TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ReaderMountain Archive

View 0 posts and 166 comments by ReaderMountain on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

they are wasting their life if they live in a way that is not leading to long term happiness. That's quite common though. In almost all cases this is due to chosing short term fun over long term happiness (example: eat this burger today, but be fat and miserable later). Doesn't that apply to people that "waste" their youth having fun and not becoming productive members of society? One of those things is more likely to get laid the other isn't but beyond that you don't really know what will lead …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/21 12:26 AM
1

I don't sleep around. I had sex in my past relationships. Having sex before marriage in multiple relationships is essentially the Christian version of "sleeping around" I confessed, I repented, and I've been celibate. You don't seem to repent your actions considering you keep doing them, it's more like you repented not finding the "right one", which is not how it should work. we don't want to cohabitate before marriage, or use birth control. But you have sex before marriage, why go all the way t…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/21 12:24 AM
0

Physically most girls/women stop growing in significant amounts by age 16, be it height or various secondary sexual characteristics. How is recognizing that a "pedo" thing? Nobody is saying that they are adults mentally.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 07:56 AM
7

Most young women are hot. By what metric?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 07:52 AM
1

According to statistics I found so far most Western countries range from 4 to 10 in terms of average lifelong partners and there aren't enough people in those Western countries compared to more sexually restrained places, thus the average should be lower than 5. Statistically, if you wait longer than past 26, the chance of finding such guy become null. Non-sense, a virgin might be quite rare(but still there could be more virgin men than gay-bisexual men at that age depending on the country) but …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 07:41 AM
3

We can aspire as much as we want but we still fuck up.. I've met so many Christians that smoke (not just cigarettes) and drink alcohol like it's water. I don't smoke or drink, eugh. And I've had a heck of a time finding a man that doesn't smoke or drink, Christian, Catholic, or not. So they are not even trying? You are supposed to struggle with sin, not shrug it off and accept it as part of life. I care about sex because I want 3+ kids and if I'm marrying someone, shouldn't I be attracted to the…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 07:28 AM
2

So basically "live your life but in a way where you have women around", that's a huge caveat, many men can be sociable and pursue many hobbies and still not be around women of their age, that's the reality of the situation. Anyway just because someone is not living his life how you want them to doesn't mean they are "wasting their life".
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 07:15 AM
2

Not every Christian is a virgin or a holy, sanctimonious person. They should aspire to be(the latter), that's the point. In any case the problem is not that you accept the reality that people are flawed but that you clearly don't even try to fight against it which religious Christians definitely should, for example: An experienced man that knows what he is doing is much better than a man that doesn't know where the clitoris is, how to finger properly, or has poor stamina in bed. This is not the …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 06:37 AM
2

I'm saying good luck as + in if you haven't found your virgin by like 18 years old (end of high school) the chances of you finding one after that are very very slim especially outside of it a religious context. If LGB people which are like 5% of the total population manage to find each other so can virgins, at least up to their mid 20s.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 06:31 AM
0

but I'd prefer someone who had been with five actual girlfriends than a guy who'd had one drunken hookup. That's kinda harsh, the second guy essentially did just a one-off mistake while influenced by alcohol, it really doesn't say much about him.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 06:28 AM
2

Except it's not a poor proxy, it's a direct indicator of someone's attitude to sex and relationships. Using your logic we can't even judge someone that has continuous flings or even cheat once or twice as being a poor partner, because apparently it's their personality or even mental illnesses and not their actual behavior that causes them to be a poor partner and thus you should ignore their actions entirely, it's illogical.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 06:14 AM
3

If you look at studies done after the sexual revolution happened there's barely any difference if she had 2 or 21+ partners. The thing is that they only take into account marriage and not relationship in general, the act of marrying someone already filters the least marriageable people. Try for example to see what % of people with many partners end up in long lasting relationships compared to people with fewer ones. Seems like the main reason is your own insecurity and not her having had sex bef…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 06:12 AM
1

People that can wait X amount of time before having sex will already be selected for certain attitudes to sex. Also what % of people can any given person be really incompatible with?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 06:04 AM
3

I am Catholic Why? You clearly don't care about its moral precepts.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 06:01 AM
1

At this point it's not just about TRP as their beliefs essentially align with many other groups that think women sexuality has been unfairly targeted, when apparently the opposite is true on this front, lol
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 05:59 AM
3

Obviously finding a virgin woman over the age of 20 in America is impossible Why do people say this? Did you actually look at statistics about this stuff? Around 10-20% of people around age 20-25 are still virgins in the US, both men and women.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/21 05:56 AM
1

A beacon of sanity, if "experience", in relationships or sex, was so important it wouldn't correlate negative with actually being able to stay married/partnered long term.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/21 11:53 AM
1

