demographics that show up in gangs (disproportionately very stupid, disproportionately black and latino) are less attractive. The article you posted shows that even if you just measure IQ, stupid men are highly unattractive. You have your smart STEM students vs not so smart other majors. And those other guys get laid way more on ave…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/16 05:00 PM
1

Eh, I guess I mispoke. You average girl doesn't find nerdy STEM dudes or gang members attractive. Most women are creeped out by dangerous men. If you're comparing a pasty nerd to 50 Cent, that list would be good. Although the idea that STEM students are smarter isn't that solid. They are better at fine-grained logic - they may be much less socially intelligent, have worse spacial awareness, have a worse memory. It could be that it's a tradeoff. Aspergers patients may have IQs in the genius range…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/16 04:34 PM
1

How many smart men do you know who also carry all the other attractive traits your average attractive man carries? Nerds aren't unnattractive because they're smart. They're unnattractive because they're socially awkward, timid dweebs. Their intelligence is a mitigating factor but it's not that mitigating. The smart guys I know who apply their intelligence to being witty kill with women.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/16 09:19 PM
1

Compare your average STEM student to your average gang member. You really think it's his brain that makes the STEM dude less attractive? It's got nothing to do with his pasty skin, hunched posture, soft voice, inability to look people in the eye, stick-figure frame, stressed out vibe, complete lack of social skills, low-level autism, inability to cope with the slightest lack of logical consistency and fear at the mildest hints of aggressive behaviour? No no. Must be his brainpower.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/16 09:09 PM
5

Why not? If the government takes a year of someone's life, I'd say reparations need to cover a fair amount more than lost earnings. Imagine how much you could sue a private citizen for the same thing.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/16 04:52 PM
2

Honestly, that's still pretty bad.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/16 04:15 PM
1

That's €2920 per year of false imprisonment. Fucking what.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/16 03:37 PM
-4

They give ridiculously light punishments to purjurs of all crimes? Christ. I don't think that makes it better. Edit: Not sure why I'm being downvoted. Did I say something wrong?
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/16 02:43 PM
1

Don't take this the wrong way, but I see people glorify "disagreeing" and "being a bit of a bitch" as though they are equivalent to standing up for yourself a lot. I find it's generally overcompensation. In my experience, the people who do that can't assert themselves because they're afraid to. Calmly asserting yourself with authority (the approach that people respect) takes self-control. Being a bitch or being disagreeable is a shortcut. By being aggressive, they can assert their desires withou…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/16 02:06 AM
2

This is the definition of disagreeable: disagreeable dɪsəˈɡriːəb(ə)l/ adjective Unpleasant or unenjoyable. "a disagreeable thought" Unfriendly and bad-tempered. "Henry was always a very disagreeable boy" What you are describing is having a backbone.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/16 01:58 AM
1

If you're disagreeable to others, they're going to see that. Although to be honest I think you have a weird definition of "disagreeable."
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/16 01:41 AM
1

To clarify, you'd be disagreeable in the dating stages and turn it off once he buys in? I doubt anyone worth keeping is going to stick around that long. Having boundaries is not the same as disagreeableness.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/16 01:37 AM
2

People who repeatedly come back to internet arguments despite the fact they're frustrated by it are rarely happy. It's usually an attempt to vent and feel a sense of control they lack in their real life.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/16 01:34 AM
1

Plus the woman who speaks her mind weeds out any man who would cheat on her beat her or control her because they want an easy target. Someone who is looking to cheat wants a vocal partner, because a vocal partner lets them know when she is getting suspicious. You'll probably weed out the other two, but being disagreeable is a retarded way of doing it because you'll weed out anyone with self-respect. Just be open and honest, and set boundaries. You don't need to be an ass about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/16 01:32 AM
1

The reason is that being more disagreeable makes you more likely to climb the dominance hierarchy No it doesn't. It makes you much less likely to climb the dominance heirarchy, because you make enemies. Although, the idea that humans rely on a dominance heirarchy in the first place is flawed. In a tribe, it was all about who you could team up with. Two weak men would beat the shit out of one strong man who was pushing both of them about. Dominance wasn't important - status was. Being disagreeabl…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/16 01:26 AM
2

Yeah, that makes sense. He's like that too. Really lovely guy, but he often doesn't realise when I'm playing. I think people erring on the side of nice is less attractive, because it demonstrates an inability to read social nuance, and a fear of being reprimanded if things go wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/16 08:09 PM
2

I definitely think it's a bigger factor for me than most people, but I don't think it's that strange. Feeling a connection seems to be a prerequisite if a girl wants to have sex, even casual sex, and being nice is a big part of that. I think the bigger problem is that people think niceness is about killing the fun. I have a friend like that. I fuck with girls I like all the time and even if she's enjoying the challenge, he'll see it as me being mean.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/16 07:45 PM
2

I think it probably would. I find girls who derive pleasure from being nice to people (not so much girls who are nice as a means to an end) attractive in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/16 07:09 PM
3

I think that's putting the cart before the horse. It's scary to approach, and most people dislike fear. Inexperience is a consequence. Either way, why is that important?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/16 06:39 PM
4

It made me more attracted to her. I wanted to kiss and have sex with her more. I don't think the mechanism is that important. It's still attraction. Although I don't think that is the full story. She was demonstrating conscientiousness, which is a trait I want in a partner. It turned me on most when she was nice reflexively - when she did it in a way that made me think it was automatic.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/16 06:32 PM
6

No, but this is abundantly clear if you go out with a normal group of men and suggest approaching someone. Do you have data?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/16 05:49 PM
10

I think it's more down to the fact it's scary, to be honest.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/16 05:43 PM
4

Why do women find humour attractive? Because it takes intelligence to be funny. How many times have you spoken to women about men who are physically attractive? One of the most common complaints is, "he was really attractive until he opened his mouth." The story of a young girl who is captivated by an old writer because of his great mind is as cliche as it gets. It's a common finding across the literature. I don't really have time to dig up sources, but it's not hard to check. Either way, it's n…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/16 05:25 PM
9

The vast majority of men do not approach women, ever. They only ever build relationships with women in their social circles, and those relationships generally begin on the pretext of just being social. I think the idea that most men in the US approach strangers to hit on them is divorced from reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/16 05:16 PM
8

Yes. Had a fuck buddy last year who I wasn't that into, and whenever she went out of her way to be nice to me I would physically feel a rush of attraction. I really don't understand why people think that's weird.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/16 05:14 PM
5

The idea that criminals are having more sex because they are more attractive is a jump in logic. It conflicts with evidence that women find smarter men more attractive, and also that most women on average find white men more attractive. I think these explanations are much more likely: Men who are criminals are just more likely to be in the kind of social circles where women with low inhibitions hang out. Men who are criminals are more often in situations with women who are drunk. I also think ni…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/16 05:06 PM
1

This reads more like a rationalisation for not confronting your girlfriend than even remotely good advice. You know how you check whether your girlfriend respects your boundaries? You clearly and verbally set boundaries.
/r/TheRedPill05/07/16 02:17 PM
1

The article is clickbait. You can't trust it, at all. It could be true, or it could be (in my opinion more likely) total bull. Women can get sex easily, but men don't drop their standards much when they go casual. Have you ever actually seen a girl go home with a guy more than two points above her? Have you ever had sex with a girl more than two points below the kind of girl you normally fall in love with? I haven't. I doubt I could get it up in that situation. Could be true, but I don't really …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/16 07:14 PM
1

I'm up for carrying on, but I'm being concise. You're repeating points, being direct is the easiest way to respond. What is your issue with what I have said?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/16 12:25 AM
1

The mantis is a bad example because [points that are unrelated to zero-sum games] It backs up my point that sexual strategy is non-zero-sum. That's all that is necessary. Your other points are hand-waving. A major aspect of the TRP world view is that women are shitty... Irrelevant. Sexual strategy is society. I don't get how you can say it's independant of it. Atoms are society, but understanding that tribes in South America hunt with sticks tells you nothing about quantum physics. I don't think…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/16 06:57 PM
1

I think the desire for casual sex is mostly innate. If you remove the locker-room props men get for sleeping with women, they'll still want to do it. It's naive to think it's motivated by a desire to be socially accepted. If you were led to believe that casual sex was more or less just an enhanced form of masturbation, and "I banged ten girls" was a statement with similar social approval to "I masturbated to videos of ten different porn stars", then that would remove a major motivation for why a…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/16 12:25 PM
1

Ok, fair enough, Mantis was a bad example, nevertheless, I'm sure if the mantis were sentient, it would prefer to not be eaten in the same fashion most women prefer not to give natural births. In any event, you understood my point. If the mantis were sentient, his motivations would be the same. Currently, he wants to be eaten. If he were sentient, he would have evolved to want to be eaten. I did understand your point. I've used the same example to back up a similar argument in the past, and it w…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/16 12:19 PM
2

I think that's a reasonable hypothesis. When you're with a girl and she's shivering from cumming so hard, it's difficult to believe you'll ever match that kind of pleasure busting a nut. Validating though.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/16 05:25 PM
2

Sure. That's solid. Although it does raise an interesting question - why did 50 men refuse? Btw, in response to your original point - alcoholics (and addicts in general) want their fix much more than the average person, but they measurably enjoy drinking less.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/16 03:43 PM
3

That's a very different statement with different implications. Sounds like you pulled it out of thin air, to be honest. Not one woman accepted sex outright? One of my friends used to go to every girl in a bar when he'd failed to get laid and things were closing up, asking for sex. He was accepted more than once. You're making a fine point but why throw out bullshit on top of a solid argument?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/16 01:09 PM
1

I have a couple of responses to what you've said. First off - unless the two genders have it equally as bad, one gender does have it worse than the other. One side is right when they say their team has it worse - they could just be calling it as they see it. To be honest, I think a lot of the men who complain that men have it worse actually have a lot of empathy. They see men getting the short end of the stick and it frustrates them that nobody else cares. Back when I was into men's rights, that…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/16 11:59 AM
2

Countless of social experiments and surveys have shown that men are 100% ( Yes, 100% ) more likely to automatically accept sexual propositions from women under any condition than vice versa. If you're going to make bold statements, understand what you are talking about. If they are 100% more likely to accept sex, thay means they're twice as likely. I get the feeling that isn't what you meant.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/16 11:51 AM
2

