TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ProtectionPolitics4 Archive

View 4 posts and 1,088 comments by ProtectionPolitics4 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 1,088 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Genetics and early molding determines the type(s) that you like. But the barometer for your standards is determined by your options. More options = higher standards. More options occur due to social media and apps. Relatively speaking, standards would be lower 30 years ago when your options were your social circle and people you would meet randomly.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 05:41 AM
1

I mean with quality dating options, that's what you generally needed. But yeah just to have some options you did not need nearly as much.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/26 04:44 AM
2

Indeed. If you were an okay looking guy, in decent shape, good job, you actually could do quite well with dating quality women.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 05:54 AM
1

Have you considered that maybe you're overrating the women in this case and they're just chasing a guy who is basically on par with their looks? We get this idea that a bit of make up and some revealing clothing automatically makes you super hot somehow. But then I look closely and realize it's just a normal couple. Next you need to account for all the sexless marriages that follow. That is never part of the discussion. But sexless marriages overwhelmingly happen due to lack of physical attracti…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 01:29 AM
8

It's a middle ground. You need to be able to genuinely tolerate a sizeable volume of rejections. And the reality is that it does impact your confidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 01:44 AM
2

I'm a doctor and this is very true. Now doctors all find a partner but I see this often that it's just the first person to give them a bit of attention once they're all done. Male doctors are often settling. The problem is that 10 years go by, and suddenly they're having an affair the moment someone they're actually attracted to is interested in their money. Keeping in mind gold diggers are far less common nowadays but eventually it happens over a long period of time. Had they, somehow, married …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 01:38 AM
2

Most of those women are not going from frat bro and jock to a nerdy engineer... Most just stay single and not settle at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 01:26 AM
5

I think you're assuming too much here without any proof. Certainly a subset of women were in unhappy marriages. But also there was way less comparison going on. You could only compare your situation to others you knew in person. There was no internet and heck even TV wasn't showing stuff like that.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 01:22 AM
7

You actually do bring up a good point. Things were a bit easier in the 2010s. Not by a lot, but definitely easier. We have stats that show people had more sex in the 80s-90s as well, with some decline in the 2000s to 2010s but still holding steady. Then we had a sharp decline. Social media is to blame, along with dating apps. Too much access to anything isn't good in the world. Imagine a kid with unlimited video games or anyone with unlimited food. Not ideal for the human mind.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 01:18 AM
1

I have no idea why anyone would even want to. Attraction and standards are to some degree societal as well and a surrogate for what's happening in society. I could understand people not liking how social media has framed things. Anything beyond that is hilarious.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 01:16 AM
1

Keeping body fat down to the point where you are maintaining good aesthetics is actually very hard. Because you also won't be looking even remotely muscular with that diet plan. You're talking about just not being fat. That isn't how you maintain good looks. That's just looking average in the dating pool.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 04:27 PM
0

Robust social skills are actually very hard to acquire. It's quite literally as hard as making your face prettier, perhaps harder. Most of one's social skills and personality comes from a combination of innate factors you're born with and upbringing during early childhood.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 05:15 AM
1

You also develop wrinkles and lose hair. Keeping body fat down is very very hard as well even past age 30. But you can't control a lot of this anyway. Genetics and time determine your looks more than anything. What you can control doesn't actually make you that much more attractive. It helps a bit but not that much. Even if you are attracting someone much younger, it doesn't mean they are necessarily attractive. Just being with an average looking woman who is a lot younger is... a big deal? Why?…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 05:36 PM
3

Sure but people talk about it as if most 23 year old women are desiring 40 year old dudes. That's so hilariously wrong that I wouldn't even know where to start.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 06:42 AM
1

The whole premise of aging for a guy is that you supposedly get to be far more appealing as you get older. You clearly do not, as you nicely outlined. It's hard enough as it is to get more attractive from 23 to 35 for a man. It largely does not happen. Most decline. I'm saying even with money, it ain't happening. Not to mention balding and fat gain which are both not easy to combat.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 01:58 AM
1

I'm not 40 yet and I'm able to retire right now. Doesn't mean life is somehow better than when I was 20. Friends more on, health risks build up (even if you don't notice them), you have responsibilities. If you're single well good luck there. Comparing a 20 year old appealing guy's dating life at 20 to a 40 year old man's is just comical. Most guys at 40 will be lucky to get attention from single moms. It's funny because I have a few friends who are single moms, fairly attractive. People like to…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 04:23 PM
2

I wasn't referring to you individually. Just speaking in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 04:19 PM
6

Exactly. A 35 average looking year old guy isn't competing with some attractive 23 year old dude.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 07:53 AM
1

Listen, if she wants you, the car back seat is totally fine for her. Whether you are both 20 years old or you're both 50. All that happens at 35 is your dating pool is mostly single moms now. We all know this and that's a reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 07:50 AM
3

Most women are dating men their own age. This has been discussed and settled a trillion times. Just cause the odd woman here and there "dates" much older doesn't mean it's the norm. It also doesn't mean that dating someone 3 years older is "dating an older guy."
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 07:49 AM
2

In other words, you missed out on half of your life's fun just like that. Life really is not that fun in full adult mode. I quite literally take multiple luxury trips annually, drive 2 (not just one) sports cars. I'm well off and I generally have a pretty good time. But to suggest it's even close to how fun life was at 18 or 19 when it was just about being carefree with friends doing silly things is... pure cope.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 07:48 AM
2

See my post above. I'm a (very well off) doctor and even though I partied a fair bit in my 18-22 age bracket, my only life regret is not partying more!
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 07:44 AM
3

I'm a high earning doctor and I've been stupidly successful in the stock market. I partied a decent amount I guess when I was 18-22. But my only regret now? That I didn't party more and have more fun earlier in life. You need some sort of plan and framework of direction. But reality is you can't exactly buy your youth back. Disease comes much earlier than people expect too. Health DOES go downhill as you hit your 30s, no matter how healthy of a lifestyle you live. Aches and pains come on. Joint …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 07:44 AM
10

You can't exactly overpower the biological urge to find a partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 07:39 AM
1

No it's just observational data. More so pointing out that height is a scapegoat that's used often.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/26 12:43 PM
1

Yes I'm well aware. There are way more single people than ever so of course less are getting divorced for the time being. That also doesn't mean it'll last.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/26 12:43 PM
1

Facts are facts though. I'm just saying height is *not* the deal breaker people pretend it is. It is used as a scapegoat because it is more politically correct.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/26 12:41 PM
0

No because in any given year, there are many unhappy marriages that are leading to divorce. Those are all included in the sample size.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/26 03:23 AM
1

That's true. But it isn't going to happen for most men. A lot of guys settle for whoever gives them the slightest attention.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/26 12:11 AM
1

If you have a nice face, you're all set as a guy. The rest just is a bonus. Height means nothing when I see super handsome 5'5 guys with ultra attractive women.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 11:44 PM
1

For many guys, just finding someone who is decently attractive and agreeable is near-impossible. Decently attractive on its own means you've filtered out a large percentage.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 11:40 PM
0

A lot of guys will not have the capability of attracting or appealing to someone they are very into.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 11:39 PM
1

Do you have data to show there was less relationship happiness than today? Because there is data to show relationship happiness has actually decreased a little bit since 50 years ago. Keep in mind the sample size of bad ones was WAY higher back then too. So of people who are in relationships now, they're still a bit less happy than those 50 years ago including the extremely unhappy ones. Which means your average relationship/marriage is way less happy today, than 50 years ago. It isn't even a cl…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 11:37 PM
1

A lot of it is because women in the past needed to get married to be financially secure. Then later, women made their own money. Once they're financially secure, they can be more selective about who they date. Many of them don't like the options they have so they become more and more picky.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 11:34 PM
0

I wouldn't confuse this with the idea of being rude = appealing to women. Yes a subset of the time it's like that. But most of the time... it's really not. It's just guys with sex appeal being normal to women.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 11:28 PM
–

What's the exact statement though? Yes looks are very important for men and without it, you have little to no chance. It's not everything but it is a hard requirement. It's like getting a job with no interview and no resume, it more or less cannot be done.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/26 12:14 AM
3

Even that doesn't happen. You have to literally pay cash.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/26 03:28 AM
2

That's life. You're born then you die. Major issues arise than overshadow more minor issues. The takeaway is actually this lie people say about men gaining value with age. Age also brings on major health risks even if you live an exceptionally healthy lifestyle. Youth is where the fun must happen or it's lost forever.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/26 03:39 AM
1

You're mixing up unrelated topics. Being a master of your domain as you say, has little to do with sex or relationships. There is a biological drive to have sex and have a partner. You can do other things but you can't fulfil that need.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/26 03:36 AM
1

For top 10-20% sure. Average guys get lucky but it's harder nowadays than a few decades ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/26 03:33 AM
2

I'm well past the college days but it used to be easier back in the day. Even well before my time in the 80s and 90s, hook ups in college were a bit easier than 2010s onward. Was it easy? No. But it was easier. Hook ups and sex are just on a downhill spiral as a whole nowadays.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/26 03:32 AM
1

How easy is it to become a multi millionaire? Or to become witty?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 09:38 PM
1

If you're average looking and you max out everything else, you'll pull lots of average looking women. I never ever see even average guys, let alone ugly, with attractive women. It's a myth on the internet.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 06:56 PM
1

Of course. But it doesn't even come close to how easy you'd have it with just good looks and charisma alone. Charisma - you cannot develop this much. Maybe you can improve it a bit but adults are generally set with whatever charisma they have. Kick ass body - sure, takes years of work and helps you a small amount. Lots of money - yeah making millions helps a little bit, again not much. But how many guys make millions anyway?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 06:54 PM
2

Because there isn't much you can improve. You can certainly work to your potential and make a good living and be in reasonable shape. That's all great. But this whole idea that you can be a top 10% man just by "work hard bro" (meaning: buy my online courses) is nonsense.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 02:58 AM
1

Improving what? This is part of the online men's guru mentality AKA scams.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 02:57 AM
4

You're limited by genetics. Top 10% means top 10% in looks, height, frame, communication skills. It doesn't really mean career nearly that much. A 220k/year software engineer who is a 4-5/10 in looks and have mediocre social skills is not top 10% to women. What can you control? Body, income, clothing, hair You can't control facial aesthetics, height, social circle.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 02:56 AM
–

Exactly. Guys without money talk about money all day. oh you paid for a coffee date? gold digger!
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 06:49 AM
1

Yes and that threshold varies based on the women. Your comments made it sound like you think there's a universal male threshold.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/25 03:06 AM
0

The threshold for a 4/10 woman is way different than a 9/10 woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/25 02:09 AM
1

No they don't. Maybe for their league? But without defining whose threshold it is, that's an odd comment to make.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/25 02:08 AM
2

There are no shortage of men (who don't actually make a lot of money) who will lecture you on how money is all that matters.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/25 02:06 AM
1

Exactly.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/25 02:06 AM
2

It's not sexual attraction. There's a whole different dimension of attraction that's totally independent from sexual attraction that women feel but men don't. A type of attraction that comes from the amount of investment (resources, attention, consideration, etc) he's willing to put into her over and above other women. I agree there's a "different dimension" as you say. It has to do with various emotions and how you make her feel. But looks still come first. This explains the young hot girl you …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/25 04:36 PM
1

You're saying "trust me bro" as your proof. Reality is every couple is looksmatched and wealthy men date women at their own level. Start at Jeff Bezos and work down to your everyday millionaire. No one is dating or married to a model, unless they're paying. The wealthy guy wouldn't even be on the radar. If his looks aren't up to par, he wouldn't even be considered. That's what you're missing here. The handsome guy who creates that lust and sex appeal never just gets old. Also you talk about payi…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 07:41 PM
1

I make far more than 200k in just a couple months alone, let alone annual. Yes you can do those things. It doesn't move the needle that much for dating. When I was 20 with free time around lots of single people, I had much better dating prospects than now. I'm not out of touch. About 5% of Americans make 200k per year. I think you also underestimate just how many richer people there are. Nice restaurants are always full. 5 star hotels are sold out. Luxury cars get taken off the lot the moment th…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 06:52 PM
2

If you're handsome, you're pretty much set for dating. Just don't be homeless or have an outlier bad personality. You don't need much else.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 05:36 PM
1

Guys who make it realize that's a lie. Guys who don't make it, keep thinking they just need one more promotion or wage raise.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 05:35 PM
0

That's not a revelation or news man. Everyone knows that. Buying sex does not count, in any way. We're talking about genuine sexual attraction.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 05:34 PM
1

It isn't "rare" by any means. Uncommon? Sure, not rare. You're moving goal posts here. I'm just talking about average looking dudes, not unattractive. The average looking dude making 200k or 70k or 40k or 900k will be dating a very similar looking woman regardless of the income. What changes is her socioeconomic status and education level, not looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 05:32 PM
1

The somewhat older guy can go on a dating app or go to a bar or a social setting and get with his looks match there. You're also using negative rule outs. A woman can walk into a scene with a very average looking guy in a suit who is likely wealthy and she'll reject him if he isn't hot enough.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 06:19 AM
2

It's not really framing. Because there is no world where someone goes from finding you not attractive to attractive. They can find you attractive to begin with and then find you even more appealing. That is not the same thing. A 60k/year earner who is a 9/10 in looks is always beating a 5/10 who makes 1 million per year.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 05:55 AM
3

I don't think so. Women by large will not be into a guy that they're not physically attracted to. Money doesn't make a guy hot. It's quite literally impossible. For some it plays a role but that's after the fact they're already into the guy physically. Not before. This is where guys get confused because they think it's some sort of boost to their attractiveness.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 02:31 AM
1

They listen to online "gurus" who talk about making millionaires and sports cars and other luxury items and how that's all women care about. They forget two things: 1) They're listening to scammers online 2) In the cases of the women, effectively all of them are escorts and/or sugar babies I'm not even saying there's anything wrong with sex work. But to state that a sex worker being with a guy proves that being a millionaire makes you hot, is ridiculous. I'll actually give credit in honesty in t…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 02:13 AM
1

That's meaningless. You need to measure actual outcomes. Actually going on dates and seeing if it works out. A lot of women like the idea of a certain guy. Then they go on a date and realize there is zero physical attraction and there's no second or third dates.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 02:09 AM
1

Yes women are wrong, the dudes are right. /s
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 02:08 AM
1

Because that's how society has taught men growing up. That wealth and success makes you more attractive. Heck even women think that about other men. They won't ever date the guy themselves, but they assume others would like someone who is rich.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 02:07 AM
1

How many rich ugly men are there anyway? Most were not and are not ugly. They are just average. Most rich men (who are average looking) didn't marry much more attractive women in the past and they don't do so now either. There's the odd one here and there who did and effectively was a sugar daddy. But it was never the norm. What was common before was that men could get with someone slightly more attractive than themselves if they were ultra successful or rich. You have to remember that if you we…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 02:05 AM
1

Right there is no pay off. No amount of success really improves your dating prospects ever.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 02:03 AM
1

Physical attraction is by far the most important thing and then comes personality compatibility. Women who want sugar daddies make that pretty clear and obvious. They expect a payment allowance to sleep with you.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 02:02 AM
1

You can go on forever about how money doesn't make a guy hot and these guys just won't get it. They listen to the online male guru scammers.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 01:59 AM
1

Dude most high earning guys are just dating or married to their looks match.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 01:58 AM
1

Most of those men get rejected still.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 01:56 AM
1

Many people in my field make double to quadruple that amount and get rejected all the time. You are vastly overestimating the appeal of money for physical attraction. It's a tiny bonus.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 01:56 AM
1

200k/year is a good earning but is nowhere close to being able to afford a baller lifestyle. Also, it doesn't make up for any physical flaws at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 01:55 AM
9

Every woman will say this and it's very true. Then guys will come in and say it's not true.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/25 01:54 AM
–

But my main point was that rich and middle aged/older doesn't get you many options. If this guy wanted someone much younger, he'd need to pay. His current mistress was all he could get without paying.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 06:08 PM
–

You miss the point. If a guy like him was such high value, he'd have 25 year old 9/10s who are into him. But he doesn't. Simple reason: age. A rich 50 year old, even with above average looks, cannot compete with a normal 9/10 chad who is 25 years old.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 05:39 PM
–

Excuses excuses. You guys always have an excuse for everything. Yes I'm calling him out because the guy is rich but literally had to go below his own level of looks. He was a middle aged man and a 7/10 his own age (his wife basically) was what he could pull off. His own looks did not allow for him to go any higher, neither did his age. He'll find another woman in her 40s to date eventually. The money is only relevant if he's paying for a sugar baby or escorts.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 05:37 AM
1

They aren't, it's a fantasy. You have very few options. Maybe an attractive single mom if you're lucky. Look at the CEO who got caught having an affair. His mistress was less attractive than himself, and that's a top 0.1% wealthy guy.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 02:18 AM
1

Is that why the CEO caught recently in an affair was with a super hot mistress? Oh wait....
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 02:18 AM
1

Is that why the CEO caught recently in an affair was with a super hot mistress? Oh wait....
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 02:17 AM
0

Even if you do that, not a chance.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 02:17 AM
11

It's a small bonus so yes overall it is overrated. Face matters the most. Height and how you dress is also important. Body comes after that. If it was more important, it would be very obvious. Fitness girls do care more though.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/25 03:43 PM
1

what?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/25 05:24 AM
0

Finances for what? That CEO who just got caught having an affair that's blowing up online, was "dating" his secretary who is a bit below him in looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/25 02:27 PM
2

That used to be true but as women out earn men under age 40, we see more and more income matched couples or couple where the woman makes a little bit more. Lots of educated women making 80k range with guys who make 50-70k.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 05:57 PM
2

So who do you think high earners date and marry then? High earning women have even higher standards for looks. I just said that. You're saying high earning women are a small % of the population? Sure. Lets go down to women with middle class income ranges then. They all also care about things like looks, personality fit and so on. A woman making 50k or 90k isn't rejecting guys because they make 45k or 85k if she thinks he's hot. Would she reject a guy who is unemployed and/or broke? Yeah probably…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 05:42 AM
1

Usually yes. But plenty of relationships nowadays have sex maybe once a week. Some less, some a little more. There are guys who have multiple friends with benefits.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 05:38 AM
1

That depends on the jurisdiction as every jurisdiction has different laws and many of them do absolutely favor the mom's side. What you are saying only applies in some jurisdictions. In addition, you skipped the subpar decision making part? There are guys out there that screw up with the birth control aspect. There are guys who take silly risks when they don't want a baby. There are women who date a guy with lots of red flags and have a baby. Decisions have consequences.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 05:35 AM
3

Very true. All of my female MD colleagues who are single , truly want to remain single. The overwhelmingly majority are married or going to be.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 05:27 AM
1

It's a safe bet in that other guys will like it. It might have marginal benefits for women especially for those with a similar face to yours but it's nothing that really moves the needle.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/25 07:19 PM
2

If that's your flaw (facial fat) then yeah you're right. But for many guys they have no actual flaws. They just aren't hot. Muscles are way overrated though.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/25 07:18 PM
-1

That's a byproduct of family court, and subpar decision making in one's 20s.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/25 07:17 PM
1

I'm seeing a lot of high earning women who date down income wise but date way up in looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/25 07:16 PM
3

Nonsense. My female physician colleagues are all high earners, some very high earners. The majority out earn their husbands often by large gaps (Ex. 700k income to 80k). Though higher earning women tend to have very high standards for looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/25 07:15 PM
1

It's lower marriage rates, more single people and then you have low birth rates.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/25 07:14 PM
1

In all honesty, the social stuff doesn't get you laid that much either. A good looking guy on dating apps gets laid more than anyone nowadays. But yeah if you go back in time to 1980s house parties, that was the way.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/25 07:09 PM
2

Besides improving social skills which I agree with, the rest of the stuff is mostly nonsense. The guys picking up women in their mid 20s have zero resources and do just fine with looks and charm.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/25 05:21 AM
1

How is that relevant?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/25 05:20 AM
1

I just don't think it's an important topic. Women always paid for me on the 2nd date and my successful 1st dates were always very cheap. So who cares and why?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/25 05:31 AM
2

About what? I've always done well with women in my own league but I did even better when I was not rich in my early 20s. Being rich in my 30s didn't change my dating prospects at all. If I had flaws, I would struggle with everyone and would have struggled before. What experience do you have that is relevant?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 12:58 AM
1

What makes you come to that conclusion?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 09:35 PM
2

That's way overrating the value of money in dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 05:07 PM
0

Yes men take what they can get in many ways and settle. Now you can ask why they don't leave but truth is, it's either that or just being single and later having to settle for even less.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 04:27 PM
–

Not really? People just modify their standards over time.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 04:43 AM
–

Nothing to do with that. It's all about being unable to modify your attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 04:37 AM
–

There is a big spectrum but having a fit body is barely noticeable. Being very muscular IS noticeable. If it's not noticeable, as a rule of thumb for anything, it plays a very small role.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 04:35 AM
–

No because people who are unattractive and/or low socioeconomic status reproduce a ton.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 04:34 AM
–

Yes it's much harder to be charismatic than good looking.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 04:33 AM
–

Sure but men are far more flexible with that stuff.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 04:33 AM
–

If having a nice body was so important then we wouldn't have so many bodybuilder type of guys being incels. Men like muscles, flashy cars and toys. What men like doesn't reflect what women like.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 03:33 AM
–

Maximizing your potential is a different argument though. It's also just mental games more often than not. How much can you really work on as far as humor goes anyway? Very little.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 03:31 AM
–

If they didn't have nice cars and a good job, they'd try to blame that. Men often try to blame something actionable or modifiable when those things have very little to do with their success with women. It's not that it has zero value, it's just a bonus.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 03:30 AM
–

This isn't about taste, it's observation of the population.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 03:29 AM
-4

Even women will modify their standards on an individual level and settle down with their looks match. They are not going below their own level of looks, that's the key part. Men actually date down in looks more often. OP's point is that guys becoming providers in their 30s and beyond is a huge myth. Those women won't even look at men they aren't attracted to, let alone consider you for a date.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 02:49 AM
2

Men probably settle a lot more than women actually.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 02:48 AM
5

Now we have women outearning men under 40 and the age keeps rising and the gap under age 40 is growing.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 02:47 AM
23

I've said this many times but the myth that women somehow go from "chads" down to settling with guys who are providers is just laughable. Women are making their own money and have even higher standards for long term dating or marriage. Why would they want to wake up to a guy they aren't attracted to?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 02:47 AM
1

Is that true though? I think some at least just feel that there isn't complete honesty on both sides about what matters.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/25 05:19 PM
1

- masculinity/masculine face, where men are bad at judging this on other men but women pick up on it - believing a guy's lies where he says he gets laid a lot - assuming every man and woman in public equals being a couple - misjudging a guy's looks - guys with excellent social skills going for women well below their league
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/25 02:05 AM
1

Not sure about percentages but attractive women certainly demand only the hottest guys (facewise) and that's exactly who they date.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/25 02:05 AM
1

This is where it depends on the individual. A lot of women who are more average looking won't have a strong preference for looks so they may not feel like they're settling. But some certainly want a hot guy so they'll feel like they're settling.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/25 02:02 AM
2

Where do you cross the line on sexual assault?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/25 01:59 AM
1

- masculinity/masculine face, where men are bad at judging this on other men but women pick up on it - believing a guy's lies where he says he gets laid a lot - assuming every man and woman in public equals being a couple - misjudging a guy's looks - guys with excellent social skills going for women well below their league
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/25 01:58 AM
1

Well attractive women are content waiting it out and being single, having a fwbs, and really just holding out for a hot guy. That is a huge reason why we see many of them staying single into their 30s by choice. When women say there aren't enough quality men to date, that is almost entirely based on guys not being hot enough.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/25 01:57 AM
2

Sure but also: - masculinity/masculine face, where men are bad at judging this on other men but women pick up on it - believing a guy's lies where he says he gets laid a lot - assuming every man and woman in public equals being a couple - misjudging a guy's looks
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/25 01:55 AM
3

That's false. It is hard for the overwhelming majority unless you mean finding one partner at some point in time over the years.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/25 01:53 AM
-4

Well it's a biological need. You don't eat all day either but you do need to at some point.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/25 01:52 AM
1

They'll continue to be appealing but they won't have an easier time. Anyone who did well with women at 23 does worse at 33. You have a lot less options. People get married, younger women aren't interested, and women who are still single have issues or are overly picky. There is no world where it gets easier with age. Very few things do actually. Everything in life gets worse with age. I say that as a wealthy guy. I think people as a whole are obligated to cope because they have to. But really, y…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:53 PM
1

That's because people like me and you have the real world experience and know how it works. If you just live online and listen to redpillers, you'd assume differently. Ironically even if you live online, you can see how obvious it is even on dating apps when women set their age preferences. I will add that sometimes you get a guy who is like 40 with a woman who is 25. But then the guy is actually better looking and somehow this a big deal because of the age gap? First, who even cares about the a…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:28 PM
–

That's true if you actually interacted with women. But many guys grow up believing the silly stuff about "game" or muscles or other nonsense. I'll tell you some interesting stuff though. Even the passport bros now have a harder time from what I've heard. You need to at least be average looking to pull that off or you're just paying for hookers. Likewise, being a sugar daddy in the US even needs some modestly average looks in good shape. 300k/month won't change it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:32 PM
–

Depends on the guy. If it's a very attractive guy, she will put lots of effort in.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:28 PM
–

Globally, tax payers and their expenses actually fund a lot of things for everyday people. Extended leave off work, numerous welfare programs, government enforced high wages etc. I would look beyond the US and look at all western nations. The topics in this subreddit are the same outside the US where socialist programs are more prevalent.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:26 PM
–

The government does not but society does through media etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:25 PM
–