That counts older people too, AFAIK most people in their 20s are not overweight/obese yet in the US, but maybe I'm wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/21 10:43 AM
1

Countries like Korea, Taiwan, Singapore(especially among Chinese), Italy and Spain have fertiltiy rate far worse than the US, let's stop with ad hoc arguments based on American exceptionalism(in the positive or negative sense).
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/21 10:40 AM
4

Apparently religious people having more children is bad but religious immigrants coming in is good? Why the inconsistency?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/21 10:32 AM
-1

I disagree that most women aren't having casual sex - most are, or at least have. Any statistics I can find on the matter show that most women had either 0 or 1 sex partners at any age bracket, so if they are having casual sex it's maybe 1 ONS or 1 FwB a year for most.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/21 06:00 PM
3

Most people apparently, sexlessness is higher in those men, but it's not above 50% surely If that was an actual concern, sexlessness would be far higher, most people here are not from Scandinavia and plenty of people remain with their parents into their 20s.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/21 05:49 PM
11

Most men and women aren't slaying, either because they have a partner or because they are not that type of people, it's completely normal, the expectations that you should have multiple partners seems misplaced to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/21 05:48 PM
3

A mix of factors like attractiveness(which matters more for casual sex but still), personality traits(good traits for LTRs might make you good at those specifically but could lower your overall luck in getting laid), having solitary hobbies or hobbies where you won't find many women, having social circles with fewer women and so on.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/21 08:52 PM
–

This is kinda nonsense, just like ugly and average people have sex, so do people with bad personalities. Heck impulsive and more neurotic people with low agreeableness have more casual sex than people that have the opposite traits. Also you assume that you know how people behave IRL by their online personality in a subreddit like this.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/21 07:42 PM
–

You would encounter the extremes more(virgins and very low n-count and also high n-counts, with the medium being something like 2-6), although I'm not sure how a typical 20-25 year old virgin woman is, they might not use OLD as much or might be found less in typical places IRL, I don't really know.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/21 07:26 PM
3

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf It was something like 12 and 14. Where does this come from and from which country? It's ridiculously high if it's for first marriage: https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability Here it says only 18% of women have 10+ sex partners before marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/21 07:23 PM
–

Would you trade your sex drive for that of a woman if you get to fulfill it?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/21 07:02 PM
–

Statistically double n counts are not common but not rare either, I guess(based on data) that something like 10-15% of women in the US in their early 20s have such double digit figures nowadays, but at the same time there is a similar number of virgins in that age bracket.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/21 07:01 PM
–

True, if you look at comprehensive CDC data from the 2000s, you see that at most 25% of women in the most sexually active age bracket(18-24 years old) had 2+ opposite sex partners in any given year, while about 1/6(17%) had none at all. And this was before the recent rise of sexlessness in both single men and women. Most people just have 1 sex partner in any given year and even if it's FwB or casual sex it's evidently very little and hardly polygamous or adhering to some pareto principle where w…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/21 06:58 PM
0

Then your claim here: Men who get consistent action are mostly in LTRs tbh. Isn't true given you have plenty of serial monogamist that have shorter relationship have plenty of sex too.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/21 01:14 AM
0

They’ve worked hard to cultivate a strong, solid, equitable/happy relationship that works for them and that typically requires a partner of high quality. Is this is a joke? Literally the vast majority of LTRs end and many end relatively quickly, they are all clearly flawed in some way. If divorce rates are at 40%, imagine the break up rates for LTRs in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/21 11:43 PM
1

I tried estimating for the US, about 40% of 20-30 year old people are at least overweight(should be similar for men and women), about 12% has drug or alcohol use disorder, about 10% of them smoke. If we assume all those factors are not correlated at all, about 53% of women age 20-30 fulfill any of those requirements. It's a bit dumb because you can easily select out those women by not being part of those social groups that have those types of women(especially drug addicts) but the % is still hig…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/21 11:38 PM
2

I'm questioning the idea that obesity level would be that lower by comparing the fact that women, who don't engage in those stuff as much, are still just as much obese, I don't think it's about those hobbies.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/21 11:14 PM
1

No, I just never came across it.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/21 11:14 PM
3

Would they? Women in the US manage to have the same obesity levels without being engaged as much with gaming or pornography.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/21 12:36 AM
1

What bias? In any case the sources are right there, do you have a problem with those too?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/21 12:02 AM
1

Why wouldn't it be one? They cite their actual sources always.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 11:56 PM
2

Men don't actually have to be alpha to have casual sex. That idea to me seems unfounded to begin with.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 11:45 PM
0

