TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Python_Owner Archive

View 5 posts and 237 comments by Python_Owner on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
5

I'm aware of that, and I've brought up those exact points to women here before, but none of them have ever changed their minds.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/24 02:20 AM
11

You don't need anyones approval for a commercial/private paternity test. Of course you can't directly sever paternity based on that but if it comes back negative, you know what you need to do......
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/24 01:42 AM
24

This is what I advise men as well, it's better for everyone. But a lot of women find it even more objectionable than asking the mother for it because "she's not consenting" and "you're doing it behind her back" or whatever.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/24 01:41 AM
1

I've heard those arguments against capitalism too, I can't say I'm convinced but at least leftists are somewhat consistent in that regard. But while most women are left-leaning they are not fundamentally anti-capitalist.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/24 12:26 AM
0

Apparently, declining sex should not come with any expectation of decent treatment, you believe that is entitlement. That, you also said. Depends on what you mean by "decent". Men frequently treat women better because they are, or want to, have sex with them. You cannot refuse and reasonably expect to be treated the same way in this respect. Women shouldn’t advocate for this because it’s just a tactic to put down men who have to “use other things” to convince women to have sex with them It's one…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/24 11:52 PM
2

It’s dangerous to tell men That’s not what I said…..
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/24 11:08 PM
2

not wanting her son to be an unaccountable irresponsible slut Once again, the mother could have gotten an abortion, or given it up for adoption. She chose to keep it and raise it. It's easy for you to shame men for not being involved when you have those options and we don't. Because to me, that sounds like exactly the kind of man who has kids because he lied to the baby momma that he’d stick around after the baby. Why would he? What does he get out of that? Nothing, he doesn't want to be a fathe…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/24 02:25 PM
1

Most men are undesirable by any woman. This In a comparison study of fine lines by sex, the skin of female participants was shown to be smoother This was done on Chinese women, who age substantially better than white women. And they actively avoid sunlight to maintain the east asian aesthetic standard of light skin, as opposed to white women who intentionally tan themselves. I would know, I'm a Chinese. The average white women mid 30s and up doesn't hold a candle to her east asian counterparts.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/24 10:13 AM
1

Look, I can pay for Adam’s personal trainer and jaw surgery and hair plugs if he asked me for them This part makes your comment more reasonable than most of the others here.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/24 10:11 AM
2

just win the lottery bro
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/24 09:55 AM
1

I don't care. And any man would be stupid to treat the number they give as anything other than a minimum. If they were REALLY promiscuous though it would probably still be worse though due to STD risk, unless they were getting tested.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/24 09:54 AM
1

Men value smooth skin more than women. And where does that paper say that? Can you quote it?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/24 09:50 AM
1

I never said otherwise, but you're exaggerating some of these things.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/24 09:50 AM
8

Women criticizing "Caleb" for his bastards ignore that the women are choosing to have and keep them. They could have aborted it or put it for abortion but they didn't. Unless he is promising to stick around when they were pregnant or something, but I doubt that because it's in his own best interests to have them get rid of it. At any rate I don't see how it's any different from them choosing to have kids through a sperm donor at that point, because that's essentially what he is. And a playboy wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/24 09:47 AM
10

If you were a good parent you would rather your child be happy than fulfill your narrow conception of what a "good person" is.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/24 09:41 AM
11

If he has bastards it's most likely because the women chose to keep them. They could have had an abortion or put it for adoption, so I wouldn't have much sympathy to give. If, on the other hand, he deceived the women into thinking he would stick around when they were pregnant, that would be much worse.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/24 09:38 AM
1

All the IVF fertility research I've research indicated little or no difference in success rate between men in different age cohorts, when controlled for maternal age. weight gain This applies to both sexes, and can be more easily avoided than something like skin aging for women. ED Can be easily dealt with pharmaceuticals. most have consumer loans, child support, looming college expenses and their own student loans Women have more debt than men, especially student loan debt.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/24 09:31 AM
–

I've actually been getting UE and doordash a lot more recently because cooking has become less convenient, but I've been doing habitually since I was like 13 so the skills haven't disappeared. Also I make new accounts for promos and I don't tip, just got a shawarma plate for $11 total. But if you don't do stingy shit like me those services are REALLY expensive.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 10:51 PM
–

I think truth isn't really relevant here, like it has no bearing on things like how much you spend on her, how attentive you are, etc. Those are value judgements.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 10:50 PM
–

Appearance matters more, but all else being equal being too agreeable and generous is bad. Guys just get away with it because women enjoy the practical benefits of a doormat boyfriend/husband but they subconsciously lose respect and attraction. And more importantly it makes you prone to being taken advantage of.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 10:40 PM
–

Nothing feels better than being a young man that's a better cook than most girls my age. I always roll my eyes whenever one of their stupid "girl dinners" comes up on my FYP.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 10:17 PM
2

Yes
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 10:01 PM
1

Morality is a value judgement. I don’t consider voluntary transactional sex to be immoral.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 09:01 PM
–

Because without any threat of infringement on their rights. You don’t have a right to a job much less a relationship. Freedom doesn’t mean freedom from any and all negative consequences, like how people can face social ostracization for exercising freedom of speech in controversial ways.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 09:00 PM
–

Because they agreed freely and voluntarily, without any threat of infringement on their rights.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 08:44 PM
3

Talk is cheap
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 08:43 PM
3

Not even all young woman can be picky, depending on how desirable they are. They can be the most selective when it comes to casual sex but the more commitment they want the more discerning men will be. And as they age their desirability declines hard.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 06:51 PM
8

You talk to them for a while and call them cute or some other kind of flirting. "hit on someone: to show someone that you are sexually attracted to them" That's "hitting on them".
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 06:43 PM
2

There are studies to point to men making up 80-90% of all pedophiles though. Depends on what you mean by that. If you're referring to the psychological definition of someone who is primarily attracted to prepubescent children, I have not seen any studies that measure arousal to children in adult women, only in adult men. If you're referring to the colloquial definition, I've seen some research indicating that a substantial minority of men report having sex with a woman at least 5 years older tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 06:41 PM
5

A man in his 30s is an "older man" when he's dating women in their early-mid 20s lmao.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 06:34 PM
2

Men are in peak physical condition in their twenties. I think aging is give and take with men. On one hand men can face balding and overall fat gain as they age. But on the other hand, ageing for men can mean being able to grow more facial hair which develops throughout your 20s and 30s, especially helpful if you have a weak jaw. And also losing baby fat on your face.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 06:33 PM
7