No. This is just a philosophical argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:24 PM
–

Of course not. You need to pay lots of tax to fund peoples' daily routines beyond basic necessities. They are owed everything with your taxes. You are owed nothing and need to work to fund them.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:23 PM
–

Dying in a gutter? What? Socialist movements want us to have universal basic income and pay loads of money to people to sit at home and do nothing. Not to mention various welfare scams out there.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:23 PM
–

Exactly
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:21 PM
–

Because physical attraction is what matters the most followed by social skills and then shared values and interests. The job part matters in terms of not being broke but can sometimes be a small bonus too.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:17 PM
–

I frequently run into patient cases of families from overseas where the wife is having lots of affairs and leaving the husband after coming to the US. These were arranged marriages.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:17 PM
–

I think the nice guy or asshole thing is an overrated topic. Lots of nice guys and assholes are attractive to women. If you look good and talk normally, it doesn't matter if you're an ass or nice. In fact people fixate on that to distract from the importance of looking good.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:15 PM
–

Looks gets downplayed though. You always get taught that muscles or money or "game" is what matters. Things you can control. But those are very small bonuses.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:13 PM
–

Yeah you get taught that "game" or money or random irrelevant factors are what matter. Looks always gets downplayed.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:12 PM
1

Right but that's not what a lot of redpillers say.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:00 PM
2

Well what is your point then? That men transform into a chad just by getting older and that every woman wants them? That's a huge myth dude and you know it too. The large majority of women (in their 20s) into much older men have daddy issues or other mental health problems and often have borderline personality disorder. I see this in medical practice as I run into patient cases and this is universally the case. Your typical normal mentally healthy 24 year old doesn't want a guy who is 36, let al…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:38 PM
1

That's why I said 0-4 year gaps. Redpillers usually talk about age gaps where the guy is 10 years older... Also I have no clue why you're including the ones where the woman is older. Also yes USA has a big gap but it's shrinking everywhere else. People immigrate from overseas and guess who leaves? The woman. Looksmismatched couples are not a thing in western nations.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:30 PM
1

Depends what you mean by do fine. Dating within your league? Sure. I'm talking about dating people better looking than yourself. I have lots of techbro friends too and the majority are in the sugar daddy lifestyle, hire escorts and occasionally get a girlfriend.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:37 PM
1

If muscles mattered so much, the incel communities wouldn't be full of people who looked like they workout. Also when do you ever see a muscular guy with a very average face get lots of female attention? Almost never. So the muscles part does not matter in real life. On paper? Sure, lots of things matter in theory. Better finances yes. But that doesn't mean a whole lot sometimes. I was 21 and could get laid or date with 20 bucks in my pocket. Now in my 30s and making 7 figures (as a physician), …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:31 PM
1

Not really. That's just deciding based on arbitrary criteria. You're certainly right that if you make lots of money (lets say 500k) and are in shape and not old, then you are certainly well rounded and in the top 2% or whatever % you like. But that assumes that criteria automatically = attractive to women you want and it doesn't work out like that.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:27 PM
0

You can't really improve yourself though. That's mostly a myth.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:35 AM
3

You mean a 5/10 guy getting a 5/10 girlfriend?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:34 AM
0

You're going too extreme. Most men have nearly 0 shot with anyone who is even above average and not overweight. Most guys don't even care to date a supermodel. What we're seeing is that guys have to work hard to date below themselves lookswise.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:30 AM
4

Doesn't have that much to do with confidence and social skills kick in only in combination with looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:26 AM
2

Natural charisma and being handsome.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:05 AM
1

Age disparity in sexual relationships - Wikipedia Here's some proof that age gaps are 0-4 years usually. Remember, some women date a bit younger too. Then remember that late 20s and above also means lots of single moms.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:04 AM
1

Late 20s will date early 30s, that's it. You say "most" but where's your proof? Age disparity in sexual relationships - Wikipedia The large majority are within 0-4 years of an age gap. Your points also don't make sense. If you're in your 30s and attractive and charismatic, then who even cares? You were hot at 23 and you're hot at 33.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:03 AM
1

If you're 37 and have a decent face and tall and fit.. well guess what? You had an even better face at age 27 and you don't exactly grow from 27 to 37, do you? So you were also tall then too. The fit part, I mean if you look like you lift at 37 it's very likely you worked out in your 20s. Point is, these aren't things anyone improves on from 20s to 30s. The age thing is just a coping mechanism of "it'll get better later."
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:01 AM
1

Sorry I just meant like I'm very much into the upper class. Not that I'm a high-end elite. But yes I do earn 7 figures annually. You'll find there have been a few guys on here saying the same thing as well. Great job in their 30s but dating is harder than ever. What part doesn't make sense?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:59 AM
1

So to be fair I wouldn't say I'm struggling to find my looksmatch but that it does take a good amount of work. I'm in excellent shape (6 pack level) but I always have been. With a decent amount of work, definitely have options among average looking women my own age. Now if you change it to an attractive woman, yes it's extremely hard suddenly.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:56 AM
1

Age of marriage is close to 30 but those relationships started before then... it's the age they met that counts.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 08:37 PM
4

Sure dude lol. Yeah a 40 year old in good shape is going to compete with 26 year olds (also in good shape) who are much better looking. If you're just a 40 year old version of someone who is good looking then this isn't a discussion really. You're fine if you're attractive at 20 or 45.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 08:36 PM
1

It doesn't get easier at all. You're right, much fewer single people. Financial situation isn't that relevant unless you're broke.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 08:34 PM
3

Say it for the people in the back. I'm a (high earning) doctor in my 30s and it was much easier when I was in college. It's hard now just to go out with my looksmatch.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 08:34 PM
1

Oh I thought you transform into a chad just by getting older as a dude?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 08:33 PM
1

It's not the male wall. You can't workout into a handsome face. You also have a very tiny pool of women compared to a 25 year old Chad.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 08:32 PM
-1

Guilt tripping isn't the issue here, that's overrated. Most people don't care. Only twitter and instagram memes care. The issue is that very few women in their 20s like men 10 years older than me. I realize a small minority do and that ya'll fixate on outliers or small minorities. But mathematically your dating pool is far smaller if you're 35 than 25. Most reasonably attractive guys in their 30s are married anyway or about to be. They got married to someone looksmatched. I think you underestima…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 08:31 PM
1

But your age sets the scene. A lot less single people in their 30s than 20s. Most women in their 20s do not like men who are 8-10+ years older either. Quite literally the math proves your dating pool is much smaller. If your 20s were a really tough time then yeah sure 30s can be better. But a guy who is a 6/10 and social almost always had it much easier at 24 years old than 34 years old.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 08:28 PM
2

It's the ceiling concept. Your ceiling is at its highest in your 20s usually then goes down. You reached your potential later. But for most guys, their success declines from 20s to 30s and a lot more to your 40s. I was very middle class at age 20 and very upper class in my 30s and I find it's much harder now. The reason is I was succeeding in my 20s to some extent and that success only declines with age due to reasons OP said. Too old for girls in their 20s , lots of single moms or women who are…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 08:26 PM
2

OP you're 100% right. If anything it's even a bit worse than you say. Your 20s are by far the best time as a man and it's downhill from there. The rest is just coping.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 08:24 PM
4

Getting into pick up culture shenanigans, trying to learn "game" , having unrealistic standards, overthinking things like confidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 08:22 PM
2

Financial success is much easier than dating success.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 08:20 PM
1

Your definition of gold digging isn't what I'm saying. Gold digging is being with a guy solely for his money, leaving if he loses money or spends less on you. It's very close to a sugar daddy arrangement.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 08:19 PM
3

Becoming wealthy is due to genetics, opportunity, work ethic. The opportunity part breaks down into effort input, luck, where you live and so on.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 08:17 PM
4

Because it's saying that you should take responsibility for something you fail at? How is that hard to understand? Making is to some extent in your control but in many ways it is not. It's based on talent/genetics, upbringing, where you're born, work ethic, opportunities and luck. You control the work ethic and perhaps making opportunities but not the rest. Dating is based on genetics, upbringing, where you live, luck and to some extent putting effort in. You control the effort aka work ethic pa…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 08:14 PM
5

You don't need to go extreme. It's a spectrum and you need some taxation and public services.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:14 PM
4

Left wingers will say that everyone is owed a house, a good wage (not necessarily even a job), transportation, free education and so on. But that you're owed nothing in dating (I agree with this part).
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:13 PM
7

Socialists would argue otherwise. Everyone is apparently owed a good wage for doing nothing.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:12 PM
6

In some ways guys mislead other guys. You focus on things that don't matter as a result and get a poor outcome.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:11 PM
9

Making money is actually even more in your control than dating so this is a good analogy.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:02 PM
13

Considering that making money is far more in your control than dating, it's an excellent analogy.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:00 PM
9

Part of this is that some people feel misled. Also that some guys who are successful today would have been successful 30 years ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:53 PM
1

Sarcasm?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:35 PM
3

Creepy is not behavior based mostly.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 02:55 AM
4

Women date like 2 years older, not 10. For the most part anyway. Do 25 year olds sometimes date a 38 year old? sure. But it's uncommon. Also lets not pretend age gaps mean everything. If you're dating an average looking 25 year old and you're 36 and average looking yourself but with lots of money, okay...cool? What's the big deal?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 02:52 AM
2

Men go for what they can get. A woman in her 30s who is hot (as you say) has unlimited options. You have very little decision making power or control over who you end up with.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 02:50 AM
1

On par is open minded. If you make 70k/year, a guy who makes minimum wage part time won't exactly mesh well.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 02:26 PM
1

That's like lecturing an unemployed guy about how job interviews are meaningless if it's not an amazing career. Problem is you can't get any job without an interview. And you're still unemployed.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 07:35 AM
2

They do but many guys face barriers just getting to date #3-4. Hard to get to a LTR without the first dates, isn't it?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 06:45 AM
1

No. Do you have a top 1% income? A lot depends on where you live. Top 10%: $234,900 Top 20%: $165,300 Top 30%: $127,300 You need to look at the right year. Men dated down socioeconomically in the past because they could leverage finances to make up for lack of looks to some extent. That's now history. You can't do that anymore so men end up with someone very similar to them socioeconomically instead.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 05:59 AM
1

Yes I am, in this context. Also because people date within their socioeconomic status and education level anyway. Also blue collar workers have earning potentials which easily exceeds 77k for those willing to put in the work. 60k is even more within reach for obvious reasons. I think you're just making excuses here. But since this is a dating subreddit I'll put things into perspective and better context. It is much more difficult to be a good looking guy who is physically attractive to women tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 05:52 AM
1

That's what I'm saying. The problem in some ways is that attraction overrules values.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 05:40 AM
1

Well of course it matters. I'm just saying peoples' dating choices don't actually reflect the values they speak of.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 05:15 AM
2

The top <0.01% is less than 1 in 10,000 guys.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 03:08 AM
2

So the top <0.01% of society?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 02:45 AM
3

I said women with good jobs, so they're not that young. Women don't change their dating patterns either with age. Your dating options at age 35 are a bit more "toned down" compared to age 25, sure. But it's still the same guys. Also some of these guys aren't that terrible either. It's a spectrum.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 02:44 AM
–

Right they can have sex with who they want, when they want. Also women can get into a relationship very quickly once they decide to. Having complete total control is a big asset.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 02:41 AM
1

I don't know one single male individual who is good looking with decent social skills, who doesn't have tons of options with women. I don't think you realize how difficult it is to be conventionally attractive as a guy. You can be worth 50 million dollars and if you're a 4-5/10, you'll have 1/100th of the appeal to women that a 9/10 Chad has. Not sure what world you live in but I also highly doubt you eavesdrop on so many women talk about this or that you have thousands of female friends.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 02:38 AM
1

Such as..... ? 3-4 examples?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 02:35 AM
1

Which part
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 02:35 AM
2

Men's tastes are varied, not women's.... You got that confused. Men are willing to date or hook up with women of various body types, looks, ethnicities and so on. Women are generally quite picky on certain things they like or certain level of looks. Men also settle for whoever gives them attention usually. Women do not and are very comfortable waiting a long time. Also masculine doesn't necessarily mean conventionally handsome. Some guys are conventionally handsome but not really masculine. Some…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 02:34 AM
10

Because it's a fake talking point. Lots of women with good jobs talk about things like values and identity but a few months later date a guy who is half gangster with full body tattoos.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 02:30 AM
2

What sort of status?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 02:29 AM
2

It's just about looks and social skills. The person you're replying to is completely wrong. But your points about goals and values are also not exactly attraction enhancers either. I see women, who are educated and have good jobs for example, talk about things like values and various philosophical things. Then 3 months later they date a guy who is semi-gangster with full body tattoos and then a year later broke up and talk about their toxic ex. Now you'd be surprised to know I'm not criticizing …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 02:28 AM
-1

This is all wrong. If you're hot enough for her and have sufficient social skills, that's all you need. The rest is a bonus or disqualifier. Being rich is a bonus, being totally broke is a disqualifier. Just like being muscular is a bonus and being morbidly obese is a disqualifier. You're getting into bonuses and ignoring the fundamentals.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 02:24 AM
1

People talk about things like values and get all philosophical but this rarely amounts to anything in the real world.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 02:22 AM
11

It's all about looks and charisma. You need to be hot enough for her with the right social skills. The rest is just a bonus or a disqualifier.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 02:21 AM
9

Exactly. OP's topic is just overanalyzing and getting philosophical with what is ultimately a natural and simple concept.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/25 02:20 AM
–

You act like people have the option to choose between an 8 and a 10. Maybe like 1-2% of men do? Most men go for the first woman who gives them attention. If they're lucky, they'll be a bit attracted. Very few guys do any choosing.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 06:46 PM
1

Dude I've known literally thousands of doctors across multiple states in my career lol. And my anecdotal evidence means very little? You must be trolling. Bezos cheated with his current partner. How does that make him a serial cheater? Both partners were on his level too. By your logic, he should have 25 year old women all over him 24/7. He has none.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 05:45 PM
1

You missed the point though. Rare profession or not, if being well off isn't changing your dating prospects much then clearly it isn't a big factor. Just because men think something is true, doesn't make it so. Look at women's actions. The hot 26 year old is dating the 27 year old chad. The rich 40 year old is scrolling sugar daddy websites or hiring escorts if he is single. A lot of the guys I know in these "rare professions" (to use your own words) are dating or marrying women their own age ge…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 05:36 PM
1

You're telling me that I don't know what my profession can make? A GP in the community should be clearing 300k a year working 4 days week. That sets the stage for everyone else. Lol power. This isn't a movie or video game. You think owning a 5 bedroom house with a nice car and going on 2 nice trips per year gives you power?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 05:13 PM
1

Because it's the truth?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 05:05 PM
1

Sure bud
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 05:04 PM
1

A lot of this is men choosing to check out of life altogether. If one side does way worse, the other side is better.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 05:04 PM
1

Not sure why you think I care about you saying that?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 05:02 PM
2

Yeah for sure but people are into their partner and still cheat. Insecurity is the reason for that. So really it's two reasons.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 05:01 PM
1

Well they do? I have lots of female doctor colleagues dating men making a lot less. Same for female dentists I know. Lots of travel nurses making 150k a year who date men making 50k for example. High earning women actually care a lot about looks. But ya they don't date someone who is unemployed with no education. That's kind of fair. I think you also overestimate how many men are into dating women who make nothing. Often if men date women making a lot less, the woman has lots of education at lea…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 04:59 PM
-2

I wouldn't even think twice for a light meal. It's just a non issue to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 04:56 PM
1

Paying for a coffee or a light meal isn't gold digging no matter what. It's such a minor scenario financially.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 04:55 PM
4

Oh that's not true. You'd be surprised at how many redpill guys and guys who complain also pay for OF content.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 04:54 PM
-1

What's LARP? A 7 figure or high 6 figure income isn't uncommon in medicine, or high end dentistry or any reasonably successful business owner. For the most part these individuals are not "paid" and they generate revenue. It's not a salary. We also have investment income which is often close to 6 figures on its own just in dividends alone sometimes. Obviously far higher if you accrue capital gains. You saying I'm not going to nice places or I'm bsing because you don't like the statement does not …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 06:50 AM
0

Not true at all, that's a myth. My male doctor colleagues are not dating out of their league and I can say the same for successful business owners and dentists I know. Try 10 times more than 100k+ as far as income goes. The guys with the hot women are usually your typical tall conventionally handsome guys. When I frequent nice restaurants and 5 star hotels and 1st class cabins on the plane, I often find the men are a bit better looking honestly.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 06:23 AM
0

Lot of this is just moving the chairs around on the minor things. For men, looks and charisma are what determine dating success. Finances are a small bonus.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 05:40 AM
4

People cheat due to insecurity first and foremost. Insecure people are just very likely to end up cheating at some point.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 05:14 AM
0

The median income for college educated people in USA is 77k. Going with an income that's quite a bit lower than that is not out of touch. The part about being good looking is actually out of touch, I agree. That's the point though. You can't ever compensate for a lack of good looks and being average isn't good enough. I would not say being a doctor is a life consuming profession. It's what you make of it and many of us don't work anything beyond normal hours. That's not really relevant anyway be…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 05:11 AM
1

You know them all personally? They all just never worked and got married to their much less attractive husbands who provides for them? Yeah right. You're probably just seeing women (in looks matched relationships) who stopped working due to kids. Some restart working, some go part time. That's not a bad thing and it can be good for the kids. The ones who make good money, you also don't know what they exactly contribute either. I doubt you know several thousand couples on a personal level.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 05:07 AM
-1

You know them all personally? They all just never worked and got married to their much less attractive husbands who provides for them? Yeah right. You're probably just seeing women (in looks matched relationships) who stopped working due to kids. Some restart working, some go part time. That's not a bad thing and it can be good for the kids. The ones who make good money, you also don't know what they exactly contribute either. I doubt you know several thousand couples on a personal level.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 05:07 AM
0

Because if you go back 50 years in time, sex work was limited to illegal prostitution. So gold digging was the only alternative to have that kind of relationship. Now women who actually want money in exchange for sex work have many options for it. Also women making their own money has decreased the "need" for sex work as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 05:04 AM
2

I wanted to say that in my OP but didn't want to be rude. I've made 7 figures for a few years now and it's quite honestly the last thing I'd ever worry about. "Leading" with money has also been a guaranteed way to get rejected.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 05:00 AM
2

Actually women out earn men under 40 now. The age also keeps moving up and women are more educated than men in their 20s now by a significant margin. We have more female business owners than ever and more women earning 6 figures.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 04:59 AM
0

Why does it matter who pays for a coffee date?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 04:57 AM
-4

If you can't even pay for a coffee date, not sure what to tell you.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 04:56 AM
1

But they are literally not doing that. You're not picking based on that. Women pick based on looks and chemistry and maybe reject someone who is completely broke since that is indeed a red flag.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 04:56 AM
-2

Women don't expect that at all. I'm a doctor and my male colleagues do worse with women than the paramedics and firefighters and cops and realtors do. Despite making often 10 times more. I think you're projecting an idea of men that you yourself like. Just having a 60k/year office job is sufficient if you're good looking.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 04:54 AM
1

But you're missing the part where women work, and nowadays outearn men. Who is being a provider nowadays? It would be quite rare to even come across those kinds of relationships you describe.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 04:52 AM
1

Are you just saying that socioeconomic status needs to be equal to your partner?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 04:51 AM
19

Personally I don't understand why guys complain about OF then turn around and pay for it. If you pay, you can't complain. Consuming online content without paying is a different story and not relevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/25 04:45 PM
1

That's when you compare the richest to the poorest regions.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/25 04:32 PM
1

Absolutely not and not even close. Can't tell if you're being serious.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/25 04:31 PM
0

Not exactly though. Because the latter camp can find someone who is average looking eventually whereas being ugly makes even that nearly impossible. If you're going for hotter women, you need a handsome face.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/25 04:30 PM
9

There's a difference between being rejected for being ugly versus being rejected for not hot enough.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/25 03:12 AM
1

And that will be the long term trend. We will see more and more women choosing to stay single by choice.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/25 02:44 AM
1

Even in developing countries it's still pseudo-escorting. Also as these nations develop, that gap narrows a lot.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/25 02:43 AM
2

Height matters but isn't that important. Having a handsome face is all you really need as a guy. I don't know why people distract from the topic so much by talking about height or money. Is it cause it's less offensive?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/25 02:41 AM
1

I think there are broad statements that are true though. The large majority of women want a guy who is as attractive as possible. That doesn't mean every woman does or that looks are ALL that matter. People just take that statement (which is a fact) and turn it into some absolute extreme idea which it isn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/25 02:40 AM
2

Your statement represents the majority of women. Women are as picky as possible about looks usually. I say "as possible" because it's determined by their own attractiveness but the general point stays the same. I've rarely met women who actually go out with a guy for his money. You get the occasional outliers but most of the time it's men paying those women for the "relationships." Guys just think that if a woman doesn't want a homeless guy then she's a gold digger.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/25 02:38 AM
1

You mean the top 0.01%? How is that even relevant for people? I am well above the top 1% and its still not relevant to me. Also those women are often former escorts.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 10:46 PM
1

You don't. Unless you're looking to directly pay.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 08:07 PM
2

I've said it many times, making 50-70k per year is enough for dating as a grown adult man. You need to be able to take care of yourself to some degree. Men are similar too, they don't necessarily want a broke woman either... It's really all about looks and social skills, in combination. I always hooked up and dated in my league regularly and I became rich and my league has not changed one bit. If anything it's a bit harder. I frequent high end restaurants, hotels, 1st class on planes. This idea …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 08:06 PM
2

I think that's overestimating how common gold digging is now in 2025.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 07:53 PM
2

Notice how all the women say it's about looks and the men insist it's about money lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 07:52 PM
2

Anyone can pay escorts. You don't need to be a Dubai sheikh for that man. You can go on a sugar daddy dating site if you like too. You don't even need to be truly rich for that. I don't get how you confuse sex workers with dating / casual hook ups.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 07:52 PM
3

First of all, how do you know that? Are you just repeating a talking point you've read online over the years? Second, I'm rich now and I have less options than I did in college. I think when you say options you mean money to pay for escorts and sugar babies. That's not real options. Go to a bar as a 5/10 rich guy with normal social skills and not one woman will care or even know you're rich. They'll pick the 9/10 chad every time. Try asking one out who is looking for a LTR, still the same result…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 07:50 PM
4

I think most women have a similar position to you but would also expect a guy to be able to at least take care of himself. Now men will interpret having a normal job as being a provider which is comical and hilarious.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 07:48 PM
8

Notice that these dichotomy talks only come from.....other men! Women talk about how hot a guy is or how he acts. As a cherry on top, they may throw in things related to status or money. Now if the status is at the far end of society like a professional athlete, sure that's different. But these are all men's talking points.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 07:44 PM
7

Stats prove otherwise unless you mean older by 2-4 years.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 05:15 PM
13

this
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 05:01 PM
1

50% of society is not more attractive than her... just stop. Like 40% of women are overweight dude.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 05:42 AM
1

If you have abundance with casual dating as a man you also have lots of options for LTRs.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 05:26 AM
0

OP uses an outlier n=1 example and thinks it represents all guys.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 05:25 AM
2

Not sure why some guys think the Chads just drop off the face of the earth after age 30. Who do they think these guys marry? Those women also tend to stay very attractive into their 30s and 40s anyway. It's indeed a revenge fantasy.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 05:24 AM
1

Did you sleep around with women you actually liked? Guys who get women they're actually attracted to are quite happy with it. Most guys hooking up a lot do so with women they don't really like and can't get the ones they like.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 05:23 AM
0

I think people see that toxic guys seem to have pretty high levels of success with dating and hook ups and draw fair conclusions from that.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 05:19 AM
1

You think Scarlet Johansson is average? Average means that half of the female population is better looking than that person. So half of the women you see on the street, would be better looking. Give me a break with that nonsense.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 05:18 AM
1

Average face and not overweight? Women don't care about cars, that's a myth. Muscles and sports cars appeal to other men.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 07:18 PM
1

I've never had issues with average looking women. That's an indicator that I have zero red flags. I've found it much worse when I flash money actually. Also what can you flash besides toys and a nice lifestyle?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 05:02 AM
1

I know some female doctors, NPs, PAs and travel nurses (including them since they make 150k+) who have very high expectations for looks for dating prospects. Their pickiness about the guy's career has little relevance in comparison. Do they care? Of course, but it's a checkbox. The guy being hot is much more important to them.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 05:01 AM
1

Maybe your looks (face) improved a lot? The thing is you are saying you had 0 dates in 6 years which shows something was wrong. I went from being a broke premed in college going on a date or hook up every other day, to being in my 30s with a 7 figure income now having a hard time getting even 10% of the dates I did before. I'm in slightly better shape now and have aged well. The dating pool is now very small in comparison and I thought I'd be more appealing to hotter women.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 04:59 AM
1

If you're 5'10, good looking and make 70k then you're all set for most attractive women. If you're 5'8, average looking and make 750k, you will have a much harder time than the guy above.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 04:57 AM
1

So those would be very outdated numbers or only in academia. Ironically, academia has all the public salary info. Maybe pediatrics too, they're a very underpaid field in the 200s range. Most doctors don't work in academia and their incomes aren't really public. Any available info really underestimates true earnings. Doctors don't get paid overtime exactly. But if your contract has a productivity model, then you get paid for more patients. More patients generally means more hours worked so in a w…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 04:50 AM
1

Right, a PCP makes 220k-400k working 35 hours a week, maybe 40 hours. A neurosurgeon makes 1.5 million working 65 hours a week, maybe 70 sometimes. Now the efficient PCP who also works 50 hours a week can make 500-600k in the right locations and the neurosurgeon can make 2.5-3 million or more doing lots of spine cases with the right practice model. It all depends. I know PCPs clearing 1.5 million as well with their own practice with moderate hours but having a private practice has become more an…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 08:17 PM
1