Well, sure. I agree with that. But that desire is irrational. TRP plays on a lot of psychological quirks.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/16 05:05 PM
1

That doesn't address my point at all. If you make a claim that is false and I demonstrate that it is false, that argument is sufficiently strong. It doesn't need to be stronger. Anyone who claims it does is probably just clinging to the original claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/16 04:32 PM
1

Why? "A man shooting a firework out of his butt" is a false explanation. Providing an alternative isn't necessary. It's wrong, that's that. Likewise, TRP makes claims that are verifiably false. They are wrong, that is that.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/16 04:24 PM
1

/r/punchingmorpheus is an alternative. It isn't the alternative. Here are some others: http://www.therawness.com http://www.hookingupsmart.com /r/relationships http://www.realsocialdynamics.com http://www.markmanson.com http://oktrends.okcupid.com/ Some are good, some are bad. As you might expect. Most of them don't claim to be providing some rosetta stone like TRP - they each deal with certain aspects of the dating game. There isn't one golden panacea that rivals TRP because most people recogni…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/16 02:59 PM
1

When women get older, they often lose their sex drives. Your wife is no longer in love with you. Relationships often have expiration dates. People fall out of love as a function of time - it has nothing to do with you. Most people don't stay in romantic love for more than 1-4 years. Women often lose interest in sex when they have recently had children. All of those are far better answers than the ones Red Pill normally gives. "Be more alpha and she'll love you again!" Those three points should b…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/16 02:52 PM
2

Ok, here's an alternative: "The Big Bang was caused by a man shooting a firework out of his butt." We don't have an alternate explanation, but we can still say with reasonable certainty that that explanation is wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/16 02:29 PM
2

Many women want children, but can't afford them. If they think they will be compensated, that disincentive is reduced. I replied to this thinking it was my other post, by the way, in case you were wondering why I deleted it. It wasn't a relevant response.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/16 01:19 PM
3

Depends on the state, and even then only if they live together. But that is a fair point. In some situations there is zero punishment. In the others, she can avoid it easily.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/16 01:13 PM
3

I have grossed out women less attractive than me, and I have slept with women more attractive than me. It doesn't really work that way. Women can be grossed out for hundreds of reasons. It isn't just down to attractiveness. It could be because you're coming on too strong and she feels like she can't control it, or it could be completely arbitrary. Shit, some women are grossed out by six-packs. If you are ugly, you will gross out more women. But that doesn't mean you're immune from it if you are …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/16 09:47 PM
1

Marriages before people could talk?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/16 09:45 PM
5

I think a big reason there are so many single mothers is that they think they will be able to extract child support from the dad if he leaves. If you remove that safety net, birth rates for single mums will fall through the floor. Women are a lot more careful when the consequences for having sex are worse. That's why the introduction of the pill caused a sexual revolution - women no longer had to ensure they were capable of raising children before bonking.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/16 08:42 PM
5

Women can legally give their children up for adoption. In legal terms, there is zero punishment for women having children they can't take care of. They are actively rewarded for it, at least financially.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/16 08:38 PM
1

You're misunderstanding what I mean by relationship. A one-night-stand is a form of relationship. I'm specifically avoiding putting in the context of modern society for the reasons you've outlined. It's not necessary for the argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/16 08:32 PM
1

To quote St. Rollo Tomassi "For one gender's sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own" - which basically means that the sexual strategies of both genders are fundamentally at odds. If I can compromise with you for a mutually beneficial outcome, we aren't "fundamentally at odds." Our interests fundamentally align, but they involve a superficial level of opposition. We gain more than we lose. Everything that you are saying rests on that premise. It's a premi…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/16 08:28 PM
1

Some people lose. That doesn't mean it's a zero-sum game. See? That's not a meaningful response. I can't get into the specifics of your viewpoint because you aren't exposing your opinions to criticism.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/16 03:45 PM
1

You need to make it overt because it's wrong, but I can't argue against it unless it is overt.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/16 03:18 AM
1

Because he's an idiot. I understand the implication you're making, but you need to make it overt.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/16 03:11 AM
1

I started typing a long reply to this earlier but I've been pretty strapped for time. Honestly, any answer I give will raise more questions. Satisfactorily addressing this subject requires walls of text IMO. Chapter 2 of The Red Queen is entirely dedicated to addressing just one half of your post. Sorry man, I just don't have the time to write it out. I'm not trying to be dismissive or anything. The best I can do is point to where I learned this stuff. It's not a direct answer, but the the first…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/16 11:02 PM
1

He can lose if he enters a specific type of relationship. So what?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/16 10:59 PM
1

In most species of mantis, the male puts up a cursory fight to check the female's fitness level, then throws himself into her jaws. It is willing, because it increases the chances of his genes surviving & propogating. Being eaten is a win. I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by walking away from situations where we lose - I mean, in the environment which we evolved, humans that on average lost more than they gained in the evolutionary game were mercilessly weeded out of existance. We dev…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/16 10:55 PM
2

Except that is literally what they say. Do you know where the quote in my op comes from? Either way, it's not that relevant. The same logic applies if we use your definition of "relationship."
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/16 02:19 PM
3

You still have yet to make any sort of case, let alone a convincing one, for the idea that the modern first world idea of a relationship is a product of evolution. I know. I don't see the need to, it doesn't affect my original point. If we assume that "relationship" means any combination of events that leads to reproduction, doesn't that defeat the purpose of the initial question? No. If "sexual strategy is zero-sum" is the statement, any form of sexual co-operation is relevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/16 11:54 AM
1

Do you believe people are happier in a free market than a communist regime? This is related, by the way.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/16 11:52 AM
1

There are a couple of problems with that. First is that group selection in the context you're suggesting can't drive the evolution of sexuality. The other is that genetic variation is actually bad (edit: for the individual), despite the fact that it drives evolution. It's why we've evolved to have such a stable genome. The cliff's notes explanation is: 99% of genetic mutations are disadvantageous, so on average mutations are detrimental (therefore the pressure is to not have them, which sexual s…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/16 11:49 AM
1

By "net benefit is zero" I'm assuming you mean "the losing party receives no benefit." No. I mean the net benefit to all parties in the game is zero. How does the statement you're referring to imply that? Good point. I guess it isn't a formal implication, it just seems that's what he was trying to imply. How so? Winning or losing a zero-sum game changes my payoff [...] I can wind up with the whole cake, 75% of the cake, 50% of the cake, etc. based on what I do. ...you aren't all parties.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 09:56 PM
3

First, you argued that zero-sum games are evolutionary impossible because you thought that they entailed one party receiving no benefit. "If one party is always losing, one party always has more reason to leave than to stay." I did argue that but it's not that I don't understand the nature of zero-sum games. My major was compsci, game theory was a significant component. I made certain assumptions (correct assumptions) and lost track of them, so the argument became disjointed. You're right, I did…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 09:45 PM
3

That's reasonable. I'm mixing up arguments. This statement: The two genders' sexual strategies are fundamentally in opposition to one another. For one gender's sexual strategy to win, the other must lose. Implies the game is zero-sum and the net benefit is zero. This statement: Sexual strategy is zero-sum Implies the payoff to all parties is the same no matter the course of action. If that's the case, co-operative relationships wouldn't have evolved because the average payoff is neutral, or nega…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 09:27 PM
2

A zero-sum game has a fixed pie. If the pie is not fixed, it isn't a zero-sum game. This is basic terminology and the link I gave you (which you sent to me) clearly explains it.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 09:09 PM
3

So, we solve the sex vs commitment problem by defining the "mutually beneficial" solution as starting from the point of agreeing commitment and then working everything else out in the wash? No. When I say "relationships," I mean any union voluntarily created to make children. Could be a committed relationship, could be casual sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 09:06 PM
3

You're not considering every outcome. Not having any kind of relationship is another outcome. So, to be clear: Have sex, have child, co-operatively raise child. Both parties benefit. No sex, no child, neither party benefits. The pie is not fixed. The act of forming a relationship increases the size of the pie. The page you linked has a subsection on this.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 08:38 PM
2

The zero-sum game view expresses an idea that many men have about modern, Western, romantic relationships with women. I don't think that is what they are talking about. They are referring to sexual strategy itself, independent of modern society.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 08:26 PM
1

First, understand that you're critiquing style here. No, I'm not. The idea is that whatever compromise you land on will be pretty far from one party's best-case scenario. Most men would love to sleep with Scarlett Johansson, most women would love to date Drake. That is also a trivial observation. I don't buy it. That's not necessarily a zero-sum game as the term is formally defined, but it's reasonably close. You are doing the same thing as a few people have done in this thread. You are reframin…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 08:21 PM
2

"Truth-bomb" was the operative part of that statement. Why phrase a common truth as though it is a new revelation? The intention is not to convey the common truth. It's to convey a revelation. But people rarely imply the full academic meaning of a phrase when they use it in less formal conversation. Which is why I quoted the informal version. It makes it clear that they intend to convey the same meaning.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 07:12 PM
4

Some relationships will involve deceit and one party may lose. I'm not dismissing that, I'm saying it's irrelevant. That is still not a zero-sum game. It is irrelevant. By definition, those relationships have to have been less relevant than mutually beneficial relationships when sexual strategy was evolving. And second, sexual strategy doesn't even require that there be relationships at all. One can have offspring, and have that offspring survive, without being in a relationship No, they can't. …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 05:08 PM
0

Relationships are the co-operative model. They are a mutually beneficial application of both party's sexual strategies. Both genders apply their sexual strategy, and both benefit. So it's not a zero-sum game. Are you sure they don't mean a zero-sum game? I posted this elsewhere in the thread. I think it's relevant: If it becomes "the two genders have to compromise" it becomes a pretty banal statement. "Relationships require compromise" is hardly controversial. That's not the original intention. …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 04:56 PM
3

I think you're making this needlessly complex. Sexual strategy itself requires that sexual relationships be, on average, mutually beneficial. Deciet can exist, but it is superfluous to that point.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 04:51 PM
1

I don't know. It just didn't look like disagreement to me. Sure, but it did to me so I articulated my opinion. I'm not being deliberately uncharitable. I feel like if I stick my nose any deeper into this someone's going to come along and accuse me of white knighting soon so I'll quit while I'm ahead You are being hypocritical.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 04:46 PM
6