<image>
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 06:29 PM
28

<image>
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 06:28 PM
4

Maybe with regards to finances but absolutely not appearance. Most 35 year old women are in no position to filter out men who are balding or chubby because that would be the majority of men in their demographic. Whereas young women have no shortage of attractive, youthful, men to pick from so older men need to have aged well to stand a chance.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 06:27 PM
1

Maybe with regards to finances but absolutely not appearance. Most 35 year old women are in no position to filter out men who are balding or chubby because that would be the majority of men in their demographic. Whereas young women have no shortage of attractive, youthful, men to pick from so older men need to have aged well to stand a chance.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 06:27 PM
-1

Easy for you to say when women don't get rejected anywhere near as much.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 06:21 PM
1

Men lose their jobs for speaking about women the way you speak about us.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 06:21 PM
1

What I am describing is perfectly consensual.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 06:05 PM
-3

Men aren’t anywhere near as fragile as women.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 06:04 PM
6

I don’t know what english you’re speaking but “hitting on” someone means approaching them to ask out on a date. I talk to women every day, most men do, that’s not going to get you laid or a relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 06:03 PM
-3

How often is that the case? And why should I care regardless since it was voluntary?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 06:02 PM
-2

If someone relents to sexual acts being performed on them, long-term this can have serious consequences for that persons' mental health Source?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 03:30 PM
-9

Women think mean words are "abusive" lol, I genuinely don't care at this point nor should any reasonable man. A warning against diluting severe terms.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 03:29 PM
15

This post is about dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 01:24 PM
9

I think bars, clubs, and school are the only places you listed where it would be uncontroversial. except approaching women in the spaces i told myself i can't approach them. Bro is really pretending that women don't complain about being hit on at the gym, or that workplace sexual harassment laws and policies don't exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 12:45 PM
9

But i think most of the time its mostly cause youre not their type I mean if you get rejected once, or twice, or a few times, then maybe. But when you have no success despite making substantial efforts? Then yeah, you're just unattractive, physically or behaviorally.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 12:43 PM
1

Why not?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 12:13 PM
1

It can be.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 12:10 PM
1

consent is to be given freely with no strings attached I disagree, that’s not how consent works with literally everything else. Would you argue that your job is forced labor because you are required to work to get paid? Ridiculous. There is no reason that sex should be treated differently.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 08:04 AM
0

Why would I go through life prioritizing the interests of others? That’s a sure way to lose out because others won’t prioritize my interests. Every single thing you do has consequences, facing consequences for declining sex is no different so long as they don’t infringe on your rights. No one has a right to continued employment, and especially not continued relationship. Requiring total freedom from any and all undesirable consequences for consent to be valid is ridiculous and entitled.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 08:00 AM
0

If someone consents because of threats of retaliation, it is no consent at all Why not, so long as the retaliation is within the rights of the other party? They're not having sex because they want to have sex. Whether they want to is irrelevant to whether it's consensual. I don't want to work either, that doesn't make my employment forced labor.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 08:10 PM
1

why would I give you a source of legal issues Because YOU brought it up.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 07:54 PM
1

This post is not about legality but morality and the definition of consent.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 07:33 PM
0

Not really, employer doesn't need to a reason so long as you get enough notice. The only time it matters is applying for unemployment.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 05:48 PM
-1

ultimatum: a threat in which a person or group of people are warned that if they do not do a particular thing, something unpleasant will happen to them. It is usually the last and most extreme in a series of actions taken to bring about a particular result I chose the word "ultimatum" instead of "threat" because "threat" often has violent connotations "threats" do not necessarily involve demands The employee is NOT a willing participant. With regards to the actual sex acts, if they accept, they …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 01:55 PM
0

Look at the comments boss......
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 01:51 PM
2

No you are defending the practice of soliciting sex I'm just saying that it's not rape/SA. Enthusiastic consent is the only acceptable consent there is. That talking point only ever seems to be applied to sex. There is no reason for sexual consent to be treated any differently from consent to anything else.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 11:36 AM
-1

no, no i don't think i will
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 11:30 AM
-1

Honestly that's not really true, between social welfare, food banks, parents, partners, etc. And regardless they're not responsible for your survival
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 11:02 AM
0

How is it "rape" if she can freely refuse without suffering an infringement of her rights?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 11:00 AM
0

But the law is secondary, there are acts that are not criminalized as sexual assault/rape that should be(stealthing) and arguably vice versa as well. Most people would agree that you don't have a right to continued employment, just as your employer doesn't a right to your continued service. Either party can end the relationship at any time for any reason. This is even more true for ending a relationship. So why would these consequences make a sexual ultimatum nonconsensual?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 10:36 AM
1

Every western jurisdiction I've researched except for Canada. That would be many, many US states and EU countries. Many still require force to meet the criminal definition of rape/SA.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 10:33 AM
1

You can say no but you will never be able to earn a cent, find a place to live and you will never know if you wont be forced to do it again. And how would they achieve that?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 10:13 AM
-1

It's so funny to see female intelligence, or lack thereof, on display in that comment exchange. You know what, according to me I'm a leading authority on sexual assault definitions!
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 10:11 AM
1

Yes of course I said it twice. Because intimidation can be considered harassment. "intimidation ..... can be considered harassment or intimidation" lol Legally it all can. Especially an “ultimatum” where a person is pressured into sex. You still have yet to provide a single source. The only western jurisdiction where I am aware this is the case is Canada, none of the US states or european countries. Being put into fear They have nothing to fear. Their physical safety is not at risk, the worst th…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 10:05 AM
1

Soliciting employees for sexual favors can be civilly penalized as sexual harassment/sex discrimination without being labelled as sexual assault/rape, a crime. That's how it works throughout the US. I wasn't defending the practice, I'm just saying it's not SA.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 10:02 AM
0

That IS the law in most western jurisdictions.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 09:50 AM
0

Interesting, that's not how it works here or in the US. They don't neeed a reason, at most a notice period is required.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 09:11 AM
0

It’s not a deal it’s an ultimatum Sure it is, one thing in exchange for another It’s about using a position of power over someone Doesn't make it nonconsensual.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 06:53 AM
1

That dynamic creates pressures that remove real meaningful consent. Why is it not meaningful? Do you understand what consent actually means because it is not just the word yes. I've already explained my stance extensively in my post, on what does and and doesn't vitiate free consent, and why. I'm not not going to repeat myself.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 06:50 AM
-2

So your agreeing then you think it’s fair? If I don't think it's fair then I wouldn't take the deal. What happens when all bosses realise they could get away with forcing all employees into these positions because no consequences Even if they were interested, it would hurt employee morale, increase turnover, and make it difficult to attract replacements once word gets out. Both parties have leverage in employment relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 06:49 AM
-1