But poorer and less educated people have more sex than richer and more educated ones: https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-road-to-infidelity-passes-through-multiple-sexual-partners Growing up in a lower-income home and currently having a lower household income also contributed to the increased number of sexual partners. I'm not so sure those drug addicts have less sex than the average population when the general demographic they are is just in the opposite situation, I'd look for actual data to confi…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 11:40 PM
2

The only painkiller I've taken so far by myself is ibuprofen and I'm not even sure if it's not just a placebo lol
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 11:31 PM
1

Why are so many people in pain all of a sudden?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 11:19 PM
1

The usual stereotype of a chad should be pretty uncommon, like <5-10%.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 11:12 PM
2

Where is this coming from? At least for stuff like alcohol, smoking and weed the correlation with having sex should be positive right?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 11:09 PM
1

I'm out of the loop, what does pain medication even do?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 11:04 PM
1

Food, socialization and basic education, which is basically universally provided by the state in the West.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 02:46 PM
1

Even when you just look by identity, affiliated people have more children: https://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/north-america/160a/ Imagine when you look for religiosity too, sure they don't have Niger level of fertility rates but that's because their lifestyles have been westernized a bit too, but they still have enough children to have their numbers grow. The idea that wealth and "comfort" automatically make people not want to have children is unproven, in fact you bringing your "isolated cults…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 02:45 PM
1

Westerners are richer than 90% of the globe, if those people keep having children why can't the West? It's not economics, it's purely culture that set the priority of having children low enough that "economics" becomes such a concern.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 02:37 PM
1

You are proud of something that avoids making any effort, this doesn't make any sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 02:36 PM
1

And once they get it, they stop having so many kids, did you know? Except when they don't, like in religious communities.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 02:35 PM
1

Who says they need that to have a good life?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 02:33 PM
1

Worst possible relative to where?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 02:33 PM
1

Israelis have a lot of children, also why do you think people in their early 20s shouldn't have children? They are mentally adult and biologically at their peak.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 02:29 PM
1

Ah yes, the nihilistic person pretending that the fact that 1 person not having a good life means that no one should ever have children.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 02:28 PM
1

Well a unreasonable fear is unreasonable, would you say that someone that shut himself in his house for fear of catching some disease that could kill him is being rational? Or someone that doesn't take any planes at all? Again people can choose to do whatever they want, but their excuses can be judged as well, they are not equally valid, even when there is a right choice someone can make it for bad reasons.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 02:26 PM
1

So? It's the absolute risk that matters not the relative one, using your logic if the mortality rates decreased by 100 times globally then the US would still have the highest mortality rates in the West and you would ignore the fact it has gotten much better.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 02:24 PM
0

It's not outrageous, but people should be honest instead of making shitty excuses.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 02:18 PM
-1

Why not? People make it seem that someone would be living an objectively bad life in the West a poor person. Which doesn't make any sense if you have any perspective at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 02:14 PM
2

Why is global poverty irrelevant? Does my life becomes shittier if I move to a richer neighbourhood? Relative wealth is such a stupid metric to judge one's life.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 02:09 PM
1

Well it's "me"(I'm not even saying I would have children, I just want people be rational with their justification) and billions of people that had children since the advent of human history vs a couple dozen millions westerners today. Whatever "lower standard" I can have would still be extremely high in the context of the world today, let alone the past.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 02:07 PM
1

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf https://ifstudies.org/blog/male-sexlessness-is-rising-but-not-for-the-reasons-incels-claim I think the % of virgins by age 30 is nowadays around 5% for men and women.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 01:54 PM
1

It's not "theirs", it's "ours", virtually everyone in the West has it easier than most people in the world or in the past.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 01:49 PM
0

Compared to where? Because it's better than most of the world today which is better than 99% of humans that ever lived, apparently 99% shouldn't have ever lived because we entitled westerners feel that such a life is too shitty.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/21 02:20 AM
1

That's eugenic in mentality.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 10:24 PM
1

Which is statistically unlikely given people that think like you are a minority even in the West.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 10:19 PM
1

You couldn't have chosen anything before existing but you can choose now, which makes this entire point ridiculous.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 10:17 PM
1

Thank god(or whoever) that most people don't and didn't, otherwise we wouldn't be here, we should be grateful we live an easy life on the backs of billions of humans before us that weren't pessimist or nihilist enough to give up on continuing our species.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 10:08 PM
1

You don't have to of course, but you do factually have an extremely high bar, that's my point.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 10:04 PM
0

But I think the framing is the problem, is not that "children are too expensive" it's "I either have ridiculously high standards for what a child needs to live happily or I don't want to spend any penny on someone other than me or whoever I currently spend money on/with". I'm not arguing it's a moral duty to have children, but people really frame their choices in a way convenient to them.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 10:02 PM
2