Any voluntary sexual relationship is a form of co-operation. I'm not restricting it to modern relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 04:41 PM
7

Right, that's the point. The statement "The two genders' sexual strategies are fundamentally in opposition to one another. For one gender's sexual strategy to win, the other must lose" is false. If it becomes "the two genders have to compromise" it becomes a pretty banal statement. "Relationships require compromise" is hardly controversial. That's not the original intention. The intention is to imply relationships are exclusively adversarial.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 04:34 PM
2

It sounds to me like she's reframing the idea of "loss" as "tradeoff from the ideal scenario" to make it artificially fit the definition of zero-sum. Look at what she said: Both parties are trading off aspects of their perfect sexual strategy to accommodate the other. Why would she reply like that just to agree with me? Why would she voice her agreement without actually saying "I agree?" You think she was just replying to paraphrase the original post? Atlas does this a lot. Here she is doing it …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 04:28 PM
10

That is a false premise. Female sexual strategy is maximising her offspring's chance of successful reproduction. Male sexual strategy is maximising his offspring's chance of reproduction. When a man and a woman encounter each other (and they like each other), they agree "let's do something that is in both our interests." The difference in general behaviour is a side effect of that, it isn't the strategy itself. Men end up in relationships. It's a trade. Neither loses. They both gain. Saying they…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 04:08 PM
6

If longer vocal chords indicate fitness then why are men not attracted to women with deep voices? Large muscles indicate fitness. Why aren't men attracted to women with large muscles? Male fitness is a different standard. When people get sick the pitch of their voice doesn't go up. I'm going to need to see at least some evidence that correlates health to vocal pitch. When birds of paradise get diarrhea, they don't lose their tail feathers - but having long tail feathers is an indicator of health…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 03:19 PM
3

We don't know. It could be that they like a large chest cavity. It could be that there is some evolutionary benefit to longer vocal chords (a bigger trachea, therefore better aerobic fitness?). It could simply imply he is healthy. It could be that, when food was scarce, malnourished people had higher voices so it's an indicator that you are a better hunter. Or, it could be that our culture places value on deep voices. The idea that it is testosterone is equally as likely as any of those explanat…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 02:42 PM
1

I don't think you were. I think you're covering yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 02:33 PM
2

That's not a zero-sum game. There is a net gain to engaging in the transaction for both parties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game#Non-zero-sum
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 02:30 PM
7

Zero-sum has a pretty clear definition. I think most Red Pillers mean it as I quoted it (that quote is from Heartiste, by the way), they just haven't thought about this implication. If the statement is "sometimes you and your partners' interests will clash," that's not controversial. Why phrase it as some dramatic truth-bomb? They aren't making that statement. To be honest, I think a lot of them don't actually have a clear understanding of what they mean. To what degree are women looking to make…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/16 02:09 PM
1

Most men do not think like this. Most women will not retroactively call an argument abuse and they won't claim you raped them - and most men would agree with me on that. Go on /r/relationships and see if the men there agree with you. Most men would consider those behaviours insane.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/16 07:35 PM
2

If relationships were a zero-sum game, they wouldn't have evolved. For that behaviour to exist, it has to provide both parties with benefit. We have evolved to walk away from zero-sum games which we lose. The areas of a relationship where interests conflict are actually pretty rare. Most of the time, both people would prefer to be in the relationship than out - and not by a small margin. When that changes, they break up. This is a very fundamental problem with TRP. The zero-sum theory is outrigh…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/16 07:30 PM
1

But his response was valid. Your point was basically "well...some women are bad" which is pretty much the end of attempting to understand trends, attitudes and behaviour. No, my point was "you have been provided with the most egregious example of a woman doing X, Y and Z and are claiming it is a representative example." He's implying the tail end of the bell curve is the average, which is moronic. I pointed out if you actually observe women's actions, you realise: The bell curve is very wide. Sh…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/16 06:04 PM
3

I'm not sure what your criticism is. I'm saying their understanding is wrong, not that we shouldn't attempt to understand things.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/16 02:55 PM
1

She seems confused to me. She's angry because he didn't pay, and she's also confused as to why he didn't pay.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/16 01:19 PM
4

I think it's more down to solipsism than a covert contract. She expects other people to be able to read her mind. That isn't a function of being female, it's a function of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The whole site screams it. Nonetheless, I still like her. Really? God, I think she's insufferable. I guess it's nice that she's honest about what she wants, but she sounds awful to be around. Solipsism. She really has no idea what dating is like for men. As a TRPer, I don't necessarily think …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/16 10:17 PM
4

Leftism is largely atheist, but I don't think it's inherent. Look at spiritualism.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/16 10:09 PM
4

Atheism is leftist ? o.O yes? That's what you said, actually.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/16 09:17 PM
2

I have thought about having kids a lot, and I'm still not sure if I want them. I feel an emotional pull towards having them, but objectively I understand that people report lower happiness after having children. Then again, not having children in old age sounds ghastly. I don't really care if other people want kids or not, but I generally take them at their word. If a woman doesn't and she's under 30, though, I think the statement might as well be meaningless. Baby rabies so common that neither …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/16 09:11 PM
3

Do you have a model for what caused the Big Bang? I hope you don't choose to have no model for it because that's not a stable argumentative position. If you claimed the Big Bang was caused by Papa Smurf shoving a firecracker up his butthole, it isn't correct simply by virtue of the fact I don't have an alternative. "We don't know" is a perfectly reasonable position.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/16 08:53 PM
1

This is an excerpt from one post. Bear in mind, she met the guy on a dating app. He split the bill and only payed for his food. Here’s the MOST confusing part. Later that night, Cheap Ass sends me this text [see below]. I only split checks if a.) I initiate plans or b.) if we are just friends. Other than that, if I offer to pay, I’m being polite. I’ve never been more confused after a “date.” Let’s be real, this was not a date. I assumed Cheap Ass wasn’t into me. Why else would a man initiate pla…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/16 06:15 PM
6

Eh, I think that's bullshit. I watch what women do, and what this woman is doing is out of the ordinary. I have a friend like her. Every item of clothing she wears is a different name brand, filters men by salary. Gets offended if men don't pay. She stands out because she's the only girl I know who does it. I also know women who won't even let a man pay for their dinner, and some who will always pick up the tab. You're looking at an egregious example and saying "See! This shows how women act!" Y…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/16 06:08 PM
1

Here’s the MOST confusing part. Later that night, Cheap Ass sends me this text [: let's see each other soon]. I only split checks if a.) I initiate plans or b.) if we are just friends. Other than that, if I offer to pay, I’m being polite. I’ve never been more confused after a “date.” Didn't they meet on a dating app? This woman is a moron...
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/16 06:03 PM
1

Hang on - you'd only sleep with a guy if he spent $100 on a meal on your first date?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/16 08:30 PM
1

It won't help unless a STEM subject was a second major. Not true. If someone has basic programming skills, that opens up a bunch of administrative and data processing jobs. You don't even need a degree behind you if you show you have a basic level of competence.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/16 04:00 PM
1

Oh yeah. I can see how social skills would help you get hired there. I guess it's tough to measure someone's ability in a job like that.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/16 03:28 PM
2

Hmm. That's a good point. I had that thought too but I didn't consider that this sub's userbase in particular would be against it. I'll have a think.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/16 02:44 PM
2

Yeah, I understand. I ninja edited by the way, apologies. I should have included the question when I posted: Do you think disallowing circlejerking, but allowing affirmative comments that add to the conversation would cause the same problem?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/16 02:36 PM
2

Ahh, I see. I guess that makes sense. Do you think disallowing circlejerking, but allowing comments that add to the conversation would cause the same problem?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/16 02:33 PM
1

Yes, I think that's true as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/16 02:26 PM
2

Eh, that's like saying "we give people 50 cents to post" instead of $20. Automoderator barely generates replies, and arguments are never developed under it. But allowing top level comments lets the thread turn into a circlejerk, which stifles conversation. If circlejerking is the issue, why not allow top-level agreement, but require that it adds to the conversation? Although, I'm not sure about the inherent assumption that a circlejerk is bad. What's wrong with top-level comments being a circlej…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/16 02:19 PM
1

Or they were lying about their previous positions, or more likely misrepresenting their role. You don't get hired to write code if you can't write code.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/16 02:03 PM
7

If a “sexual strategy” subreddit advertised itself as “how to get human fleshlights that are willing to use you as a human dildo”, how many subscribers would it get? Barely any, because it's clear the moderators condemn the act of sexual strategy. To what extent would those subscribers be motivated to seek out said human fleshlights? Exactly the same amount. They would just go elsewhere for advice. Wanting to get laid is wanting to get laid. It's not motivated by some deep desire to humanise peo…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/16 01:05 PM
1

Oh, it's absolutely true for other areas. What area did (do?) you work in?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/16 01:01 PM
4

I don't think that's true. I think it's the male corollory of a girl sleeping with a guy who "doesn't want anything serious," hoping he'll come around. I imagine it's more that they think she will change her mind. That, or they realise how frustrating it is to date someone you can't sleep with and they lose interest.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/16 12:55 PM
2

Do any of you actually work in a highly technical engineering field? The drone modder will absolutely be hired if modding drones gave him better skills. It's relatively easy to judge ability in a technical field - especially if you can demonstrate it with personal projects. Being able to give an interviewer warm, fuzzy feelings means dick. Hiring managers are not idiots.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/16 12:46 PM
1

I'm a part-time software engineer. You do not need to be well dressed and many of the people I work with are autistic. They can barely communicate, it's remarkable they were able to get through an interview at all. Most are closing in on six figures, those with a lot of experience are breaking it. (Edit: let me rephrase - most will be earning six figures eventually, some already are.) Communication ability in software engineering definitely commands a premium, but it is not necessary at all. But…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/16 12:39 PM
1

Yep, that's tendonitis. It's basic physiology, and he still didn't know about it. "I do medicine" doesn't mean much. Although, since you're being obstructive, it's still not clear whether you actually do medicine. And like I said, that makes you seem evasive, not knowledgeable.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/16 11:40 PM
1

IMO the reason is because they banned one-sided rants. The only real reason people make solid arguments is to get validation. "Wow, that's a really good argument." People read to challenge their opinion, but people put effort into posts to get props. If you don't allow anyone to validate the OP, you remove the incentive to post.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/16 11:34 PM
1

