TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

RootingRound Archive

View 0 posts and 291 comments by RootingRound 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)
7

It doesn't sound like a sustainable belief to say that the people who don't like your appearance are shallow, and thus beneath your consideration. Everyone has traits they don't find attractive. This would make everyone shallow, and everyone beneath your consideration.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/23 02:23 PM
1

I've never seem a man give dating advice to a woman in real life. Is this an internet thing specifically for people who give dating advice, and who have a vested interest in continuing to produce this advice?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/23 08:22 PM
1

If you skateboard, you buy a skateboard and do your thing. The biggest competition you can expect is from other people using the facilities and taking up space you want. As long as they're not in direct competition for desired space, they are someone you have a not too common shared interest with. If you actively want to seduce for sex, you're already in a highly competitive environment. Unless you're into sharing, a maximum of one man will take the hottest woman in the club to bed that night. A…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/23 08:18 PM
1

Oh yes of course. Sorry about the time, I hadn't checked in. I'd recommend more reading on life history strategy if you're interested to read more about this correlation, but I'll put in some papers that hopefully sufficiently illustrate the point. The behavioral correlates of overall and distinctive life history strategy. Both slow-LH and fast-LH persons display a number of behaviors that may be either adaptive or maladaptive in different contexts. Specifically, slow-LH individuals tended to be…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/23 03:42 PM
1

Yes, while men view sexual cheating as slightly worse than women, and women view emotional cheating as slightly worse than men, both sexes hate being cheated on, no matter which. But I think one of your arguments is questionable. If you believe that environment and nurture remotely shape personality, it is easy to see how a cheating and absent father, and a depressed single mother, could very well raise sons with suppressed or unattractive personalities incapable of finding a partner; therefore …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/23 08:40 PM
2

I don't think you're talking about evo psych in any meaningful sense. At that point, whatever responses you get are responses to some misappropriation of pop evo-psych, and not really something that should be relevant to evo psych. People have instincts, but that doesn't mean that these things are entirely beyond our control. Take caloric intake for example. While sugar and fat is a dopamine bomb, you don't automatically become unhappy if you have a healthy diet. Hell, people who exert some cont…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/22 08:08 AM
10

If you see a man with an extremely hot woman, she has chosen him for a reason. You don't know what that reason is yet, but he might have some hidden desirable qualities as a long term partner. Poaching him might be worth the effort. If you see a man with no woman, you have no indication that he has been chosen by anyone. If you get evidence that he's never been in a relationship, it's an indication that he might have some qualities that other women have considered to be red flags, so it might no…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/22 10:11 AM
2

I see it quite often that men want to use empirical data to prove being a slut is bad for long-term bonding and relationships. Let's say in this scenario that is not the case. I'm wondering about this clause. To be clear, we are talking about a completely hypothetical scenario where absolutely certainty in information is possible?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/22 09:11 AM
3

The person you are today is a betrayer. It is best to let your partner know this, so they can make an informed decision.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/22 03:47 PM
1

I think online might be the best one to have a reference for.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/22 07:48 AM
1

Any examples of this happening that could be illustrative of your point?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/22 06:59 AM
1

Oh that's interesting, if you happen to come across the link, a reference would grant my eternal gratitude!
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/22 06:15 AM
1

The life a person has peed a pretty good indicator of what kind of person they are.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/22 05:01 PM
2

You must understand that in caveman times when people were living in tribes, sex was a communal thing. Everyone participated. What kind of sex at dawn delusion is this?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/22 03:05 PM
1

I agree.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/22 06:41 PM
1

Ah yes, I put a lot more into how I view sex, the relationship between the participants, the interpersonal context for the situation, the status of consent, the feelings involved, the location where it happens. To mention a few.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/22 06:34 PM
1

Right, and the actual physical acts performed by the individuals involved would be all that goes into it?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/22 06:12 PM
1

There must be a misunderstanding of terms here, what do you mean when you say sex?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/22 03:35 PM
1

I can't really wrap my head around the sameness of it. When I have sex with a long term romantic partner it's qualitatively different in practically every respect,v the level of implicit versus explicit communication, the way foreplay is initiated and carried out, questions and ambivalence that needs to be considered, sexual acts carried out, level of and intimacy of cuddling, Hell, thinking about it, I wouldn't say that the sex I've had with my long term partners has been the same either, dynam…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/22 03:04 PM
1