Money has very little impact on your dating prospects as a man after about 70-80k/year. If you're broke or unemployed, it hurts you. If you go from 70k to 700k, you get marginal benefits only. Truthfully you can pay for a sugar baby and that's the only difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 04:24 PM
1

How can you not know 6 figure earners? You're a nurse, and your doctor colleagues all make 6-7 figures...
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 04:22 PM
1

It has nothing to do with wealth... it's solely due to looks standards. Every wealthy guy I know is either with someone less attractive or they pay for escorts or sugar babies. Unless they're attractive and charismatic but they did well with women prior to any wealth anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 04:21 PM
1

Not true at all. Educated professional men are interested in women who are somewhat similar to them. That includes earning potential or at least being similarly educated. Guys I know who make 7 figures (I'm not even counting 6 figures) are paying for escorts or sugar babies if they want someone more attractive than themself.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 04:20 PM
1

I make 7 figures and it had zero impact on my "selection" of women as you'd say. Mind you, I always did well with average looking women but I did well when I was 19 and in my 30s now. But it had zero impact on my dating league, because that's based on your looks mainly. I fly first class, I've ate at the best restaurants, and stay at 5 star hotels. Honestly I find the men in these settings are better looking. Often they're more attractive than their partner too slightly. The rich guy fantasy is …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 04:18 PM
1

The percentage game on paper does not work in real life. It's like in business where people overestimate the value of what they offer. People meet others similar to them and as a byproduct end up with someone who has a similar income.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 04:14 PM
2

Actually it's a very common income for doctors in USA and Canada. and no most people making that are not business owners. Lots of doctors making 7 figures nowadays and doing a Google search for "doctor salary" won't show you that. Most public salaries are academic places where you make far less and get close to nothing for productivity. I personally have been making 7 figures for a few years now and work with many non-surgical colleagues who make above 600-700k/year. I find high earning doctors …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 04:37 AM
1

Thanks
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 06:53 PM
1

For most ~20yo dudes, the number of women they could realistically date on demand is very low, usually 0 to 1. Yeah I mostly agree. For most 30yo dudes, the number of women they can date on demand, assuming they start working out regularly, eat healthy, have a stellar social life and make a lot of money, is in the dozens. How and why? If you're 35, you're too old for most women in their 20s. Women your age are mostly not single. Then if you're not into single moms, that filters out another large…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 05:33 PM
1

You become too old for many women in your 20s. Women your age are mostly not single. Also if you're not into single moms, you have an even smaller pool.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 05:28 PM
0

Your dating pool gets a lot smaller mathematically and your face becomes less attractive. Combine those two things and it is monumentally harder at baseline.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 04:24 PM
1

Who is?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 04:07 PM
-1

That's an extreme example
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 04:06 PM
1

Most high earners do have a lot of passive income and working a lot becomes a choice. I work normal hours personally. If you actually make it big in your 30s (most won't that early), your dating pool is already smaller. It's not like you're 23 and rich and can do anything. Most women are not into older men if they're in their 20s, or single moms in their 30s. Becoming attractive also isn't a choice.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 04:06 PM
1

Thanks. I honestly do well with average looking women though.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 03:47 PM
2

I'm a physician. Those women also make their own money. They can combine their income with another guy as well to travel. There's also a big difference between a sugar daddy and a guy she's actually into. Most higher quality attractive women aren't single anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 03:31 PM
2

Physician. A lot more than that actually. That's also excluding dividend and capital gains income.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 03:29 PM
3

I never say that. I always say it's about attraction. The reason guys say it matters a lot is because it creates a future fantasy goal of being rich and appealing to women.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 03:26 PM
0

You just need a good face and social skills.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 03:23 PM
2

It makes a big difference in your life, not in dating. I was making a lot less than 70k when I was in my early 20s and make a lot more than 700k in my 30s now. I actually did better before. I've talked about this before. It makes a difference in fantasy land when you have a middle class income. Not when you actually live it and realize no one cares that much.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 03:23 PM
2

Most guys who do really well with women aren't making 6 figures so it's not even a real requirement. It's also not even helping men that much. Going from 70k to 700k won't move the needle much in dating prospects. But yeah if a woman makes like 200,0009$ a year, she'll want her man to make 6 figures which is very reasonable.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 03:13 PM
8

Yes they date 2-3 years older, not 10 years older. A small subset of women are into much older guys but try excluding ones without any mental health issues first.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 10:41 PM
–

But the guys in those relationships are either hypermasculine, or have a niche look that the woman is into. But that guy also wouldn't be attractive to most women at all. It's why the sort of rare mismatched couple can't be extrapolated as an example to most guys on here.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 04:40 AM
–

Prettier as a population or you mean couples?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 04:19 AM
–

While I agree that looks mismatched couples are rare, it's usually the woman is less attractive. Not the man.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 04:00 AM
1

Most women don't want a real sugar daddy. You're talking about escorts and sugar babies aka sex workers which make up a small minority in society. Those guys you mention are indeed doing well. I don't disagree with you actually. Granted they're often lower socioeconomic class women but yeah you aren't wrong. But that goes further to my point about how little money and status matters (it's not zero, but it's low).
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 11:48 PM
1

I'm a doctor and a very high earning one and a successful investor. Once upon a time I was quite mediocre financially. I've lived in various upper class neighborhoods and hang out with people with high 7 figure to low 8 figure net worths. All the status and money guys are paying those women for their time. I mean that literally, they physically pay them money. Otherwise, most of their real partners are actually slightly below the men in looks. All the hotter women who have a real job are strictl…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 10:04 PM
-1

He's not. No one actually believes that.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 08:23 PM
1

That's not the point at all. Where did I even bring up feminism? The point is how much time and energy do people and the media spend on culture war issues.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 08:21 PM
1

Please start
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 07:37 PM
1

Generally quality attractive women care a lot about looks. Way more than anything. As you move down into lower socioeconomic statuses you get variability in how much looks matters.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 07:24 PM
8

Economic policy isn't all that different. It's just the flavor of culture war that differs.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 07:02 PM
2

This is honestly a valid point. Bad people exist and specifically seeking them out and then having kids with them is probably not a great idea.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 06:59 PM
5

The US has almost 1/3 of the world economy and a bigger military than ever. If anything it's left wing social justice initiatives which distract us from economic goals and let China get an edge as they don't spend a single minute paying attention to social justice nonsense.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 06:55 PM
6

OP's topic is a much more recent phenomenon than the privilege you're talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 06:53 PM
4

Yeah a guy with an actually good looking face will do just fine.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 01:46 AM
0

That's why I said it's not individual.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 01:43 AM
1

Likewise when women talk about things they like, whether it's height or muscles or certain personality traits or money or whatever... it's only for guys who meet the looks and attraction threshold. It does not apply otherwise.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 06:24 AM
0

It's not that subjective. Is there a plus/minus on it? Sure. But an average looking guy is not an 8/10 and likewise not a 2.5/10 either to anyone. He might be slightly above average or unattractive to many but that's a narrow plus/minus. When you say subjective, it implies that a mediocre looking guy is super hot to someone else which basically never happens aside. Subjectivity might also apply to niche looks but niches do not count since they're somewhat rare overall.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 06:14 AM
0

This is societal not individual. Lack of people having kids mean a lot more immigration and a lot more socially conservative cultures coming into the West which is happening day by day. I know the left wing pretends that large numbers of immigrants are not super socially conservative but that's delusional thinking.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 03:57 AM
1

No one is disputing that there are many women cheating too. But to even suggest it's close to the number of married men on these apps is pretty nuts. My women friends can literally match with over a dozen guys on one single day alone who are married or have a gf, let alone the ones who hide it well and don't openly say it.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 03:54 AM
1

I think insecure people cheat way more. It's never actually the prettiest people with infinite options who cheat the most. It's almost always average looking people who are out for it. But the dynamics, reasons and morality of cheating is secondary here. My main point is the mathematics of it all. More men = harder competition.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 05:20 PM
1

That's why I said partially explains. There's never one final explanation. It's always many factors combined.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 01:29 AM
1

Well it's a platform. It does get harder to use for single men when they have to compete with non-single men as well. OF is just an example that married men look elsewhere.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 01:28 AM
1

When these guys come on dating apps, across hundreds/thousands of people, single men will get less matches as a result. I'm just talking about single men who want to date. They have a harder time because of others cheating. It's just the math.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 01:26 AM
2

Some women sure, not most. Also many do not even know, and never find out. End point is more competition among single men.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 01:24 AM
3

It's hilarious that anyone thinks men don't cheat a lot more. Plus, the number who attempt to cheat is very high too relatively and that alone makes it a lot harder for single men.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 01:23 AM
2

Because many can't. But they still push for it on various apps and this creates more competition for single men.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 01:22 AM
-4

That's your experience. Sure it happens but it is nowhere even close to the number of men in relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 01:22 AM
2

Keep in mind those guys are a small subset and mostly aren't married or in LTRs. The guys in LTR/marriages who are on apps discretely aren't the superchads sleeping with everyone but still manage to gain some traction.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 01:20 AM
1

Sure although most of those guys aren't in real committed relationships or married. Mostly just dating around.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 01:19 AM
2

The outcomes and success rates on apps are quite similar to real life. If you put up a great profile and swipe nonstop on multiple apps, your success will be similar to periodically trying your luck out "in the real world."
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/25 05:42 PM
3

Well some do. But many also have high standards nowadays compared to the past.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/25 05:41 PM
2

Yeah apparently it's either ugly rich guys or hot homeless guys. /s
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/25 05:40 PM
2

They will not. It's either stay single or find a guy who is attractive and at least somewhat financially stable.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/25 05:40 PM
1

Yes she must be attracted to you for it to count. In some cases, sugar daddy arrangements do involve modest attraction. In fact even being a sugar daddy now has gotten competitive believe it or not. Going broke does not mean she'll leave. Plenty of women work to support their husbands for various reasons. Happens all the time and I've seen it countless times myself.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/25 05:38 PM
2

The ratio of being approached in person is even more lopsided than apps. Also most people have used apps at some point in time.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/25 05:30 PM
2

No that's categorically false. I have women friends who are unattractive, average and pretty. The lesser attractive ones have lots of matches and can go on a date with their looks match or even slightly better any day. The equivalent guy can swipe for months and get nothing. Average looking women have hundreds of matches and lots of LTR potentials as well mixed in there. Average guys get a few here and there, of whom many are bots. You're misrepresenting reality here.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/25 07:42 AM
2

I don't think some dude's post counts as evidence for all men.... Whoever wrote that, if they're not a troll, must be an outlier guy anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/25 07:19 AM
3

You mean sleep with hot guys in 20s and marry hot guy in 30s? There's no drop off in looks down to a stable "safe" option. That's out dated and a myth.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/25 07:17 AM
2

But if you have hundreds of matches, you're far far more likely to have quality dating options in there compared to a guy with... zero matches. You're ignoring the severe disparity.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/25 07:16 AM
0

Yeah but some still do.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/25 07:15 AM
0

That's a bit silly. It's a choice to go on an app. Complaining that you have 700 matches to choose from is ridiculous when a well rounded guy with similar looks will have 0 actual options in comparison.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/25 07:15 AM
6

Apps represent real life. Unless you have exceptional social skills, you'll see similar outcomes on apps versus real life.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/25 07:10 AM
3

It's like prisoner's dilemma. Sure some guys can do that, but there are still thousands of dudes locally swiping nonstop.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/25 07:09 AM
1

In the real world, most of those couples in their 20s stick together. Women out earn men under 35 now. Try attracting women who are self sufficient and also pretty. There's no beta role here. Guys who made it career wise almost always pair up with an educated and average looking woman. Honestly I rarely see a different case. Women in their 20s who paired up with a chad stay with him. If they're still single, they don't want the less attractive guys ever anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/25 05:37 PM
1

You need to read some of these posts and other replies first. It does not count if you're a sugar daddy. So exclude every couple where the guy is very likely to be paying the woman. Now come back and tell me that being rich matters. It strictly only counts if she is physically and sexually attracted to you. Anyone can hire an escort or former sex worker to hang out with them long term, if you have the funds. Now try attracting women who are self sufficient and also very attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/25 05:33 PM
1

Being fit and having money doesn't help much when your dating pool is so tiny. If you're like 37 years old. Most women in their 20s will reject you, except maybe very late 20s. Just off age alone and nothing else. Most women your own age are married or with someone. How many are left who are single without kids, are mentally healthy, and at least on par with your own looks level? It's just numbers here. Single people without kids who are normal are going to be quite uncommon as you progress into…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/25 06:35 AM
1

Yet every single attractive woman in her 20s is with a chad who makes a mediocre income. While the rich tech bros have to hire escorts. Yes people hook up in hospitals but it's a small minority overall by the numbers and not a rampantly large number.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/25 06:31 AM
1

You can have whatever standards you like but you also need to see who you can realistically attract. For many men in their 30s and beyond, you literally have nearly zero options if you want an average looking woman who isn't crazy, if you exclude single moms. Being high value assumes you have lots of women into you. But most men do not. Now what? Single and also sexless for life? Sure, if that works for you. But if that does not work for you, you need to broad your standards. You use the word mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/25 05:50 AM
1

A average very rich man is defiantly a league above a older single mom he just has to display the success inorder to have it easy but it can be done but of course the work still has to be done to initiate the dates or hookup from the man. There's no formula. If she's attracted to the guy, then it works out. But you can be as rich as you like and lots of single moms or whoever may not be interested at all. The medical field is notorious for men and women sleeping around and being a single mom the…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/25 05:47 AM
1

It does not count when you are paying her. So have I? Yes. But being embedded in those communities I also know when there's a cash payment involved. What I'm saying is that you must exclude those entirely.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 05:13 PM
1

In the US, having used dating apps at some point in time, is quite common. Some surveys limit it to specific apps. When you add them all up, it's a higher number. Also it depends on the age group. Women who are 35+ were married for example at higher numbers than women under 25.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 05:10 PM
1

There is no profession with good or bad looking people. A large sample size of, lets say 250 in a class, is representative of the general population looks wise. So you'll see a handful of attractive people among men and women alike.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 05:04 PM
2

Dude I literally am rich and I'm speaking from experience and observations within the upper class communities. Yes many avoid single moms. Instead they go for below average to average looking women who are well educated. It depends what you value I guess. If you're average looking and rich, you still have no chance with someone a lot prettier than you. If you're going for single moms, you can move up slightly in looks at least.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 05:02 PM
0

For one, the large majority of women have been on dating apps at some point and used it. If you meet someone at a coffee shop or library and she's on Tinder as well, that you do not know about, that makes it fine? It's the same person. I've had basically zero success when I have led with money, so it's quite literally a non-factor. There are also almost zero sugar baby prospects on regular dating apps.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 05:02 AM
6

It's nice when others with similar situations can attest to this. I don't mean to belittle anyone but most guys obviously do not make a high income, especially if they're not that old yet. So it's easy to pretend that being rich is a magic solution then those of us with high incomes can correctly refute that.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 05:00 AM
1

Make it known you have a 6 figure sportscar (or multiple), an okay sized mansion, wear designer clothes. Whatever communicates you're rich. What phenomena? You can pay the same women, the exact same people you're talking about, as escorts or sugar babies. No need to fly them anywhere. Many of them do sex work. So why fly them to Dubai? You're talking about hiring sex workers, directly or indirectly. I'm talking about attracting normal women who have a regular job and don't do sex work.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 04:57 AM
2

You're right in your first point. Though that's not what guys are told when they're 19. It's fine to not pursue single moms but many guys can't even attract average looking single moms let alone one who is prettier. They'll have to go for a fully unattractive person if they don't want a single parent as a partner. HVM also is pretty uncommon. It's like the top 5% of men at the most.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 04:51 AM
1

No one knows how much you make. I make a loot more than 400k and I've been rejected 100% of the time when I tried to lead with money. I've never seen the "generous men" thing. What dating app is this? You cannot bypass the looks requirement with money. It's impossible.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 02:48 AM
1

Because it's either that or single for life. You age out of women in their 20s and options get quite limited eventually.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 02:44 AM
1

Yet they reject wealthier guys only to date guys who make a fraction of it, because they're hot. You're fixated on a very small subset of girls you see on Instagram, who still by the way won't even look twice at a guy who isn't good looking. You're also way underestimating how many women buy those luxuries themselves. Travel nursing gave nice 6 figure cheques to many women, which is great. Realtor work did the same the past decade. Lots of women are in law, medicine, and well paying STEM jobs as…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 02:42 AM
2

I don't know man I find every attractive single mom gets into a relationship with a quality guy as soon as they want to. I think you overestimate how appealing men are.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 02:38 AM
1

Depends if he comes off as driven and ambitious and how he carries himself. It's not like you show up with your tax returns on the first date. If you're attractive and carry yourself well, that's enough money to actually be appealing to women. The guy making 400k who is unappealing otherwise, doesn't even get those opportunities.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 02:37 AM
3

Well for one, that's a normal schedule for a full time nurse. For doctors, it depends on the specialty. Many specialties are not even inpatient based so it's all office based 9-4pm , maybe 4 days a week. Many specialties do not have major inpatient work either. They may be on call 2-3 days a week but rarely get called. A hospitalist will work 2 weeks a month and is off the other 2 weeks. Some specialties do have a busy call schedule but they're on call once a week or couple times a week for a mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 02:33 AM
1

Maybe what I'm saying is there there's no formula to becoming a HVM, as you say. So yes you're right. But you can't just add up things to become a HVM.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 02:28 AM
1

You're overthinking the titles here. I know family practice doctors, plastic surgeons, derms and other specialists who work 30 hours or 75 hours a week. It's all based on the individual and not their title.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 02:27 AM
2

I work at a 900 bed hospital with every specialty, so quite a few... Whether or not they go for single moms is based on their age. The overwhelmingly majority of women in their 20s absolutely do not want a guy who is a lot older. A small number do and still that's for guys in their early 30s, not 40. You also have to ask yourself how many women in their 30s are single, no kids, good looking and have some level of education or have their life together. It's not a big number. But they will want a …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 02:25 AM
19

As a doctor I've known multiple male doctors in their 30s and 40s (average looking in good shape, not ugly but not handsome, high income) who were rejected by single mom attractive nurses or other women in healthcare. Being friends with those same women, I knew they went onto date paramedics or personal trainers or blue collar workers. What did they all have in common? Very good looks. I've seen similar things with lawyers and real business owners that I've known. Now if the guy is good looking …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 02:05 AM
0

All of those requirements go out the window if the guy is handsome facewise. That's what gets the match. Now some women may reject over height, the majority will not. Some may reject if you're literally unemployed but as long as you make 40-50k/year, you're fine job wise. If you check box all of those things, you can still get very few matches without the facial looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 01:45 AM
2

Exactly. There's no formula here. Looks requirements are proportional to how attractive she is and you can't compensate.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 01:42 AM
3

Not sure what you mean exactly. Many doctors actually work under 40 hours a week and many nurses just work 3 shifts per week if averaged out. There's no bullshit behavior. I've been a doctor for years in numerous states, in multiple academic sites. The lawyers and business owners I personally know also get rejected. You're way overestimating the appeal of men nowadays. If you're not conventionally handsome and tall, you got slim pickings and lots of rejections to look forward to even if you're r…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 01:39 AM
1

There is zero difference between the medical and healthcare world and outside of that world. A new med school class comes in. The best looking guys in the class pair up with the prettiest girls in the class. A new resident class comes in and sometimes there's 1 male resident who is handsome and the nurses want him while everyone else in the resident class is ignored. Same type of breakdown you saw in high school with crushes and same break down you see on dating apps or in the bar. The formula i…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 01:36 AM
1

It's like anywhere else. I'm a doctor myself. A minority in my class partied and slept around a lot. The majority did not. Kind of a similar breakdown that you'd see in high school or a large generic college class. Being in school for a long time changes basically nothing to be honest. The upsides of being around more single women in their 20s is offset by having to study a lot but if you join the workforce at age 22 you're not exactly around all the same women anymore either.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 01:35 AM
2

As a doctor I've known multiple male doctors in their 30s and 40s (average looking in good shape, not ugly but not handsome, high income) who were rejected by single mom attractive nurses or other women in healthcare. Being friends with those same women, I knew they went onto date paramedics or personal trainers or blue collar workers. What did they all have in common? Very good looks. I've seen similar things with lawyers and real business owners that I've known. Now if the guy is good looking …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 01:32 AM
1

Because unless you're very good looking or you yourself are lowering your standards, you may not find a 27 year old or whatever who is into you. And you may go with the 33 year old who you find hot instead.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 01:31 AM
2

Well here's a fun fact for you. Just over 2/3 of the guys I know in their 30s-40s who are very high income (and not ugly or short) are with single moms.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 01:29 AM
2

As a doctor I've known multiple male doctors in their 30s and 40s (average looking in good shape, not ugly but not handsome, high income) who were rejected by single mom attractive nurses or other women in healthcare. Being friends with those same women, I knew they went onto date paramedics or personal trainers or blue collar workers. What did they all have in common? Very good looks. I've seen similar things with lawyers and real business owners that I've known. Now if the guy is good looking …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 01:28 AM
0

The fact that you think 200k is even at the tip of the iceberg for high income.....
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 01:27 AM
28

See my other post. Single moms in their 30s and 40s have endless options for serious dating or whatever they like.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 01:26 AM
6

As a doctor I've known multiple male doctors in their 30s and 40s (average looking in good shape, not ugly but not handsome, high income) who were rejected by single mom attractive nurses or other women in healthcare. Being friends with those same women, I knew they went onto date paramedics or personal trainers or blue collar workers. What did they all have in common? Very good looks. I've seen similar things with lawyers and real business owners that I've known. Now if the guy is good looking …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/25 01:25 AM
0

There's no arbitrary or moral police here to determine what is and isn't high value in that sense. High value man just means whoever women at large find appealing and would be open to dating. Being good looking is an hard entry requirement to even having a small shot.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/25 02:45 AM
0

Well it needs to be highlighted, don't you agree?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/25 02:44 AM
2

So you're saying being a good person makes someone high value? Maybe to some but definitely not widely true. Monetary success is way overrated. Make your opening line about how you make millions and see your rejection rate become 100% suddenly. It's about your face, social standing and your height to some extent. Social standing does matter here as it reflects popularity and likeability.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/25 02:43 AM
1

I think when discussing these things it's more about points out observations and facts rather than individual life advice. So I'm not saying if guys should or shouldn't get muscular. I'm just saying it's way overrated. I'm also not saying that women don't care about muscles at all or that they don't like it. It's just that the magnitude of importance is incredibly overrated. It's like if a woman has a slightly better body. Does it help her? Of course it does. But compared to another woman who is…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/25 02:29 AM
1

Most guys do not have bad hair or bad teeth or acne. They may not have amazing hair but they don't have big flaws either. They're just average. Muscles take a long time for one and secondly, they're a bonus at the most. Other than hardcore fitness girls who compete, women at large do not care about muscles that much. Do they like them if it's on a handsome face? Yes. That's not the same thing though.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 06:46 PM
2

I specifically cited a high earning one. True that many don't but some do.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 06:43 PM
2

Fixable flaws like what?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 06:07 AM
1

You don't need elite success to pay for those things.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 06:07 AM
1

A handsome face on a dadbod is light years more appealing to women than a generic average face on a muscular body.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 02:19 AM
1

If you polled a bunch of guys who are aged 20-50 right now, they'd tell you money is the most important thing. When it's not even top 5 and nowhere close to looks. Younger guys will tell you "game" is important. So no most people don't actually know. They repeatedly deny its importance or come up with some esoteric outlier example to counter it.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 02:18 AM
1

What's your point?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 02:16 AM
1

How important it is, is based on how good the woman looks. A woman who knows she's hot, for her looks will be 80-90% of the equation. If she's average, then it falls down to where she feels attracted so maybe it's 50% but could be less or more depending on what she values.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 02:15 AM
1

It all depends. If you were a 5.5-6/10 in looks back 40 years ago as a common working man, you probably got laid a lot if you were semi-social at least. Nowadays, good luck with that. Now bump it down to a 4.5-5/10 and you better have very low standards or you're an incel. Standards did shift a lot.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 02:13 AM
2

You cannot become hotter face wise as a guy unless you have fixable flaws.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 02:11 AM
1

You can't level up your aesthetics as a man. It's just an illusion, unless you had a big flaw. Balding and got a hair transplant? Sure. Severe acne and fixed? Sure. 100 lbs overweight and lost it? Sure. Looksmaxxing for men is just fixing flaws. If you have none and look average, you're still average.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 02:11 AM
5

Looksmaxxing is a myth for most men. You need good bone structure which is genetic. You can get rid of facial fat but what if you don't have that much? Cosmetic procedures do not help much either for most men. Muscles are way overrated and I think anyone who has actually worked out knows this. A nice hair cut is not a game changer in any way. Nicer clothes don't do much either. A hot guy with a bad hair cut and bad clothes is still hot. An average guy is still average no matter what. This is one…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 02:09 AM
6

I criticize the manosphere nonstop. But I don't know if many people truly think they are owed anything. I think standards have shifted and being honest about it would be a great idea.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 02:06 AM
1

That isn't fully true though. Women are willing to hold out and stay single for much longer periods of time. Guys are not. So guys have to settle. You have guys with an average face who look like bodybuilders who would struggle to get a date with an average looking woman who isn't overweight. I think that's a realistic expectation and not overaiming.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 02:04 AM
3

When use the term issue, it implies that it's fixable. For men it's nearly impossible to become better looking in any real way. The problem is that guys have to lower their standards more and more.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 02:02 AM
3