That wasn't direct.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/16 11:30 PM
0

Being obstructive doesn't make you seem more knowledgeable or alpha. It makes you seem evasive. Either you have knowledge of physiology, or you don't. My friend, who has been in medical school for 7 years, doesn't know a thing about tendonitis. If you want to reply, be direct.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/16 11:27 PM
1

You're a doctor? Edit, since you've now added a bunch: You haven't studied it. Thought not.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/16 10:44 PM
0

And it takes a large investment of time to understand it. I don't think these guys should be HITing. Besides which, I'm super hesitant to believe people when they claim they "study physiology." Genuine questions: How much have you studied? Do you read textbooks, or weightlifting websites? Do you go to failure every session, increasing weights every week? Do you understand the effect this has on your tendons? Are you aware of why it's dangerous to do things like deadlifts to failure, especially w…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/16 10:04 PM
0

HIT with weights is how you slip discs and wound tendons. Yes, your muscles grow, but: Tendons toughen much slower than muscles grow. Doing compound movements involving the spine to failure puts you at risk of exhausting the stabilising muscles and slipping a disc. HIT isn't a magic bullet. You shouldn't be going to failure in a program like that unless you have a good understanding of human physiology.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/16 09:31 PM
1

When I say self-delusion, I mean you're training yourself to put your base reactions aside and take a more objective stance. So, putting yourself in a headspace where you view your emotions as not real. It's the same as when guys say "I wouldn't want to sleep with a girl unless she's got X, Y and Z personality trait." They're denying their emotional reaction in favour of their executive decision - which is helpful if you want to adhere to that executive decision. I think that kind of reaction is…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/16 06:15 PM
2

How many have you had in your lifetime? The way you write leads me to think you aren't talking from experience.
/r/askTRP23/05/16 06:10 PM
3

That's crazy. The first time has a certain thrill to it, but it absolutely gets better over time if you're falling in love with that girl. From my experience, the same is true of women. It doesn't start to decline until months into the relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/16 01:10 PM
1

Although I have no doubt you genuinely do want that, don't you think it comes from a self-delusion? As in, you've trained yourself into it. I do the same thing. It works, but it takes deliberate effort to maintain. If you didn't make a conscious effort to care about his happiness, would you really be OK with him leaving?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/16 01:05 PM
0

How many plates have you had in the last year?
/r/askTRP23/05/16 12:53 PM
2

Come on mods, PLEASE can we be sarcastic? Just a little???
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/16 10:16 PM
1

? I'm not sure what you're getting at.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/16 01:16 PM
1

Do you think, if my assertions were true, it would be possible to find a statistic like that?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/16 12:30 AM
1

That isn't my point. I'm observing something that to me seems self-evident, but is hard to convey. There are certain relationship dynamics that exist, and if you've experienced them then a lot of Red Pill claims become self-evidently flawed. The way Red Pillers react, especially when I talk about that, makes it obvious they haven't experienced them. It's not that they have an alternate explanation, or they think it's not worth going for that kind of dynamic - they literally don't recognise what …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/16 12:20 AM
1

Bizarre. I wonder why there's such a discrepency. Did they mention how they got the sample?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 11:42 PM
1

He clearly finds the question awkward, or otherwise wants to avoid answering it. He's proposing a solution to the problem to avoid the thought experiment.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 10:02 PM
1

That was my gripe, but the data itself comes from the University of Denver. They could have lied about it, but they'd be inviting a lawsuit. I imagine they've analysed the data correctly. From what I understand, other studies agree with their conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 09:30 PM
1

Ehh, I don't take it either way. I don't think they've got it under lock and key, I just don't think they've made the effort to make it easily accessible. Could be valid, could be bull.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 08:33 PM
1

I wish I could get the hands on the data they used. It wasn't actually their data, they just ran some analyses. The raw data appears to be available only to researchers.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 08:28 PM
2

I was as skeptical as you, so I looked into this a couple of weeks ago - their collection method actually seems solid. They explain it, and quote a wide range of data, in the appendix. They used a 4-part questionnaire to assess marital quality, and the questions seemed solid to me. They then compared the results of those questionnaires - subjects weren't comparing against one another. The only problem with the study I could find was that they don't quote the variance, which makes interpreting th…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 07:56 PM
1

Weird. This is the source study for that graph. Doesn't make logical sense if they're talking about online dating services, it's easy to corroborate how many people have an account. Maybe people who met on Facebook are skewing the stats? Could be sample bias? Haven't read the study in depth but it's notable that 15% of people who "met online" were introduced by family/friends.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 05:16 PM
1

I'm not sure what you mean. You mean OP would have a problem with it?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 05:06 PM
2

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/29/5-facts-about-online-dating/ Turns out it's split evenly between the genders. I'm also not sure if it considers fake accounts.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 03:41 PM
1

Ok, I'll level with you. Nobody reads a statement like that and reacts the way you want them to. I get the effect you're trying to create, but people aren't stupid. You're validating the OP.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 03:38 PM
0

I was highlighting that they dissapear when called out on it. Which is interesting. I understand what you mean by not engaging. I'm asking for evidence that red pillers do this with any frequency. No you weren't. Now you are. How would you like me to prove that? I think that type of thing is self evident, and given that you do it, I'm not sure how to convince you. By the way, you downvote literally every post I make in response to you, even when votes are hidden. I think OP has a point. (Edit: a…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 03:22 PM
2

For what it's worth, whenever I read your posts you are usually engaging people's arguments directly.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 03:05 PM
3

Only 5% of people have hooked up via online dating, and only 15% of people have even registered an account on an online dating service. AFAIK the percentage is much lower for women. It's not as big of an influence as people make it out to be.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 02:58 PM
1

It's directed at him, but I'd be interested in your response too.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 02:47 PM
0

Your example is a person with purple flair, not red. This is an example of not engaging. I posted that to illustrate what I meant, not prove it. You picked up on the first flaw you could to avoid acknowledging that what I said has merit. Do you understand what I'm illustrating? Do you recognise the type of comment I'm talking about? Do you agree that Reds engage in the same behaviour? Those would all be engaging my argument. In any event, here are three examples... I said it's notable that there…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 02:43 PM
0

I don't mean replies. I mean earnest engagement with the argument, as opposed to an attempt to wrongfoot the opponent or reply with a non-reply to avoid capitulating. Edit: This is an example of the "reply with a non-reply" answer. He doesn't actually answer the question, he's just trying to make the OP seem like they are dumb for not figuring out that solution themselves. He's making it seem like OP was looking for a solution, when that clearly wasn't the point of the question.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 02:12 PM
3

Genuine question: if you were in a situation where resources were very scarce (say, Somalia) and you had to fight to survive, what would you do? Would you screw over other people if it was necessary? If so, at what point does it become unnacceptable - and why?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 12:25 PM
2

I think it's interesting that the response to this thread from the Red side is way more engagement than you get on normal threads, and way less attempts to keep frame. Guys, if you can drop it when directly challenged, can't you just drop it all the time?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 12:23 PM
1

Well done for adding so much to the conversation.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 10:15 AM
1

The only meaningful number is the fraction and that number is high enough to drawn certain conclusions. The only meaningful number is the fraction No, it doesn't. If you know anything about statistics then you know that you can draw certain conclusions about a large population with a surprisingly small sample size. Yes, except your sample is self-selected for adherance to TRP. Given that majority of people don't follow TRP, and the majority of people who see it don't end up subscribing (and acti…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/16 12:15 AM
1

Ok, sure: I'd make a concerted effort for a long-time...but as time passes and the memories of pleasure and desire fade, or taunt me from afar, that would probably make me bitter and resentful. This doesn't really answer my question - "would you leave your husband?" But it also hyperbolises the situation, to the point where you aren't really addressing my original concern. In my hypothetical, you just don't want to have sex. It isn't that you lust for it with no satisfaction. You're not interest…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 11:09 PM
1

No you didn't. What would you do in that situation? Assume the parameters are such that you are the one who has to act. Although, to be honest, I'm not so interested in your answer as why you don't want to answer in the first place. Edit: I'm not trying to "getcha," by the way, I genuinely don't understand why you are being evasive.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 10:52 PM
1

I think you're putting artificial constraints on this to avoid considering the possibility that your view might be contaminated by bias. "I only care what beautiful women want. What regular women lust after is different to what hot women lust after. Oh, the men hot women date match the men all women lust after? Well, it's because they're famous. Oh, and they can't really date the guys they find hottest despite being among the most beautiful women in the world." There's a mismatch between every e…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 10:44 PM
1

Why are you unwilling to directly answer the question?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 10:40 PM
2

When you spend any time around women, especially women who party, it becomes clear they dress up for an abundence of reasons other than getting laid. That's what I was getting at.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 10:37 PM
1

TRP members have their own stories plus their own observations and that number is high enough to drawn certain conclusions. Doesn't address what I said at all. Nonsense. Many TRP members loved, trusted, got married, had children, and then got burned. Many more made lesser emotional investments, and got burned. I see innocent men getting into relationships with succubi all the time, usually because they aren't very emotionally aware. Unilateral trust is not the same as mutual trust, and the relat…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 10:33 PM
1

Like I said, I didn't cherrypick them. The majority of women like somewhat muscular builds. A minority like men with more muscle. Fits what I've said.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 10:29 PM
1

You're posting a lot of words but not really addressing me directly. If it isn't getting fixed, it isn't getting fixed, even if you're trying to fix it. It could be gone for years, potentially forever. What would you do in that situation?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 05:30 PM
2

I don't think I am, but even if I was, that could be a perfectly healthy dynamic.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 05:28 PM
2

Love is multifaceted. You can have a strong warmth towards someone without wanting to sleep with them, you can find them attractive without wanting to sleep with them, and (as is the case with pregnant women) you can be absolutely besotted with them and not want to sleep with them. I think the advice to push through it when you genuinely don't want to is terrible advice. I question whether sex therapists actually give it, and if they do then I would question their success rates. IMO that kind of…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 05:24 PM
1

Who is filling out those surveys, though? Hot women? I only care what attractive women find attractive. Ok, search "X actress boyfriend beach." These were the results I found for some random actresses, when pictures were available. I didn't cherrypick these, by the way: Emma Watson Scarlett Johanssen (right) Margot Robbie Ariana Grande's old boyfriend and new boyfriend (left) Mylene Klass Rosie Huntington-Whiteley Mila Kunis Olivia Wilde (He's a comedian) Selena Gomez Emma Stone I think you're d…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 05:15 PM
1