Travelling by foot surely costs more than travelling with any other method, opportunity cost and all.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 09:59 PM
-4

Just because someone claims that they are too poor to have children doesn't mean it's true, is the life of a poor child in the West so shit? Based on what metric?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 09:56 PM
-1

Perfection is the enemy of good, by just existing in the west any children you have will be better fed, clothed, educated than most people in the world today and throughout human history. I dare say that objectively the problem is that you set the bar extremely high, given that billions of people lived and currently live lives worse than what you think is the absolute minimum and those same people brought more people in this world willingly despite knowing their living conditions. It's the menta…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 09:50 PM
0

Even if you are poor in the west, your child will have better living conditions than 99% of humans ever born since we exist(I'm not exaggerating). The only thing important thing that could be lacking is parental figures but if you have those no matter how poor you are it's literally impossible to live an objectively bad life in the West from the perspective of human history(even in the last 200 years).
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 09:46 PM
1

I think you exaggerating the extent of the change, or at least are not being specific enough who it affects(18-24 men and women to a certain extent) https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jamanetworkopen/938482/zoi200181f3.png?Expires=1625737186&Signature=sMT6zRNUO4ThPsaj7LbgIL-nneFBehbr6Pupib2GGtES4q8rmNfyz8-GSjwC0tGsDODiJU6mN0TImFlmUdYy6XZf6nGldqeqLbrORjLOUETZaFJx-E47ZHzg5KhOh1LZIkwzOFWmlaWO3xC82CxYEGZZQdrRQu1jX1ki~WU3At3wV0BhQE2mxOCryKw~iLtWANdGuyOt9VywJDH~0SmVr-tBoxvYqooPJ~hm…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 09:41 PM
1

That seems a pipe dream to me, less than 20-25% of men and women in their early 20s even have 3+ sex partners at all in any given year, let alone regular ones. This is essentially impossible for non-chads from 18-26 for men Well it's impossible because it's an incredibly high standard, obesity/overweight levels for men and women are similar anyway so it's not even as if you could blame women for being particularly fat.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 09:38 PM
1

Incels are generally defined as outright virgins as does the author of the webpage I linked. I’ve never had this much sex in my life I'm not sure their estimations are correct tbh.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 09:34 PM
2

https://ifstudies.org/blog/male-sexlessness-is-rising-but-not-for-the-reasons-incels-claim
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 09:24 PM
1

I mean OP managed to misread a stat and somehow ended up believing 30% of men were virgin by age 30, which not even in Japan, the country of sexlessness, is the case.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 09:22 PM
1

I'm just asking, but what would be a great sex life?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 09:20 PM
1

Below average in what respect? Beauty?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 09:17 PM
3

*underestimating
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 09:12 PM
3

And even then CDC data shows that most people weren't getting laid that much, it's like going to an European going to an hiking trip in Colorado in the US and saying "Americans are not as fat as people claim!"
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 09:10 PM
2

using anecdotes Can we stop? I rather prefer people cherrypicking bad studies than doing this. Most men and women don't get laid regularly with different people, in fact insofar as CDC data goes(which is a decade old but if anything it's from a time where there were fewer sexless people) there were about as many people that had more than had more than 1 sex partner than there were people that had no sex at all. The bulk of people either had 1 sex partners who was likely their SO or had at most 1…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 09:08 PM
2

If that was the case then the upvotes would be as biased, but they really aren't.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 08:58 PM
1

It's for uni students, which we always knew had less sex than non-students https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/ntscbc/new_data_from_the_telegraph_indicate_that_levels/
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 08:56 PM
1

Unfortunate that virgins can't sniff each other out. In the US they do through religious organizations, I think for Americans that are not religious it's harder, not sure about us West Europeans.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 08:52 PM
1

Some people here seem to project an image of unlikely success which they try to claim as universally possible, from women and men over 30 having amazing sex lives outside LTRs to people racking n counts that are statistically rare and so on. It's a stretch to say that everyone or even most people are lying but at the very least there seem to be selection bias because a lot rare people congregate here and hare the loudest and at the same time people that are simply average or just below don't tal…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 08:44 PM
0

And as I've said women don't look for it, she doesn't need to know, and if she ask you can say that you don't keep the count, as a normal person would. But we are talking about LTRs, no? Otherwise it's just FwB or casual sex, if you didn't invent a new category of "normal relationship" which only you utilize. in real life high n count men are socially successful and attractive, which offset the high n count. Citation needed, everywhere I look promiscuous men are poorer and less educated on avera…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 03:09 PM
1