If you don’t, you can just get sacked but find another job and hope your next boss doesn’t ask you the same thing, rinse, repeat. Most bosses won't, so yeah.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 06:40 AM
1

Consider how some people don't photograph well Because photographs are two dimensional and lenses can distort the image. And some things are left out like height, which is especially important for men. It's also why you see a lot of short men with attractive faces can be successful actors, when it would be a substantial impediment for dating(well, at least if they weren't a successful actor).
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 06:38 AM
-3

No it doesn't, my actions have nothing to do with whether I consider it assault or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 06:36 AM
-9

Why is it relevant?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 06:28 AM
-5

but you do have a right to not be unjustly fired I disagree, neither party has an obligation to continue the employment relationship for any reason, unless a term was explicitly stipulated in a contract. You can quit your job whenever you want.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 06:26 AM
0

how can I have bodily rights if someone exploits them by using my means of survival against me? By that logic all wage labor is forced labor because it involves doing things with your body. Give me a break. You keep evading. You can refuse and find another job. You don't have a right to keep being paid by them.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 06:25 AM
-1

Sometimes they do. And you're avoiding the point. You have a right to bodily security and property, you don't have a right to have someone pay you for work. Losing those things as a consequence are not comparable.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 06:20 AM
-3

You don't have a right to your job, that's ridiculous. People lose their jobs all the time. Find another one.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 06:11 AM
-11

Stealthing is illegal. Not in the US or most western jurisdictions. I think that prostitution should be and I'm not sure why you're acting that that would be a shocking thought. Sure but it's ridiculous to blanket label it as rape/assault. Threatening to fire them is potentially threatening to destroy their life as they will lose their entire income, a lot of money, and because of references may struggle to find future employment. I don't know what to say other than you don't have a right to a j…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 06:10 AM
1

because surely he is going to have to make up a lie to fire her Honestly it's really ambiguous but I don't think that's necessarrily the case, depending on how influential they are. If it's a small business for instance they get the final say on all hiring and firing. Of course in reality in that TV show the guy who gave the ultimatum was not as powerful as he made himself seem, and it was basically an empty threat which the girl fell for. It's the equivalent of a woman tellong a man, "give me m…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 06:08 AM
0

Everyone has the right not to be assaulted. You're going in circles. If she can reasonably decline, without facing consequences that infringe on her rights, then what makes this assault.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 06:05 AM
0

I don't want to work either, does that make my employment slavery/forced labor? Whether someone wants to do something is irrelevant to the question of consent. She was forced too with the threat of losing her new job No one has a right to a job.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 05:46 AM
1

Under the job contract she is not required to comply with sexual requests. Your boss or maanger can absolutely require you to do things not stipulated in your contract, and dismiss you if you refuse. The only time where it matter is with regards to unemployment eligibility.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 05:41 AM
0

or face negative consequences. We face negative consequences of our actions all the time in life. You don't have a right to be free from any and all negative consequences.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 05:39 AM
1

Non-consensual sex is still assault I never said otherwise. you are forcing a person into a position they don’t want to be in The situations I described are not "forcing". Someone is being given an ultimatum, they can reasonably decline that ultimatum without suffering an infringement on their rights.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 05:38 AM
1

Violent is not necessary, if someone engages in sexual activity after ignoring verbal refusal, or with an unconscious/severely incapacitated party, I would also consider that assault. That's a different issue though, this post is about ultimatums.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 05:35 AM
-1

You said intimidation twice. Being fired from your job or being dumped does not reasonably cause "fear" nor is it "intimidation". In no US jurisdiction, or any other western jurisdiction to my knowledge, is merely causing someone emotional distress in of itself enough to constitute "harassment" or "intimidation". If you have a source indicating to the contrary you're free to provide it.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 05:33 AM
-1

TLDR; OP thinks rape by coercion and manipulation does not exist I consider consent valid so long as they aren't faced with consequences that infringe on their rights, like physical harm or property destruction.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 05:31 AM
-13

What I would personally do in these situations is irrelevant. Regardless of what I would do, it's not assault, it would be consensual.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 05:29 AM
-1

Threats don’t have to be violent to be unlawful They do, or at least they have to put the subject in reasonable fear for their safety. Being fired, or being dumped, does not endanger your safety.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 05:28 AM
0

Sexual assault is not unwanted sex, it's non-consensual sex. I've watched the tea video. It doesn't address ultimatums at all, it's irrelevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 05:28 AM
-18

You can fire someone because they're shit at their job, but firing someone because they're gay is illegal as it infringes on their rights (in this case to equal treatment due to sexual orientation). I don't agree that homosexuals, or anyone for that matter, has a right to equal treatment by private entities. Neither do progressives when it comes to DEI programs discriminating against white/male employees and applicants. This post isn't about legality, it's about morality and the definition of co…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 05:27 AM
-5

Of the scenarios I listed, in the US at least only sexual ultimatums in a workplace context would be illegal under employment law, and it still isn't a crime. Threats are illegal Only if they're violent. It’s all considered illegal and in some cases sexual abuse. Source?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 05:22 AM
-2

<image> obama_giving_obama_medal.jpg
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 05:14 AM
1

The person I was responding to was talking about SAHMs. Why are you ignoring the fact that many women who work only work part time?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 02:58 AM
0

How many kids do you have?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 02:57 AM
0

Even if men work more, women are still working 24/7 outside of sleep. Good one. Add up time spent each day doing housework, cleaning, other chores, planning, childcare Household chores don't take that much time considering modern conveniences like electric appliances, grocery delivery, takeout, pre-prepared foods, etc. Maybe if you're making every meal from scratch with entirely unprocessed ingredients, cleaning dishes and clothes by hand, but that's not most households these days. their net res…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 02:47 AM
0

Dude, your experience of "childcare and homemaking" amounts to taking your brother to an amusement park. You have no idea. It was literally just a single example of an activity that is simultaneously caregiving and leisure. YOU have no idea what I've done for my family.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 05:02 PM
-1

You somehow likened being a teacher or the like to “no interest in children that aren’t my own.” No, I'm merely saying that enjoying working with children is basically a prerequisite for teaching/childcare because these jobs don't pay well. So a degree of intrinsic motivatiion is necessary. It’s like it’s a virtue for a lot of men to not care about others unless it’s something in it for them. Not strangers. They do it because it’s the considerate Give me a break, no one's doing caretaking for fr…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 05:00 PM
0

Last I saw from BLS data just under 60% of mothers worked full time.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 04:57 PM
0