Snuggling isn't the same as sex. We (and especially women) are hardwired to have a visceral response to unwanted sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 04:44 PM
1

I trust my own experience and observations over hypotheticals and surveys of the same. Why wouldn't I? Because observations are vulnerable to confirmation bias. Although, what you're actually saying is: "I trust my subjective opinion more than the visible trends in celebrity heartthrobs, the archetype that is normally sold to women, and attempts to objectively measure the subject." At which point "why shouldn't I?" becomes an easier question to answer.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 04:41 PM
2

Maybe, but that's like saying education in Kenya is better than education in the Sudan. Although I don't actually think mainstream advice is that bad.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 04:36 PM
2

It's resting on the presupposition that it would have dissapeared permanently. I'm talking about that specific situation. If you lost it, and couldn't remedy that fact. You seem to feel like that's impossible.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 04:32 PM
1

I think she'd try, but I think repeatedly having sex with someone you don't want to have sex with causes your body to react with revulsion. It's going to repel you from that person. Might keep him happy, but it would repel her from the relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 04:22 PM
2

Sure. They're projecting the image of "I want to get fucked."
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 04:21 PM
3

Ehh, I don't think so. It sets up too many problems that just aren't necessary. There are considerably better resources for learning those lessons with nuance, and without the (false) baggage TRP attaches.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 04:20 PM
0

You think the majority of red pillers have never experienced or even seen a happy relationship? I think they don't have enough experience to understand that most behaviours TRP advocates make relationships like that impossible, and repel women who are looking for relationships like that. If she's falling out of love it isn't a perfectly harmonious relationship by definition. Ehh, you're arguing semantics. I've seen couples go through the process amicably.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 04:17 PM
4

Did you even read my post?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 03:59 PM
0

I don't think that's true. I think most Red Pillers' experience of relationships involves stunted communication and manipulation on both sides. People falling out of love can happen in a perfectly harmonious relationship - it's inevitable most of the time. That doesn't mean she'll cheat, it doesn't mean she'll act like a bitch, it doesn't mean she won't communicate the process to you. And it doesn't mean she's playing power games. Almost all red pillers know someone who's had a marriage last, or…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 03:55 PM
3

Yep. Seems like this would be obvious to any guy who actually knows and has sex with real women.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 02:41 PM
6

You can't explain human behaviour without using generalisations. His complaint was that they caricature, not that they generalise. They don't take a realistic look at things - they exaggerate and inflate, creating a very false representation of reality. Although, frankly they do have a problem with generalisation. They also genaralise to the point of losing all nuance, and they do so without much basis for their generalisations. For example: If I say "most women like dominant men" that's still g…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 02:34 PM
-1

First off, TRP doesn't take one example and extrapolate to all women. It takes hundreds or thousands of examples to make a generalized conclusion about the group at hand Except, the sample you're drawing those examples from has hundreds of millions of members. The same issue still exists. There are hundreds of thousands of examples of people having HIV - that doesn't mean everyone has HIV. The only meaningful number is the fraction of people to whom your stories apply. TRP makes no effort to det…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 02:26 PM
5

Sure, girls dress provocatively to get attention from men. That doesn't mean they want to "get fucked." There are plenty of other reasons you might want attention from men: Free drinks Validation Low-stakes fun, like making out Networking Competing with other women Making an ex jealous They definitely want sexual attention but the idea that they all want to get laid? Nahh.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 02:19 PM
2

That's what I was getting at. You said this: I don't see the point of being in a relationship if there's no sexual intimacy. But that rests upon the presupposition that you have a sex drive. If it dissapeared, you'd obviously still want to be in a relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 10:45 PM
1

<3
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 10:41 PM
1

Joseph Gordon-Levitt Jake Gyllenhaal Chris Hemsworth (From what I've heard, most girls like him smaller than Thor) Chris Evans (Before the Avengers, when he was pitching to women, versus after, when he was pitching to men) Although you've basically just listed the Avengers. Hardly actors pitching to a female audience - they all bulked up considerably once they were selling themselves to the male audience of a superhero movie. When I searched for "Sexiest Man," the first result was this glamour m…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 10:37 PM
1

Yes, it's an analogy...
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 10:19 PM
2

What if it became clear it was essentially permanent?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 09:45 PM
1

That's fair, but he really is an outlier. The majority are much closer to 50 shades guy.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 09:41 PM
2

Does that mean if your sex drive dissapeared, you'd leave your husband?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 09:12 PM
1

Absolutely, it's possible. I have a fulfilling relationship with my best friend, and we've never slept with each other (as far as I remember). Is it realistic? I don't think so. If it started as a passionate relationship, it's not likely that both are going to lose interest in sex at the same time. When your partner doesn't want to sleep with you but you do, it's not conducive to building strong, harmonious bonds.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 09:11 PM
3

I can buy your explanation, but I'm always leery of evo-psych theories because it's so easy to think of a reasonable one for any given phenomenon. Sure, it's just a theory. I don't buy into it, which is why I want to investigate the data. It predicts certain correlations, and if we can analyse the data sufficiently we can see whether the predictions ring true. In particular, whether the unique predictions ring true. If they do, it validates the theory. At that point I'd integrate it. I understan…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 08:48 PM
3

Ryan Gosling has a bulky build, but even then it's tiny compared to a bodybuilder. It's a bit thicker than a swimmer. The 50 shades dude has a swimmer's build. So does Tom Hiddleston. Hollywood heartthrobs aren't that stacked. Actors that pitch to a male audience often are.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 08:37 PM
1

I mean relative to bodybuilders. Who was the lead in 50 shades?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 08:22 PM
2

Well, why are actors skinny? I don't think it's hard to ascertain the body that women find ideal. Look at romantic comedies. Look at actors with female audiences in general. There's a lot of evidence they like what I'm claiming they like, whereas your observations are super vulnerable to confirmation bias.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 08:18 PM
1

So do I, but they are lower across the board, including once the children have grown up. Both explanations could be valid.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 08:15 PM
2

Maybe because they are rarer? If 5% of women prefer beasts, but 1% of men have beastly bodies, those men will get much more attention than regular guys, even though the vast majority of women dislike them. Either way, that hasn't been my experience and it isn't reflected in the surveys.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 06:32 PM
1

I'm going by surveys, rather than general feeling. I'd have thought women were into bulkier guys, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Also, he's asian, which is going to make him less attractive to most western women.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 05:44 PM
2

He matches the optimum. What you find is some women prefer the frat boys posted before, some women prefer that swimmer. The majority will prefer the swimmer.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 05:25 PM
2

Reading through his responses, things went from sex every single day, multiple times, to no sex in a matter of two days. That sounds to me like Trauma (she's been raped?) She's met someone new, possibly an old flame, and her husband isn't very observant. Dramatic hormonal change and she should go to the doctor immediately. Maybe she just got off birth control? Either way, a change that dramatic doesn't indicate to me that she is feeling "alpha fucks, beta bucks" or that the relationship is natur…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 04:45 PM
1

Men experience the same effect though. It just takes longer, and is less likely to go to full dead bedroom levels.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 04:30 PM
2

Surveys are not useless, especially not when it comes to raw physical attractiveness. There is no stigma to liking muscles. I doubt you will ever be convinced, though. That some surveys have a bias does not invalidate surveys. However, it does provide a convenient way to reject data you dislike.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 04:29 PM
2

Fully agree, I wouldn't recommend it either. Like I said, I think it's that the negative trait makes him more attainable, and controllable. It's self-selection for emotionally abusive women, and the niche is saturated already. Ironically, I think red pill's posturing (which inevitably comes off as insecure) creates a similar effect. I think some women like it because it's a blatant display of vulnerability to manipulation.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 04:24 PM
1

I know women tend to fall out of love sooner than men. Can't remember where I read that, though. I think that's the primary factor creating the skew in divorce initiations. I wonder whether it's related. It's something I'd like to examine when I have time. Spouse-goggles definitely seem to be a thing, which seems at odds with the boredom effect. I wonder if the presence of children is a factor.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 03:47 PM
2

Ehh, I think you're looking for problems. If she's looking for a trainer who knows enough to train her effectively, she's probably going to find a male one before she finds a woman. Depending on where she lives, he may be the only option. I agree, I would question why she didn't keep looking until she found a woman - but I'm not beating around the bush. The reason is jealousy, not how effective the trainer is.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 03:39 PM
5

So the answer is that you haven't? Frat boys look nothing like Steve Cook. But are you talking about the low body fat or amount of muscle? Both. Look up a study, women like swimmers' builds. A minority like a lot of muscle - and their preference is for much less muscle than Steve Cook has.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 03:36 PM
3

When was the last time you actually saw a guy with muscles like Steve Cook in real life, let alone one interacting with women? Go and look up a survey on this. Women don't like shredded beasts at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 03:31 PM
2

Good, you admit it. I never said it was bad.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 03:29 PM
2

You asked why, I gave you a reason. There are legitimate reasons she could be doing it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 03:28 PM
0

Sure, because we're hardwired to dislike it. We're hardwired to feel mistrustful in that kind of situation. It doesn't matter if you know the outcome so far.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 03:27 PM
2

I agree with this, with the caveat of asking why monogomy appears to have a sell-by date. My theory is that it isn't just that love dissapears after 1-4 years, but that love dissapears after 1-4 years if continuous sex has not produced children. If you're with a partner and you're bonking regularly, but aren't having kids, from your body's point of view it means either you or your partner is probably infertile. Lifelong pairbonding with an infertile partner would be an evolutionary death sentenc…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 03:23 PM
-1

Because it's not true. The reason you dislike it is because you percieve it as risky.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 03:17 PM
3

There are a lot more male personal trainers, especially well-informed personal trainers, than women. It's harder to find a female personal trainer who knows what she's talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 03:08 PM
1

I mean, you literally are doing it because you don't trust her. If you trusted her on every level, you wouldn't have the impulse in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 03:06 PM
3

He is tall, 200 pounds, low body fat, and absolutely shredded. He has a handsome face as well. ... very attractive Most women don't like a guy like that. They find a body like Steve Cook's actively repulsive...
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 03:04 PM
2