Yet it is exactly the same as fucking some repeatedly?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/22 03:28 AM
1

It would be incestuous.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/22 03:27 AM
0

You have a habit of having sex with strangers 3-5 times a day for months at a time?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/22 08:45 PM
1

Is sex with your close relatives the same as sex with anyone else?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/22 08:44 PM
1

Right, do you think people could consider those instances different from when you do?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/22 06:58 PM
1

But we are talking about sex here, not love. Ah, you don't love the people you fuck?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/22 06:27 PM
1

I don't know exactly how you don't see a distinction.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/22 06:21 PM
3

Do you love people you have slept with once and never met again the same as the people you have been in relationships with for years?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/22 06:15 PM
2

I'd consider both, but the number of people someone has slept with in the past seems a more important informant of how many they will sleep with in the future. All though I figure an f count could give me an approximation for sexual drive within a relationship, which would be a good thing to have as fairly closely matched.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/22 06:11 PM
1

That's all right, for most people it would be two rather different pieces of effort. One would be going out, getting to know someone, vetting them sufficiently for the requirements, then having sex. For long term partners, the interpersonal relationship has different expectations, other thresholds for acceptable behavior, and of course a reliance on a certain level of dependability.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/22 06:05 PM
2

It tends to be. Of course, one of the pieces of information I consider in a future partner is their sexual experience.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/22 05:53 PM
3

Interesting, I've found that the overlap of skills in getting a new partner and retaining an existing partner is rather minimal. Getting to know people from a minimal foundation, seeking out people whose motivation would be to get laid soon, emotional care and reciprocal long term improvement, communicating for issue resolution, satisfaction with sexual and romantic exclusivity.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/22 05:52 PM
8

That's a valid approach. I'd prefer a partner who only preferred to have sex with a committed romantic partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/22 04:58 PM
4

Yep, and what sets of skills would you be building in these two approaches to having sex?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/22 04:56 PM
6

I might be best able to illustrate it. What would it require of you to have sex once a week for a month with a committed romantic partner, and what would it require of you to have sex once a week with someone you have never had sex with before?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/22 04:41 PM
5

Because to me it is exactly the same (I have lot of love and affection to share...). To you, sleeping with your committed partner three times a week for three months would be exactly the same as sleeping with an attractive stranger three times a week?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/22 04:38 PM
35

We hear a lot of talk from some quarters of women being “run through”, their vaginas being stretched out of shape from all the cock they have had (yes, I know), and their inability to “pair bond”. Lol what. Committed sex with a romantic partner tends to be an entirely different from uncommitted sex with a series of partners. And neither depends on physical alterations.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/22 04:31 PM
2

Status with whom?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/22 05:54 PM
8

Men who want sex may simply be motivated to arouse their partner. But generally, relationships have sex as frequently as the woman would like the relationship to want, which is also the lower of the two frequencies.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/22 09:48 PM
-1

I don't think the skewed approach to domestic violence that came with some feminist advocacy was a contemporary necessity, nor a simple societal positive. If the perspective of patriarchal terrorism had lost out to the model around domestic conflict resolution, it might be that the solutions would have been better.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/22 06:03 AM
2

If ideal penis size is the main motivation at play for women, the solution while being monogamous is simple: Get a suitable toy. If variety in sexual partners is the main motivation at play for men, the solution while being monogamous seems elusive. I'm not sure how to make your wife be another person for the space of a fuck. Though of course, "ideal penis size" is a requirement for sexual fulfillment for a small minority of women. If we were to speak in terms of generalities, I would wager that…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/22 09:47 PM
13

Comparing to men, it is an incredibly low amount of women who can orgasm from penetrative intercourse. Or rather, an incredibly high portion that cannot orgasm purely from penetrative intercourse. There's no big reason to look for an unflattering mind reading explanation.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/22 05:54 PM
1

Cause if you're selecting for 18 year old college drop outs cause they're pure or whatever it's clearly not on the basis of risk of infidelity. That would entirely depend. If she's a college drop out, we could assume she has at least 14 years of education, that would be a 10% reduction right there. If she has had 0 sexual partners, that would be a further 28% reduction in risk. If, on the other hand, she's got 17 years of education, that would be a 40% reduction in risk, though if she had 19 sex…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/22 01:41 PM
1

why do men complain about how women behave in 2022? The problems in society are created by men and perpetuated by men. Step one, do not complain about women. Step two, complain about men. Something seems to be missing in this logic, like an explanation of why men are more accountable for a society that both men and women influence, or why your complaints about men not being traditional is somehow better than a man complaining about a women not being traditional. You didn't really outline anythin…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/22 05:07 AM
1