That’s all - it’s just doing things towards a goal. I have a goal of reaching Ref level 4 in Escape from Tarkov, does playing EFT count as a "work"? I also have a goal of building bigger delts, do my shoulder presses count as "work"?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 03:39 PM
-4

Because he already works at least 8 hours a day, probably being bossed around, dealing with office politics BS if white collar and physical exertion if blue collar, in addition to commuting and getting ready, and is paying for everything. Whereas she's free and sets her own schedule and can do other things while the child is sleeping/watching TV/at a friends house/playing with toys. Hope this helps!
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 03:37 PM
0

No man that has friends at work and socializes during work hours Are they working because they WANT to socialize? I doubt it given the immense popularity of WFH. And socialization has a professional aspect as well, in many careers you need to play politics to get promoted, or at the very least expand your professional cicle to get access to more job oppurtunities in the future.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 03:24 PM
1

All work is done on pursuit of our own desire. I see you just skipped over the "intrinsic" part. Again, work isn’t considered work because it’s hard, or undesirable. It doesn’t stop becoming work if you also enjoy the work. Characterizing my point as childrearing being "enjoyable work" is an understatement and a misrepresentation. I'm saying that childrearing fundamentally has characteristics of both work and hobby, and can probably be characterized as both. How do YOU define "work"?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 03:21 PM
-4

Caring for children is not work. Can you quote me where I said this?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 03:16 PM
0

Wasn't a dodge. I'm explaining for what feels like the dozenth time the major distinction between childcare as a career and raising your own children. And how exactly does the existence of professional childcare "counter my OP"?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 03:13 PM
3

Because they don't pay well, and I have no interest in children that aren't my own?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 03:10 PM
0

is just acknowledging that you can have fun WHILE doing the work. You can choose to frame it that way. Alternatively I could also frame it as a intrinsically desirable experience that requires work. But if you view the fulfillment of childrearing as secondary to the labor and cost involved, again, I don't think you'd be a good parent. But the toll is factual, and even if you pay it willingly, you are still paying it in long hours and emotional exhaustion. The same can be said for paid work only …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 03:08 PM
0

Very few people have raising someone else's children as a major life goal.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 03:04 PM
1

No, but since the cost is financial the burden will be shared(realistically still mostly borne by the man).
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 02:22 PM
5

Why do you hate women? "I was cheated on" "I was assaulted and no one believes me" "I was falsely accused of assaulting her" "She starting hitting me and got me arrested when I defended myself" "I was exploited for my money" "I was passed up for a job/promotion by a female HR department in favor of a less qualified woman due to DEI" Woman hating men: Takes her anger out on her partner Disfavors men for hiring and promotions Exploits men for their money Man hating women: goes on murderous killing…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 02:14 PM
3

If they wanted to stay at home, they would Do you have a money tree in your backyard or something?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 01:54 PM
0

I've seen that thread, you don't need to tell me. It was a lot of you nitpicking over semantics like sperging out over "self-care vs personal care" definitions when the former isn't even a term defined or used by the BLS, and ultimately you stopped responding to abaxeron and the tank guy's substantive arguments. In short it's just you making yourself look like a fool. I don't know what linking that was supposed to achieve, So 23% (if I remember the figure correctly) of married women having absol…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 01:44 PM
0

and 24/7 commitment with no breaks. And more bullshit you can tell yourself. Unless your child is severely disabled it will not require you to wait on them hand and foot. Depending on age kids can independently eat, sleep, watch TV, read, play with toys, etc while you do something else, the main thing is just being home with them. Not to mention school. How do I know this? Because contrary to the assumptions you pulled out of your ass I've done a lot more childcare than just taking him to an amu…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 01:13 PM
0

You seem really confused about what "work" means. Someone else linked the Merriam-Webster page for "work" and there are no less than 12 different noun definitionos for that word alone. The fact that children are rewarding for people who WANT kids doesn't suddenly mean raising children isn't back-breaking, heart-wrenching, disgusting, sleep-depriving, or anxiety inducing And you're missing that point which is that if you derive a substantial amount of intrinsic fulfillment/satisfaction from doing…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 01:06 PM
-1

They were comparing working one of those jobs, raising someone else's kids, to being a parent, raising your own kids. If you have that mindset you're not fit to be a parent.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 12:59 PM
1

It is definitely not a better way to define leisure at all. Let me repeat myself more explicitly, "leisure" is irrelevant What matters for the purposes of this discussion is how much work men and women do. If you spend 16 hours a day sleeping and 6 hours working, the fact that you don't have time for "leisure" is irrelevant, you're not getting much done in the remaining time. Just because you have less "leisure" time doesn't necessarily mean you're more busy if you're also spending more time on …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 12:56 PM
-5

Women are stepping into the provider role No, they aren't, or at least it's nowhere near balanced. Women are the primary(>60% of HH income) or sole provider in only 15% of married couples according to Pew. https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2023/04/st_2023.04.13_breadwinner-wives_03.png Even for childless couples, women are the sole/primary provider in only 20% of them whereas men are the sole/primary provider in 48% of them.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 12:46 PM
4

It’s several tasks that need doing at least once a week so you’re doing at least of them every day Laundry once a week, mostly handle by the machine. Groceries probably once, maybe twice a week. Some people have it delivered. I say this with my chest, housework is cake with modern appliances and conveniences. then wonder why fewer and fewer women want children and now the birth rate is stagnating. Fewer and fewer women want children because they're a lot of work no matter how you slice it and co…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 12:44 PM
1

Lifting weights is physically exhausting as well, I wonder when will women recognize and accommodate that? "Sorry honey, I can't help you, I'm tapped out after the gym session" lol
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 11:37 AM
0

spends more on childcare and has less free time than her husband except for stay-at-home moms with zero income. I've read those Pew articles, their decision to focus on the "leisure" category of the ATUS is questionable since asking people to define "leisure" is highly subjective and arbitary. And it doesn't directly indicate the work burden since there are many activities that don't fit well into either category, like sleeping, eating, hygiene and makeup, etc. When we instead take the opposite …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 11:35 AM
-4

Have you ever looked after or even met a child? Yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 11:27 AM
0

That's a valid worldview, in which case you shouldn't have kids, as I have repeated several times. This post isn't for you then.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 11:26 AM
-1

you have to leave work early to collect them from school or pay to enroll them in after school clubs/activities. That depends on their age and after school programs. cleaning their PE kit and uniform I know of no families that do laundry every day, most only once a week. Kids usually have multiple sets and PE is not everyday. making sure the fridge is stocked and going grocery shopping Few families grocery shop more than twice a week. Then there’s practically being a secretary organising play da…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 11:25 AM
2