This doesn't change the fact that high N men are generally will have more attractive traits than low N men. Citation needed, I know that education(which is correlated with higher income) is negatively correlated with number of sex partners for example. Direct correlation between income and recent multiple partners is also negative, the poorest quintile had more multiple partners than everyone else and the richest quintile had slightly lower: https://www.simcoemuskokahealthstats.org/topics/sexual…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 03:01 PM
1

I think only 20% or so of men have an active sex life. Anywhere from 60%-80% of single men are not having sex regularly. You need to define those terms because to me there seem to be a contradiction here.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 02:48 PM
0

So that's a red flag in of itself for people looking for LTRs.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 02:39 PM
1

But this could be said about a lot of things, the reality is nothing exists in a vacuum, this is why everyone has the concept of red flags.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 02:33 PM
2

Why don't they stick around though? Or why doesn't he want them to stick around? Surely one of those supposedly 300 women should have been a good match?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 02:32 PM
1

Wrong: https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/strictly-casual/201604/can-renouncing-promiscuity-help-you-find-monogamous-love When people are asked they prefer people with lower n count even compared to supposedly "reformed" people. Sure women are more open to "reformed" men, but the majority still prefers the boring low n-count counterpart.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 02:31 PM
2

with around the same N is preferred but pragmatically they care far more about other traits that he has. But those traits don't exist in isolation, let's be honest if you know a man has an n count of 50 and another has an n count of 5, who do you think would be more likely to look for an LTR and share lifestyles and perspective on relationship as you do(a low n count woman) And when people are asked a question in this way, they do prefer a low n-count partner: https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/21 02:17 PM
1

I was mainly thinking about higher likelihood of being reserved/introverted and less likely to engage risk-taking behaviour(or higher likelihood of being boring, it's a matter of perspective), higher likelihood of being university educated(and all the things associated with it). If I were to think in terms of gender roles I wouldn't talk about "sharing character traits", I guess I'm an obedient and submissive person then?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 09:43 PM
0

The original point was that promiscuous women(and men) are more likely to have their marriage end up in divorce, that's it, whether there is direct causation in either direction is irrelevant. The claim that chaste women are in general X, Y and Z is on the other hand based on nothing more than stereotype. I never said "sluts will always divorce or cheat", you on other hand did make a general statement, which again is incredibly ironic. Me saying(based on data) that X trait makes Y 20% more likel…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 09:21 PM
1

No it doesn't imply anything, chaste just means either not having sex at all or having it with the person you are married to: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/chaste I don't have any such association with traditional gender roles in my mind(and even if I did it's not like women in the past all fit one stereotype), if you do that's on you, which is ironic considering that you tried to paint me as bigot for not ignoring statistical reality, before accusing others of being bigote…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 09:11 PM
2

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/alcohol-facts-and-statistics Prevalence of Drinking: According to the 2019 NSDUH, 47.1 percent of adults ages 18 to 22 drank alcohol in the past month. Within this age group, 52.5 percent of full-time college students ages 18 to 22 and 44.0 percent of other persons of the same age drank alcohol in the past month. It seems that about half of college students or people around that age don't habitually drink alcohol or at least it see…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 09:06 PM
3

Statistically a lot of people don't drink at all, for the US 1/3 of all adults didn't drink at all the past year: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db374.htm
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 08:17 PM
9

You are literally talking to a person that doesn't think that being fat is unhealthy BTW
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 08:10 PM
6

https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability First image, up to 27% of women have had only their husband as partner, higher % for successful marriages(of course), first image here: https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-sexual-history-affect-marital-happiness 45% of married women born in the 80s have had only 1 partner(their husband of course)
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 07:45 PM
0

And there you are stereotyping "chaste women" yourself, it's amazing how it works. I forgot that women who have little sex have to abide by those 3 personality traits, I bet you don't even have a study or statistics to support it, lol
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 07:43 PM
1

You reworded your previous statement and reformulated it by replacing "asexual" with "not high libido", if you were not equating the 2 then you basically changed your opinion in mere minutes?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 07:36 PM
1

I don't see any.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 07:33 PM
2

Then what subsect of virgins were you talking about?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 07:32 PM
2

if she’s a full on adult and hasn’t had sex with anyone her whole life, there’s a pretty high chance she is asexual. or, at least, extremely sexually repressed. I really don't have anything more to add, arguing with you is clearly pointless. high libido Not having high libido doesn't mean being asexual, you are using different concepts interchangeably and you complain people don't understand you. I'm done.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 07:30 PM
1

He doesn't understand that men and women don't play the same game. What do you mean by that? Surely you don't think that only male can be late bloomers?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 07:26 PM
1