Interesting, they seem to have made an impact mostly in the US for that tradition. Maybe it was a bit more culturally malleable.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/22 02:26 PM
7

The number of people you choose to sleep with is not immutable. It is no doubt going to be influenced by factors someone doesn't fully control, but we shouldn't conclude that it is entirely immutable, or that what one does in ones young adulthood doesn't reflect upon what kind of person you are.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/22 05:30 AM
2

It really seems that the rock tradition is more about reckless spending than anything. I can appreciate a matching set of rings once someone is married, ideally rings that reflect the wearers rather than being expensive for the sake of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/22 05:21 AM
1

I don't get this whole engagement ring thing. Don't Americans have the patience to wait for wedding rings?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/22 05:07 AM
1

We tend to see the behavior of mate choice copying in women, where man who looks like he is dating a hot woman is considered more attractive from that association alone, as if him being approved by an attractive woman means that he has some additional unseen trait that is desirable. If you asked a set of women to assess a man's attractiveness and either told them he was a virgin, or he has slept with twenty women, the general tendency would be that the latter was assessed more favorably I'd wage…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/22 07:11 AM
1

Pop-science is generally never hard science. Or even science at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/22 01:49 PM
0

Whop, didn't see the flair, I'll just repost here: It's probably the best theory covering ultimate causes for our in cognition and behaviors. Though the field is still rather young, it has made some interesting predictions and works on a strong fundament. The two key problems is when it intersects with ideology, both those who reflexively reject it, and then add some post hoc explanation (often recycled from creationist arguments), and the ones who adopt it and attempt to make every unfounded su…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/22 11:06 AM
2

Ah, all right. I've primarily been looking at it as its academic application and your conclusions seemed strange with what I've read. But as far as pop science goes, I would agree that the merit is lacking.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/22 10:47 AM
1

To clarify, are you talking about pop evo-psych, or the field of research?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/22 10:26 AM
0

Most of the theories can't really be empirically tested Do you have a specific example of an evolutionary psychology theory that has been published in a journal, and defies any means of empirical testing?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/22 09:58 AM
1

And that women benefit a lot more from online dating than men. I still don't get this part, what benefits are you thinking of when you parse this claim?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/22 09:11 AM
1

If men are better at running 1k, why do women spend longer doing it? I don't quite get how the conclusion counters the premise, and it seems to be reinforced with the evidence you suggest counters it. What do you think it means for a dating app to "favor women?"
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/22 09:01 AM
3

It is through my familiarity with the research at hand that your claim is intriguing, I might have missed something. Though I had hoped it would be something with stronger behavioral correlates than neural activity.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/22 09:24 AM
1

Right, so that's talking about neural activation rather than the psychological effect, do you have anything on the latter?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/22 08:17 AM
1

How do you tell if a man has sexually assaulted someone in the past? Or if he was abusive to his previous girlfriend? Or has used promises of long term romantic interest to get laid?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/22 06:13 AM
1

Do you have a link to some studies on the matter? And for clarity, do you believe women have a lower sexual drive than men?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/22 05:54 AM
1

how she talks about her ex's how she treats people below her her relationship with her parents how she cultivates and invests in her talents and passions if she can maintain good friendsips over the years if she can hold a job how she manages her finances her relationship with substances such as drugs and alcohol how she uses social media if she knows what she wants sexually and how to ask for it How would these be somewhat reliably measurable and testable?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/22 07:03 PM
1

Fantastic, you mind bringing some sources that compare and contrast? That would be a fun thing to look at.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/22 06:52 PM
2

It'll be fine, most people are understanding of individual differences and don't have relationships ruled by their sex drive. Plus, it's not an awfully low sexual drive.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/22 06:37 PM
1

I wouldn't be feeling this way if I hadn't had a hoe phase. I don't think the reasoning following this statement checks out. How would you in this hypothetical have access to true information about a counterfactual situation? It just sounds like me saying I wouldn't be able to do a pull up if I hadn't spent my teens and twenties being morbidly obese and unfit. I could spin a tale about me finally getting tired of being out of breath after a flight of stairs, and I'd never have found that motivat…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/22 06:18 PM
2