Childcare also covers a bit of each of the aforementioned professions, Paying for professional childcare facilities is paying for a service from an organization, it's not paying a wage. There is often a substantial educational and recreational component as well. Not comparable. and it costs more than most peoples paycheque. Source? And childcare expenses pay for a service, not a wage Why do you think that because raising a child is fulfilling that it stops it from being work? Did I say that? I d…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 11:21 AM
-21

Most women have to work as well as do most of the childcare Just under half of married women with children do not work full time, and this includes families without young children as well. By a few years age they will be spending much of their days in daycare or school. I'm sorry, but gardening is everything but a good analogy Why not?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 11:17 AM
-2

Unpaid chauffeur, cleaner, chef, nurse, teacher and so on Parents are nowhere near as specialized as any of these compared to professionals, nor all they doing all these tasks at once. And there are domestic servants that also do many or all of these tasks, you don't need to hire someone different for each one. This analogy is ridiculous, in no world you are you doing the equivalent of several professional jobs. Rather, you're just doing a little bit of each. It’s incredibly fulfilling and impor…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 11:11 AM
-2

I'll just copy and paste because you seem to be of the same mind as the other commenter: If you fail to see a fundamental distinction between raising your own children and raising children for someone else, then I refer you back to: then you absolutely should not have kids of your own! Seriously, please don't. You'd be a horrible parent if you view parenthood as just being an unpaid nanny. It is textbook definition. Hence why this isn't debatable. As I said some of those definitions would also i…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 11:03 AM
-20

When I say "more than" I do not mean that it is more taxing and less desirable than paid work, the opposite actually. There is an element of intrinsic satisfaction to it that is rarely present with employment. As I've already mentioned in the post, gardening is a good analogy, few would deny that it's physically taxing but many people still do it as a hobby because it brings them satisfaction.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 11:03 AM
-1

If you had actually read my post you would know that I did not deny there is an element of "work" to childrearing: childrearing is more accurately characterized as somewhere in-between work and a hobby, like gardening for instance. But it's so much more than that. Also some of these definitions would also, on the face of it, include things like lifting weights or even playing video games. to perform or carry through a task requiring sustained effort or continuous repeated operations to exert one…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/24 11:00 AM
–

If it was that simple then why not flesh it out? "Implications" have an inherent degree of ambiguity, claiming that someone has "implied" something without even bothering to spell it out is disingenuous. I have some ideas about what you're trying to say but I'd rather know exactly what you think I'm implying to either affirm it or to correct you. I know you very well though, you're playing the same silly games and evasion you always do because you have no real argument. I'm done wasting my time …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 10:19 PM
–

Nope, I didn't say that. I'm just saying that you're overstating the connection between inceldom and a lack of career success. This post is about the latter not the former. And my initial comment was in response to this part: But the issue is you seem to think working to pay your bills is somehow "sacrificing for women". It's not. It's "sacrificing" your time for YOURSELF so you can have an apartment and a cell phone and running water. You need far less money to support just yourself than to sup…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 10:15 PM
–

You're a big boy, you can use your own words to flesh out an argument if you have one, I'm not going to play these silly guessing games.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 09:00 PM
–

Did I say otherwise? Men who are struggling with dating aren’t really in any danger of having to support a wife and kids. This phenomenon isn't limited to incels. If anything many incels are highly educated and successful, I've read articles saying that most MIT students are virgins. And plenty of losers get laid due to physical and behavioral attraction.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 08:57 PM
–

You don't need to be nice to everyone to have friends and a social circle and generally not be a "lonely" person. That's all I was saying. Stop trying to twist it into something else. Now, if by "lonely" they actually mean "involuntarily celibate", then the same applies. At MOST they would only have to give a convincing appearance of being kind to have sexual success with women, not necessarily be genuinely kind, because women aren't mind readers. And even that is dubious since it assumes that w…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 08:56 PM
–

You choose to marry. It's optional. How is it exploitative? Marriage is unlike other contracts in that the terms change at the whim of the state, or change depending on the jurisdiction you're in. If say, a couple gets married to Saudi Arabia and moves to the US and divorce, their divorce would be subject to American law, different conditions than the Saudi law that they got married under would have stipulated. There are more benefits for women => how is that EXPLOITING men "There are white-only…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 08:48 PM
1

It's fairly easy for men to support themselves, supporting a wife and children is a different story.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 04:58 PM
1

In what way is society exploiting the man? I think marriage is quite exploitative towards men, for one. And there are far more government and institutional benefits for women.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 04:57 PM
0

The distinction is "to who". All the masculinity influencers I've seen have spoken positively about strong male friendships, they just don't necessarily value kindness and generosity to women and strangers.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 04:54 PM
-1

And more jokes you can tell yourself.....
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 04:52 PM
4

Plenty of men without looks or who have low socio-economic status find a woman Plenty of people from poor backgrounds reach the middle class, doesn't mean there aren't substantial barriers. What's your point? You're focusing on the behaviour of a subset of women (who do go for looks and/or money) Most women.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 10:29 AM
4

It's unsurprising so many men are struggling to find a woman who wants them back if they're following your logic. They're struggling because they don't have to looks/money.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 10:19 AM
9

Have a look in r/AskWomenOver30 and actual opinions of women. *The publicly stated opinions of women on an app that isn't used by the vast majority of women If this app was representative of the general population of women then judging by 2XC, women must be a fucking nightmare. it doesn't help that redpill/blackpill stipulates that women cannot be believed Only an idiot would always take women's words, or anyone's words for that matter, at face value. I doubt you always take men's claims at face…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 10:05 AM
1

Pulled directly from your terper brothers on an adjacent thread Which thread? Can you quote any of them?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 04:42 AM
3

I'll call them what I want, and you're tone-policing to avoid addressing the actual point.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 02:44 AM
15

Being a virgin in high school is unremarkable. Being a virgin in your mid 20s or later is a red flag to most women.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 02:43 AM
1

I absolutely do not expect sluts to volunteer their sexual history to every man they start dating, that's ridiculous. And frankly I'd even go so far as to expect women to lie and downplay their sexual history even when asked. I think it's more productive for men to focus on protecting themselves instead of sperging out over n-count.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 02:41 AM
7

If you tell them you're a virgin past a certain age there's a good chance you won't even get to that stage. It's like the double bind of needing experience to get a job but needing a job to get experience. Do your best and if it doesn't go well for the other party then so be it, learn and do better next time. That's how life works, especially for this, there sure as hell aren't degrees or apprenticeships for sexual skills.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 02:39 AM
7