I subjectively prefer them because in general terms we share more character traits, whether there is some god that judges them from above I don't know. There is no objectivity/subjectivity as morality is effectively subjective anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 07:21 PM
1

I don't think you could manage to show me actual examples here.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 07:20 PM
2

stereotype "In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people." The fact you are trying to play semantics is funny, no you did just stereotype people based on nothing but your bias. i think of people who are super religious or had parents that scared them away from sex and have extreme beliefs about sex and have a hard time actually expressing their sexuality, not whatever the fuck you were trying to say about oppression and society. Which is still …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 07:18 PM
1

Well you do you, fact remains that knowing the sexual behaviour of someone allows you to tell whether he is more or less likely to be a good partner for you or even in general, among hundred of other things.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 07:12 PM
1

Nowhere have I conflated sexual behavior with morality, show me where I did.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 07:09 PM
3

what part of my comment stereotyped them? You literally just claimed they were likely either asexual or "repressed" based on nothing but your own opinion, how is that NOT stereotyping someone? Are you serious? i meant restraining themselves? Then you basically just meant to state a truism? "Someone that had no sex is not trying to have sex", geez I wouldn't have known. i’m not sure where i said women want to have sex with whoever and if they aren’t they’re asexual. "women who like sex usually ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 07:07 PM
6

You are apparently one of those people that stereotypes virgin women. or, at least, extremely sexually repressed. Oh, of course, we also blame oppression, because women have to get in relationship with the a dude within X years regardless of their luck, otherwise society is treating them badly. What even is the logic here? women who like sex usually have sex lmfaooo Because apparently sex is something that exist in vacuum, funny how some people here find naturally to talk about sex as being some…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 06:57 PM
5

Well few women have libidos as high as men, but that doesn't mean that virgin women are necessary as asexual as some people like to claim here.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 06:52 PM
2

believe that they deserve a woman with a low body count because they themselves are virgins Who here says they "deserve" it? You are maliciously twisting their words.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 06:50 PM
7

Well high libido and low n men exist, in any it's just an ideal, just like there aren't enough rich tall millionaires for every woman there aren't enough kinky nuns for every man.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 06:48 PM
2

Ideal Partner N count range = Your N count + or - 7. That's a range too big, if anything I'd say something like your N count either multiplied or divided by 2 but with a minimum range of 2, so basically if N =1 the ideal partner would be 0-3, if N = 10 the ideal partner would be 5-20. After all the higher the number is the less it really matters what the exact figure is but more the scale does.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 06:45 PM
1

And we go straight to the ad hominems, apparently one single paper of a guy using some whacky economical model which he himselfs shows not having high confidence for is equal to the theory of evolution. if you’re afraid a woman with experience will see through your bullshit. Your entire argument was that you couldn't possibly know why a promiscuous woman is promiscuous, but apparently you know exactly who I am based on some constructed stereotype, you see no contradiction here?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 06:38 PM
1

So you contradict yourself in one go, you can apparently profile me based on a short discussion, but others cannot profile other people based on their behaviour. Amazing logic
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 06:37 PM
1

What is a "complete" and "efficient" method? Knowing the specific person well? Well duh, but at the end of the day you can only know well so many people and you will have to filter through your acquaintances, online dating profiles and so on. Therefore, consuming water is related to having red hair. That is your logic here. You are not even trying to be coherent, it's more like "Red haired people are more likely to come from Europe or North America, thus I can assume red haired people to have ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 06:19 PM
1

No it doesn't, the paper claims, based on a purely imaginary economic model, that societies where female virginity is value more than male virginity allows for imbalanced relationships where there is more leeway for violence. It's not proven anywhere and the paragraph I quoted literally shows how the author cannot even make any direct claim at the end of the paper.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 06:13 PM
0

A paper arguing about marriage in purely economic terms? Funny how you accept this but not correlation studies which are far less speculative. The US has the highest incidence of rape in the western industrial world, which may be related to it also having the highest virginity premiums: Amazing the study can't even make any claim at the end, the US "may" have higher rates of rape and it "may" be connected to this other thing which I don't actually prove. You probably think I should probably just…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 05:57 PM
1

They are still not good partners either way and their promiscuity is one of the signals for that according to your own words. You have not made an argument as to why it's not a good heuristic, especially when no one said it's the only one.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 05:53 PM
0

So what? It's a good heuristic either way, if something else causes women to be both more promiscuous and less likely to be faithful, happy and satisfied partners in the long term, why shouldn't we use such signals together? Fuck pattern recognition, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 05:48 PM
1

Prove that that happens then more in those type of marriages, in any case just because "virgin" marriages are not perfect doesn't mean they aren't statistically better, which we literally see in the data given higher happiness, lower depression rates and fewer STDs.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 05:46 PM
1