I'm not arguing that any woman should get married, so you'll have to go elsewhere for that. People's reasons for leaving a relationship tend to reflect why they got into those relationships in the first place, it's not terribly surprising. And I'm sure a lot of divorces are pre-emptive, or over concerns of abandonment, or simply having found a better partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/22 06:44 AM
-1

It would not be a surprise from this perspective if divorce rates increased around menopause, or if these times were associated with a higher risk of infidelity. Though "literally every marriage" would be hyperbole, it's not like "literally every marriage" falls apart when the woman has brain cancer or MS either. An appreciable increase is what's mostly of relevance here. And there's no need to say they base their value "entirely on fertility" of course, no more than women basing their partner c…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/22 06:17 AM
-1

This suggests that men are more likely to view the marriage as an insurance policy for in-home care in their old age. Interesting, this is not what I've thought as a very likely suggestion at all. Rather, men's attraction to women is closely tied to fertility, which gives both health and age as significant predictors. So my guess would be that debilitating illness is also detrimental to attractiveness, which removes some of the original attractors before the man is prepared for that to be lost. …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/22 05:45 AM
2

Interesting. I figured promiscuity would primarily be considered as a predictor of infidelity, rather than divorce. Which RP claims are you looking at in particular? And I assume you realize that pair bonding is a term used about humans as well in research?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/22 07:28 AM
3

No, just that people tend to have a desire for relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/22 08:31 AM
2

I don't know about the pills, or about women in general, but the concept seems simple. If one of my friends holds an unrealistic expectation of their future, I'd want to dissuade this expectation, as keeping them would most likely seeing them either failing entirely, or feeling like they settled for less than they deserve. If a friend loses a high paying job with benefits and a short commute, some unicorn job that's simply not going to come around in the future, I'm not going to be the friend wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/22 08:05 AM
1

We can say women are more attractive and all we need to show is that they have more power to attract on the whole. I'm not sure how you would set this up as something measurable and useful, but I'd like to explore the construction of a measurable attractiveness score to look at. How would you start by defining "power to attract" in a testable way? After all men seek them out far more than they seek men out so I'd say they evoke more interest. Certainly if we go with dictionary definitions of att…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/22 06:23 AM
2

In this context, we are looking at the differences between strength and attractiveness. One of which is objective to the sense that there is no need for individual judgment. A 75kg lift is a 75kg lift regardless of observation. The other is inherently dependent on being observed in order to be a meaningful attribute. But if that is not of interest of you, feel free to disregard the conversation being had.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 05:35 PM
1

This isn't true either, and that's not what "objective" means in this context and is sidling towards philosophical waffling. No, this is the key definition of whether something is objective or subjective. If you want to avoid the philosophical waffling, you are free to accept the definitions I offer. If you want to pretend that something being unconscious makes it somehow independent of the mind, that's find as well, but I won't engage the fantasy.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 04:59 PM
1

To be clear, I am in no way saying that subjective means that something is arbitrary or without consensus. Rather, that it depends on a judgment that takes place in a person's mind.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 02:39 PM
3

No, but thanks for playing. It is set in the contrast between something objectively measurable (strength) and something that in its totality is not objectively measurable (attractiveness). Not whether something has species wide consensus (facial symmetry) or not (mustaches on men).
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 02:10 PM
1

It’s the same reason no one’s really addressing the last line of your post. Because the answer is: "I don't agree with that, so I'm not gonna spend time defending it."
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 01:52 PM
2

Yep, attractiveness is in part composed of objective metrics. And many of the components of attractiveness are practically universally agreed upon. And I do agree that attractiveness is an evolved metric that helps mate selection for physical qualities that are desirable. Though to be clear, attractiveness requires a person to make an assessment and does not exist independent of the mind.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 01:44 PM
8

Subjective does not mean "no consensus," objective does not mean "consensus."
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 01:21 PM
0

Yep, it relates to objective measures, but attractiveness is a perception that requires a thinking mind, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 12:12 PM
2

I don't quite get what this has to do with the statement that women are more attractive, but al right.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 11:50 AM
2