Having no sexual or relationship experience past high school/college will almost always be seen as a negative Men seem to prefer corrupting, women tend to want to avoid harm "And more things I pulled out of my ass"
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 02:34 AM
5

and that it will be ok if you do. You cannot reasonably assure OP of that based on an experience with a single woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 02:34 AM
5

It's not a "lie by omission", not anymore than sluts not volunteering their body count every time they start dating a man.....
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 02:33 AM
0

The Red Pill shit offers nothing for you except TRP offers a lot of advice on how to behave and interact with women to maximize your success with them, and how to deal with ongoing sexual relationships after the initial stage. It's all on the subreddit and the sidebar, have you even read it? You may not agree with it but it's there. Hell, if you’re that interested in leveling up to get to sex, why not just use the money on escorts or the time on porn? Many RP guys don't just care about sex, they…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/24 01:08 AM
-1

lol so you don’t talk about Red Pill stuff in person but you’ll happily broadcast it over the internet where enough women see it to pick up on it It doesn't affect men who follow RP at an individual level if they don't talk about it to women. Holy shit I was actually meaning to exaggerate that 3k number- 2k for a gaming computer is exactly what I’m talking about lol Consoles are more popular and far more affordable. 2k would be for a higher-end gaming PC that will last years, that can be used fo…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/24 12:19 AM
1

joever
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 11:42 PM
-1

but it really just makes those men seem pitiable and hysterical to them. Not talking about TRP to women is basically a universally accepted rule in the community. and then open our wallets for someone to sit behind a camera and tell us vague advice that you could get better for free with ChatGPT. The TRP subreddit is free. And ChatGPT would never give that kind of advice. and then spend 3 grand on video games Are an incredibly cheap form of entertainment. Few hundred dollars for a console or 2k …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 10:40 PM
8

As he should 👑👑👑
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 10:31 PM
1

did you not learn about finasteride and minoxidil until it was too late
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 10:10 PM
1

You could get a copper IUD, idk why they aren't more popular
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 09:55 PM
1

what procedure is your flair referencing
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 09:55 PM
3

That's a value judgement for them to make. You're not in their position, you don't have to deal with their realities.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 09:43 PM
1

^^^^ same goes for the feminism
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 09:25 PM
1

No, they didn't, or at least my dad didn't since he was willing to pay the entire thing and tried to convince me until the end. To me love is a two way street and taking too much from someone, regardless of how willing they are, is a selfish thing to do. And I'm not even talking about men who enthusiastically offer to provide without being asked, I'm talking about women expecting men to provide for them, and pressuring or at least nudging them to do it. It's in the title. That doesn't seem like …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 03:01 AM
0

"No true partner" it is then. When I love people I try not to be a burden on them. I myself declined my US college admission offer when my mom broke her promise to help pay and I was afraid my dad wouldn't be able to afford it. Maybe women understand "love" differently, primarily in terms of them being the recipient of affection and generosity......
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 02:36 AM
2

And it’s the ranges I’m seeing in my “tech people world. You probably have a very skewed circle then. Senior developer and up in big tech can definitely pay that much, but those are a minority. And I'm wondering if your perspective is outdated as well since the tech market boomed during the pandemic but crashed hard starting in 2022 until now. Many people got laid off and salaries are often lower than they were during the boom, or even before the pandemic, in spite of high inflation. And it’s th…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 02:10 AM
1

I'm saying that you exaggerate how much a higher earner partners would have to sacrifice in terms of their lifestyle to realize an even split, even with seemingly significant income differences, given the factors I mentioned (rent savings by living together, higher propensity to save to begin with, diminishing marginal utility of income)
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 02:06 AM
1

I can't speak for investment backing but the vast majority of "tech people" do not make even close to that. For software developers at least, the median salary in the US is 120k per the BLS, even in tech hubs like the Bay Area it's still well under 200k.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 01:59 AM
1

That hasn't been the case every time I see it come up on Reddit. Like I've seen people talk about splitting 60/40. And also there's the diminishing marginal utility of money, the cost savings of living with someone, and higher earners' propensity to save a greater portion of their income, all which you're neglecting to mention. In a MCOL city in the US someone earning 200k could probably reasonably split expenses 50/50 with someone earning 100k, with the former still feeling satisfied with their…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 01:55 AM
2

because the other person typically contributes more to homemaking and caretaking. That is again, a generous assumption. Especially if they spend a similar amount of time working. I've said this multiple times already, this post isn't about dividing responsibilities. It's about dividing expenses based on income, which does not necessarily imply one party taking on a substantially greater share of housework. Especially for childless couples since without children there's not much housework to be d…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 01:49 AM
1

I've addressed this elsewhere, just going to copy and paste: Many high-earning people do prioritize savings to begin with, for a house, for retirement, etc, and live below their means to achieve that. And when you're living with someone else, especially a romantic partner that you can share a bedroom with, comparable-quality housing becomes so much cheaper. Additionally, depends on the disparity. If it's a huge disparity, like 50k vs 200k, then yeah in all likelihood the person earning 200k woul…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 01:47 AM
2

The contribution to the household is heavily uneven. And so is being expected to pay more just because you earn more.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 01:41 AM
2

Division of responsibilities is different from expecting to be subsidized "because they can". Many women are unwilling to adopt the traditional feminine role of the homemaker while simultaneously expecting men to provide.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 01:12 AM
3

Do you have the same attitude towards women who complain about unbalanced housework and childcare in relationships?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 01:11 AM
3

Pro splitting expenses evenly
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/24 01:05 AM
4

Do you expect men to be willfully blind to fiscal realities?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 11:39 PM
0

I already addressed this issue in my original reply to you, where I explained about how money is worth less to people who make more money. That has nothing to do with this. You're assuming that by living frugally to enable splitting expenses with a lower earning partner, you're "giving up" something. But if they were living frugally to begin with they, by definition, aren't "giving up" anything. Not if you’re a billionaire and your beloved makes $100k. That's a ridiculous and virtually nonexiste…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 11:38 PM
4

Have you never heard Boomer and Gen X men complain about their wives? Small world you live in.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 11:35 PM
3

Saving more means you can retire/semi-retire earlier. Or pass down more wealth to your children if you plan on having them. God knows generational wealth is important in this economy....... Or people in some careers could go down the other road, instead of taking advantage of lower expenditures to save more, they could cut down on their work hours right now to have more free time right now. There's always tradeoffs, bottom line is you don't have to work 40 hours a week until you're 67 and blow i…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 11:34 PM
1

Dating most women will absolutely be a drain on your finances, this is as obvious as the color of the sky.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 11:28 PM
-1