The US is extremely puritanical in its views regarding sex Compared to what? Western Europe? Maybe but not to most of the world. and that means they get to make bad choices if they want to. You don’t get to control half of humanity just because you don’t like that they are sexual beings. Literal strawman, your idea that divorce rates are lower for less promiscuous women only because "women are oppressed" is just an invented narrative to protect your already ingrained beliefs. Fact remains that t…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 05:45 PM
1

Except there is correlation with happiness too: https://i.redd.it/vv8s35is35731.jpg This oppression argument is just a convenient narrative for western cultural imperialists that think that somehow our modern culture that progressively formed in the last 2-3 generations is the apex for human societies in all aspects.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 05:37 PM
1

Virgin people in their 20s are more common than LGBT people in their 20s. I guess 2 gay dudes marrying is a "wet dream" too? You are simply wrong. sex is great sex is fun. Maybe, for whatever reason sexlessness in people at the peak of their youth is increasing in the last decade by a lot.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 05:31 PM
2

This does not say that divorce doesn't happen because "oppression" which is the claim the other dude was looking evidence for. In any case I think using just marriage is a bit misleading because marriage already filters a lot of bad promiscuous people anyway, what we should look at is break up rates for LTRs in general, given LTRs are less stable and that marriage rates are lower for people with higher n counts AFAIK.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 05:24 PM
2

In any case you claimed it was "wet dream" when in fact it's not rare even in the west.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 05:21 PM
2

Apparently lifelong monogamy is not a good thing lol
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 05:11 PM
2

But no country in the world is homogenously high n count AFAIK
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 04:43 PM
2

It's clearly a joke, I hate when people dismiss data like this, I just responded sarcastically.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 04:12 PM
3

Sure but people judge things relatively, if they knew how few/many partners people actually had on average then this 12 figure wouldn't really exist, plus the source is dubious to begin with...
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 04:11 PM
2

Yes 99% of women cheat and have on average 10 partners/years and lie in surveys because apparently we still live in a conservative society where you can't be openly promiscuous despite somehow most women being just that. This doesn't change the point here that men don't actually seem to have such big internal push to cheat/crave multiple partners, because women manage to keep up anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 03:40 PM
5

I think horny teen and people in their early 20s is what the sexual revolution really hit, not "women" specifically.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 03:34 PM
5

Those surveys are pointless because most people don't actually know what the average is and thus can't make relative statements based on that, 12 is certainly above average according to most studies though and given that people don't actually prefer promiscuous partners* I'd say that in practice 12 is not actually the preferred number or at least it's not in the preferred range. *https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/strictly-casual/201604/can-renouncing-promiscuity-help-you-find-monogamous-lo…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 03:32 PM
6

Tens of millions of people live their life having had sex with only one person. It's quite common.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 03:27 PM
0

I'm saying this based on related statistics like this: https://ifstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/wolfinger-sex-divorce-table-1.png People in the 70s weren't decades into the sexual revolution, opinions on things such as contraceptive, abortion, pre-marital sex were still changing.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 02:39 PM
8

However I hypothesize that male desire for sexual variety/polygyny would result in men being unsatisfied with only having one sexual partner for their entire life. And yet women cheat a tiny bit more(but basically the same as men) in their 20s and the prominence of cheating for both is similar until like age 50 and only then men take over. I really don't think men in the west today have such a big internal instinct or desire to have sex with other women despite being in a relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 02:28 PM
1

Being in shape takes a lot of hard work and discipline, Being thin takes very little active effort when you reach a desired weight level, being fit on the other hand does require active effort but anyway women gain most of the benefits by just being thin.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 02:10 PM
-1

In the 90s maybe, but 70s? I think it was either the same or less than today, but we aren't talking about sex in general, but rather casual or pre-marital sex, otherwise conservative societies beat the US by simply having higher marriage rates and lower ages at marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 01:49 PM
1

https://ifstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/wolfinger-sex-divorce-table-1.png If they were having sex on the first date it was apparently only once and with their partner. Maybe men were less prude, but the women definitely weren't.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 01:34 PM
8

Even in the last decade a lot of men in the US ended up marrying women that were virgin prior to their relationship, I'm not sure where this idea that's it's rare comes from. what really they want is Low-N count women (preferably below 5) From 2000s CDC data, the median amount of partners a woman would have peaked around 4-4.5 so honestly low-n count is not lower than 5 or 10, it's basically 0-3 and the 0 portion is not that rare either especially if you are young. In any case it's not at a "big…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/21 01:19 PM
1