I don't understand the need for such extreme comparisons anyway. Why are we comparing unattractive incels to murderers as a discussion topic? I think if OP compared an average looking (not ugly) PhD Associate Professor with a high earning academic position to a 8/10 office worker who makes $55k per year then that likely makes his point a bit better.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 01:59 AM
1

Does not have any impact
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 05:36 PM
1

I disagree. I often see men marrying down slightly in looks. This is why the beta bux thing is a myth. Women nowadays care even more about looks when it comes to marriage. They have their own personal finances all set. They want someone that turns them on.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 05:35 PM
1

You say there aren't enough hot chad type men to go around. That's false. There are enough for hotter women. You act like there's a disparity between attractive men and women. There are roughly an equal number. Women who are average looking will lower their looks standard to average men and then look for those other things . Mark Davis and Bill, really? You think those women are sexually attracted to them?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 06:18 AM
1

That kind of money is like top <0.01%.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 06:15 AM
1

Good post. People confuse disqualifiers for enhancers. Not having a red flag does not make someone hotter.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 03:05 AM
1

It's not just casual sex partners. It doesn't change much for dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 03:03 AM
1

They'll also date the guy with an office job making 50k a year if he's hot over the tech guy making 850k a year.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 03:03 AM
1

How do you have a relationship without raw sexual attraction?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 03:02 AM
0

I don't think it's that complex honestly. You mainly need to be handsome and not awkward. You do not need to be rich or even have a great job. You don't need to be that tall.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 03:02 AM
1

How is that really relevant though to my topic? Anyway, I achieved class mobility and climbed from low-middle socioeconomic class to the upper class.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 03:00 AM
1

No, it's just that women in their mid 20s and up start to care about those other things. So they'll reject a guy for not meeting those standards but it does not change their looks standards at all whatsoever. They still want the same conventionally attractive tall guy from college. He just needs a job and be able to support himself now. Every conventionally good looking woman is marrying their looks match or staying single. There's no age rule. A woman can be 45 and she still wants a hot guy if …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 02:58 AM
1

If you're not very attracted to your partner, that's an issue. Basically, means no real sex life. Especially after the initial phase. Being rich doesn't bring the wrong kind of people. I'm very rich, it's honestly not even relevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 02:56 AM
1

What do you mean by access? Sugar daddies don't even count. We're talking about genuine attraction.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 02:55 AM
1

How?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 02:53 AM
1

I'm speaking beyond just wealth though. Also talking about career success and well roundedness. You can be a business owner with an 8 figure net worth or unemployed and win the lottery. There's a difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 02:53 AM
1

You're sort of right. If you go back 30-50 years, being successful with a high income added a bit of an aura that made you more attractive. Going to college was just statistically not as prevalent, neither was being well educated or very successful. Looks always mattered but you got a small boost before. Today, you don't get anything or any boosts. If she's well off, she wants a guy who is well off too but that doesn't make you hot to her. If she's in the lower socioeconomic class, she won't car…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 02:51 AM
1

It's great if someone is happy living overseas but I'm talking about living in America.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 02:47 AM
1

Makes no difference. I was a lot more appealing to women with my 20 year old face and beat up car than my 3 sports cars now in my 30s. I'm also even more fit now. You have a lot less options after age 30.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 02:46 AM
1

Well that's the point. Without the looks induced affection, the relationship is not viable.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 02:44 AM
1

But this is a dating subreddit.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 02:44 AM
2

That's all true but my main point is that an average looking guy does not become a 9/10 model tier just because his net worth is 8 million.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 02:43 AM
1

If you polled guys who are 20 up to 60, they would widely tell you that money is by far the most important thing for "attracting" a woman. Now if you poll women, you'd likely get similar data in that they think other women care a lot about money. There's a reason for all of this. Very few people know rich guys and know them well. They simply rely on what the media has told them since they were young. Also as a guy, it's easy to blame your personal shortcomings with women on money. It's a hit on …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 02:38 AM
1

Physical attraction is what gets your foot in the door. You can’t be a complete sperg, otherwise they won’t bother with you. Just ask Elliot Rodger. I don't understand this talking point. As opposed to what? Not getting in the door at all? If the rest of you is amazing and you're not getting into the door ever, what good is that? And, again, if you’re just some loser that hit the genetic lottery, she’s not going to keep you around very long. In comparison to not even getting a chance? Anyway I d…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 02:32 AM
1

No, because looks is mainly defined by the face. There's a reason there's an overlap between incel communities and bodybuilding communities. I think most guys in the bodybuilding world realize that lots of muscles just impresses other men. Some guys think muscles are like boobs or butts on women. Not true. A curvy figure has evolutionary evidence to support why men like it. Muscles do not. There are things besides that face that do matter on men: wide frame, height, good bone structure. What do …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 02:30 AM
1

You're just infering. Here's real age disparity data: Age disparity in sexual relationships - Wikipedia Almost everyone is within 3 years, maybe 4.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 06:43 PM
2

Primal attraction is the absolute foundation for success. There's a reason why romance and sex are kind of the point of a relationship. Otherwise it would just be a friendship/roommate situation. After all, some marriages are exactly that.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 06:03 PM
1

The physically attractive part is 90% of what helps you with women though and the "shit together" part is a bonus. If you're below her looks wise (which would be rare to ever happen), you'll have her friends whispering in her ear that she can do better.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 05:31 PM
1

You're jumping all over the place. Once you're older, those under 30 won't be interested aside from the occasional girl who truly likes older men.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 05:30 PM
2

That's my point. If a woman likes how you look and talk, you're pretty set. These guys then go on about how you can't have a marriage or whatever but getting married is something down the road. Casually dating or hooking up or doing whatever for fun does not need anything special beyond looks and some social skills.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 05:28 PM
1

I think your claim here needs to be modified to: Having a good career and being comfortable financially does expand your dating pool. But no amount of money is going to expand your dating pool as much and as efficiently as being a 10/10 in looks. I think in general most people agree with this. I don't think that people agree in general when talking publicly about it. Maybe in their mind people agree, but not openly. Also I don't think it expands your dating pool in the literal sense. Maybe relat…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 06:00 AM
2

Kind of the point. Only way around it is being the pool boy who is also a millionaire.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 05:24 AM
2

It doesn't get any easier in your 30s. Now you need even more for the same result. Lots of women in their 20s will not date you in your 30s. Your age group is also heavily taken. Yes there are single moms who are interested, maybe, if you're hot enough and have a decent career.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 02:32 AM
1

It's purely transactional. You have to pay constantly or she's immediately gone. Yet guys think that's a real couple when they see them in public.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 02:18 AM
1

I don't believe this. Maybe he's not your type. Maybe you're overrating these women. I've been living in an upper class area for a few years now and been around the social circles. I find the men in these social circles honestly look a bit better than the women. I basically never see looks-mismatched couples. Twice I've seen a looks mismatched couple. The usual less attractive guy with a super hot woman. Both times, it was the guy's live in sugar baby. He was paying her weekly money. I've also s…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 02:16 AM
2

The idea of LMS implies you can add up what you offer. A 25 year old conventionally hot guy is far more appealing to a 25 year old conventionally attractive woman than a 35 year old average looking rich guy that she doesn't find handsome in any way.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 02:13 AM
1

You don't need to put anything in your profile. The best looking women I've gone out with didn't even care what I did for work. They found out I'm a doctor eventually and it was a "okay cool" reaction and nothing more.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 02:11 AM
-3

Again, considering that those in the lower socioeconomic classes live much better lives than kings and queens did back in the day, I'd say society is well off. Stop comparing yourself for beginners.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 02:10 AM
1

So someone doesn't want to have sex with you in a fun way, but the same person is down to go on dates and try and see if there's a connection. You think that's a good thing? The point is that it doesn't move the attraction meter.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 02:09 AM
1

Not nearly that high. As long as you have a job and make average money and can take care of yourself, then you're in the game. The game is based on your looks and charisma. Not the other things you offer.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 02:07 AM
2

You think having sex with prostitutes overseas in retirement is how you win? The whole point is that getting rich still means you're far less appealing than the 25 year old Chad.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 02:07 AM
1

I'm in that top 0.1% both income wise and net worth wise. That's why I made this thread... I think that world you're picturing is actually much smaller than top 0.1% and most of what you're picturing is also a myth. Trust me on that.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 02:04 AM
1

You do not need lots of wealth to live a normal life.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 02:03 AM
1

That's the whole point. Many guys are taught that being rich makes you literally hot.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 02:03 AM
1

That probably depends what the job is that pays 40k and if the guy has personal ambitions. In the real world, no one is picking between guy A or B anyway. They reject both and move on. So the 750k guy or the 3 million per year guy still gets rejected. I quite literally work with guys who make several million annually and they struggle immensely with dating. All but 1 can't even date his looks match.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 02:02 AM
1

Keep in mind my whole post is aimed at manosphere and redpill talking points. If you acquire some wealth and in the back of your mind have an expectation of becoming a sex god, well you're going to be let down. However, there are a lot of men who do genuinely think that will happen. I agree men overestimate the number who marry for lifestyle. It's much lower than it ever has been. Many of those women get sugar daddies. Some do Onlyfans. I find some of the "trophy wife" types also are reasonably …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 01:59 AM
1

The same women complaining would be very interested in a guy they're attracted to who meets the bare minimum standards.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 01:55 AM
1

Can you explain more?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 08:21 PM
1

I'm just speaking to manosphere talking points that becoming rich guarantees you infinite success with women.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 08:20 PM
2

Not really. You need to directly pay.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 08:07 PM
1

Because some of the manosphere talking points are that finances literally make you hot. That's why.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 07:12 PM
3

Many of those surveys have skewed data and they ask questions designed to inflate those percentages. The real numbers are not that high. They also include all young people as well who wouldn't be expected to have much in savings. But none of those really matters much when the 25 year old chad bartender is getting laid with women who reject the high income guys, does it?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 07:08 PM
2

Safety and comfort, health, can dedicate enough time and resources to building friendship and other connections, travel. Sure, that's just life advice and not as relevant to this subreddit honestly. Even if I will be single, I won't be lonely or miserable. For men who value sex and having hot young lovers - wealth allows all that. By paying... not because they want you like the 26 year old chad.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 07:06 PM
1

I'll give you grace though. I do agree that given guys a and b she is choosing b. And I don't think I was creating such an extreme example compared to you. But let's insert Guy C in lieu of Guy B, Guy c has all the characteristics of B, but instead of a respectable nothing special 60K job, he now works a 40k bartending job, And before that he hopped around various hourly jobs. My argument would be that now only 40/100 is Guy C going to be chosen over guy A. You might be correct but that really c…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 07:04 PM
1

I think it has really narrowed down. If a guy wants to lead with money he needs to directly pay. Traditional gold digging is rare now.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:59 PM
1

Well that's the whole point really.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:58 PM
0

I'm sorry this is not true. Looks get your foot into the door mainly. Money might get you noticed for a second but as soon as they don't like your face (within moments), your chances are gone immediately. Wealth inequality is overrated. The low-middle class live like kings with abundance. Cars, cell phones, flights, big portion meals. These were all luxuries for the middle class just 50 years ago. 5 star hotels and restaurants are all reserved. The 1st class cabin on the plane is full. Trust me …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:54 PM
2

Clearly my example is referring to someone you don't find attractive personally.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:48 PM
1

What do you plan to do with your career success and finances eventually? I say that as someone who has millions by the way. I'm not saying "invest" all into a woman either. Balance is key.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:47 PM
2

That wasn't my post actually.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:44 PM
1

And would you entertain a guy who is average looking, who you do not find attractive at all, who makes 1 million per year?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:24 PM
3

That's not true. If you're good looking, you're always set. If you aren't you need to be very well rounded just to have a shot with average looking women your own age.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:23 PM
1

See the fact that you're using engineer vs barista does not make sense. We can't do extreme comparisons. All I'm saying is, if you take a woman who is conventionally attractive like 8 or 9/10 or whatever you want to call it. She makes 80,000$ a year. Put up a guy (Guy A) who is average looking, fit, average height, average personality. Give him a 1 million dollar salary. This guy does not turn on the woman at all whatsoever. Put up a guy (Guy B) now who is tall, very handsome, solid personality.…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:21 PM
1

I think people should check out the crypto king documentary. The guy was mega rich and paying women tens of thousands to hang around with him yet there wasn't the slightest bit of attraction towards him. A really bad job or unemployment might be an attraction killer. But people think if something is a requirement then somehow meeting the requirement makes you ultra desirable. I think guys also like to think it matters a lot because it creates a future goal.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:15 PM
2

Uh... what? There's no power when it's mutually consensual. Also, what kind of guy wants that dynamic anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:13 PM
2

I think you missed the point here. We're not talking about check boxing requirements and meeting basic life cut offs. We're talking about rich vs middle class.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:11 PM
1

Very true that you put more energy and time into that during that age group. But options are also far more limited in your 30s. You're too old for many in their 20s and your own age group is a lot less single.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:10 PM
2

I can go out with average looking women everyday of the week yet find it extremely hard to attract someone I find who is very good looking. I also happen to make 7 figures and my home and cars and job reflect that too. My neighborhood is upper class and I honestly find the men here better looking than the women who live here. Meaning I find richer guys tend to slightly down date in looks. I'm sorry but what you're saying just isn't true. Unless you're planning on directly paying someone to be wi…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:09 PM
3

I think the point is that a guy who is a 5/10 who makes 750,000$ a year is not more appealing than a 8/10 super hot guy who makes 75,000$ a year. Especially when in the world, the first guy doesn't turn you on at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:05 PM
1

Yeah people won't admit that necessarily but it's true.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:04 PM
1

The 20s are also when most dating fun and pair ups happen. The 30s are when break ups happen, people are single parents and divorces start. You're saying screw the fun era, wait longer. Women do disqualify men if they're broke. But not being disqualified doesn't mean you have an advantage. I see wealthy average looking guys gets rejected all the time and those women go for guys with mediocre finances after.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:03 PM
1

Well we're on a dating subreddit, not a life advice subreddit. So context matters. Dating isn't really a competition honestly. There is a lot of pre selection involved, there is very little you can do to improve your position. You can only eliminate red flags and your negatives but you can't raise your ceiling. It's also not binary. Yes lots of men are bums as you say. They take all the women in the lower socioeconomic class if they're good looking. For the middle class, they do a looksmatch pai…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:01 PM
6

Because that's a strawman argument. You're suddenly going from rich guy and comparing him to a homeless broke guy. That's the most unfair comparison ever. It's like comparing a muscular guy to a 550 lb obese individual. Keep it realistic. Comparing to a guy making 60-80k a year is far more realistic.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 05:58 PM
1

Not at all. I mean sure, for felons and drug dealers to some extent it does. But for normal everyday people not really. I work with women who make 75-125k (ex. nurses) who are largely with guys who make quite a bit less but are very attractive. My colleagues who are women and doctors also date up in looks I find and many have stay at home spouses or husbands who make far less. The paradigm has shifted and as women make more money, they prioritize looks even more than men do. Nothing wrong with t…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 05:56 PM
3

What leverage?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 05:53 PM
1

Even then, the provider role is hard to get for men. Believe it or not. You're 100% correct that unless you're working at mcdonalds then looks matter a lot more and it's not even close by any stretch. I'm a doctor and dating was easier before I became a doctor if that tells you anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 05:53 PM
3

Yes but this sub is also focused on dating topics and I'm just speaking to that context.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 05:50 PM
0

A lot of things don't hurt. But lets not pretend that many people don't think finances are #1.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 05:37 PM
10

Tell that to all the guys who are 19 who think getting rich is how you physically attract women. I agree with you. I'm just trying to tell that to other guys.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 05:37 PM
2

You mean if you're paying them? Then yes. If you're a sugar daddy or hiring escorts then yes money is what matters. I'm obviously excluding those things. I used to be low-middle class when I was 20 and became upper class in my 30s. Dating was actually far easier at 20 and I'm in even better shape now too. I speak from experience too as well as observation. Not hypotheticals and social media talking points.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 05:36 PM
6

The 20s are when most people hook up, date and pair up. So you're saying by the time prime dating life is done, then looks matter less? That's somewhat true. I still never see attractive women in their 30s-40s not dating their looks match though.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 05:35 PM
5

Think about initial attraction though, that's mostly looks. You need to get over that step and you're locked in by your looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 05:34 PM
0

His girlfriend is as good looking as he is......
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 05:21 PM
1

As a rich guy, trust me no one cares unless you're quite literally paying them.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 05:20 PM
3

Yes genetics are almost all that matters for looks. It's just facial bone structure that women care about. Yes bad skin, bad hair, too much facial fat. Yeah all of those things matter, but they only matter if they hurt you. Having good skin or a nice hair cut doesn't make you hot.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/25 06:43 AM
1

I don't like the term value. Less attractive men can still get with their looks match. I think selling false hope is problematic. Lots of young guys get taught all sorts of things like "study hard, and all the women will want you" "just 20 more pounds on the bar and all the women will come running" "you just need more game bro" None of that is true.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/25 05:47 AM
0

You cannot go from low value to high value. First, define value? You mean just in terms of sexual market value? Unless you have some way of making your face more attractive and becoming a very likeable popular guy, then no, you can't go from low --> high value.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/25 05:29 AM
0

I wouldn't say ugly vs hot. I'd say average guys are fully in that camp. Honestly even a bit above average gets nothing in terms of attention.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/25 05:27 AM
1

Being flirted with is not that rare overall for average guys. It's just that flirting doesn't often amount to much.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/25 05:26 AM
0

Very true. I think a lot of guys don't realize just how much attention good looking guys get from women.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/25 05:25 AM
–

Like what? Examples?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 04:41 AM
–

This is very untrue. The overwhelmingly majority of men do not put any real effort, outside of their fantasies, in pursuing highly attractive women. Most guys barely even succeed with average women and have to put in work for that too.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 03:04 AM
–

Don't approach at work, the gym, outside, DMs, and don't use dating apps. In other words, don't even try.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 03:02 AM
–

Yeah why I personally did okay as a younger guy, I regret not having more fun as a 20 year old. Even though I had plenty.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 03:01 AM
–

You can't live your best life as a heterosexual male if you aren't having sex or dating. Unless of course you're truly asexual then in which case you quite literally do not care. and that is fine. But most people are not asexual.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 03:00 AM
–

I certainly agree that you need to play the game to get anywhere. Not caring gets you nowhere unless you're very attractive so that women approach you. You can't improve yourself that much though. Self improvement is mostly a myth.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 02:59 AM
-2

The world is overpopulated due to 3rd world nations having lots of babies. Not because of the West.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 02:55 AM
1

Standards are up because of social media inflating the perception of good looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 02:54 AM
2

This is outdated. Lots of guys hook up and date all the time despite offering very little besides their looks or height or physical traits. Guys who bring more to the table expect similar things from their partner as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 02:53 AM
1

Height is not the main factor in attraction... it's the face. Looks are determined by the face.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 02:14 PM
–

That's cope dude and you know it too. First off, no it's not "way less expensive." Even if you live a pure hedonistic lifestyle of escorts and sugar babies with zero care for company, you're spending thousands monthly just to get laid. A friends with benefits costs you zero dollars other than maybe a first date scenario where you bought her one drink or a coffee. Boo hoo. Casual sex literally costs you nothing. A relationship ain't also costing you that much in the long run if you're with someon…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 07:48 AM
2

You cannot fight against innate biology. Even those "goals" that guys set are in some way designed to attract women subconsciously.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 06:46 AM
1

The problem is that a lot of that goes against biology. At least on the male side. You're basically advocating for some metaphorical form of castration? But you're right that women have pulled away from men quite a bit.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 06:44 AM
–

Yeah you too are a multi millionaire then? Who know who sub had so many rich guys! Or do you mean going on a date for a 100$ dinner means she's a gold digger?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 06:41 AM
6

Status is only relevant if you have far end outlier status or a micro niche someone likes. Success does not make you hot. Confidence also means nothing, it's lack of confidence that is unattractive. Being rich does not get you out of your league. It lets you pay for women. Also you're right that if you are not born hot then indeed you aren't appealing to attractive women. Bezos is with a woman who is as good looking as he is himself. What does that tell you? You think women in their 20s think he…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 06:40 AM
–

Gold diggers are quite uncommon nowadays and they want hot men too. If you only have money to offer, you can only be a sugar daddy or hire escorts. Even sugar babies now want a baseline level of decent looks since sugar daddy sites are full of guys who workout and are in excellent shape. So really you're left with escorts if all you can offer is money.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 06:36 AM
–

You won't. Unless you're paying an allowance for a sugar baby or hiring escorts. Even your gold diggers want hot men. They just want hot and rich men. I think ya'll think gold diggers don't care about looks and charm.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 06:35 AM
–

Terrible advice. I was 20 and had lots of fun dating and only wish I had more fun. I became a doctor and a wealthy one at that, in my 30s now. Dating is actually quite a bit harder now for many reasons and had I taken that advice it would have been extra shitty now. The idea of postponing fun is terrible advice. The theory that it "gets better" is also very unrealistic.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 06:33 AM
1

But over time, things equalize out. Also many average guys offer things like height in combination with personality traits some women like.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 06:29 AM
6

Yes exactly. But things like your face, height and to some extent your personality set your league. Unless you're paying, you can't go above your league.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 06:26 AM
2

None of those things really move the attraction meter in women's eyes if they aren't into your looks and personality to begin with.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 04:39 AM
-1

Not exactly true. You just have no chance with attractive women. If you're average looking, then average looking women are your league.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 04:38 AM
2

Well you can pursue anything but there's something called: rejection. Applying to Harvard law school with a 2.0 GPA is an option I guess.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 04:38 AM
0

Higher quality as in... socioeconomically and education wise? I agree. You can't move your league looks wise no matter what though.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 04:37 AM
5

Because they can't. For women, being more well rounded means you prioritize looks more. For men, you cannot prioritize anything since you take what you can get. That's a very very hard fact.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 04:37 AM
2

You're so focused on marriage and having kids and ignoring flings/short term relationships/dating in general and hook ups. The reasons for marriage and having babies declining is not the same as the big picture of decreased dating overall. While economic reasons are partly why people marry less or have kids less. They are not why people stay single more and have less sex. Certainly less dating = less marriages in the long run but it doesn't fully explain it.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 04:19 AM
2

Blaming economics for sexual attraction is ridiculous and absurd. People live in mom and dad's basement and still date and hook up regularly. In fact I dated a lot more when I was 20 in my parent's house than my 30s now as a (very high earning) doctor. I think you're just making excuses for a shift in societal standards, driven by social media. People are overexposed to good looking people and their natural standards shift upward. Men are biologically driven to not have high standards but women …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 02:47 AM
1

I thought men peak with more age ;)
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 02:36 AM
3

Standards have shifted slightly in some ways. It just depends on how you look at it. For men it's mostly that looks (their face mainly) matters more than it did 40-50 years ago. There was a little bit more of a "well roundedness" angle in previous generations. If you were a 5/10 with no red flags and an excellent career, then you were a good option to a woman who is a 6-7/10. That's why we got many marriages where there was a little bit of a looks mismatch. Fast forward to now and there's just a…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 02:32 AM
2

You need to look at different generations. More young people are single which indicates higher standards.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 02:28 AM
1

Not really. Attractive women still want one of the most attractive guys they can find. That holds true in rural areas and also holds true in urban areas. Obviously how that plays out differs based on where you are.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 02:27 AM
2

Real life and apps are the same overall. People quite literally date the same level off apps and in real life.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 02:00 AM
3

Honestly this is the one and only honest take on apps. People look worse in photos, especially men. So it gets extra hard. Otherwise apps are real life.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 01:59 AM
-2

By going for someone less attractive than him?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/25 07:30 AM
-1

It's hypothetical.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/25 07:11 AM
-5

She doesn't make anywhere near what he did. But I think the main point is that in this manosphere world, a guy like that should be top tier for women. But you think he can compete with a 35 year old chad?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/25 06:49 AM
3

Not really. You think those women literally desire those guys? You can be a sugar daddy in the US as well, it's just a lot cheaper overseas. We really need to stop confusing sugar daddies and actual attraction. Admittedly many women who are sugar babies now also require a small baseline level of attraction so even to be a sugar daddy you need to be a 5/10 nowadays. But there's still a difference between tolerating sex with someone and actually wanting it.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/25 06:47 AM
2

She wasn't and he was very successful from the beginning. Lots of successful men actually date slightly down in looks. Men just create this fantasy of being a sex symbol once they "get money." It's all a cope fantasy. Trust me, it doesn't make a guy attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/25 06:45 AM
2

Because botox and fillers are approved cosmetics? Therefore they're an option. People being pathetic by having endless options does not make sense. Having options is just an observation of a scenario. You either have options or you don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/25 04:28 AM
-1

Muscles are cool but way overrated Height matters a lot but is not a make or break As long as your finances are somewhat half-reasonable, you're good to go financially for almost all women
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/25 04:27 AM
8

This is nonsense. Dude just look up Mark Carney, the new prime minister of Canada. He's mega rich, ultra successful and he's 10 times better looking than his wife and that's me being polite to her. In what delusional world are hotter women in their 20s going after these so called "rich guys?" I'd like to know, since I am one. It's all chads who get those women. If you're average looking and worth 15 million in net worth, you're still marrying someone average looking. Put aside the Onlyfans, suga…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/25 04:25 AM
5

You're way overrating the value of money or "resources." I say this as someone who once made 50k a year and now make 7 figures and in better shape than ever. Your face determines who you can date. The rest of you determines if you actually succeed. But there's no bigger myth than that men can compensate for lack of sufficient looks with their wallet. Looks, you can pay for her time like an escort or sugar baby. You quite literally cannot pay for a relationship or even a fling. Women want to hook…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/25 04:22 AM
39