Which is why a man can be an attractive man, but if he were a woman, he would be a repulsive woman, and the other way around.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 11:43 AM
1

It doesn't come out of a vacuum, that's correct. But what is commonly perceived as attractive in men and women does not have 100% overlap, which makes saying that either group is more attractive, a moot point. It's like saying that centimeters are longer than minutes.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 11:38 AM
5

there are some traits considered objectively attractive. No. There are traits that are considered nearly universally attractive, but objectively attractive is pretty much an oxymoron. It's like saying that a painting is objectively meaningful. Visible muscles, low body fat, strong beard growth, facial masculinization, long hair, large eyes, hip to waist ratio, shoulder to waist ratio. There are shared standards that go for both men and women, but there is also a significant divergence that makes…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 11:26 AM
88

Strength is objective and can be measured absolutely. Attractiveness is an inherently relative and subjective concept. Male attractiveness and female attractiveness is not judged by the same standards.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/22 11:16 AM
1

Right, so in this women's promiscuity (controlling for number of sexual partners one has had sex with) explained 45% of the variance in infidelity. I can't see that any of the other results had an explained variance of that level, which makes it seem like promiscuity is so far the most informative, if that's the level of comparison you want to go with.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 02:56 PM
1

We have been operating in an information vacuum in this conversation, you've been offered numerous opportunities to expand the numbers. Though the study you linked doesn't include promiscuousness, so it's not quite possible to compare effect sizes using only that.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 02:35 PM
1

You know what's the most surefire way to avoid getting cheated on? Yep I am acknowledging that your method might not get you into problems, because your options are abundant, but it's still not the most rational and efficient way to achieve your goal. In the current information vacuum we have established, it is. You are clearly not interested in finding the best way, you're just looking for any way, even if it's inaccurate. I've already requested your data and analysis, but you have not contribu…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 12:10 PM
1

It depends on what it costs you. And in this case, that’s just not a desirable ratio of losses and reducing risk. At least, if you’re not a paranoid idiot. It does depend on what it costs you. If it's a "the last woman in the world who would want to date you is promiscuous," exclusion is not rational. If you have options, it's not a problem to wait for a few weeks or months until the next opportunity comes around. You're going to want to do thorough vetting if you're looking for a long term part…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 11:36 AM
1

The desired result is to filter out potentially cheating partners. You can’t do that by just looking at promiscuity, because non-promiscuous people cheat, too. You are filtering out potentially cheating partners. Every time you filter out a promiscuous partner, you filter out 0.2 cheating partners, lowering your relative number of cheating partners toward 0.15 with that single move. A 7% reduction in risk with a single variable is not failing to achieve results.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 11:22 AM
1

"live a little, marry a cheater."
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 11:03 AM
1

You haven't shown the unreliability of the filter. That's kind of the big hurdle to get to here. It is reliable in that it produces the desired result, what we need to see is that the effect is no longer significant in a regression analysis with the other variables you mentioned.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 11:02 AM
1

You called OP a misogynist, yet fail to support it. Speaking for him without reference to his words.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 10:48 AM
1

But you can also just refrain from using promiscuity and rely on your other filters and get even better results, because that way you’d filter out promiscuous cheaters with the same reliability, and have not so many false positives. Do you have a study that has this regression model? Additionally, the more filters you use, the larger the potential pool should be, in order to really be able find someone who fits your desires. Or the less stringent your filters need to be. You can and probably sho…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 10:45 AM
1

Yep, that's what I figured. You never had the evidence, just the claim and the moral fortitude to make it confidently.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 10:41 AM
1

It is a symmetric payoff How do you figure this? What is the payoff for being cheated on? What is the payoff for being in a relationship without cheating? What is the payoff for being single for two months? What is the payoff for being single for three years? What is the payoff for finding out that your kids were never actually yours?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 10:34 AM
1

Ah, of course, only OP is allowed to ask for evidence of your unfounded claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 10:28 AM
2

For some people And these are the people whose minds you read?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 10:26 AM
1

But you don’t necessarily want a non-promiscuous person, but rather a faithful one. What use would it be to exclude promiscuous people on this basis, if you’re just looking for someone who doesn’t cheat? You're improving the odds in the remaining sample. Let's say you want two things: a sample greater than n=0, and a minimal p(unfaithfulness). With a single piece of information, a clean break works fine. With several pieces of predictive information, their interactions is more important. Are you…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 10:25 AM
1