A woman who finds nerdy guys sexually attractive, isn't saying that she finds social awkwardness attractive. She's saying that she finds intelligence and insight attractive. I don't know about that. I know women who genuinely do prefer men who are socially awkward. They're the vast minority, but they are out there. I think it's probably because those men are safer and more accessible, rather than because they are outright more attractive, but the effect is similar.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/16 03:00 PM
2

It seems to me that implicit within his statement is the fact that either: She is not like those women. He's being honest about his emotional reaction, and apologising for it. "When this stuff happens, it just feels like every woman wants to shit on me. :(" Either way, saying "surely you don't mean that you hate me as a woman" isn't an appropriate response. It's taking a jab at him while he's making himself vulnerable - the exact thing he's complaining about. I actually think that sweeping gener…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/16 09:02 PM
1

Yes, yes. All science is wrong and the 6 minutes it took you to post this were enough to read the study, understand the collection method and critique it with a well-informed and robust dismissal. Oh, and write two paragraphs. You are religious.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/16 07:21 PM
1

Dude, I'm not interested in breeding and making smart babies. Either that's true, and you have different preferences to me, or that isn't true, and you aren't aware of it. Either way, doesn't change what I like. Women are attracted to men who are intelligent when they ovulate? What? No, when women are looking for casual sex they look for men who have all of the signs of high T "Humor and intelligence appear to be more attractive to women than testosterone-related masculinity when it matters most…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/16 07:12 PM
2

but the general consensus seems to be that their brain structures are more similar to that of their preferred sex. That's not actually true. There are specific brain regions (and traits) they believe are different in transgender individuals, but the rest of the brain matches their sex. There are a few theories that revolve around the mis-match within the brain causing the dysphoria. Even then, IIRC that only accounts for a minority of trans individuals. Many have typical structures.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/16 03:55 PM
3

Phantom limbs exist because the brain gets used to your body being a certain way, and when your body changes the neural pathways that were laid when you learned to sense that part of your body remain. When the severed (and thus fragile) nerves that used to control that area of the body fire off, the brain interprets it using the only neuronal structure it has available. Transgenderism doesn't work like that. It might work like body horror, but we don't know that.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/16 03:52 PM
4

Surprised nobody else has mentioned it but I've turned down girls more than once because I thought they had an STD.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/16 03:16 PM
1

I think men who are feminists are almost exclusively trying to get girls to like them (assuming they aren't gay). I think it's pretty transparent too. I think women who are anti-feminists are usually doing it because they recognise the impact it will have on their sons (e.g. Karen Straughen) or they have a strange quirk that makes them super into moral consistency (like autism). There's a few like Lauren Southern and Katherine Timpf who I think dislike the idea of being babied, but they have ide…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/16 01:12 PM
3

I don't think they should, but they inevitable will.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/16 04:49 PM
1

Here is a good link, although a cursory glance over /r/askwomen will show that most women prefer nice men. So will a cursory glance over the majority of romance movies, especially romantic comedies. Most women don't like assholes.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/16 06:35 PM
2

But if 90% are turned on by good boys, why don't we hear the stories about that? We do. You guys just ignore them.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/16 05:21 PM
2

Look at the top level responses. Every BP response has been downvoted to the bottom of thread. We will never allow PPD to function like that. That's fair enough. Agreeing with someone is not and cannot be debate. What if it advances the debate? If I'm a Red Piller browsing this subreddit, and there is a long Blue Pill thread which has a solid opening argument, and many comments all providing new points related to that argument, the whole thread is challenging my viewpoint. In fact, that's the ty…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/16 04:38 PM
5

But that's a "Question for X Pill" post. It's fair enough that those should only allow X Pillers to reply. The problem is that there is no option to create a post, present the case for it, and open it to the floor for discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/16 04:38 PM
2

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I edited that a few times, I hope it didn't wrongfoot you. Looking at the very top post you reference, I can say (as mods can see the removed comments) that those removed do nothing more than agree and circlejerk. Ah, ok. That's fair enough. I agree. In fact, we're far more lenient on it now with the Automoderator message than we have been in the past. Those who agree with the comment are absolutely invited to respond to the automoderator to voice their opi…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/16 04:04 PM
8

Thanks. Not trying to be dismissive, by the way. I think that makes sense - but in an effort to stifle that circlejerking, you are also stifling the best threads. Of the top 10 posts of all time on the subreddit, seven are one-sided presentations. Three are one-sided presentations thinly veiled as "questions for the other pill." All of them have great discussion in the comments. The top most upvoted post of all time on this subreddit is an extremely one-sided presentation, and has some of the mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/16 03:36 PM
1

Well, at least you admit it.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/16 03:10 PM
7

I like most of these, but I don't think this is a good rule at all: One-sided posts. Presentations that lay out a case for one side of an issue without presenting countering views. If you wish to present a CMV question, please be aware that CMVs are moderated more harshly. In addition, if it becomes apparent to the mods that the post was intended to attack/criticize the opposing view, it will be removed. I wanted to create a post that outlines why using number of sexual partners as a screening m…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/16 03:01 PM
1

How can you say that you prefer rationalism to idealism? You obviously want to believe in this. Your idealism is literally superceding your rationality. You are choosing an unsupported explanation over rational skepticism, probably because it satisfies your curiosity. It's more comfortable than saying you don't know, so you buy into it. You've provided no evidence that fetishes didn't evolve. There is plenty of evidence that Atoms do indeed fit that model.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/16 02:38 PM
1

It isn't. It's what people say about foot fetishes. Theories for fetishes like pantyhose include imprinting as children, making your lover appear to your subconscious to be a different female, mimicking perfect skin, artificially elongating the legs via optical illusion and plain old association with sex. Those are just the theories I can remember. Crossed wiring is actually a very specific and relatively niche case, and it implies nothing about why those wires are crossed. It may not be an acci…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/16 12:49 PM
1

Hmm. Could be down to demographics? Didn't happen at my Uni. There were a couple of girls at most on my floor, out of maybe 8 with long-distance boyfriends, and our floor was worse than the others for it. Where did you go? Mine was (without trying to be cocky) pretty good, could be selection bias.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/16 12:44 PM
1

There is nothing on that page that references sexual fetishes, or even sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/16 11:47 AM
1

I think that is possible. I also think it's possible God exists, but I don't believe it, because as far as I can tell, valid evidence for it doesn't exist. That foot recognition happens in that area of the brain could be because we evolved to like feet. Or, foot fetishes could be a special case. There are hundreds of alternate hypotheses. We have evidence that our model of atoms is correct. As far as I can tell from your responses, you know of no evidence that says sexual fetishes didn't evolve.…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/16 11:35 AM
1

In other words, you have no supporting evidence whatsoever? Thought so.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/16 10:05 AM
2

There is no evolutionary explanation: Sexual fetishes did not evolve. How exactly have you come to that conclusion? How do you know?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 10:35 PM
3

Next, there are those attractive girls who have a boyfriend back at home. During the first one or two weeks when you meet that girls in the crew bar she will tell everyone how she misses her boyfriend who she ‘loves’ so much. Here is what happens every single time: After 3 or 4 weeks this girl will start fucking an officer. Every single time. To be alone is something that those bitches can’t live with. They through their relationship back at home away after a few weeks, and all their praises for…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 10:23 PM
2

"Honey, his first words... What will he say??" "Alpha fucks, beta bucks!" "Aww! He's so adorable. Just like every other baby."
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 10:18 PM
2

Haaaah, I dated a girl like this when I was 19. It was bizarre, but she was absolutely lovely.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 10:03 PM
1

...what if she likes it?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 09:52 PM
2

I think that is actually why most men like strip clubs too. It's a minority of men who are there to treat the strippers like shit. If it were everybody, strippers wouldn't get tips.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 09:42 PM
3

I like choking for two reasons. One is that I like the feeling of power. The other is that, for girls who like it, choking makes them cum harder, which is hot. For me, it's only hot if she likes it. I've watched BDSM porn where the girls aren't having fun and it's such a buzz-kill. There's a certain dynamic at play during rough sex that I think a lot of people don't understand. Often, you're making her do things she doesn't want to do, but the fact she doesn't want to do them makes it enjoyable.…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 09:26 PM
5

That isn't even slightly true.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 08:45 PM
1

Hmm. I guess you're right. What do you think about the fact she lied?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 08:08 PM
3

Because you're marrying them. Marriage is a bad enough decision as it is, but that introduces a whole new level of risk. I get what you're saying, but if you're not the best your partner has had (from their perspective), you shouldn't be marrying. That's an insane decision to make. What if her old partner comes back?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 07:58 PM
3

I'd say sexual attraction is a pretty important aspect.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 07:50 PM
4

Divorces are primarily the result of falling out of love, not never being in love in the first place. If women are engaging in AF/BB, they aren't about to divorce their meal ticket. Women tend to stay in love for less time than men, which perfectly explains the skew in divorce initiations - and does so better than any other explanation I've heard. 10% chance to have your world wrecked is pretty high :/ Yes, because it's impossible to observe the fact that a particular girl is attracted to asshol…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 07:45 PM
3

I'm not missing anything. You guys seem to be looking at this from the dichotomy of "either intelligence is the only attractive trait, or it's not an attractive trait at all." It's a component. Just like a nice face, or a good body. Like I said, it adds two to three points. Clearly I would not fuck an intelligent chick if she was 300lbs. I wouldn't fuck a girl with a cute face who was that size, either. I still like cute faces.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 07:42 PM
3

You just said BP was the people who don't believe in RP beliefs. By your own definition it isn't contrarian. It's the default state.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 07:29 PM
8

I remember fucking a girl last year and I got the sense that she was getting sore. In fairness, we had been going for over an hour. I said "are you sore?" and she turned beet red, looked away from me and said "a little..." I stopped, and gave her a hug. I don't think I've ever seen a girl become more attracted as a result of a single act than she did right there. She made a point of thanking me afterwards. She explained that her previous boyfriend wouldn't have stopped for something like that, l…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 07:23 PM
2

So why didn't she mention that? "I don't know, I just didn't want to" isn't "I'm scared of it being more painful."
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 07:07 PM
2

Not most attractive. Having her be most attracted. We are often more attracted to people who are less attractive. I think that's a pretty basic requirement for marriage, to be honest.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 06:58 PM
1