The issue with the whole size discussion is that you need to get to the point of getting naked with the other side before they learn about your size in a normal way.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/25 04:18 AM
2

I said viable. Which means it isn't likely to result in the outcome you would think. Most men do not benefit from cosmetics. Unless you're fixing some obvious flaw, you won't see a benefit and it may back fire actually. You can certainly go against some signs of aging but that's playing defense against the loss of looks. You cannot enhance your looks if you're average looking without a real flaw.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/25 06:41 AM
3

First of all, I don't fully understand your sentence there. But assuming you're saying what I think you're saying. The answer is no. I'm saying that cosmetics and make up are options for women. I think that is easy to agree to, since they literally are options. They are not viable options for most men though. The difference is that one side has some sort of option to improve and the other side has none.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/25 06:30 AM
4

Sure... but you still have endless options if you're an average looking woman who is not overweight and wears make up and gets botox/fillers. Try being an average looking guy instead. You have 1/1000th of the options both in terms of quantity and quality. You quite literally also explained how women at least have control. You have zero control as a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/25 02:47 AM
1

Which is detached from reality. What matters are good looks (by far), maybe height, and a robust personality.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/25 07:34 PM
3

Yes in theory but what about their actions? There are endless options for women to choose from.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/25 07:33 PM
3

More women than ever are avoiding LTRs/dating/marriage so no I disagree. Certainly some women want a family but we're seeing more and more women avoid LTRs in many cases.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/25 06:48 PM
–

What's 666 supposed to really mean? Is it just a proxy term for being a chad?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/25 06:47 PM
8

Identity? Ah.. sure. But in terms of importance, attractiveness is far far more important for men. You're truly screwed if your face is subpar as a guy. Things like cosmetics don't work the same as men and you quite literally can only pay for sex with who you want.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/25 06:46 PM
-1

I think Chad just means conventionally good looking guy.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/25 05:46 AM
1

Women do want their looksmatch. I think a lot of guys misunderstand how good they actually look and overemphasize certain things (the body) and underestimate the major importance of other things (the face). Male Ex. Average looking face on a muscular body is not an attractive guy Female Ex. Pretty face on an overweight body is actually attractive to many men.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/25 03:44 AM
1

But that's other men. Who cares? A good looking male nurse making $75k a year will get all of the female attention compared to a average looking guy in a masculine field making $750k.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/25 01:32 AM
1

Sure bud. Keep thinking that. I make more than three times the senior manager 400k guy and I've made less than 60k per year and I assure you there's very little difference. I work at an academic center hospital and the high earning specialists get literally zero care from the women. You know who does? The good looking male nurses, good looking paramedics and the occasional resident doctor who is good looking with 200,000$ med student debt. What's the common denominator? Good looks. "Providing" i…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/25 06:52 PM
1

This thread is about dating. You don't need to go to those cities specifically. You can hire an escort in almost any city in the US.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/25 04:43 AM
1

Not the same thing. Those are often escorts or women looking for a sugar daddy (or have one already). You're paying for the hour or week. You really think that's the same as dating someone?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/25 04:38 AM
1

I wouldn't use billionaires or pro athletes as an example... How many guys get to that level? Not the same as Joe the senior manager earning 400,000$ a year. I think you're also mixing up sugar babies and the real true gold diggers with having an actual girlfriend who is into you.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/25 02:37 AM
3

It's by far the biggest cope. Step 1 - create some hypothetical future where you're rich Step 2 - claim women only care about money Step 3 - proceed to not get anything close to rich Step 4 - blame dating failures on women being GoLd DiGgErS
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/25 02:35 AM
1

Pro athletes and billionaires aren't the best example here. What percentage of guys will become a pro athlete or billionaire? You can't seriously be comparing a guy earning 400,000$ a year to that, are you? I've made 7 figures for several years now and I promise you that gold diggers are quite uncommon. I have friends who wish they'd meet a gold digger just for the fun of it but can only date average looking single moms. End of the day, money isn't even bringing you somewhat close to the 25 year…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/25 02:33 AM
3

Yes exactly. It's a coping mechanism. I'm a 7 figure earner and it's maybe made me 0.5/10 more attractive compared to when I was 20. If even that. It lets you "buy" sugar babies. It doesn't make someone like you. It might make someone who finds you hot become a little more interested though. But yeah men want it to matter so they can have some sort of future tool.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/25 02:30 AM
1

You can't attract women with your career/money. It might enhance pre-existing attraction but it will not induce attraction. If she thinks you're hot, it'll make you hotter.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/25 02:28 AM
2

Nowadays many men actually care a lot more than women do.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/25 02:23 AM
1

Yeah it's a small percentage of guys who are "intimidated" and somehow that small percentage is "all men" it seems. I recall my classmates in medical school had infinite options for dating. Likewise as a resident, the few single female residents had infinite options to their choosing.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/25 02:22 AM
–

Attractive women will choose attractive men. Average joes get with average women. Success has very little to do with it in today's era. No one cares much. I've had the before and after of being low-middle class and upper class and it's all about the face.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/25 02:16 AM
–

You mean the average looking guy is with an average looking woman? Well duh. If you're successful you'll be with a successful woman who looks like you. You need a good looking face to hook up/date/marry with a woman who is also good looking.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/25 07:06 PM
1

No. People will still pair up with someone who has an equal face to them & equal socioeconomic status. Height is a second place to the face. So is money.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/25 02:44 AM
0

Not the same thing. A sugar daddy pays you an allowance in exchange for sex. There's also an understanding that the money is the sole reason she comes. Gold digging is more playing along with someone.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/25 02:42 AM
1

That's uncommon and likely a scapegoat excuse for something else. I've yet to meet a woman who cares about my money like that. Gold digging happens but is increasingly uncommon nowadays.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/25 02:41 AM
11

Some guys think that the expectation of having a normal job is too much and is "gold digging."
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/25 02:40 AM
1

I was always in excellent shape and I'm in better shape than ever. Are you a very rich person yourself and speaking from personal experience of being in and around upper class people? Or just taking what the media feeds you?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/25 02:38 AM
1

No it's not. I'm a very high earner and I did better in the dating pool when I was 20.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/25 05:35 PM
–

Sure but attractive women marry attractive men regardless.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/25 06:27 AM
-1

Beta bux is a myth nowadays. It's so rare to see a true provider.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/25 03:08 AM
2

"Peak physical shape" honestly looks the same to women as a normal guy who isn't fat. You're either visibly muscular or you're not. Even if you are, most women could care less.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/25 03:08 AM
6

You're generally right though I wouldn't say "crazy things" is the right way to put it. Really it means making time for you without excuses. When someone isn't interested, it's the opposite.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/25 03:07 AM
9

If you wine and dine someone with a pricey dinner, your odds of getting laid improve by exactly 0%.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/25 03:06 AM
2

If a woman dates a guy she isn't very attracted to, that's an automatic recipe for a sexless marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/25 03:16 AM
1

Dating apps and real life are identical. You're going to end up dating or hooking up with the same people in the end. As a doctor, I care about the end outcome. You can do whatever "test" or take whatever drug you like. What matters is the final end outcome and not what happened along the way.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/25 03:15 AM
1

That isn't very true. Becoming more attractive is exceptionally difficult. Looks are based off facial bone structure mostly which is genetic. It takes a lot of plastic surgery, cosmetics, grooming, muscles (which takes years) just to gain 0.5-1 point in looks. Only exception is a large amount of body fat loss.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/25 03:11 AM
-2

Not really. What if he needs plastic surgery to fix a facial flaw? I think feedback can be helpful. Often it's due to a mismatch in looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/25 03:09 AM
-1

I'm not arguing against your specific points but I think the "blow ups" even if verbal or over text, tend to happen when things are vague. If she makes it very clear that the guy is too short for her or that his face is lacking and is very specific about it, that isn't causing a blow up usually. Being very specific is important.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/25 03:08 AM
-1

Know the audience. Some guys (not all) do want honest genuine feedback.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/25 03:06 AM
0

Some guys want "feedback" and some do not. I think it's helpful for the ones who do want feedback. Is it not helpful for those guys to know that it's their looks holding them back?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/25 03:05 AM
3

When a guy thinks there's still an opportunity after rejection, it's time to block.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/25 03:04 AM
6

A lot of people marry someone they aren't super attracted to. They marry someone they don't mind looks wise or in bed but who doesn't necessarily excite them that much. Now keep in mind that attraction usually fades and tapers down over time. So if your starting point for attraction was not that high to begin with, it's going way down after 5 years.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/25 03:03 AM
2

Right exactly
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 02:52 AM
2

Women over 30 are actually attractive to 22 year olds. That's another myth. I myself was 22 at one point and hooked up with women in their 30s and 40s and even 50s.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/25 02:19 PM
13

It won't become obsolete but it is declining already and will continue to do so. Current generation of people under age 30 are more single than ever and we'll continue to see less and less marriages with more and more single people.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/25 02:53 AM
1

What do you mean, I don't understand the second part.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/25 12:30 AM
1

They kind of don't though. Chad doesn't disappear, he's still there and now he's ready to marry. Also Chad is just as likely as Timothy to have "resources" too. When he gets a 70k/year job, that fully checks the box that women want in their 30s as you put it. There's no compromise at all. They still marry the same type of guy. This revenge fantasy of Timothy becoming rich (>99% of people do not become rich) isn't even reality. Becoming rich just lets you hire escorts or sugar babies.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/25 06:07 PM
2

There's a difference between giving in to your base instincts and acknowledging biological drives that allow the species to go forward. So yes I do agree it's a grey area. I'm just stating that there is a legitimate case to be made for why men perceive their self worth on their ability to attract women. It's founded in biology.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/25 06:03 PM
3

What does value even mean here? Your net worth? Your value in the dating market? Your value to your sports team or employer? It's all relative to the context. But value does inherently come from others. I mean I think human life is valuable and that animal life is valuable. But that's just baseline value from my eyes. Not the same as someone's self esteem which undoubtedly will overlap with his dating prospects.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/25 02:50 AM
0

A lot of accomplishments are just man made constructs. Mating is an evolutionary drive.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/25 02:47 AM
7

Why is it a pathetic person thing? A man's drive to reproduce is what drives his libido. Inability to reproduce kills your self worth. I think you forget the whole point of the human species is to reproduce to survive. Life in of itself has literally and objectively zero meaning beyond sustaining. You're basically arguing "yeah screw biology and science."
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/25 02:46 AM
1

What post did I delete? You're just quoting the wrong post. At least get that part right please. I'm not a hypocrite at all. Having parents who are immigrants does not mean you're bound to follow a certain ideology. I understand the left wing believes in purity identity politics and is then surprised when they lose elections. But creating reliance on immigration makes no sense from an economic sustainability standpoint nor from a national security standpoint.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 07:45 PM
3

The same guys are marrying those women. The problem with redpill is that they think chad disappears after a certain age? And somehow Timothy becomes hot?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 06:25 PM
0

Forget the number. Intelligence is still a thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 06:24 PM
1

My parents were immigrants. Society changes and evolves for one. Immigration needs and adaptability can vary decade to decade let alone you talking about hundreds of years ago before we even have penicillin. and we become reliant on other countries fertility which follows the same pattern.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 04:38 PM
0

Low socioeconomic status is tied to more kids and high socioeconomic status with less. Middle class Americans aren't a monolith and while economics are ONE reason, the lack of opportunity and/or lack of a choice (for men) plays a big role.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 08:03 AM
1

Late 20s is a great age, same as 30. I was more arguing against the talking point.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 08:02 AM
1

So I see what you're saying but keep in mind many people in those circles are older and married. The number of rich people in their 30s (I am one) is quite small. Also comparing rich circles in Manhattan vs the Appalachia is a bit extreme. But regardless to be rich in Manhattan you need to be in the top 0.1%. Most finances bros are not making that much. That's why the "6 figures" argument falls short. It's at least 7 figures just to play, which means it starts to become irrelevant. Then even in …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 03:42 AM
0

There is no solution at an individual level. On a societal level though we should not actively encourage to delay having kids forever OR pretend that there are no biological limits. There are many many manyy manyyy people, even on this very sub, who pretend that fertility issues don't exist as age goes up and apparently you can have kids at age 45 with near-guarantee success. Those lies make it to the ears and eyes of women in their 20s who use those same lies to make personal choices. So maybe …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 03:37 AM
1

Those women aren't settling down with a "rich simp" man. They're marrying the same chads.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 03:18 AM
2

I could not care less about an individual's reproductive choices. But on a societal level, less kids means more immigration later.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 03:17 AM
1

Well we kind of need kids to sustain the human species for one. But on a national level we need it to avoid mass immigration.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 03:16 AM
1

This is less about individuals getting into anyone's face and more about societal norms. More late pregnancies = higher risk of autism. One reason we do in fact have more autism (one... I'm not claiming to have solved autism here overall). It also means more special needs kids in general and more pregnancy complications. Another key issue here is that people may be pressured to not have kids or delay it (then fail to do so later) and subsequently regret it. However this being a poorly informed o…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 03:15 AM
0

There is some correlation to IQ as well as EQ differences as well when the mom is much older (age 35+). It's not just purely about whether or not there is a category of special needs present or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 03:10 AM
8

Strawman argument. Young and unprepared parents doesn't mean that people in general waiting until age 37 is a good idea.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 03:08 AM
1

Because the 6 6 6 thing is just fake. There are enough guys who are good looking. That's all you actually need as a guy. Once those guys "run out" then there are enough women who are happy single.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 03:07 AM
1

You're certainly right about the looks part. Though some get upset that there's dishonesty around the topic, not that women care a lot about it. The money part, let me clarify that making 6 figures doesn't get you into any circle at all and doesn't improve your dating success. What circle do you mean anyway? I went from making 4 figures (yes 4 figures) to 7 figures and it had the same meme effect of getting muscles. It impresses men and you "inspire" other dudes. Women don't really care. The one…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 03:06 AM
6

Well OP's advice is like telling an unemployed guy late on his bills to not settle for any job and go for the best possible job there is.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 03:03 AM
5

Who are these 666 guys anyway? Most hotter women I know are dating very ordinary guys who are just hot and funny and nothing else. The 6 and 7 figure guys I know are married to a generic woman. Unless 666 is just a phrase for hot guy, then sure. But lets stop acting like there's some formula or that not being 6 feet tall or not making 6 figures means anything. The best looking guys I know who get laid nonstop with attractive women are not 6 feet tall nor do they make 6 figures.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 03:02 AM
2

Well for skin health yes. If you want to talk about internal organs, people are biologically much older now in comparison. It's one reason why we have more premature disease like coronary artery disease at age 35 or more cancers under age 50. There is a lot more metabolic disease out there which = more metabolic inflammation = more "organ aging" in laymen's terms. But yes more skin care and less smoking is good for the skin.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 02:57 AM
20

No that's not it to be honest. There is some revenge fantasy element to it. There's also the belief that women just rapidly lose dating market value after 25 which is hilariously comical.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 02:54 AM
1

What different preferences do they have? I find that the preferences are quite similar actually and the so called "SMV" doesn't change much. The lesser attractive techbro guy at 35 is marrying someone he could have dated when he was 23. Same deal.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 02:53 AM
21

Well news flash, women are not "hitting the wall" at 25-30. You guys act like someone aging slightly and going from a 8/10 to 7.5/10 is the end of the world in dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 02:51 AM
1

LOL if you think that being poor and been financially mediocre is similar, again, you're delusional. Listen. No one is disputing that being poor makes you struggle in life and that means all aspects of it. Alas, I do agree that, as far as "dating" especially hooking up, being financially mediocre is a lot better than being - like you said - rich. Because if you're rich, the money component blinds most women and then it's all they can see, you become a wallet to them, and nothing else. Sure if yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/25 05:27 PM
1

Seems relatively uncommon. These women also tend to just use sugar daddy dating sites. So for a guy, are you truly getting a 250,000$ car in an attempt to impress someone who really just wants an allowance or payments more directly?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/25 05:21 PM
1

Because it's really not that important. It's just something guys blame. I was never poor but I was very mediocre and now I'm rich. It's day and day, no differences. In fact my best dates and hook ups were when I was younger and financially mediocre.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/25 04:36 AM
1

I promise you there aren't any women in your workout class who are impressed enough by a guy's car to the point of going from: not into him --> attracted to him. Cars impress guys.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/25 04:34 AM
3

I have a BMW M5 and a Porsche as my daily driver and I've had multiple super cars and I literally recall a grand total of 2 women who cared. Both of them were into me physically beforehand. Moral of the story? Cars are like muscles. Dudes care, girls don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/25 04:32 AM
2

My issue is how this is interpreted. Guys will see this and think that "okay so education and money = dates" when they don't get that a standard is often a requirement or cut off. Meeting a requirement does not ensure attraction.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/25 04:31 AM
1

I can tell you first hand as someone who has climbed from 0 figure income to 6 figures in my 20s to 7 figures in my 30s that money is vastly overrated for dating. From my end, as long as the woman is dressed okay and has a middle socioeconomic class type of presentation/job/trajectory then that's great for me. From my experience, I found that women found money talk very off putting and a big turn off. I think when it was brought up in later dates it was fine but even then I didn't notice any cha…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/25 04:30 AM
5

I think that's more so semantics than reality. Someone lots of men want isn't high value for the dating market? Then who is?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/25 04:22 AM
–

With that approach you may as well give up at life this very moment and stop everything.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/25 04:20 AM
1

I don't understand the significance of making 300k here as a point of comparison. I was making more than that in my 20s and make a lot more in my 30s now and still don't see the relevance. It's not like I walk around with a shirt that has my income on it.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/25 04:18 AM
2

I was making mid 6 figures in my 20s and make a lot more in my 30s. I was still dating the same people as when I was 20 making 0 figures.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/25 04:17 AM
1

Of course not.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/25 02:07 AM
1

Good thing there's something between youth and elderly years.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/25 05:07 PM
1

What?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/25 07:12 AM
1

Odd irrelevant comment
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/25 04:24 AM
1

And everyone dies so may as well not participate in life? The idea that you should base your life choices and day to day life on how your elderly years will be, is quite silly.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/25 02:40 AM
2

Yeah but Joe the 45 year old got promoted to senior manager at his firm and makes 180k now so he's supposed to be at his "peak." /s
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/25 02:33 AM
1

Do they though? Are those men truly below the woman lookswise? I'm always skeptical of these scenarios because truly mismatched couples are very rare.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/25 02:32 AM
1

Do they though? Are those men truly below the woman lookswise? I'm always skeptical of these scenarios because truly mismatched couples are very rare.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/25 02:32 AM
1

You can't really negotiate out attraction.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/25 02:31 AM
1

It absolutely does not happen often and you're speaking to some rare fantasy scenario.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/25 02:23 AM
1

This doesn't actually happen though? You're just making an excuse for affairs. Gold digging is way overrated for one and rare. Most men actually don't have affairs or cheat with women more attractive than their spouse. It's the opposite actually. You actually think women care the slightest about a guy who gets a promotion and goes from making 120k to 300k? They do not.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/25 02:23 AM
1

I've explained several times on here how my dating prospects didn't change at all going from low-middle class to upper class.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/25 02:19 AM
2

Not everyone has a nose problem though. And not every man benefits from fillers much.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/25 05:07 PM
2

I'd argue it's more about how likeable you are among the group as a whole. Regardless, it's certainly not being a senior manager at a firm like some guys pretend it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/25 06:49 AM
6

I'm telling you they don't. I've been a doctor for almost 10 years, it has very little impact. I think women who told me they like doctors were the quickest to ghost actually. There is always the occasional woman out there who is a bit more attracted than usual but it's a very small minority. You're just repeating a pre-med/medical student fantasy which is.... not at all real.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/25 06:47 AM
3

What are you talking about lol. Most nurses start at age 22-23. Teachers start at a similar age. Very few people, even among very attractive ones, are real paid models. Bottle girl isn't a real job. No not everyone can get an average looking woman. Otherwise incels wouldn't exist and huge chunks of men wouldn't go a long time with no sex or dates. Any average looking woman still has hundreds of options on Tinder within 3-4 hours. Your post is utter nonsense.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/25 06:34 AM
4

First of all, I don't care if you buy it or not. Second, I didn't say I have no luck dating. I said I saw no changes compared to when I was 21. I could go out or hook up with average looking girls when I was 21. Fast forward to now, same outcome. Third, no not women like Kylie Jenner. But yes I consistently find women who are conventionally attractive (ex. a nurse) in normal positions are not interested. In contrast, women who are very average looking are actually interested. That tells you a co…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/25 06:28 AM
4

Facts are facts. Money works if you're a sugar daddy. Otherwise just being employed is enough. I see guys on here trying to justify that having to have a 65k/year job is proof of how important money is... no. That's just women wanting the guy to participate in life. Multiply that to 650k and without the handsome face, it's not going anywhere.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/25 06:24 AM
2

Why do you say that?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/25 06:21 AM
2

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. I take it you are.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/25 06:20 AM
6

Yes height is very important for many women. Money is overrated unless you're directly paying. Status is more about likeability and social status among peers, not so much hierarchy in society. Trust me as a high earning doctor I saw no changes in dating prospects compared to when I was 21.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/25 06:01 AM
18

Correction - looks are much more important for men relatively speaking. You basically have zero chance if you don't meet a certain looks threshold whereas for women you still have lots of options. You listed a bunch of things that can enhance your looks, great. Men are mainly judged by their facial bone structure and genetics. There is very little you can improve.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/25 05:50 AM
1

It's the most important thing if the woman is attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/25 01:51 AM
1

These are people getting into LTRs so it's not meaningless hook ups. As for the medical field, I'll defer to my experience as I've been a doctor for 10 years in numerous regions and large hospitals. I don't really understand your standard here. So a 40-45 year old single mom who can date wealthy decent looking guys has lost value...compared to who? Men who are 45? I don't understand what your standard or reference point is here. Who are you comparing to? A guy at 45 has because no dating market …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/25 06:40 AM
1

These are people getting into LTRs so it's not meaningless hook ups. As for the medical field, I'll defer to my experience as I've been a doctor for 10 years in numerous regions and large hospitals. I don't really understand your standard here. So a 40-45 year old single mom who can date wealthy decent looking guys has lost value...compared to who? Men who are 45? I don't understand what your standard or reference point is here. Who are you comparing to? A guy at 45 has because no dating market …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/25 06:40 AM
–

You overestimate how much choice one really has in fixing anything. You're bound by genetics and have very little personal choice.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/25 06:11 AM
3

This is true and the availability of choices raises standards overall. What was a 6/10 guy is now 5/10. What was a 7/10 is now 5.5/10. and shifts in attraction levels seem nuanced and irrelevant and maybe eye roll provoking but it matters. Just a bit of a shift suddenly eliminates lots of guys from any dates or hook ups and downregulates many other guys.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/25 06:10 AM
4

Statistically not true overall. Your numbers are based on personal memories. It's a fact people are getting laid a lot less now than before.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/25 06:08 AM
5

Monolith? Socioeconomic stats are what count. Not individual choices.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/25 06:06 AM
6

Listen, facts don't care about your marx feelings. The fact you're even trying to dispute a concrete hard fact says a lot about your intentions. In 2021, the birth rate in the United States was highest in families that had under 10,000 U.S. dollars in income per year, at 62.75 births per 1,000 women. As the income scale increases, the birth rate decreases, with families making 200,000 U.S. dollars or more per year having the second-lowest birth rate, at 47.57 births per 1,000 women. Birth rate b…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/25 06:05 AM
2

You don't have a choice though, women choose. Not the man. Unless you're very attractive, you never get to choose. My male doctor colleagues in their 40s are dating women in their 40s and late 30s (who are single moms). Both sides are decent looking as well. So a 40 year old fairly attractive single mom has many chads in their mid 20s who would be down to hook up. Then she has guys in her age group who are wealthy and down for LTRs or just whoever she likes in her age group for LTR. Where's the …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/25 06:03 AM
1

I'm not following you or the relevance of this.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/25 05:58 AM
1

It's not just sex though, it's relationships as well. Lot of my male doctor colleagues in their 40s who are actually decent looking and not subpar in looks, are going out with late 30s-mid 40s single moms. So what "value" loss is there? Yeah a 45 year old single mom isn't going to date a 25 year old guy. That's just normal life. But she has access to adult chads of any age for sex and can date wealthier looksmatched guys or whoever she wants in her age group. She can also do so whenever she want…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/25 05:58 AM
4

Most guys aren't computer nerds though and most aren't in boy bands. Some do get girls getting crushes on them. It's a mix of looks and popularity. The latter is just a proxy for social status at that age. Surprise surprise, 15 years ago it's still looks and social status. But people don't understand what social status really means either.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/25 05:53 AM
8

Sure... and in all likelihood that's her looksmatch.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/25 07:27 PM
7

That's relatively false. It's more that the woman knows where her own looks are and she'll want a guy with an equivalent face. Not that she needs to find something attractive. Maybe a woman who is a 8/10 finds an average looking guy's body attractive. There's still a near zero chance she'll be into him. Once she sees his face repeatedly and realizes it's below what she likes, it's over.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/25 07:18 PM
0

How were kids told that for generations? You had your town, your local school and the newspaper and the TV at 6pm. The internet's advice and social media is new. People were not constantly experiencing exposure to those things growing up.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/25 07:16 PM
7

His mom's advice is indeed mainstream rhetoric.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/25 07:14 PM
9

It's also because we all know that truthfully it's nearly impossible to become better looking to the point that it moves the attraction needle. So the advice always becomes non-looks related. If you're a 5/10 average guy, you would need to acquire all of the following: muscles, good clothing, the right haircut and facial hair, shoes, jewelry, style and if you execute those perfectly you might be perceived as a 6/10. This isn't just 2 months of self improvement, it would take years to move up.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/25 07:13 PM
7