I've already alluded to that in my post, have you even read it?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 11:27 PM
-1

If you live within the means of the person who makes less, then you are decreasing your standard of living compared to what it could be. You’re giving that up. You didn't read my comment did you? If you were already living relatively frugally because you wanted to save, you're not "giving up" anything. Living with someone else, especially a romantic partner with which you can share a bedroom, makes housing a lot cheaper. You could plausibly live a similar lifestyle compared to when you were sing…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 11:26 PM
7

You don’t naturally have a desire to provide for someone you love? Giving gifts? Sure. Subsidizing her basic living expenses like one would subsidize a child? No, I'm not her father.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 11:24 PM
-1

You’re going to give up living in a better house, eating better food, going on better vacations etc. because your beloved can’t afford to equally pay the expenses? You choose to frame it as "giving up something", that's a generous assumption. Many high-earning people do prioritize savings to begin with, for a house, for retirement, etc, and live below their means to achieve that. And when you're living with someone else, especially a romantic partner that you can share a bedroom with, comparable…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 11:14 PM
4

My argument is contingent on the lifestyle being reasonably affordable for both parties. This idea of tit-for-tat splitting of financials and household chores Many women do feel this way about household chores though, they frequently complain about men not doing enough. If you don't that's fair, but you can't be deaf to the chorus here.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 11:12 PM
0

The details matter a lot here; having to stay home while your partner flies off to exciting vacations all the time probably hits different than driving a Toyota while your partner drives a Maserati. No disagreement here, doing things together as a couple is even more fundamental than living together, the former usually comes before the latter. Although of course there's nothing wrong with going on some trips without your partner, you're not Siamese twins either. My implication about living withi…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 11:08 PM
2

I would never seriously date a woman who expected me to provide for her, would rather remain single.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 11:06 PM
1

Then that's just splitting expenses by another name, with the split being how much the both of you contribute.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 11:05 PM
2

I think that's the wrong way to view things, unless you're insanely rich, living below your means allows you to save more which is never a bad thing. You may not personally value saving which is fine but it's not like the money just disappears because you aren't spending it, so portraying it as self-destructive is unwarranted.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 10:59 PM
1

Frankly I think most women here would agree with that statement.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 10:58 PM
-1

That could mean living in a complete shitbox of a house with 5 roommates and little privacy, and never going out to eat or vacation etc. I seriously doubt that would be the case in most instances, considering how much cheaper it is to live with someone else, especially if you're a couple you could easily make do with a 1bd or 1bd + den.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 10:57 PM
0

All those things are transient, when people lose their jobs they usually find a new job that's not too different from their old one. Should i ask hom for rent because the house is in my name? If you're married it doesn't matter whose name it's in, directly contributing to the costs of the house would give him claim to some portion of the value.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 10:56 PM
-1

But expenses with a person you love isn’t a zero sum game or “parasitism.” I think life will be quite difficult for you if you're not able to understand that people can exploit love for personal financial gain. because they’re paying slightly more "Slightly?" Even something as seemingly modest as a 60/40 split is substantial, since one partner is paying 50% more than the other. That person is your partner, not a roommate or a stranger. I find viewing them like one is odd. Why is this attitude ne…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 10:50 PM
-1

If you’re in a committed LTR, why not? "because if you separate it will be a massive financial and legal headache." To be clear, while some cohabitating couples do have a joint account for household expenses, that's just splitting expenses in another way. I've never met an unmarried couple that combined ALL their cash into a single bank account.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 10:48 PM
1

I've never met a single couple that pooled ALL their money together before marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 10:46 PM
1

Right, but most people aren't running their own private petting zoo, that's quite exceptional. does this mean you're firmly against tradwives I don't think having a permanent SAHM makes sense anymore in this day and age, due lower fertility, outsourced childcare to schools and daycares, and modern conveniences and appliances. Comparing a modern-day "tradwife" to a 19th century woman with 3+ children, who has to clean everything by hand, and prepare food from SCRATCH scratch, is comparing apples …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 10:40 PM
-2

True partners don’t nickle and dime each other. Not tolerating parasitism is not "nickel and diming". I'm not talking about paying for a meal here or movie ticketst here, living expenses are quite substantial. If you compare paying 60% of rent and bills to paying 50%, that's equivalent to a 20% hike in expenses. If your bills and rent went up by 20% that would substantially affect most people.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 10:36 PM
-1

Most relationships after a certain point just pool your money. That typically only happens after marriage, and I certainly have grievances against marriage as well, but that's a topic for another day. But regardless, it's even more unwise to combine finances entirely before marriage, because if you separate it will be a massive financial and legal headache.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 10:32 PM
-1

That's different, I'm explicitly talking about splitting expenses based on earnings in of itself, not the broader concept of dividing financial and housekeeping responsibilities. Although I do look down on highly lopsided financial divisions in the context of childless relationships and marriages, because frankly without children there just isn't that much housework to be done.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 10:30 PM
2

Not sure I'd consider women's fragility is an "understandable reason".....
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/24 05:55 AM
7

And it's more socially acceptable to slut shame men than women Thanks for agreeing.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/24 05:18 AM
3

I never said that slut-shaming directed towards men and women are equally effective, I certainly don't think that.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/24 05:17 AM
3

It is slut shaming.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/24 05:08 AM
5

Just because you take pride in an insult does not make it a compliment. Shaming is based on the intent of the speaker, it's not implied that it's always successful.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/24 04:59 AM
8

The overturning of a poorly reasoned decision by activist judges has nothing to do with this.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/24 04:53 AM
6

I certainly don't expect women to do anything for us, I know better than that. But it seems quite hypocritical consider how much women bitch about slut-shaming when they do the exact same to men, or at least are tolerant when other women do it.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/24 04:53 AM
-3

Do you have any idea how many men idolize, praise, and want to be fuckbois That has nothing to do with it. And men's perspectives on dating and sex, especially those that contradict women's interests, are marginalized to begin with. Do you really think it is comparable to the decades of slut shaming women have experienced Were you alive then?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/24 04:52 AM
1

To you maybe, to most of us even. But from a woman it's always intended as an insult.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/24 04:50 AM
2

The focus on men specifically with this question is unfairly targeted given what we know about the prevalennce female perpetration of sexual violence. And of course there is physical violence within relationships, and violence broadly. These statistics are never compared to how women would respond to the same question, or how people of either sex would respond to a similar questions about desire to perpetrate criminalized acts, for instance, a question asking if they would kill anyone if there w…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/24 04:46 AM
1

zeke mogs eren so hard
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/24 10:16 PM
2