I personally think it's largely crap. You are right that how legitimate of a field it is is very debatable. It's tied into eugenics, even if it's followers don't agree with it, the association (and implications) are there and scare many academics. Although I agree that a lot of Evo-Psych is unreliable, how does it being tied into eugenics make it wrong?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 06:47 PM
1

Insight isn't the main point, actionable tools are. Then why is it called "The Red Pill"? Taking a "red pill" is literally about seeing the world for how it really is. Insight is built into the name. It's the primary selling point.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 06:38 PM
1

I would say it's more akin to meditation. People who mediate consistently see reduced amounts of stress in their lives. It's not measurable. It's ripe for confirmation bias. But very few deny that it works. That's mainly because you can see the effects on brain-scans. Even 10 days of medidation produces visible effects on the brain. You can see it by measuring stress-levels too. Before we had science like that, most people were extremely skeptical of meditation.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 06:29 PM
5

Sort of, but due to the nature of collectivism it is actually a narrower ideology. That's a mental backflip and a half. The group that believes something different from the narrow and specific set of beliefs on TRP is more narrow?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 06:25 PM
2

You said she wouldn't want to because it would be more painful.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 06:21 PM
2

Can you please admit I made a valid point instead of implying I was saying she had given no nice reasons whatsoever? Besides which. she states later in the thread that lucas had nothing except a big dick and "being better in bed." She was more attracted to him, so anal was fun. This seems pretty cut and dry to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 06:15 PM
1

I'm in love just thinking about that.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 06:00 PM
2

If she had a nice reason like that I'm sure she would have given it. In her own words: For me, I have had enjoyable anal sex before, with my ex Lucas, but I don't know how to describe it, I just didn't want it with him. For me, Lucas and I had a really fluid connection, and my boyfriend and I just haven't had that yet. Besides which, she says elsewhere in the thread that Lucas had a bigger dick. I doubt it would be less painful with Lucas.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 05:56 PM
3

They don't say "protect yourself from women who don't actually love you," they say "all women want to engage in this behaviour." Sometimes they add a qualifier, and say it's just "the vast majority." (Usually so it's harder to argue against.) The people in the comments of that thread are telling OP to run. (Edit: OP's boyfriend, not OP) They are giving the exact same advice: avoid women like this. If 10% of women engage in this behaviour, not only is Red Pill more wrong than the general consensu…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 05:51 PM
3

Or he can find a girl who is more attracted to him than anyone she's ever been with, which appears to be what he wants. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think that's an unreasonable desire. You're right, it is a fool's game to beat himself up about it. He can either accept it, or leave. I think leaving is the option that would make him happiest.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 05:39 PM
1

Case in point.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 05:06 PM
3

I use tinder for hook-ups. Intelligence literally gives me a boner. Although, frankly, it doesn't really matter. Attraction is attraction. If it makes me invest more into her, then she is more attractive for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 04:40 PM
6

I don't know about you, but I find intelligence extremely attractive. Like a 2-3 point bump on the scale. My threshold for swiping right on Tinder is way lower if a girl seems intelligent. There are good evolutionary reasons for that. Intelligence is one of the biggest factors in survival chance for humans. That's why women are more attracted to men who are intelligent when they ovulate - even more than to men with high testosterone levels.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 04:33 PM
2

Ehh, I think they're right. Judging by her other comments, she was more attracted to Lucas. At the very least, she found sex with Lucas a lot more enjoyable. I think it is cause for concern.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 04:17 PM
1

I never said he pushed her. Don't be coy: Do men really want to be the guy she does the unenjoyable things with?? You implied it. In any case, it sounds like he was happy until he found out she lied.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 04:04 PM
1

This doesn't seem like a classic case of an echo chamber to you? It's not true either. I explained my reasoning in a direct response to him. This is their standard response, but a cursory glance at the behaviour of people on TRP shows it's bull. You can see it in action on /r/AskTRP. The people giving advice go by theories & rules first, actual observations second. The most obvious example was when they told me most girls hate getting eaten out. Reality was way less important than the abstract t…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 03:59 PM
1

Red pill thinking is not a scientific but a heuristic area of study. That is to say, it is concerned with how, not why. Strategies are developed, but RP does not begin with the first principles of evo psych and develop strategies from there. Rather, strategies that work are discussed more frequently and explanations, many of them from evo psych, grow up around what someone else has tried. This isn't true at all. That describes the old PUA community. The thing that specifically set TRP apart from…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 03:52 PM
1

It's a blood-curdling scream. Also it's 3am.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 03:41 PM
0

There are lots of women I'd like to have sex with who don't want to have sex with me. You can want to do something even if your partner doesn't. It doesn't sound like he pushed her, it sounds like he told her how much he enjoys it, once, and she told him she wasn't interested. And now it sounds like he's upset at the fact she not only lied, but actively enjoyed it with someone else. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 03:36 PM
1

If I'm walking down the street and I hear a scream from a sidestreet, I'm going to be suspicious. Is that because I'm a rapist? That's terrible logic.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 03:24 PM
2

Reported partner count is between 80-100% of the real value. It's not "notoriously unreliable." It sounds to me like the pattern she's described is, "I am more aroused by men who are assholes, and less aroused by men who are nice." She has included no other information about him. You don't know that he's weaker, you don't know that he's less assertive. The only thing you know is that he's less of an asshole. Edit: and bear in mind, she's retroactively describing exes. Retroactively describing ex…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 03:16 PM
2

"Aww, this giant flaw in my methodology is always pointed out. God guys, don't you have anything original to say??" You example doesn't show AF/BB, by the way. It just shows she's more attracted to assholes - if we assume she fits the general pattern you're describing. And data shows that is indeed the minority of women.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 02:50 PM
15

If 10% of women are more turned on by bad boys, you'll see this behaviour a lot. You will find stories to post on TRP and they will appear to fit your paradigm. If you base your worldview on those stories, it will appear like this is normal female behaviour. That stories like this exist implies nothing about women as a whole.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 01:53 PM
6

What OkCupid surveys is this consistent with?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 01:50 PM
2

Autism is surprisingly common. There are more autistic people than I would expect. However, most people are clearly not autistic. When they say this is common, they mean "more common than I would expect." If 10% of women act like this, it will seem like a common phenomenon - but it would be stupid to extrapolate it to the general population.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 01:49 PM
1

The problem with neuroplasticity is that it's deployed in the same way as "God did it!" Before we understood gravity, God did it. Before we understood the nature of the sun, it was a God. Neuroplasticity is a get-out-of-jail-free card. People deploy it with no supporting evidence, just like poor evolutionary explanations. I think it's more that women see other women watching the rock star attentively, and even if the first wave aren't attracted, they give off that impression to the second wave. …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 11:39 AM
1

No worries - I'll listen to the episode anyway. Looking forward to next week.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/16 11:33 AM
1

The whole concept of shit tests is "this is a test you have to pass." The prescribed advice is "get defensive." Nobody spots the trap - I've seen my PUA friends fall into it sooooo many times. Shit testing is a valid concept, but people attribute all similar behaviour to the same motivation. The majority of girls who do it frequently aren't doing it to test your fitness. They're just trying to manipulate you.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 11:37 PM
2

If every time I say "jump" you come up with a scathing remark, then I will realise the button to push to make you come up with a scathing remark. Voila, I can manipulate your behaviour. I can put you on the defensive at will. If I realise the reason for those remarks is that you are intimidated by my tests (given the fact women are generally much better than men at reading people, they're likely to pick up on that), I have discovered a way to unnerve you. I can hold out a hoop which is "hey, pas…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 10:27 PM
1

Yep, absolutely. I think generalisations are a good heuristic for analysing groups, and for predicting individual action - but again, that requires a tight correlation. If the variance in a group is high, generalisations become unreliable.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 10:16 PM
3

Regular shit tests are not normal. I have not had that experience at all. Shit tests happen when girls don't know me very well, and even then it's rare. If someone is giving you regular shit tests, it's more likely to be that they're realised the pattern of "if I 'shit test' him, he'll react." Even if you come up with a good response, it's still obvious you're on the defensive. That's the kind of person who is manipulative. They're looking for buttons to push, and that is one of them.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 05:40 PM
1

That'd be awesome. Thanks. :)
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 05:14 PM
1

I mean, I want to be rich, but I'm fully aware that me being rich will make other people poorer. That isn't a contradiction, it's just self-interest.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 02:30 PM
1

4 - Criticize experience in women and laud 'innocence.' Criticize such women for not knowing how to properly navigate relationships and for being 'immature children.' Well no shit. Yep. Yep yep yep yep yep.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 02:25 PM
3

Men with high impulse control and good executive function don't put up with that either...
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 02:20 PM
3

He's talking about generally manipulative behaviour, especially dread game. Stable women with high impulse control and good executive functions aren't going to put up with it. Edit: Mark Manson specifically talks about it in his book, which I find ironic given it's on TRP's sidebar. This is a long read but a good summary of why TRP tactics disproportionately attract unstable women.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 02:11 PM
0

I'm going to write a post on this later. I think there are very good reasons to reject some of TRP's generalisations (or rather, their predictive power), even if they are correct. I'd like to visualise why with some data plots. It has to do with standard deviation. Even if a generalisation is on average true, it only holds predictive value if it's reliably true - if the correlation is strong.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 01:57 PM
1

I've listened to a couple of podcasts, and I'm less impressed than I thought I would be. He's making a lot of factual claims about things that seem to me to be unverifiable. Some of this stuff seems solid, but some seems like wild speculation. What verification method does he use? How do we know his explanation for why rockstars are attractive is correct, and not mine? It seems to me there is solid evidence against his position, as rockstars tend to be less physically attractive than other artis…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 01:23 PM
1

I've listened to a couple of episodes. A lot seems solid, but a lot seems like unsubstantiated hypothesis presented as fact. So, for example, at one point he states this: "Rock stars are attractive because they are engaging in a mating display that shows off their attractive traits - singing, dancing." Total hypothesis, and I would argue false. IMO Rock stars are attractive primarily because they have other women into them. The best explanation I've heard is that women have trouble guaging a man…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 01:00 PM
2

As long as someone is an adult with a couple of years' experience under their belt, I think it's basically irrelevant. If that's what a girl is into, I don't see a problem. Date who you want, I'm not gonna stop you.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 12:06 PM
1