It's more that they learn it matters in school but also go on believing that you can compensate and equalize the playing field in other ways. That part is categorically false. You can't compensate for lack of attraction.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/25 07:09 PM
25

That's a very odd way to put it. Saying "looks aren't everything" is like saying "well needing a medical degree isn't everything to becoming a doctor." Sure, it's not. Except you literally need it as step 1 to practice. Lets not skip step 1 here. You're jumping to the keeping your job phase and skipping the interview and hiring. Perhaps people who actually think it doesn't matter are a small minority as you say. But people who preach it are a big group.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/25 07:07 PM
8

That's indeed a popular mainstream idea because it's a coping mechanism. Same with pretending money is super important. Because it's hypothetically attainable and so it creates a prospect of success in the future.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/25 07:05 PM
4

It's western nations having less kids whereas overseas countries with low socioeconomic levels are having tons of kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/25 07:03 PM
6

Higher cost of living should drive towards less single people since it increases the need for a combined household income.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/25 07:03 PM
3

You need to look at trends. Plus who is actually satisfied in their relationship. we need the trends are towards more single males.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/25 07:01 PM
2

Lots of people turned 18 when social media got big and suffer the same consequences.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/25 06:57 PM
8

Well people get told from a young age you can do anything you want if you work hard at it. It's in the movies, shows, media, schools and parental advice. False expectations set you up for failure. By definition, most people cannot succeed otherwise it's not success anymore and it's the new median baseline. People just need to be realistic. The redpill is one reason guys have odd expectations.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/25 06:56 PM
12

How is that even related? Low socioeconomic people get laid and also have kids all the time. Many half broke guys in college get laid constantly because of their looks. What do economic struggles have to do with anything? People are having kids later because many people fall onto career trajectories which involves moving around and getting established. Many 21st century lifestyle factors also down prioritize having babies and it gets postponed.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/25 06:53 PM
4

The best starting point is educating guys that those are false. Start with facts, ignore the feelings. You say women lose value with age? That doesn't add up when a 45 year old can have a dozen chads ready to come over any day. Women are gold diggers and manipulative? Yeah right. Many women I meet very well know I'm a very high earner and they could care less. Need to focus on the truth first. Gold digging is rare and almost entirely limited to sugar daddies. Women are not losing value at any ag…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/25 06:41 PM
1

What lie? I've seen it personally, I know women who do it and plenty of public evidence for you to review. Is it relevant for most men? No. Does it exist? Absolutely.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 08:13 AM
0

Hard disagree there. If a guy has a super attractive face, he's getting hundreds of matches on dating apps. He's getting DMs on Instagram daily. He's getting Facebook ads nonstop from women. He gets approached regularly if he goes out. That's the reality. You have so many options that those factors become irrelevant. It would take active effort and many red flags to not have lots of women available to you. Are you more so referring to a guy who is a little bit above average in looks? If so, then…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 06:13 AM
-1

Says who? Many do actually. They commit to whoever is most attractive to them typically as with anyone else.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 05:29 AM
0

Many stories of kidnapping and robberies the past couple years.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 05:28 AM
5

Of course
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 05:28 AM
-1

Very true and good post. I think your post needs to be broadly taught to men quite honestly. Because guys think if they make it big and get "game" then they'll be attractive to all women. In reality, you're only becoming appealing to women in your league. This ensures guys have realistic expectations. You can pay for a sugar baby but that's the only option if you want to go out of your league.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 03:14 AM
7

Because it's about looks, height and charisma.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 03:12 AM
0

Most of those things aren't hard to achieve. Being handsome and sociable (both at once) is nearly impossible for many guys.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 03:11 AM
1

The redpill is very wrong about that. Women are attracted to looks and height and charisma. Money itself doesn't create attraction and status only counts when it comes to outlier levels.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 03:10 AM
2

Not really. Make up is for the face whereas muscles are the body. If muscles were such a big deal then bodybuilders would be the most appealing men to women but they aren't. In fact, incel communities are full of guys who look like they lift. They're just a bonus. It's like an extra nice asset but it doesn't create attraction other than maybe for <10% of women.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 03:09 AM
1

Which is incredibly untrue. If she's into you, a coffee date and walk in the park is enough. If she's not into you, spending 3000$/week won't lead to any attraction. You can certainly find women to pay for their time, but lets not pretend paying is anything real. Attractive women date or hook up with hot guys routinely where 0-10$ was spent leading up to it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 03:07 AM
1

Thanks. Though most men, and even some women, would disagree. I genuinely mean no offense but statistically most men obviously are not high earners. So without the first hand experience, they'll believe that a high earning income is a magic ticket to success with women.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 02:54 AM
2

Well looking for a successful man doesn't mean there's a compromise on looks. That's still the most important thing by far, and height as well for many women. When I was in med school I recall just how much priority my female classmates placed on looks. The ones who were even above average wanted nothing less than a tall male model tier guy more than anything. You'll find that among successful women, looks get even more priority.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 02:50 AM
2

Being a passport bro has also become far more dangerous nowadays.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 02:47 AM
2

If guys seriously think that having to be employed with a real job is some huge requirement, then I have no idea what to even say to them.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 02:46 AM
3

Yes it's entirely men. I was barely middle class when younger and I'm well into the upper class and I can't even recall a single time where finances were a consideration. I was super successful dating and hooking up when I was 20, drove a mediocre car and couldn't even afford a real date. Now I have multiple luxury cars and endless disposable income in my 30s and while I'm very impressive to other men who talk to me, I find that women could care less. The tall very good looking guy who makes 1/2…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 02:45 AM
5

That financial threshold is either very low or just on par with the woman. For many women, just being employed with a half decent paying job is sufficient. Your 8/10 nurse who makes 90k per year is fully okay with a paramedic who is good looking but makes a bit less or a male nurse who makes 70k per year but also good looking. If she's a high earner then yeah maybe she expects more but that's honestly logical. If you're unable to meet women's financial thresholds, then that really just means you…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 02:41 AM
3

You quite literally cannot buy it. If you want to pay for dates and sex directly, sure. But we need to stop pretending that a sugar baby is actually into their sugar daddy.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 02:37 AM
4

How about a pragmatic example. A woman who is more attractive will pick the good looking tall guy who makes 70k a year over the average looking short guy who makes 700k per year. Is that the case 100% of the time? No. But certainly close to that. If she has her own job, then combined household incomes means they can still do a lot. That's a better time than faking attraction for someone just for lavish trips. Now if she wants someone to pay for it, that's called a sugar daddy. But lets not prete…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 02:36 AM
9

As a high income and high net worth guy, I've yet to see it even be a real factor. I know guys love to pretend that it's a huge deal, but it really isn't. Bring up money and watch women get turned off on the first date.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/25 01:49 AM
1

You combine it with another person's salary. 70k + 70k = 140k. Woman would pick a 8/10 guy who makes 60-70k any day of the week over a 5/10 guy making 500k. It's not even a remotely close comparison.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 05:07 PM
2

It's not a deal breaker overall but it's a great asset that helps with women who care about it. It maximizes your chances overall.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 07:30 AM
2

A big chunk of my female doctor colleagues are dating or married to men who make less than them.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 03:01 AM
2

Overweight women with a pretty face have endless chad options.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 03:01 AM
5

Standards are way higher than ever before. You're literally speaking in opposites.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 03:00 AM
4

You mean with someone who doesn't want to be with you or when you're guy #7 for the day?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 03:00 AM
3

Nothing to do with it. Dating for men is all based on genetics or things you cannot control.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 02:58 AM
4

I disagree about effort. For men, you can't "effort" your way or work your way to improving your dating life. Lack of effort in general at life (unemployment) may be a turn off. But things that create your attraction - your face & height & innate personality traits are all genetic. Maybe a small argument can be made for childhood nurture but overall who you are in the dating world is not your decision. You can only put up red flags by lack of effort. But more effort does next to nothing. A guy w…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 02:58 AM
1

Being rich actually was a much bigger advantage in the 20th century for men. Women have their own jobs now and pay for their own things. They can split expenses for their trips with a partner they're attracted to mainly lookswise. In the 20th century it quite literally was a bigger advantage. If you were a 5-6/10 as a guy, being rich would turn you into a 7/10 by default.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 02:55 AM
1

Your competition is also way higher than it used to be. Impressing and attracting someone in your small town who is on par with your looks, maybe even marginally prettier, used to be a lot easier. You weren't competing with the male models in a 50 male radius.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 02:52 AM
0

Well if you used to be on par with an elite male model lookswise, and now have top 1-2% looks, not sure your experience is really relevant to most men. It's like me, a real multi millionaire, trying to genuinely relate to someone who makes a very modest income.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 02:48 AM
1

I have all the disposable income in the world and it takes financial stress away for sure. But not doing much more than that.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 02:35 AM
–

Being a gym bro or looking like one, just makes you appealing to other men. Men just think women like muscles a lot when it's just a bonus.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 02:32 AM
–

Oh cmon, that is nothing close to the truth. A guy who is in the median range of the population looks wise, expecting someone who is also in the same range, is anime or fantasy? That's realistic expectations.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 02:25 AM
–

Swiping is not that different than real life approaches. It achieves the same final outcome.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 02:24 AM
–

You need to eliminate the following: - men who paid - those who hooked up with someone they aren't attracted to
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 02:23 AM
–

Too high standards from who?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 02:22 AM
–

Skill at what? If a woman likes you, she'll make it easy. If you have to work hard for it, the attraction will fade quickly anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 02:20 AM
15

"Men peak at 90 bro!"
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 02:13 AM
9

Aging well with good skin and hair doesn't make you more attractive than a 23 year old version of yourself. That's literally impossible. Now if you were 23 and had terrible hair and bad skin and fixed that, then sure. But not many guys go from being a 4/10 looks wise to 8/10 years later. It happens but is extremely rare. The other thing is that very few 20 year olds would even be open to dating a genuinely attractive 35-40 year old. Unless some mental health issues are present, it isn't happenin…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 02:12 AM
17

Statistically she's right. The large majority of 19 year olds, or even 25 year olds, would never date a 40 year old guy. You're talking about a pretty small subset of people who would.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/25 02:09 AM
–

In what sense?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/25 05:16 AM
1

Quite honest in general but it's not like it has to be a one night stand. You can have something ongoing which often does happen if there's mutual attraction.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/25 02:49 AM
2

But it doesn't make any Sense. A man can be a literal MODEL and be rejected by a 200 pound woman all the same. Yes but over time a model will have a very high success rate. That's the point of this debate: nobody is arguing to sleep with someone you don't like, but the dynamic of relationships between men and women caused women to have unrealistic standards (while denouncing the "Patriarchy's beauty standards"). Right I'm 6'0 in shape. No deformities and can't get a date with a decent looking wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/25 05:30 PM
–

That's true. You have immediate access to sex whenever you want. You can get into a relationship within a few weeks if you want, at the most. There are always lots of options rapidly available and that's not a luxury that most men ever have.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 09:17 PM
1

Why? It's just reality vs idealism.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 09:16 PM
1

Well I'm not giving an opinion but rather that's just what happens.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 09:15 PM
–

If a woman is down for casual fun, they probably won't probe that much. Even still, for a short term fling people can fake it for a bit.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 05:41 PM
–

Generally true though keep in mind people in lower socioeconomic classes have more kids whereas though in the upper class are having 0-1 kids frequently.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 04:56 PM
–

Wouldn't date ongoing. Hard to tell within 1-3 dates how many friends he has.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 04:55 PM
1

Well that's the only option if you want women who look better than you. I don't mean you as in literally "you" but rather men in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 04:51 PM
–

Who said that? Old men? What about same age and also who is talking about marriage?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 04:48 PM
–

Yes but compare that to a guy in the same boat who also gets zero female attention.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 08:22 AM
–

Again, hundreds of thousands of years of evolution did not just get undone in 10-20 years. The limbic part of the brain, after being exposed to hormones in puberty, will have various desires. If it didn't then the species would have gone extinct long ago. But impulse control and other levels of self control keep things in check. If someone filters out most options because their perception of attractive is based off Instagram, then that's just how it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 06:46 AM
–

It does warp your standards though. Keep in mind the standard needle doesn't need to move that much. Just a bit higher means a lot more people stay single.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 06:42 AM
–

Well if they're single by choice then they like the casual ongoing sex, no?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 06:41 AM
–

You have an easier time dating in your league but it won't be with women you truly want unless you're paying them.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 06:40 AM
–

Lots of single women have chads as FWBs so they certainly aren't sexually frustrated.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 04:28 AM
–

. Depression and anxiety are high for other reasons.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 04:26 AM
–

Biologically makes no sense at all. Puberty is when those feelings kick in and biology hasn't changed in 1-2 decades. It's also not so extreme as holding out for the perfect guy. It's not like someone opens up their day with "oh yeah I'm going to hold out for the perfect person." Standards are created based on what you see. If your brain is exposed to very good looking people nonstop then that becomes your natural cut off. But again while you're very correct about things changing with younger ge…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 04:23 AM
–

Social media has created unrealistic standards.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 03:47 AM
–

Sex is a biological need.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 03:46 AM
–

Irrelevant to the main topic.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 03:44 AM
–

Lot of people don't realize that so many single women have friends with benefits who are extremely good looking that see them weekly.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 03:19 AM
–

Who really even blames women? Blame for what?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 03:17 AM
–

These guys bring up the close friend/community nonsense just to distract from the actual issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 03:16 AM
–

People will bring up the male friend part to distract. A good looking guy with zero friends in the middle of nowhere can find lots of female partners within days on dating apps.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 03:15 AM
1

No I'm just implying that it's not nearly as common as you and some others believe. I've asked a lot of my female friends about this topic too. Many of them will first say the same thing about other women being gold diggers. But when I ask them more, they admit they've never actually known any gold diggers personally. But yes they do exist, if that makes you happy. It's just not that common. I'll tell you one thing to think about. Sugar daddy websites like Seeking Arrangement now have a decent c…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 03:14 AM
–

That's just a distraction and not necessarily the same issue. A guy with a few close friends will still feel lonely without female attention.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 03:11 AM
–

Because you can't. Selling fake promises sets up false expectations.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 03:09 AM
–

Working on yourself is important for financial freedom and achieving your goals but it doesn't move the needle for dating. For most guys, unless you have excess facial fat, you can go to the moon and back and you go from a 5/10 to... 5/10.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 03:08 AM
–

Huberman is a good looking, well spoken and somewhat tall guy. He probably had numerous hook ups and casual flings along the way too. So while you're right about him being a "top man" , remember "top" means top tier physical traits. If he was like any other scientist but generic average looking and 5'6 with an average personality, he'd be lucky to even marry his looks match.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 03:06 AM
–

Yeah OP you're right. A lot of women can be happy while single. It doesn't end at a set age either, I've seen it for many women at age 35...40..50.. etc. They're not self excluding though. They just aren't willing to date someone they aren't very attracted to.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 03:02 AM
1

You're answering my question with a question.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 02:59 AM
1

I've lived in various areas and I never saw a difference. Provider means a guy going above his league, using redpill definitions. Not a traditional family which has nothing to do with any of this.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 02:58 AM
5

They don't have choices between women. They have a choice of a mindset of lowering their standards long term. Two different things.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 02:57 AM
1

That is true. Lots of reckless people out there in terms of STDs. Thankfully we have condoms. I can tell you as a doctor that I've never seen an STD happen after condom use. The remaining risk is HPV induced oral cancer, which is avoided by... avoiding oral sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 02:56 AM
0

My statement doesn't mean that really. It's more of a mindset choice. You can choose to lower your standards long term or be childless with no family ever.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 02:55 AM
1

It can help you pay for escorts or sugar babies, that's it. Even sugar babies often want a sugar daddy they're somewhat attracted to so that needle has moved as well. There are quite literally tall muscular men on sugar daddy sites now, believe it or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 02:53 AM
1

I didn't say they don't exist. I asked where are they? Do you have many resources yourself and have women constantly after you? I promise you this is mostly fantasy. Outside of Seeking Arrangement and escorting, it ain't happening. Sure women might want someone equal to them or have a certain cut off of lifestyle/income but they're still selecting for physical attraction and chemistry above that cut off.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/25 02:51 AM
6

No idea but my point is that the fantasy doesn't exist. Maybe the good looking tall guys in college to some extent and maybe a bit into their mid 20s. The fantasy of being a sex symbol at age 40 because you (think) make 450,000$ a year (in reality won't make a fraction of that) and didn't gain lots of body fat, is hilarious.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 10:25 PM
3

As a doctor I can tell you for a fact that many nicer fields like medicine and law are at least 50% women now. Nursing is also a big profession and can pay you 6 figures easily nowadays. A woman making 80k/year pairing up with a guy who makes 60-90k/year is not using the guy or getting "what she wants." I know countless guys in the 500k-2 mil income range who were rejected by those women only for them to date guys who made 50-80k/year. Trust me I've lived in an upper class neighborhood for many …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 10:23 PM
2

Well we don't know. You'd need to hang out with them to know for sure. Also good looking guys with personality issues still get laid a lot so they aren't complaining.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 10:15 PM
2

As a guy who has a lot of money, I can tell you that it's because it becomes a scapegoat excuse that you can change. In theory, money is in your control. At least it's perceived to be. Lots of people think one day they'll be rich, hence the support for capitalism (and I say that as a capitalist). You deflect failure onto something a bit external that isn't still in your control. Because in theory you can somehow fix it. No one is going to be like "I'm a 5/10 and that's why I can't get lots of da…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 10:14 PM
0

Most men have no choice at all. You either stay single and childless forever or go for whoever you can get.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 10:06 PM
-1

They have complete control but lack of options makes you pick between that and being childless with no partner forever.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 10:05 PM
3

In reality, women are outpacing men in good majors and out earning men under age 35-40 now. Women also rapidly make up home ownership and will surpass men in that regard soon. You're right about difficultly in one income. But when paired up with the guy they like, then the dual income household is sufficient. There's no role for a provider in today's Western society unless you're solely on a sugar daddy dating site.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 10:03 PM
1

That doesn't mean they're picking the guy who is looking to provide over the guy they actually like.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 10:01 PM
1

Where are these women wanting a man to provide for them? I promise that the 4$ coffee date is not providing for anyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 10:00 PM
1

Where are these women who want resources? Outside of sugar daddy dating sites, can you tell me where they are?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 09:58 PM
1

Women approach all the time. Just in more subtle ways.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 09:51 PM
1

To be honest, nonstop swiping on dating apps probably yields a better success rate as going out and trying to meet people. A well put together app can at least match you against people who are likely to be attracted to you in person. Otherwise as a guy, you'll be going through dozens and dozens of women to find 1 person who might go on 1 date with you.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 09:50 PM
2

You overestimate self improvement. Unless you're 40% body fat, good luck with any real self improvement.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 09:46 PM
4

You have to put yourself out there and risk rejection if you're not in the higher levels of attraction. Women make moves all the time if they're interested. Sometimes it's more blunt but it can be a DM on instagram or sharing something with you or finding a way to come talk.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 09:43 PM
6

But they literally do. Women approach men they like. It's just more subtle. If they like you back, you won't need to put any effort in anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 09:40 PM
7

The first scenario actually happens a lot though with men who are a bit better looking mostly. I almost never see the second scenario unless you mean someone like Dan Bilzerian.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 09:29 PM
5

Well think about it. If you're pursuing education and career, you're diverting time and energy away from dating. You're less likely to use birth control. You're more likely to start adult life sooner if you skip higher education and go straight to work. A lot of robust career men I know in their 30s are getting married to single moms their own age. Fertility challenges arise and many are unsuccessful. Ultimately many of these guys end up without kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 09:26 PM
6

A coffee date is enough for most people honestly. The finance talk is because a lot of guys want something else to blame.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 08:53 PM
5

Relationships are not financialized at all. What's financial about them? Every girlfriend I've had, every fling, every situationship and every hook up involved me spending no more than 5-10 bucks on the first date. Any time I actually spent money, it went no where. Trust me, if someone wants to sleep with you or see you, they will. A coffee date is more than enough and fixating on the exceptional cases where it isn't doesn't change the truth.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 08:48 PM
0

Well standards have certainly gone up and social media and apps play a big role in all of this. Plus taken guys stay on the market unfortunately.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 08:32 PM
7

Few things: - standards have gone up - married men/taken men stay on the market more than ever with dating apps So you get mismatches happening. I know several very attractive guys with a girlfriend who see numerous other women at the same time.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 08:31 PM
17

Ironically the guy you describe will end up having numerous babies with multiple women. The well educated guy nowadays might marry at age 37 to a 33 year old and might have 1 kid.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 08:28 PM
13

Who are these provider men and where are they? I've yet to meet one.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 08:28 PM
7

OP nothing in your post is actually happening. People date whoever they're attracted to and no one is "waiting" for the right guy.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 08:27 PM
1

Why?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 05:27 PM
–

It depends what your starting point it. Height and other physical traits are part of who you are. Initial physical attraction is not the same as what happens years later. Someone may date and marry a thin person who then gains lots of weight. Doesn't mean they'll break up. But that same person would not date and marry an overweight person.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 06:18 AM
3

My looks are the same as when I was 20. I could date or hook up with average looking women every day of the week and still do. There's no dream to sell? I'm not sure what that even means. Markers of success and wealth and other acquirable assets help you once attraction is established. They don't induce it.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 06:16 AM
2

You don't attract anyone at all at any net worth. How many women under the age of 40 would find Bezos sexually attractive? Heck how many women would find Zuck attractive at any age? That gives you your answer. I mean if you're hardcore party type and have endless millions to fund that lifestyle, sure that might lead you places. But that's a big cost and you need to be truly into that lifestyle. Most rich guys see escorts and get sugar babies and are not attracting women out of their league. I li…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 06:14 AM
3

Elon has fathered like 14 kids and will probably end up with thousands by the time he's dead. The richest man in history sleeping with a few women that are on par with himself. That's not really shocking to you, is it? This is an ultra famous guy who is the richest of all time. And he's not exactly pulling super attractive women. Also sure they have one "wife" who basically functions as the queen and to be presentable at social gatherings, but how much are they fucking around behind the scenes? …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 06:09 AM
2

One of them just has one and a few others have multiple. I can tell most of them aren't a fan of that lifestyle though. Meaning being able to attract those women without paying for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 06:03 AM
2

There are websites for that. There are women involved in sex work and that's always been a thing. With Onlyfans, some don't need to do the in-person thing anymore though. I think nuance and clarification is very important here. Some guys will read some of this and think a multi millionaire is literally sexually attractive which that's impossible.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 06:01 AM
6

Facts are facts. I actually found it much easier to date and hook up when I was 20 and in college.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 06:00 AM
1

What's the high value part? This only happens with the chad types in their 20s and a bit into their 30s.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 05:59 AM
3

The problem with your thread is that it's not reality. Look at the known billionaires like Bezos, Zuck, Elon and look at fortune 500 CEOs. I can't think of a single one married or dating out of their league. Money lets you pay for women. Though once you become famous, that also means blackmail will follow. We've already seen from the #metoo movement that women aren't actually attracted to rich guys in positions in power making moves on them.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 05:57 AM
7

I know quite a few (8 figure net worths) and literally none of them, not a single one, is hooking up with multiple women routinely. They're either married, in relationships or doing the sugar baby/escort thing. I genuinely can't recall a single scenario of a woman throwing themself at a guy who is wealthy. Now chads? Absolutely, all the time.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 05:55 AM
6

I make 7 figures including my investment income and it has literally zero bearing on getting women into you unless you're paying them.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 05:53 AM
3

Lol no one is fighting over rich men. You're thinking of chads in college or in their 20s who sleep with multiple attractive women weekly. If a rich guy (who is likely married) is sleeping with multiple women routinely, they're sugar babies or escorts.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 05:52 AM
–

Certainly lengthy in the context of someone who is pretending they don't care about the content of my post.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 05:50 AM
1

I can give my opinion if I feel like it. You clearly care a lot given your lengthy reply lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 02:45 AM
1

Semantics. The reality is that physical attraction is driven by facial aesthetics.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 02:35 AM
1

I just think we need to be more honest in that facial aesthetics are by far the most important thing for men and everything else is just a distraction.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 02:21 AM
3

It's important to clarify what looks even means. People throw the term looks out there and then talk about a 6 pack. Looks just means facial aesthetics.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 02:18 AM
0

The 666 thing is just nonsense. A 7/10 face and ideal personality traits is like 95% of dating. Having a good job and being tall doesn't really enhance you much. It's more that you get disqualified for not having a good job or being too short.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 02:17 AM
2

I know lots of guys who fit the whole 666 bill. Heck I'm almost 6 feet tall and I'd fit it. News flash, it doesn't matter. It's about your face and charisma/personality traits.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 02:15 AM
3

More like it's about facial aesthetics and personality chemistry. The 666 thing is nonsense except maybe the height portion.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 02:14 AM
2

The whole 6 figures 6 feet thing or whatever needs to go. It's more like, 7/10 and funny.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 02:07 AM
3

You won't and some women won't. But by and large, they get plenty of female attention.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 02:06 AM
3

Honestly very attractive guys get approached a lot more than average women. Guys who are otherwise conventionally good looking get approached a fair bit.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 02:06 AM
5

Hotter men routinely get approached.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 02:06 AM
1

I find many women do approach, it's just more subtle. It can be as simple as sending something on Instagram or opening a conversation. But women certainly approach men they like.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 02:05 AM
–

You're right to an extent but you need to remember that certain types of status literally brings you an aura of attractiveness. If you're an NFL star, you literally become more physically attractive in the eyes of some women. Being 6'5 and muscular also adds to the equation. I mean what, do you think a guy who is shorter and not muscular is somehow more attractive body/frame wise? Many of these guys are also above average face wise, due to many years of being an athlete growing up. Personality i…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/25 02:02 AM
1