Literally 99% of humanity that ever lived and reproduced lived in conditions worse than any poor kid in the west would go today(simple proof, look at their height, if it's not stunted by poor nutrition they automatically are better off than literally 99% of people, I'm not exaggerating). It's an excuse, you are the top 1% of humanity, if you don't want kids fine but don't lie to yourself. Just because they can't afford a vacation in the Canaries every other year doesn't mean it's not a life wort…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/21 10:50 PM
2

Most women in the west aren't nearly as liberated from gender norms as some people would like to think.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/21 09:57 PM
3

Well CDC data for the 2000s gives a median number of sex parterns of around 4.2 for women and 6.4 for men, the demographic that apparently had most sex in any given year were men age 20-24 and even among them double as many people had either 1 or 0 sex partners in the last year compared to those that had 2 or more. This is not directly data specific to ONS but it does show that the majority of the population doesn't have enough sex partners to be able to really have many ONS on average. https://…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 11:23 PM
3

Most of the issues is emotional and mental, and has nothing to do with "free adults" If it's emotional and mental then I don't see how this has anything to do with age. Plus you contradict yourself by mentioning "financial abuse", when you actually try be specific you pin it to economic issues or issues of power, not "emotions". Theoretically as well adults on equal mental footing are better able to manage that than someone with 35+ years of life experience vs 22. The idea that you can know some…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 04:16 AM
2

Ultimately this is not true: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/summer-of-science-2015/latest/how-often-is-bmi-misleading?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur BMI generally underestimates unhealthy amounts of body fat more than it overestimates it, for men it overestimates it a bit(probably where muscle mass plays a factor) for women it underestimates it by quite a lot(contrary to women screeching that they should have more fat than men, which they do at the same BMI anyway...), also statistic…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 03:52 AM
1

People in their 20s are less obese and overweight than the "average American male" whose age is like in the mid 50s(median age when not counting non-adults)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 03:46 AM
1

So no woman is a virgin, they all lie and you know that because you just do. OK
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 03:38 AM
6

Which smack of grooming and manipulation. But they are not being made to join a cult or made socially isolated and ultimately they all still remain free adults in a Western country with easy no-fault divorce, how in the world can serious "manipulation" even happen in a statistically significant manner? The rhetorical infantilization of young adult women here is quite concerning. What does grooming/manipulation even involve exactly and why wouldn't this apply to a plethora of other situations, li…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 03:34 AM
6

If the reasons why they are being judged are spurious then not really, we don't like people judging others for being homosexual for example.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 03:28 AM
1

Not really, a good amount of women in their early and mid 20s remain virgin(let alone low-n count), more than there are LBT women for example. You don't have to look hard in the religious USA to find community where those women are even more prominent.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 03:25 AM
1

How do you know that?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 03:21 AM
2

A religious woman wanting a religious man is an high standard?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 03:20 AM
1

Statistically most of them likely do because only a small 5% of 2010s marriages are with virgin women but a much higher % is with women that only had their current husband as a pre-martial sex partner(up to 22%), surely the % of religious Christian girls is higher than at least 10%?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 03:19 AM
2

Surely there must be some other factors here?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 03:16 AM
1

Just because 100% of a demographic is not made of single virgin women waiting for you doesn't mean it's not worth looking within those demographics for partners. Just because "huge sluts" can be religious doesn't mean there isn't a statistical correlation between religiosity and more conservative sexual behaviour.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 03:15 AM
1

How small does the % need to be to be defined as a "needle"? Because the actual % is higher than 5% I'd wager based on data.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 03:10 AM
1

Very few are virgins when getting married, being that the average age of marriage is pushing 30. https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability The first table here shows that up to 27% of women had 0-1 premarital partners and that 1 pre-marital partner is in most cases the one they are marrying(and it doesn't apper to be restrict to first marriages). So it's not that uncommon, CDC data on number of sex partners also has 20-25% of wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 03:06 AM
2

Unicorn? 1/30 of women in their late 20s are virgin according to decade old CDC data(now it would be higher on all accounts), that's like the % of people that are lesbian or gay, I guess those are unicorns too . This figure would be higher for single women of course. Maybe you will assume all or most of them are religious, but I don't see the evidence of that.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 02:57 AM
1

"freaky" means what exactly?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 02:54 AM
0

You are stereotyping an entire group of people too much, this would be like claiming that all promiscuous people abuse drugs, alcohol or that they all cheat just because the former behaviour is correlated with the rest. Also even if it was true that all religious women are more chaste than most non-religious women, the scale of the difference is important, you are painting it as almost a black-and-white issue here when in likelyhood virgin religious women would hardly be much more chaste than lo…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/21 02:52 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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