That's a disturbing statement. Consensual sex does involve established consent You're shifting the goalposts from "verbal consent" to something else. can look like without telling you anything about the people involved and how they got there, as it's a product. The same can be said for a lot of media. same with anal Does that make all male homosexual intercourse "violent"?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/24 06:09 PM
3

Once again, I refer you to: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/11/03/study-up-to-60-percent-of-women-fantasize-about-being-dominated/
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/24 05:26 PM
1

Black Catholic? What do you think of Clarence Thomas?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/24 11:37 PM
2

Do you know every single woman in both groups? Women(or men for that matter) are certainly not immune to hypocrisy. But in this case there's far less bitching from men about women talking about their sex lives.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/24 11:35 PM
15

with a positive view of casual sex, indicating a view of sex as purely physical gratification rather than a way to connect with a partner But when traditionalist men criticize promiscuous women for this they're "misogynistic" A recent study (Vera-Grey et al., 2021) found that 12.5% of videos displayed on the front page of porn sites contained sexually violent acts Are they including common sex acts like spanking or choking in that definition? In an analysis of 304 pornographic videos, Ana Bridge…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/24 11:34 PM
1

but quite maybe men also did more than is being said. Men also worked substantially more outside the house. The 8h/day, 5-day workweek is a fairly recent standard, most men used to work on saturdays as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/24 10:11 PM
1

If you completely removed no ratings and lowest ratings from the analysis(both "0s") the graph is still strongly right skewed. if women in general are more likely rate a man they find attractive than a man they find average or unattractive If anything that supports my point, the 0 ratings from not being rated are not that far off from where they would have been otherwise, in all likelihood 0-2. The only way this quirk would substantially affect the data is if women were less likely to rate men t…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/24 10:03 PM
4

Even if you exclude the 0s it's still skewed.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/24 04:03 AM
10

This take downplays the substantial amount of labor women also invested into their families in the past. They had far more children, limited if any access to professional childcare and public education to outsource childrearing, did almost all other household tasks without the aid of electric household appliances and other modern conveniences, and often times still contributed financially. People's notion of what a "traditional" relationship is like is based on the stereotype of middle/upper cla…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/24 01:48 AM
12

It's been repeated over and over that the messaging patterns told a different story. Not really, one is about what you pursue and the other is about what you perceive as average or typical, they're different issues. Additionally, per the article you linked: Women get more messages across the board: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0e4ca559-1d0d-402f-805c-65556793754a_8…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/24 01:26 AM
51

<image>
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/24 01:13 AM
0

You know if women are supposedly only attracted to like 10% of men That's a gross hyperbole and anyone who genuinely thinks that is an idiot.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/24 03:47 PM
2

That’s why it’s justifiable; a misandrist is not going to kill you for not giving her what she wants Neither would most "misogynists".
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/24 01:42 PM
4

It’s sexual for the person doing the assaulting, not the person being assaulted. The act is sexual. Perpetuating the idea that rape has anything to do with sex Rape is sex. Sex is a physical act, it may or may not be consensual. You’re accidentally agreeing with me. Men are responsible for most violent (“non-sexual”) crimes No one here has disputed that, stop jerking yourself off. This post is about sexual violence specifically.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/24 11:02 AM
4

So many men think rape is sexual. It is. Why the fuck do you think it's also called "SEXUAL assault"? It’s just violence bro. It says AND/or. Yes, which would capture men subject to physical violence. Which is FAR more common than sexual violence, at least for men. You have no argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/24 10:40 AM
–

Why do you think it is that more men report being made to penetrate vs being raped? Because they are far more likely to be assaulted by a woman than another man? What kind of question is this? The NISVS doesn't ask people whether they were "raped" or "made to penetrate", the former is inflammatory and the latter is unknown. They ask people whether they were ever subject to certain behaviors, and label them as being victimized in either category if they answer in the affirmative to certain ones. …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/24 10:37 AM
5

You're ignoring all the data OP has linked. Also, you haven't linked any of the sources, and even still I can see some problems off the bat. Firstly as u/abaxeron, many of these studies like the NISVS do not call it "rape" when a woman has sex with a man without his consent, because they define rape exclusively in terms of the victim being penetrated. Secondly, although the lifetime victimization figures are more skewed in favor of women in the NISVS, the 12 month victimization rates are much cl…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/24 09:54 AM
5

when they ignore that the majority of men are sexually victimized not by women but by other men. This is a lie, especially when it comes to nonconsensual intercourse. Per the NISVS far more men report being "made to penetrate" than "raped", the latter referring only to nonconsensual where they were the ones being penetrated. And the perpetrators are overwhelmingly female. The problem is a lot of these studies like the NISVS define "rape" as cases where the victim is penetrated against their will…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/24 09:50 AM
18

Underrepresented where? In the news? In movies? Everywhere. Literally everywhere.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/24 09:47 AM
1

Those are similarly marginalized by mainstream society like the manosphere, well apart from Islam.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/24 09:44 AM
3

Why ask lesbians specifically? What can they contribute that straight/bisexual women can't? If anything they have less experience with penetration so they're less knowledgeable on this.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/24 01:00 AM
4

Why ask lesbians when the vast majority of women aren't, and men aren't having sex with lesbians? Ridiculous.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/24 09:59 AM
4

"women are at the library to read or study, they don't want to be bothered!!!"
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/24 02:45 AM
–

Does the same apply for women who repeatedly get pumped and dumped because they're batting too far out of their league?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/24 02:42 AM
–

The criticize it when it's taken to an absurd degree "Women have precisely the same natural right to choose partners based on whatever criteria they desire, whether that is attitude, creed, or physical appearance." This was precisely the original commenter's proposition. "Whatever criteria they desire" means just that. Granted you were not the one who chose these specific words, but you are taking her side. and overrepreswnred in mass media Most people prefer seeing attractive people in media, s…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/24 02:41 AM
–

For the subset of women who do enjoy romance fiction, the “bad boy” is never actually bad. He’s tortured and misunderstood. He’s suffering None of those are mutually exclusive with being bad, you're just making excuses for them because they're attractive. Halo effect in action right here. I've read that the majority of felons in the US report either being physically or sexually abused as children, it doesn't make them good people, even if you don't hold them responsible for the way they turned o…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/24 02:34 AM
14

He's clearly speaking from a western perspective. The status of women in MENA is obvious to everyone here.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/24 12:22 AM
4

What's strange though is it's pretty much accepted to either openly hate men or women based on bad personal experience FTFY. Hostility towards women is only really tolerated in the manosphere.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/24 12:21 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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