Even then women are often honest if you're friends with them. But group-think talk and society certainly have lied.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/25 06:08 PM
–

Getting into the local high school team doesn't give you status with girls. It might help you if you're already good looking and tall. There are plenty of athletes in those situations who get ignored by women.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/25 05:26 PM
3

It's the exact same. Actually sometimes "couples" outside turn out to not be couples. Especially when they're not looks matched. Social media at least tells you the full truth in that context.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/25 05:23 PM
–

Not really. It's about who is attractive to the majority of the opposite sex. It doesn't mean they'll all be into you but the majority of men/women can acknowledge a guy or woman who is good looking or unattractive or generic average looking. You're talking about types. But type and body type is honestly down the list. 6 pack or not, it's the face that largely determines things. Niche looks don't really count and are a whole other topic. No one is a 9 to some and a 4 to others. It's what people …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/25 06:58 AM
1

I agree but keep in mind for some of those things, they're genuinely a lot more attractive. Example is due to being a pro athlete. A lot of women are very much into the aura of a pro athlete. Also, even if they're very average looking, these guys are generally very tall and muscular. I don't think women get with these guys just for the status reason. I think they genuinely like them. You're right that if someone likes you for status then it's not great for the reason you describe. But outside of…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/25 06:51 AM
1

Look at it as average looking, unattractive, attractive. Your level is just where you fall and who you're able to attract and what most people would agree on.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/25 05:47 AM
2

I'm not really sure what your story is here. What kind of power? Physical power? If so, strength athletes should be sex symbols. But they are absolutely not. Societal power? I think the #metoo movement showed us how many women were turned off by advanced from older men in power.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/25 04:40 AM
3

Physical fitness can absolutely move a guy 3 points. Going from severely obese to lean and ripped alone can do that. That type of weight loss can fundamentally change your face as well. Sure but how many guys are severely obese and become ripped? That's just extreme comparisons. How many guys are average looking without any major flaws? That should be your starting point. A 5/10 guy in okay shape becoming ripped makes him maybeee a 6/10 at the most. That's a big maybe and even then you better ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/25 03:42 AM
4

There's no way a 3 becomes a 6 unless he had major flaws with his face that were fixable. You're right about the second part for sure. But a big part of that is because men get sold a lie that "looks don't matter" at a young age. Just like people get sold the lie that "everyone is smart" or that "everyone is attractive in their own way." These neutral statements create false expectations. Eventually reality hits and people get pissed off. Think about it, no one is truly pissed off that they didn…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/25 03:07 AM
1

What exactly is confidence then? Happy to break down the areas of the brain that would contribute to confidence then we can discuss how those parts of the brain develop. Personality is a combination of genetics and nurture but the nurture element happens during an early age. You don't wake up at the age of 20 and go from introvert to a comedian and charismatic public speaker. Lots of politicians and business leaders go many years in their field and still remain as subpar awkward public speakers.…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/25 01:33 AM
6

Being picky is also a byproduct of group think, societal standards, social media, constant exposure to attractive people. You can convince yourself that you should have a prettier partner and hence become literally more picky. It doesn't mean you aren't attracted to your own level though. It just means you disregard your own level, who you don't mind, and go for better and better. That's being picky.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/25 01:08 AM
7

If that there were, bodybuilder incels wouldn't exist. But wait, guys who lift actually make up a big chunk of the incel community. You can't improve your looks several points. That means you can become a male model just by getting muscular.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 11:39 PM
3

The genetics of human personality - PMC
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 11:38 PM
2

yeah, I'm just having a conversation and clarifying my opinion. I have no reason to doubt what you're saying, but I'm amazed that's your experience. I have a lot of doctors and people in the medical field in my family and my wife's family, and I've heard lots of stories of doctors sleeping with the nurses from reliable sources. Of course. I've been that guy many manyy times. But that's just an avenue of how people meet and hook up or date. Same rules apply, you're not hooking up with the hottest…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 07:33 PM
1

How do you know those guys are attractive? Going from average to average isn't being attractive. Yes you need to interact but a lot of guys can go through dozens of rejections after doing lots of interactions too.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 07:30 PM
3

I'm not sure how or why couples on social media are any different than one you'd see at a restaurant. If I ever see a looksmismatched couple, it's the guy who is better looking.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 07:19 PM
1

If that was even a tiny bit true, none of these subreddits would even exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 07:17 PM
3

I've been to 28 countries, I've worked in several states/large hospital systems and I even bounced at 4 different clubs. I've seen the full social scene everywhere. Social media just gives you a rapid access.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 07:09 PM
4

Well I already agreed with you that fixing a big flaw can boost you a lot, didn't I? A lot of guys don't have big flaws though. Many guys, especially ones who frequent these subreddits, are around average range and already workout and are not obese. If you don't have a big flaw, and you're a 5/10, there isn't much room for improvement. That's great you're a lawyer. As a doctor I'm skeptical about anyone who claims their job helps them sleep with women. I was 20 years old and could get dates ever…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 07:08 PM
2

Scroll on Instagram and you find single a single looks-mismatched couple.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 07:03 PM
4

I wouldn't even say ugly man honestly. Replace with average looking guy and he still gets zero attention in person and near zero matches. I've never known an attractive woman that thought looks weren't by far number one.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 07:02 PM
4

Attractive women exclusively go for attractive men. Average goes for average. If the guy is ugly and dating, he's dating at his own level. Not sure in what country this fantasy of ugly guys picking up models is happening.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 07:00 PM
2

Looks are by far the most important thing if the woman is also attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:59 PM
3

I honestly don't get it. Anyone who has been out to the mall, the club/bar, the gym.. Heck even scroll on Instagram. Where does anyone ever see a couple where the guy is not at least as good looking as the woman ? Honestly whenever I see the very attractive women, I'm surprised when the guy is even better looking somehow. Sometimes they're tall, sometimes they're 5'8. Skinny, muscular, dadbod. 50k/year or in school or 80k/year. It never matters. Those are little details and irrelevant once there…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:57 PM
1

Quite literally 100% of the time unless the guy is paying her. I've never seen a normal couple that's looks mismatched unless the guy is better looking. That I do see actually sometimes. I'm the millionaire guy myself, though very marginally above average perhaps. I'm a specialist physician and not a banker. Trust me, it has zero effect on your dating prospects. I can go out with average looking women everyday. But zero success with the hot ones, who do in fact always go for the lower earning co…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:51 PM
2

Well in the context of becoming more attractive than average, yeah you need top notch social skills.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:48 PM
5

Yeah but you don't progress away from social anxiety and become a charismatic funny guy. Usually it's just progressing towards the average in society. Lack of an issue (social anxiety) isn't an enhancer. It just prevents you from getting disqualified in the game.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:26 PM
2

A lot of nurture is just early age interactions. Hardly any different than genetic factors.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:25 PM
2

So, you've recognized there are things you can change that affect attractiveness. If you acknowledge that, I'm surprised you would say that "The end point is that things that make you attractive are genetic and out of your control." Whether genetic or nurture from a young age, it's still not in your control. You can't change your league. I would argue that, most people, are genetically somewhere in the middle for attractiveness, and the distribution is much more of a bell-curve than a linear pro…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:24 PM
17

Nurture plays a big role yes. But it's still out of your control. The nurturing is done by others at an early age. Overarching point is that it's out of your control. For men, there's truly very little you can do to improve yourself in the dating market since all desirable traits are pre determined. Whether genetic or nurture at age 5, same thing. Not in your control. Now fixing flaws, that's different. But I don't think we're talking about fixing big flaws.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:16 PM
9

Yes to a significant extent it is genetic but you're right that the nurture aspect plays a big role too for personality. Does it make a difference though? Nurture in this context only applies in the early years of life. Either way, it's not the person's choice. By the time their personality has shaped up, there's very little you can do to change it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:14 PM
6

I think the main argument is whether or not the important traits are genetic. You can debate until the end of time if face or personality matter and how much. In the end, does it matter? Whether it's height or charisma or good looks, it's all down to the genes. We can all name examples of where "hard work" improved someone in these categories. But I think that's forgetting that the person's potential was determined by their genetics.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 05:38 PM
37

Honestly things like this don't even matter. The end point is that things that make you attractive are genetic and out of your control. Face, height, frame. All genetic and hence women care a lot about it. Charisma and confidence. To the extent that it matters, it's also genetic. Personality features are just a byproduct of neurobiology. Things that are not genetic as much: muscles, pick up artist game, money. That's why we see more and more incels who have worked on "their game" or gotten jacke…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 05:31 PM
1

No one said they don't care about your body. But there's a reason incel communities are full of guys who are recreational bodybuilders. Your body and muscles make up a small percentage of your attraction. Obsessing over the 10%, doesn't move things much when the other 90% is your face. That's why a lot of bodybuilder types discretely hook up with overweight women, and sometimes date below their league.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 05:27 PM
1

How does a kid decide to become cool and popular? Sounds like deciding to grow taller. It's not something you can choose.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 05:25 PM
0

Doesn't count if you've paid for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:48 AM
1

For one, why use Mcdonalds as an example? Lets avoid using these examples where the idea is to make a guy look like a complete loser. Just stick to average. Two, how do you even know the guy works at Mcdonalds? If a guy is tall and good looking, he can literally lie about his job if the goal is a hook up.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:23 AM
1

You misunderstood. Those women aren't doctors, I was referring to non-physician women in the clinical setting. Yeah most people pair up with those in their socioeconomic class and also looks level. A lot of women do actually date down a bit, that part is not true. I've literally known hundreds of female doctors.... And no raising your social status doesn't actually expand your dating pool. As you exit your 20s, your dating pool shrinks rapidly as people date/get engaged/get married. Only 10-15% …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:21 AM
1

I certainly agree with your post here. But that's overall just an avenue to meet your looks match. Not something that lets you date above your looks match.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:16 AM
1

Dude I bounced at 4 different popular clubs. The hotter women were absolutely not going home with bartenders/promoters/bouncers aside from a couple I recall who were known escorts. We had good looking bartenders and they certainly did. Lots of okay/average looking women who were otherwise going home with these guys routinely. Same outcome as swiping on Tinder at the end of the day.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:14 AM
5

Those niches require unique talents. It's genuinely not possible for most people to get in front of a camera and put up content that millions of people enjoy watching.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:12 AM
2

Because there sort of isn't. You're describing hobbies and natural chemistry between 2 people.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:10 AM
0

Not to mention it's far more likely you're a good looking tall guy than a popular DJ.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:09 AM
1

It takes a certain level of emotional intelligence and innate social skills , as well as luck, to get into that position. Being the "cool kid" or "popular kid" in class was never a choice. You either had the ability to be likeable or you didn't. It's not like something you could train for. It's not that I'm disagreeing with you. Yes that guy would do just fine. But truth is there's 1 of that guy and 10 Chads. It's far more likely to be a conventionally good looking tall guy than to be the popula…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:08 AM
1

Yeah but all things are not equal. Attraction is never equal. Women will always go for the guy they find more attractive, even if they're 40 years old and in need of resources. That's the real "pill" a lot of guys are unwilling to accept. Maybe the doctor is conventionally good looking in which case it's an easy outcome. Maybe the trades guy is an 8/10, so it's not even a close choice even if he makes 1/10th the income.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:05 AM
1

You call it social status. I call it socializing.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:01 AM
1

Few realities to keep in mind. - The bartender/promoter are often above-average in looks - Bartenders/promoters are often quite social and have good social skills Now to your point, it's not really status but rather that their position forces them to have high contact with everyone. No one else in the bar can interact with all of the people in the bar like the bartender. That's who gives you your drink. Even the chads in the club can't come a fraction as close to that much interaction. Lastly, t…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 06:00 AM
1

I don't disagree but you can achieve the same outcome by just being a bit social periodically and also using dating apps. You're saying that pursuing something gives you a chance to meet people. Well that's true if you write a book, play a sport, go to the bar or do whatever else.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 05:54 AM
1

Standing out doesn't mean women who are better looking than you, will like you. Almost always, when I find a guy who is super impressive, he's actually impressing other men. Most women don't care. If he's handsome, they'll say that and then they'll care. A lot of this is also moving goal posts. The pill/pick up artist talking point several years ago was that if you've got a solid career making 250-300,000$ a year then you're top notch and all set. Then the numbers moved up and doubled. Now that …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 03:20 AM
2

Like what? Are you trying to say the average guy can work to become a star quarterback or an NBA star? I mean you cannot be seriously suggesting that lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 03:16 AM
1

I know that and I was replying to that person's post. I don't disagree with you that certain niche social status positions change the dynamic. But those niche positions are tied to novel genetic talents anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 03:15 AM
1

That's what harder nowadays. Attracting your equal takes more work than it used to for average men. We know that via numerous statistics showing there are more and more single men, and less and less people having sex. This is a validated trend in western society. In the 80s/90s, if you were well rounded and brought a lot to the table, you were attractive to women who were a bit better looking than yourself. Not saying huge gaps in looks but a successful rich guy who was a 6/10 would easily be bo…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 03:14 AM
0

Like what? And this niche social status, developed solely through work (and not genetic talent), directly made them attractive out of their league?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 03:11 AM
5

Admiring something doesn't mean you're into them sexually and romantically. Lots of doctors in my work place are very well respected and do some incredibly innovative work. I can tell you for a fact that the women in my 3 hospital settings find the various work very impressive. I also can tell you for a fact that there is zero sexual or romantic attraction tied to that admiration. Is your point that people can use status to date within their league? If so, well that's just being social and doing…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 03:10 AM
2

So using the free version of the app as a guy actually does make it rigged against you to some extent. But yeah your overall point is correct. The real world and dating apps are very similar. If anything apps can help boost some people. You can use certain pictures and have an impressive bio whereas in real life you may be less attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 03:04 AM
9

Overpopulation is happening in 3rd world countries and in the low socioeconomic classes. The exact opposite (staying single) is happening in Western nations and higher socioeconomic classes. Attractive people certainly are not having lots of kids. They barely even have one kid.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 03:04 AM
2

Getting the kind of status that attracts women is impossible to work towards. You're either exceptionally talented or you're not. You cannot work to become an NBA star.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 03:02 AM
1

Well by definition yeah, realistic options are who is actually attracted to you. Though there is a grey area. Some guys are just barely attractive enough to get the attention of some better looking women. Usually ones in the 5-6/10 range. But once the date happens, it all falls apart. But being a 7/10 today is harder than it was, lets say 30-40 years ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 03:00 AM
4

In other words, things you can't actually work to acquire. You can't wake up and work to become an influencer or popular athlete or popular musician. Everyone knows celebrities get a boost in attractiveness. It happens on the women's side too. But why is this topic even relevant? >99% of men can't acquire that kind of status ever. It's solely tied to genetics, much like the guy's face and height ;) It's almost as if genetics are the sole determining factor in men's dating market value.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 02:58 AM
0

Honestly you don't need to use such an extreme example. Give your senior banker guy an average face, in shape and full head of hair and a raise to 1 million. He still loses to the 6'2 handsome guy making 60k a guy, every time. Heck even if the first guy is marginally above average looking, he still can't compete with a tall attractive guy. Now the first guy will still easily get married to someone on his own level. But if we're talking about attractive women, it's not even a close comparison.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 02:56 AM
1

High socioeconomic status has very little impact on your dating prospects. In most cases anyway. I'm in the upper class and for every guy I know who dates someone slightly out of his league looks wise, there are 20 other guys working hard just to get a date with someone who is average looking and even going below their own level.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 02:51 AM
5

The guitar / band example comes up a lot but people forget that most of those hook ups are still looks matched. I know numerous guys in bands and the majority aren't getting laid like crazy at all. It's the few who are above average in looks. But it's easy to see 2-3 guys and project it onto everyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 02:49 AM
6

I'm telling you from personal experience that is not true until you get to the very high end levels which is <0.1% of men. You mention celebrities so that is true. But if you're saying non celebrities (outside of niches) can do the same thing, that's false.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 02:48 AM
5

Honestly status talk among guys is mental masturbation. This is just projecting what men like onto other men. Men admire muscular men, so they assume women care equally about it when it's just a nice bonus. Men admire super rich men so they assume women (who have their own job and nice car) care equally about it when it's a bonus. Certain things like being a pro athlete do actually move the attraction meter for women but keep in mind 2 things: - Being a real pro athlete is exceptionally rare - T…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 02:46 AM
2

I think this is very accurate. I think many things we talk about (6 feet tall, 6 figures) are often used as a proxy for status, but I think status is really what is important there. I think status is as important as looks, although I think they are separate variables. Name some examples of status? I'm a specialist physician and I assure you it's had minimal impact on my dating prospects. my general evidence for this is anyone who has ever played sports in school, high school or college, knows th…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 02:43 AM
1

Status is not relevant for like 99% of men. Your guitar player is in a niche and even then it's not the majority of artists who are sleeping with lots of women. It's a smaller subset. You also can't really acquire the types of status that attract others. It's tied to niche talents. Also many guys in specific status positions are still good looking. Your college football player who is also conventionally attracted gets lots of female attention but people ignore the looks part and just solely cred…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 02:40 AM
0

But that's irrelevant for the discussion at hand. The real question is how many ONSs/FWBS/girlfriends a guy has who he is genuinely attracted to, who were also attracted back to him. That number is actually quite small even for guys in the 5-6/10 range. The part about attracted back excludes anyone you had to pay for.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/25 02:34 AM
0

Not really. Because that's saying that a guy who is a 3/10 but had sex with 100 escorts is very appealing somehow.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/25 05:29 PM
2

Looks do matter, and men who genuinely believe(d) that they don't have to be blind or socially inept. That being said, the vast majority of women I've met want someone not unattractive. Well that's just semantics. You have to feel attracted which is never logical or a formula. Attractiveness varies. I, for example, like women with visible muscle mass. I have friends who like more lean, thin women. Similarly, I know women who like big muscular, rugby player types. I also know women who like tall,…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/25 05:25 PM
1

Can you explain more?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/25 05:21 PM
2

Well yeah exactly. But things have shifted the past 1-2 decades.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/25 05:23 AM
1

If average looking guys met the looks threshold to date much hotter women, none of these subreddits would even exist. Or do you mean they meet the threshold for women in their own league?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/25 02:16 AM
2

Hot take, dating apps were actually decent when Tinder first came out.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/25 01:22 AM
2

Because there's no other option.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/25 01:21 AM
-3

All the pills/pick up artists promise that just 2 pick up lines and confidence take an average guy to being sexy. So while you're right, that's not what's promised to men. A lot of guys also grow up being told that looks don't matter for men. But I genuinely think that everyone realizes deep down how important looks are when girls have a crush on the same couple guys in class. We see 80/20 in process growing up. Then guys are promised that studying hard and getting a good job is how they'll make…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/25 01:20 AM
2

I disagree. Males and females are fundamentally different in how they perceive the opposite sex. Not really. Step 1 is physical attraction. Status and Money to a girl is like a nice ass to a guy. Not enough if everything else is raggedy. But can make a massive difference if everything else is adequate. Well everything else being adequate is still a big road block for many guys. Meeting the looks threshold she wants is very difficult if she's attractive herself. This is just simple evolutionary p…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/25 01:14 AM
0

I really don't understand your point. Musk having 14 children doesn't mean a whole lot. A lot of men in lower socioeconomic status have tons of kids. Bezos and Zuck are with their looks match, so what? Bezos is even fairly muscular now and lean. Women DO GET HORNY for their boyfriend. They may not masturbate to Jeff Bezos pictures. Because that would just be hilarious. But they will often give a guy with money and status a relationship. At which point he will make them horny and they will want t…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/25 01:08 AM
2

I think at least pointing out that standards have changed is helpful to settle confusion. To your point about leveling up... well you sort of can't. You can't level up your looks as a man unless you have a major fixable flaw.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/25 01:02 AM
6

You want the real answer or the "you got this bro" answer? All of that combined might move the needle slightly. That's it. Look up Dr Mike. He's a family doctor in the New York/New Jersey area, you may know him. He literally got famous for being hot. Being a doctor gave him some sort of identity that he could use as the "hot doctor." He's a sex symbol and women drool over him and you could say he's got crazy high SMV/LMS , whatever you want to call it. But his looks are literally why he's in tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/25 01:01 AM
3

Problem is unless I saw what you actually look like and what these women look like, this is all just random talk and opinion based. I'm not asking to see you either, I'm just stating a lot of this is meaningless talk. You're either above average and succeeding with women who are average to above average or average looking and able to succeed with average looking women due to good personality traits. Nothing shocking in any way.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/25 12:54 AM
1

Yeah but over time things even out roughly.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/25 12:51 AM
2

Yeah that's generally true but things eventually even out over time.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/25 12:50 AM
5

Your study is why Bezos and Zuckerberg are sex symbols, right? The richest men list is who women in their 20s drool over? /s Dude rich guys are on sugar daddy sites and pay for escorts. If they were genuinely viewed as being hot because of their 8 figure net worth, they wouldn't need to do that. and.. None of them are incels. But this is not about finding a partner but rather about going from average-mediocre in the dating pool to broadly appealing.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 07:56 PM
1

Maybe it doesn't change things much to you. But it does very often massively change things for a lot of guys. How? Examples? If you're already good looking. Being a doctor won't make much of a difference beyond having access to higher quality women (doctors and nurses). But having access to people doesn't require medical school. You can find doctors and nurse on tinder. All the attractive nurses I know are with cops, firefighters, paramedics, other nurses. The large majority of women don't care …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 07:51 PM
2

They aren't upper class, they're middle class. At least the ones I'm referring to. Socially a lot of the upper class people blend in with middle class until you get to the top <0.1%. Within the upper class, not exactly many single women around anyway. I can attest to that.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 07:48 PM
3

Across the 3 hospitals I work at which spans over 1000 beds, I know maybe 3 doctors who get that kind of attention and it's not "throwing themselves" rather just having an easier time getting a date. I'm sorry but your anecdote of 1 isn't really evidence compared to the thousands of doctors I've known. But yeah you say decent looking, that probably is top <10% of looks for men in your eyes. Becoming decent looking is not even possible for most men. It's entirely genetic and facial bone structure…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 07:44 PM
1

Why is it hard to believe? These particular folks are physicians. Same for the ones in their 30s, though maybe a bit less wealthy of course but still dating in their age group. You find it hard to believe but how many upper class people do you routinely interact with? Like no offense at all, but I'm describing just how reality is. Sometimes exceptions happen but those are mostly the very good looking ones or the highly charismatic ones.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 07:40 PM
2

Yeah sure. My point is that Sanchez is most likely actually into him physically and as a person. On the contrary, a 35 year old actress is unlikely to be into someone like Bezos. Also using the LMS/SMV logic, Bezos should be a sex symbol.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 06:47 PM
3

Sounds like making excuses for the woman not actually liking the man sexually lol. I know plenty of people who sexually like each other after 15 years. Doesn't mean it's like a on-fire hook up on date 1, but it's still there to some extent.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 06:44 PM
5

And you don't think that's an issue? It's unfair to the guy, first of all. It's also sexually unfulfilling for the woman too. A guy can either find someone who desires him instead or at least pay for services with escorts or sugar babies in a different fashion if that suits him versus the provider role.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 06:27 PM
4

Yeah but very people have relevant social status. I'm telling you as a doctor, it doesn't change things much. There's niche status (ex. rock band) and there's truly elite status (ex. professional athlete). What sort of social status are you referring to?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 06:25 PM
5

You won't even get to the topic of politics or veganism if there's no attraction to begin with. That's my point. You're jumping to the job phase and forgetting you need to get the interview first.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 06:12 PM
3

Again, whether expectations are "realistic" or not is irrelevant. It's usually a code for "expectation I like/includes me" vs "expectation I dislike/excludes me". Depends how you look at it. Standards have gone up in the past 10-20 years and it's way harder for men that it used to. It's fair to criticize the social media era for that. And it's like proceeding to complain about that job and plead for them to accept you instead of just accepting they don't want you and moving on to another posting…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 06:05 PM
13

There's no list where you add things up and it = "yep he's in!" Attraction just happens as a byproduct of visual/physical appearance + body language and interactions/chemistry. After attraction is established, then there's a list of things that can disqualify you. This is the part people get confused at. Maybe someone wants a guy with a good job and income and also to have certain hobbies. The crucial piece here is that those "requirements" do not make someone appealing. They disqualify you only…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 06:02 PM
4

Truthfully I don't see men having unrealistic expectations at all. Maybe pick up artists or Pill people teach that you can get 10/10s daily if you're just a confident 4/10 guy. But I don't know anyone in the real world who believes that for a second. A lot of frustration nowadays is that there are realistic expectations and people are still failing. It's like applying to a half decent job with a graduate degree and still not getting in despite no red flags or other issues.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 05:58 PM
5

I work with a lot of rich men who aren't short who can only date single moms in their 40s. Heck even Bezos is marrying a woman in her 50s with kids from multiple prior partners. My point is you cannot improve your dating market status unless you can somehow make big physical changes (plastic surgery, losing large amounts of body fat).
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 05:52 PM
10

Looksmatch is not some prescriptive term or a formula. It's descriptive. So yeah you're right about that but it's not made up. It just describes the outcome. I don't think unfairness is the right term. But there has been a shift in standards in the social media era.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 05:49 PM
28

I think a lot of frustration comes from expectations not meeting the outcome. But I think you're saying that men should lower their expectations? I don't know any guys who are 5'6 balding and not attractive with below average jobs who want a super hot woman. Never met any, ever. So lets move on from that. Most frustration in 2025 comes from how difficult it has gotten for average men to pair up with their looks match. Some do fine but many do struggle. You say to research what the market wants. …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 05:41 PM
-1

Men also see escorts and go below their league.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 05:16 PM
0