Yeah - I don't think that's the subject of the podcast, though. From the summaries, he seems to be talking on similar subjects to TRP, but not addressing it directly. I'll let you know once I've listened. It's more likely to have an evolutionary explanation than be a product of "neuroplasticity." Why do you say that? Most desires are instinctive. Cultural phenomena, not so much, but desire specifically - that's usually not trained into us. Sometimes we can desire something as a proxy (for exampl…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 06:16 AM
0

Yes. That is the primary consequence.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 06:09 AM
0

No, I'm not. I'm pushing the reader to consider what the consequences of that lack of verification are.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 05:48 AM
1

That's a flaw with TRP, not evolutionary psychology. Evo-psych acknowledges that there are other factors influencing attraction. It seeks to isolate those factors, and determine to which degree it is evolutionary. Academic evo-psych is considerably more rigorous than Roosh and TRP. Just because we don't know the evolutionary reason for post-menopausal women being attractive does not mean one does not exist. It's more likely to have an evolutionary explanation than be a product of "neuroplasticit…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 05:27 AM
1

Eh, my experience is that most of their tactics are a dead end. And I've tried most of them out. I don't really believe you.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 05:20 AM
1

From an evopsych perspective, a man desires a woman for one reason - reproductive instinct. Thus women post-menopause should not be found attractive by men. That doesn't follow at all. Perhaps there are other reasons he finds her attractive, or perhaps it is a spandral. Maybe men just aren't that good at detecting when a woman has been through menopause. Perhaps pairbonds have other benefits, and there is no point replacing the traditional mechanism for strengthening pairbonds (sex). There is a …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 02:10 AM
1

...So perhaps that will be his analysis? That their methodology is flawed? I haven't listened yet, but I'm confused as to why you would dismiss this out of hand.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 02:07 AM
1

Fully agree. This guy is an academic, not a TRPer. I doubt he's talking red pill ideology. What's wrong with him doing it?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/16 12:47 AM
2

The fact that you didn't address their perfectly reasonable explanation for their sampling method suggests you A) didn't read very closely or B) were attempting to be intentionally misleading. It was A. That's a reasonable objection, although not a sufficient justification. If you're using anything other than a random sample, the exact process should be documented. Without that information, we can't trust the study. The fact that after skimming the methodology you A) assume you know better than …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 11:55 PM
0

I think you may have missed why I was asking the question.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 10:56 PM
1

Seems like by the upvotes it's about 3:1 guys who think most girls hate oral versus most girls like it. And that is basic denial of reality. It's so much worse for the less obvious subjects. Now, how do you distinguish between the ones who are talking from experience versus the bullshit artists?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 10:54 PM
6

TBP is definitely concerned with possibility, but TRP is not concerned with probability. Not directly, at least. They are concerned with a naive version of probability. They misapply statistical analysis. If a trait correlates with some negative character trait (like being crazy), it could be wise to use it as an indicator. However, that only holds true if the correlation is strong. TRP only cares about the steepness of the correlation - not the strength. They only ever reference averages - they…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 08:13 PM
1

I meant to reply to this earlier - I thought that analogy at the end was great.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 08:00 PM
1

I mean this in the nicest way, but are you sure you aren't just unperceptive? I don't find BPD hard to spot at all. I mean, the diagnostic criteria are behaviour.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 07:57 PM
1

If it so heavily emphasises observation, why are posters rated on their posts rather than their experience? Why is proof of experience not only unnecessary, but completely absent? I get what you are saying, but go on /r/askTRP and read the answers. Seriously, read them. Count how many are informed by theory, and how many informed by "when I was in a situation like this, I did this." Shit, this post is a perfect example.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 07:28 PM
1

The mission statement of the NMP does not openly advocate for any specific policy. This is a clear difference from organizations like NORML which does openly advocate for a specific policy. "[Our] policy suggestions include: ending the marriage penalty, increasing the child tax credit, helping young men become marriageable men, ending anonymous fatherhood, a “Second Chances Act,” requiring premarital education for men and women forming stepfamilies, engaging Hollywood and the mass media, and lau…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 07:25 PM
1

Ok, from reading the study: They used a targetted-sampling method - a method that is reserved for hidden populations where random sampling is infeasable. This is not a hidden population. It should not be used. A short definition of targetted sampling may help us understand things: "In targetted sampling, methods are integrated in the very formulation of the research question and construction of the sample in an ongoing and interactive process in which data are constantly analyzed and used to adj…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 07:12 PM
0

The name of the study and the organization that did the research is in the URL It's no different than a footnote. "Hey prof, if you read the first letters of each paragraph, you get a link to the footnote!" I'll read through the study and reply with my analysis. There are plenty of organizations that openly advocate for one policy position or another; this is not one of them. You are wrong: The first one I looked at openly stated their objective was to prevent kids from being born out of wedlock…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 06:30 PM
1

The advice is based on evo-psych. That was what originally seperated it from the PUA community. That's part of the reason there is zero requirement to prove credentials before giving advice - the advice is based on theory first, real-world observation second. Nobody knows anyone's credentials on that subreddit. You could be taking advice from someone who has never spoken to a girl in his life and providing he is a good writer, you wouldn't be able to tell.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 06:16 PM
0

Have you ever had a professor write in "terrible supporting evidence" because you cited a source but didn't link directly to it? …yes. If I said "there was a study Harvard did once that found..." without specifying the study, that's exactly what they would say. There's absolutely nothing in there about supporting first marriages as the best life choice "full stop." Yes, and I bet you believe Marlboro when they say the purpose of their research is to provide unbiased reporting about cigarettes. T…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 05:31 PM
1

/u/interversity did a good summary of some key points here. I replied with specific points about some parts that ran counter to TRP theory below it.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 05:11 PM
0

It is a bad article when used to support your point. It may well have been a fine article when the research was live. As it stands, it's a terrible piece of supporting evidence. You're being deliberately obtuse. The NMI doesn't just support first marriages, it supports marriage as the best life choice full stop. It us an advocacy organisation for marriage. Go and skim their articles, and report what you find.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 05:03 PM
1

It was Pillsworth & Hasselton, 2006
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 04:29 PM
1

The theories that I have tested have been found lacking, and the methodology behind their own studies is flawed. I have good reason to be skeptical. The AF/BB study everyone was talking about a few months ago (probably the most major study to be posted on TRP) actively disproved a large amount of Red Pill theory, but members weren't interested in those parts. They just wanted to look at the conclusions about AF/BB.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 03:54 PM
2

I get the impression she is into rough sex, because she likes me. I'm not tough but I'm into that and I attract girls who like that. That's just a guess, though. I've been with girls like that in the past. Lots of girls like rough sex, but don't like dominant guys. That dichotomy is very common and not recognised by TRP.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 03:50 PM
0

Literally every piece of research they have ever published comes out in favour of secure, first marriages. Come on dude, use your critical faculties. The article doesn't even link to the original research. There is no research, that is why it is a bad article. I feel like if you were arguing in good faith you would have recognised that.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 03:44 PM
-1

I said bloops do the same. You were claiming Reds are the exception. That surprises me. I've never seen a red acknowledge that particular error.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 01:13 PM
1

I wasn't the one who dated them.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 01:11 PM
1

Case in point. Do you know what the variance is in partner count affecting ability to pair bond? That is far more important when assessing an individual than the average.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 01:09 PM
0

TRP only ever posts research that agrees with their theories, after the theories are developed. I have never seen a Red Piller collect a representative sample of research from Google Scholar and systematically test their theories against it. For that matter, I've never seen a Red Piller try to find research that disagrees with TRP. I've seen them search for specific studies to corroborate their theories multiple times though.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 12:41 PM
1

I'm not progressive. If anything, I'm alt-right. TRP is absolutely plagued with "theory before observations." The other day, I asked my friend about Khal Drogo and she said "the actor is attractive, but not the character." I pressed her, and she said he was most unnatractive when he was being dominant in the show. You try convincing a red piller that: That happened. She was telling the truth. She isn't a wild exception. It contradicts their theories, so they reject it. If it doesn't fit with TRP…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 12:35 PM
3

Crazy is hard to hide for those who are perceptive. If she's crazy when the relationship starts, she will give off signs. The reason most men fall for that stuff is because they: Can't spot it. Have friends who are afraid to tell them the truth. I've never met a girl who flipped down the line that didn't give off her crazy to me like a foghorn. I mean literally never, at least since I was 18. It's not that hard.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 12:29 PM
2

Spotting crazy is primarily instinctive. Social skills in general are sub-conscious. The way to spot crazy is not to look for overt red flags, it's to spot the subtle behaviours that indicate someone is crazy. You get that by observing crazy people in action. Besides which, TRP's red flags are essentially either extremely basic (does she drink heavily? What are her friends like?) or terrible indicators. It's ironic, because one red flag is whether she responds to you "winning" her shit tests or …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 12:04 PM
2

Why? Academic evo-psych is considerably more rigorous than what you find on TRP.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 11:58 AM
2

If sucking dick made you crazy, the difference in stability between women with one sexual partner versus many would be considerably more than 10%. Especially when you account for correlative factors. Sounds like observation bias to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 11:57 AM
1

Lmao. No they do not. A large number of women have zero casual sex, full stop. They never, ever sleep with a guy until they know he is committed, which makes perfect sense evolutionarily. Anyone who claims they get even most of their dates into bed immediately is giving away the fact they are a bullshit artist.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 11:52 AM
1

I don't have the study at hand either, but I believe it has been dropping since the 70s. Of course Durex will claim it is on the rise, can't speak for the rest though.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 11:47 AM
3

You realise women get experience from being in long-term relationships, right? Most women who have experience learned with a boyfriend, not random men from Copacabana.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 11:45 AM
1

While that undoubtedly is true, plenty of guys walk right into that trap and don't get out before it's too late. Then they should work on their ability to spot crazy women. Besides which, you're shifting the goalposts. Originally, it was "n-count is a good indicator of how crazy she is." Now, it is "n-count is a good proxy if you're socially retarded."
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 11:43 AM
0

You're taking an "unnecessary" risk if you sleep with women in the first place. We still do it, because the payoff is worth the risk. If you meet an awesome girl who seems stable, caring, stimulating and who blows your mind, her n-count would stop you? Even if she actively demonstrated that she bucked the trend? It's a retarded metric to use.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/16 10:54 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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