- men lie about their numbers and inflate - men see escorts, a lot - men go way below their own league all the time Hence why we have those percentages. The number of men getting laid with women they're attracted to who they didn't pay for, is quite small actually.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 05:16 PM
2

What happens when you don't get approached? You're basically comparing someone who is chronically unemployed to someone who can't keep a job.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 08:51 AM
1

I get all that and I knew that's what you're implying. The context is key. It's quite rare to have any resources or whatever before age 30 nowadays, even realistically age 40. But even by age 30, you're surrounded by women who either are not single or have kids. The single 23 year olds are primarily into the 25 year old chad. Your dating pool rapidly shrinks as you exit your 20s. The issue with your SMV peak concept is that it implies you can compensate for lack of physical attraction. You canno…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 07:45 AM
3

If you're 6.5 face wise, you aren't the average Joe.... It's quite difficult to be a 6.5 as a guy and if you are on that level then yes decent looking women will be interested over time if you have robust social skills.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 05:12 AM
1

Some women don't do hook ups. That's why. Also more and more staying single by choice. Plus lots of taken men in the dating pool too and some of these guys are good looking and taking the single women.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 05:10 AM
3

The standards aren't lower. They're the same. Women aren't magically enjoying sex with a guy they aren't attracted to just because it's a LTR.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 05:06 AM
1

Apps and IRL approaching yield similar outcomes though. If you're extroverted and have a top notch personality then yeah you'd do better IRL. But most guys aren't that extroverted.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 03:28 AM
1

Good luck with that as a guy if you're in a professional field. 1 or 2 rejections where the word gets out will quickly earn you a reputation.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 03:27 AM
1

Well we know for a fact that there are more and more single men and the number keeps climbing. That's a statistical fact. Maybe your statement is better phrased as how many rejections can a guy endure?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 03:26 AM
1

You're just talking about the group of annoying men. In general, all cold approaching is vilified. Women usually make it known they're interested.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 03:25 AM
1

That actually isn't true. Do you have a lot of women friends? I've had many over the years and yes they do ridicule a lot of men who approach. Approaching is not a low risk venture if you aren't hot yourself. You're only lucky if it's a pub where you won't see them again.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 03:23 AM
2

That's like when someone starts a business with the sole idea that the market size is 100 billion dollars and just get 1% of the market share = billionaire. Not how things play out in real life. Zero from zero is zero.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 03:20 AM
1

For men, you can't really put effort into your looks. All the grooming, botox, clothes and haircuts in the world will move you up by 0.5. Maybe. Often zero points. Yes someone will find you attractive eventually. But you're talking about cold approaching. The odds of approaching someone who is single and into you, is not high.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 03:18 AM
1

Yes it's mostly your face and then your height and then your frame/clothing/body to smaller extents.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 03:15 AM
1

I disagree OP. As someone who is exceptionally well off financially, I can go wherever I want for any date and not even notice it in my credit card. And I have done just that. The end result is it has no impact. Yeah sure some women may go out with a guy for a free dinner but it's quite uncommon in the context you're saying. I've done the mixture of very expensive and cheap/free dates and all in all noticed no difference at all. I've had women insist on splitting the bill who were also clearly n…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 03:12 AM
4

I definitely disagree with that. Plenty of decent empathetic men out there too who get ignored.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 03:08 AM
–

It's an easy market for him. Just find frustrated guys who get ignored by girls.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 03:07 AM
3

So what?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 02:58 AM
6

Precisely.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 02:27 AM
3

Nah… I’m attractive and not confident 💪 No offense, since I have zero clue what you look like, but how do you know this? Boiling so much down to looks is just the brains autopilot/laziness to remove nuance and particularly to avoid accountability for people, men in this example, to kick the can down the road in addressing meaningful inner psychological/emotional/behavioral issues that manifest in feelings of inferiority and despair. Whole lot of words to say, looks don't matter to you? How do yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 02:23 AM
7

Right. You don't become confident with women if you're constantly rejected growing up.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 02:15 AM
3

Yes I could see that. My friends certainly could as well. Everyone I also talk to knows that. But lets not pretend a big chunk of society pretends that a 4-5/10 guy can "get all the women" just by being "confident." You also mention ugly men? Small? Why? I never understand the extremes. Lets move it to average looking men who aren't short and not awkward. The outcome is the same. No amount of confidence or money takes that guy to a sex symbol with women.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 02:14 AM
5

I agree with the other poster. It's not honest at all to say that. Certainly my female friends are very honest about this but online? Not at all. Many women also aren't honest about it. The talking point around personality (or anything that isn't looks) is that you can compensate directly for the lack of looks. It means you go from unattractive to attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 02:11 AM
8

People will talk all day about money and confidence and personality and whatever they like. It only ever applies to people they're already attracted to first.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 02:09 AM
4

Strongly disagree. If you're Brad Pitt hot, you literally get approached by women nonstop. Yeah yeah, "don't believe your lying eyes" is what some people will try and say. Truth is the top <5% of men looks wise have their pick of the prettiest women.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 02:08 AM
1

How is that a "peak" though? A peak at what? That's what I don't understand. You don't peak career or money wise in your 30s, except in my field ironically (medicine). Most peoples' looks (men and women) peaks in their 20s. Unless you had major issues in your 20s that you later fixed, your 30s won't be a peak. Your skin ages and wrinkles, your hair gets thinners, your eyes get more sunken in. Unless someone was genuinely overweight in their 20s or had some big flaw they fixed, then you actually …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/25 02:05 AM
2

I see why you put blue pill as your thing, even as someone who hates all the pills. lol. Again, I'm telling you as someone who went from having a crappy car to very successful, 300,000$ in cars alone and quite wealthy , there were zero changes in my dating prospects. I've always been in excellent shape and could go out with average looking women all day everyday. It was the case when I was 20 and same case now. Moving the success meter to upper class and staying exceptionally fit changes very li…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/25 05:24 PM
0

I'm guessing you don't know many rich guys or good looking ones in their 30s.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/25 03:44 AM
1

I thought that's when men peak and all 24 year old women are fighting for those guys? /s
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/25 03:43 AM
1

Did you miss the part where the men are good looking AND rich? Why is a 37 year old attractive wealthy guy going for a single mom in her 30s? Scale it down. If the guy was average looking, he'd be going for the average looking single mom too.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/25 02:29 AM
3

Dating doesn't get easier for most men in their 30s. That's mathematically impossible. There are less single people in your age group, it's harder to meet women than your 20s, you're filtered out on all dating apps. I know you're going to say that all 22 year olds secretly want 35 year old men, which is blatantly false. A small subset might yes but the large majority do not. When I was 20, I drove a crappy car and couldn't afford any nice dates and I had zero issues with dating average looking w…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/25 02:25 AM
1

I would maybee agree with you if you said mid 50s and even that's a stretch. You cannot be serious with mid 30s? The attractive mid 30s women I know with multiple kids get hit on nonstop by good looking rich men. In fact that's who most wealthier guys I know in their 30s-40s date and marry.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/25 02:19 AM
2

Degrees and getting rich will maybe add 0.5 points to your rating. I'm telling you as a high paid professional and investor, that most men in good paying roles are not dating anyone who is better looking than them. Height is a bit of a factor too, yes. But you can have all the degrees you like. I have an MD, perhaps the "best" degree you can have. The large majority of women could not care less. The more successful you are, the more you impress other men. Women are interested in what you bring t…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/25 02:14 AM
1

You need to keep in mind who says these things. Guys without a real career or a good job will say they don't care. That's because they literally cannot care. Reality is men and women care about equally.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/25 02:11 AM
0

It kind of isn't, you're right. Usually anyway. If you're in the top <0.1% of society (ex. professional athlete) then yes you do indeed have real standout SMV. After that, it's just looks mainly.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/25 02:10 AM
-1

Men peak at 70 bro
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/25 02:08 AM
-1

What wall? A early 50s woman who has a decent looking face can hook up with chads all the time.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/25 02:06 AM
6

No OP. Your post is completely incorrect. I always did okay with women who were average looking and after becoming a doctor and also becoming quite wealthy my dating prospects were identical to before. Being in my 30s, my dating pool is mostly single moms and women in their 30s or maybe a little bit younger. Nothing wrong with that but I was attracting similar looking women when I was also 20 and not rich.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/25 02:04 AM
1

You mean, a sugar daddy? That's been a thing for a long time and of course still is. That's not the same world as being an average looking guy and having very attractive women desiring you.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/25 01:27 AM
1

I can and do hold it against them when they continue to pour effort into a failed opportunity instead of pursuing new ones or self-improving in the areas that matter, and then whine about their failure. I don't really disagree but my point is that people are biologically wired to try and pursue very limited opportunities. Getting attention once a year makes it hard to walk away. Also, "attraction" is much more than immutable looks. If a guy is unattractive, and doesn't give her the tingles, ther…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 07:16 PM
1

They're not subjective at all. The whole point is that most people would have to agree. No it's not unanimous, but most would have to agree. Individual opinion isn't really relevant. So you saying that you've seen attractive women being into average looking guys. That means most men would have to fully agree that the woman you're talking about is obviously attractive and the guy you're talking about would have to be truly average in women's eyes. Also, keep in mind some men-women in public are: …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 07:48 AM
4

Sure but it doesn't change the point much. It's literally harder to be appealing as a guy.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 06:32 AM
4

There's more nuance though and it's not a black and white situation. In the 1970s, if a guy had a good job with a nice home and nice car and was well rounded financially among other things, it quite literally gave a boost to his attraction because those things were very important for a man in that era. Keep in mind looks still mattered back then too for men. In today's age, not having your own place and being established can be a quick disqualifier. But all of those things combined don't make a …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 03:10 AM
9

As I posted in another thread, after becoming a doctor and also becoming wealthy, my dating prospects did not change one bit. I still date average looking smarter women with no issues, but I did that when I was 21 as well. But to your point, I'll tell you something interesting. If I try to flirt or interact with a woman who is a cashier or waitress or working a minimum wage job even in my field, I get zero interest if she's obviously attractive. Which proves the point that you cannot compensate …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 03:03 AM
5

Leftism is as anti-male as it gets. Being a provider is also a complete myth in today's age. This ain't the 50s or 60s anymore. Women have their own jobs and increasingly outearn men, especially under age 35. You do not become attractive by being a provider or even by being rich. Unless you can explain to me how someone is physically hotter by being rich.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 03:00 AM
3

Women out earn men under age 35 now and the trend and age continues to go up. There is no inequality or lack of workplace opportunity.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 02:58 AM
2

Absolute nonsense. Economic structures changing as you say, has absolutely nothing to do with anything here. I went from plain average income to wealthy and there was zero change in my dating prospects. Your looks and charisma determine your dating value plus disqualifiers like not being a complete bum. The rest is just nonsense to make an excuse or political argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 02:57 AM
0

Much of those are biological needs.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 02:53 AM
0

Sure. Semantics and all. But we're talking about dating life now and I cannot even conceive how anyone can think men don't have it incredibly harder.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 02:25 AM
-1

Yeah yeah first world problems... except it's actually not. Dating/mating/sex are human biological needs. It's not a luxury. Most of daily life is actually a luxury and not a biological need at all. Unlike the entire world of socializing/dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 02:23 AM
2

I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that you can't blame guys who get frustrated and find it hard to walk away when they get so few opportunities.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 02:21 AM
1

Well you're posting on a sub called purplepill debate so the content is going to be pertinent to dating/socializing.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 02:19 AM
1

Is that really what the friendzone even means? It's more a descriptive term of two people getting along where the guy thinks they'll be dating and the woman likes the guy's personality but isn't attracted to him.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 01:55 AM
5

You're certainly right. Problem for many guys is that they get a miniscule response from a woman twice a year and it quickly ends in the friendzone or rejection.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 01:54 AM
4

You're sort of right but there's nuance to everything. So in a lot of things you say, you're right. It's just that there are various categories in life. There's no doubt that in the social category which includes dating, that women excel and have the large advantage. But there's a lot more in life than just the social category, which are many things you point out.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/25 01:51 AM
1

You have the resources to protect and care for potential offspring. Similarly, guys look for young and attractive women because potential offspring are more likely to be healthy and she has time to produce more of them. That doesn't actually answer my question at all. I honestly can't imagine you're truly arguing that women find a rich guy physically attractive, are you? A wealthy guy who is a 5 wouldn't even get a second look from women. Ok, and? We're talking women being attracted to wealth an…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/25 05:47 PM
1

The other side does. 5 is average. 8 is very attractive. You can use words instead of numbers too.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/25 05:43 PM
1

Because you guys always pull one side down to the bottom and other side to the top. "Looks are number one for women" "Yeah well if the guy is homeless and has torn up clothing and autistic, then looks won't matter bro!" That's usually how these conversations go. Same thing about money. Suddenly the comparison is between a billionaire and a homeless guy. Generalized statements are meant to cover common cases. Guess what? Most people are employed and by definition have average incomes. If we're la…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/25 05:42 PM
1

Yes. But two specific things are that top % refers largely to looks (and social class to a small extent) & that this point alone goes against so much of the "pill" talking points that you can compensate for looks and go from a 5/10 to 9/10 with money and status or whatever.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/25 05:25 PM
1

How does wealth make you make sexually/physically desirable? I've mentioned this before but look up Mark Carney , the new Canadian prime minister. He's very wealthy and super successful but better looking than his wife. Even move to the most extreme example, Bezos. His current partner looks the same as his ex wife. Zuckerberg? Any multi millionaire CEOs? Noneee of these people are sex symbols to women. Especially not normal attractive women in their 20s.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/25 06:33 AM
1

It's funny cause in another discussion, someone basically was implying if I can't afford to blow 100 grand in a Miami club then I'm not rich enough! I can tell you the fact remains that you're very heavily limited by looks and to a small extent "how cool" you are socially. Personally knowing similar guys, they date the same women as before they got rich. That's a huge difference than someone who gets zero dates... More attractive women will also make comments like "oh can't you have any woman yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/25 06:20 AM
1

Sure but hook up culture is still a thing and people are still dating. So yes looks matching and leagues are very real and are just observations of how people pair up. They're descriptive and not prescriptive.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/25 06:13 AM
2

It's true. You literally cannot buy attraction.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/25 06:11 AM
1

Conventionally attractive women are attracted to the top percentage of men lookswise. Everyone else scales their expectations. Look at it this way. Someone who is obviously pretty, was likely attractive in high school and college and now into their 20s. Not always firmly true but more or less it is. As a result, they had their pick of guys they liked. Growing up, these were always the good looking guys. Those expectations don't just change when you go from age 19 to 25 to 30. You may also care a…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/25 06:10 AM
1

So you're saying that wealth doesn't make you sexually desirable then? In which case you agree with me? And agreeing that being a sugar daddy is how money "helps."
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/25 06:05 AM
2

With attractive 8+/10 women that most guys would agree on, where the guy is a 5/10? No you haven't.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/25 05:57 AM
1

Not at all, I've been called "cute' "handsome" literally hundreds of times. But that just means you're okay/average tier in women's eyes and not ugly. I'm 5'10, in excellent shape (this is not an enhancer) and most certainly don't have bad hygiene. If I had autism, I wouldn't be able to date women on my own level constantly now and before I got wealthy. Gold digging is not a real thing anymore. Unless you mean sugar daddying and paying an allowance. Keep in mind I'm speaking strictly to going fo…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 08:32 PM
1

I guess I just don't see it then. Maybe post some examples? Can you name even a few public figures where it's obvious that it's a genuine relationship? I quite literally am around wealthier guys daily and I never see any looks disparity. Women caring about money doesn't mean it creates genuine physical desire for the guy. Status only does at the high end outlier levels or if it's a niche (Ex. the rock band example).
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 08:29 PM
2

Yeah but put that guy into good clothes and a nice hair cut and if he's average looking then he gets a friend zone spot.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 08:19 PM
1

It's what they can get. If you're rejected by attractive women, then you go for average looking women who are educated like yourself as the best possible outcome.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 08:18 PM
3

I can tell you as a doctor who has worked in numerous states, the pairing up with the cute nurse rarely happens because the nursing side is not interested. The doctors still want to. I know of a small handful of cases out of the thousands that I know where the guy was able to go above his league looks wise. Though these specific guys are all tall and charismatic and not unattractive either, just average looking. Aside from that, the very good looking male doctors, yes. They pair up with whoever …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 08:17 PM
2

They do and it's also about compatibility. If you're a guy in the low socioeconomic status, you'll find you largely click well with women in the same class as well. It's not even about preferences always. It's more about who you click with and have chemistry with. A (real full) professor who's a true academic mind won't exactly click with someone with no education who makes 40k/year.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 08:11 PM
2

I know what you mean as I have a lot of friends who are women. But those same guys are still looksmatched with those women. Yeah many of them have a certain look or are in some niche. But it's not like the women are going below their league.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 08:09 PM
1

So your response is "yeah well he could do it if he wanted" ? That makes zero sense. He could be a sugar daddy. Is that what you mean? I literally hang around rich guys all day everyday. There is no physical disparity. Lot of the men are in excellent shape, muscular and they're all looksmatched. People do pair up when young yes, and that does sometimes explain things. But the divorced ones don't pair up with someone much better. How about Bezos' current partner? Same attractiveness level as his …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 07:54 PM
1

For what it's worth, I do see guys without real careers do really well with women due to looks alone. They aren't bums, but certainly not doing well in any way or eventually get into a lower paying career. I do see a lot of successful guys struggle with women.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 04:26 PM
1

You're speaking in extremes. Forget ugly. Just focus on average looking. The average looking high paid CEO is not dating models. Just look up Mark Carney, new PM of Canada. He's also very rich and very successful. He's better looking than his wife. Being around very successful guys daily, a lot actually look a bit better than their partner. The rest are looksmatched. You used to get a small aura of boost in attractiveness from money and status but that's evaporated and gone in the social media e…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 04:25 PM
0

Not necessarily. Some have lots of loans, some are quite rich. It's a big range and once women find out I'm in the latter camp, the interest level never changes. I'm just telling you the general idea that you magically become appealing to women after acquiring the status/money piece is not real life.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 04:05 PM
2

Because you're using roundabout logic and examples to dance around the main point. Which is that money and status itself doesn't make a guy physically desirable as far as sex appeal goes.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 04:01 PM
1

Americans moving overseas also aren't magically attractive there either. I'm talking about actual raw physical desire. Not being a human wallet. Losing 40lbs improved your looks, so that's an easy one. And if I had a red flag, it'd affect my ability to date average women immensely.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 04:00 PM
2

I'm in the 7 figure range and make multi 6 figures from passive income alone. The issue with your statement is that if you're saying you need to be VERY rich, then how is it relevant anymore? If you need top <0.1% money, it isn't relevant to men in general any longer. You're also talking about escorting and sugar babies. But anyone can do that without flying people out. I was referring to literally becoming more attractive due to money/status itself.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 03:58 PM
2

It doesn't change after age 27. I've met 40 year olds who I'm attracted to and they still prioritize the exact same things. Attractive 40 year old women only want attractive men as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 03:56 PM
0

So many extreme examples. Why use an ugly guy as an example? Why is the hot guy below your socioeconomic status? The best example is middle class hot tall guy versus very plain average short guy who is wealthy. That's the most realistic and common example. I know numerous wealthy business owners, high end lawyers, surgeons (as I'm a doctor) and other doctors who have been rejected by middle class attractive women. Who then date a good looking guy who makes 60-70k/year, less than 1/20th of what t…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 05:30 AM
1

I'm a doctor and not married. I date often but never out of my league. I think the point is that finances don't let you go out of your league.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 05:27 AM
0

I've never known a guy who had your experience or anything close to it. I'm a doctor, a very high earner by doctor standards and have been quite successful with investments and real estate. I genuinely haven't had a single woman ask me about my finances. I actually learned early on how big of an attraction killer it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 05:26 AM
1

The end point is that if money was such a big factor in attraction, richer guys would be easily getting all the attractive women without directly spending on them and conventionally good looking guys with average incomes would be left out. In real life, the good looking guys get all of the normal attractive girls.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 05:25 AM
1

That's hyperbole to make a point but it's not incorrect. Broke guys who date and hook up and that is factually true. They just do so with women who are also in the low socioeconomic status. It's a huge distraction to try and argue about a guy who is fully broke. A real debate is average income versus being relatively rich. That's actually realistic. People always shift the argument to billionaire vs homeless guy to distract from the actual point. Which is a good looking tall guy making 80k per y…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 05:11 AM
3

Of course. The problem with that theory is that I wouldn't have issues dating in my own league if it was somehow my fault.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 05:06 AM
0

After I became a doctor AND got quite wealthy for a guy, I noticed zero difference in my dating prospects. Now you can quickly say I must have some massive red flag. But I've had girlfriends, dates, and hook ups since I was in high school and still do. If I had some personality issue, well I would have no luck with average looking women either. But after going from middle class tier to upper class, there was literally zero difference in my true dating prospects. Yeah I can mingle with various wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 03:43 AM
1

Even if you have decent social skills, you're still generally stuck in your league.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 03:42 AM
1

Right. It's a disqualifier. But lack of a disqualifier doesn't give you an advantage.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 03:42 AM
1

You can reframe the question as a tall good looking guy who makes 80k/year. That guy is far more appealing for dating than a short 5/10 guy who makes 1 million per year. No reason to compare extremes....
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 03:41 AM
0

You're comparing extremes. No one is questioning whether or not finances matter. It's whether you become incredibly desirable as a guy who is a 4-5/10, to attractive women, just because you're rich. The answer to that is no. No reason to compare someone who is employed or doesn't contribute anything. How about a good looking guy making 80k/year versus a very average looking guy who makes 400k/year? Hint, I make a lot more than 400k/year and solely attract women at my own level only.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 03:40 AM
1

Where is this flocking happening? On sugar daddy sites? After I became a doctor AND got quite wealthy, I noticed zero difference in my dating prospects. Now you can quickly say I must have some massive red flag. But I've had girlfriends, dates, and hook ups since I was in high school and still do. If I had some personality issue, well I would have no luck with average looking women either. But after going from middle class tier to upper class, there was literally zero difference in my true datin…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 03:38 AM
2

Well you also have sexless marriages and lots of women who aren't attracted to their boyfriend or husband. So there's that for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 03:37 AM
1

I know a couple women who care quite a bit about money and they used to escort and had sugar daddies. Everyone else won't settle for lower looks just for money.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 03:36 AM
3

I posted about this yesterday but you're exactly right. After I became a doctor AND got quite wealthy for a guy, I noticed zero difference in my dating prospects. Now you can quickly say I must have some massive red flag. But I've had girlfriends, dates, and hook ups since I was in high school and still do. If I had some personality issue, well I would have no luck with average looking women either. But after going from middle class tier to upper class, there was literally zero difference in my …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 03:35 AM
1

That's an extreme comparison. It's like comparing a super poor person to a multi millionaire. That's not how real life works. How about average non overweight body versus someone who is fit? Trust me there is barely any difference in the big picture. You shouldn't compare a "fat slot" as you say, that's a low end outlier.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 03:31 AM
8

There are non-white women who are also conventionally attractive too.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/25 06:13 PM
3

It's not really the same though. A degree makes you qualified for a job. Jobs also have a component of negotiation. Attraction doesn't have any negotiation component. Diet, exercise and a solid outfit barely move the needle.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/25 06:05 PM
5

Improving your looks is far harder than improving your resume. It's arguable if male looks can even be improved. A lot of cosmetic stuff actually back fires for men or leads to a feminine look that women don't like. Skin care is only a benefit if you actually have bad skin. Hair cuts honestly don't change that much. Facial hair may or may not help, all depends on the guy. For most, it has little impact. Muscles and clothes are the two things you can control the most but I think by now men realiz…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/25 04:52 PM
1

Not that many people actually off IG. Certainly some do but it has little to do with the "resume" aspect. It's still your looks mostly.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/25 04:42 PM
1

Well it's not just wealth either, status as well. Now if you're a pro athlete or on that level, the "aura" of being in that position makes you more attractive. But being in that position is so rare, it's meaningless to think of status for men. Again, you can argue my job is quite high status as far as everyday society goes. Certainly top 1%. But it has little impact on that aura. Only thing that's changed compared to 2-3 decades ago is that status and wealth got you that aura or halo effect at a…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/25 04:41 PM
3

What's interesting about your post is you that you should tell it to all the people who claim that "look everyday people date and have sex all the time!" Well yeah sure they do date and marry. But the % of sexless marriages isn't low. The % of divorces continues to climb.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/25 04:38 PM
1

My point is that the concept of being able to compensate is false. I'm showing proof against it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/25 04:32 PM
1

People just think in black and white and don't understand that a shift in the market has a massive impact. When the economy gets worse, there are still tons of super rich people.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/25 04:29 PM
1

Yes but for the job market, you can do something about it in theory.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/25 07:23 AM
0

Other than truly targeted plastic surgery, looksmaxxing has major limitations. It's much more realistic to build your resume to get a job than to looksmaxx to improve your dating prospects.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/25 07:23 AM
1

That's because the 80/20 thing isn't a formula or literal. It's more of an observation of what actually happens. Doesn't mean you can input X and get Y output. It also isn't literally 80% or 20%.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/25 06:09 AM
1

Because the idea of a high value man is an artificial construct. Aside from true outlier levels of status, it is not a real thing. It doesn't actually move the needle in terms of your dating prospects. Look up Mark Carney who just became the Canadian prime minister. You can define him as very high value, no? He's a very wealthy banker who has been successful in financial circles for over 2 decades. He's better looking than his wife and wouldn't exactly be a sex symbol with women under age 40 des…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/25 05:15 AM
1

What's your point exactly? Women still pick someone they're attracted to for LTRs/marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/25 04:41 AM
0

There are no requirements. It either happens naturally or it doesn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/25 04:40 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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