Why are you so offended women call you misogynist when you call them promiscuous/used/dirty/etc.? Why so precious? It's your claim my dear.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 10:15 AM
2

It doesn't inherently carry moral valence.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 10:13 AM
1

If an indicator is wrong 80 percent of the times, it is a shitty indicator and shouldn’t be installed in any screening as a deal-breaker, because you lose too much potential. All right, I have a more effective alternative to paracetamol. It will only kill you 20 percent of the time. According to you logic, it is shitty not to take it. You lose about 40 percent of potentially desired dating partners to decrease your probability to get cheated on from 17.5 percent to 15 percent, which is only 2.5 …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 10:09 AM
2

So a pile is a moral term in your opinion? Or do we realized that subjectively affected definitions does not equate to morally laden?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 10:00 AM
3

If you are arguing in good faith, you'd know that plenty of men here have different standards for promiscuity for women v men. You can prove your point of course, and link OP's thresholds.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 09:58 AM
2

Hmm. Maybe you can guess from the definitions. Unless you think dirty means in a descriptive physical sense, rather than a moral one. Dirty : morally unclean or corrupt Promiscuous : having or involving many sexual partners
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 09:57 AM
1

But if societal standards were otherwise, you’d see this as a wise decision? I am not only arguing that it is an immoral, but also an idiotic decision in both cases, because there’s no causal relationship between the two features. If we threw ethics out the window, and wanted pure optimization, any meaningfully informative variable should be included to optimize the model. If the only available information an employer had was whether or not their potential employee was promiscuous, and promiscuo…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 09:51 AM
3

Calling someone dirty has inherent negative valance. The same does not go for promiscuous.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 09:40 AM
5

Ooooo but there's plenty of moral judgement that goes into the word "promiscuous" considering how the number that makes a woman "promiscuous" does not make a man so. No, the word is not the problem it is your perception of a different standard of application from the person. So you're calling someone a misogynist because you think they are a misogynist because you expect misogyny. "One shouldn't equivocate to such a degree." mean? You're treating "promiscuous" and "dirty" as morally equivalent. …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 09:39 AM
1

No, you're an employer and should not discriminate against people based on their identity. Individuals making sexual or romantic selections on the other hand, inherently discriminate.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 09:37 AM
1

A majority of promiscuous people are more likely to be unfaithful than non-promiscous people. It is a great risk minimizer.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 09:31 AM
1

It's not wrong the majority of times, it helps minimize the risk the majority of times.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 09:26 AM
2

Can you only pick one indicator that you have to stick with forever?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 09:22 AM
2

So it is not whether it is real, but rather whether you personally think the risk is high enough? The minority of base-jumpers meet a violent end, do you think that makes non-base-jumpers paranoid fools?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 09:18 AM
3

Promiscuous is a neutral term that relates to one's number of sexual partners. Dirty is in this case a negative term with moral connotations. If using both these terms is equal to misogyny, there's no way to discuss the subject without being misogynistic, this indicates fear of the subject, rather than simply wishing for a level of civil discourse.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 09:16 AM
3

neither a majority of promiscuous nor a majority of non-promiscuous people cheat. That's not what I claim, so that's all right. For illustration, if 15 percent of non-promiscuous people cheat and 20 percent of promiscuous people, then promiscuous people are by a third more likely to cheat. Then, for this analogy, promiscuous people are more likely to cheat, and anyone wanting to minimize the risk of that, will prefer non-promiscous people. Which would make promiscuity a predictor of infidelity.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 09:10 AM
2

promiscuous/used/dirty/etc.? One of these words is not like the others, one of these words just doesn't belong. One shouldn't equivocate to such a degree.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 09:04 AM
3

Interesting, how do you feel about the research wherein promiscuity and unfaithfulness is found to correlate?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/22 08:52 AM
1

The selection bias is choosing only university students from one university and then extrapolating the findings to the entire world. This is not a study in a vacuum that purports to test the entire human species on its own, but a study in a series of investigations, if you were to generalize to all women everywhere based on this one study, that would be your own error. Results sections should discuss the results in an objective manner, which they don’t. No, this is APA from the looks of it, the …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/22 08:23 PM
0

They’re study reflects huge selection bias. There’s n=56 women in the study, which is not only a fraction of the student body they surveyed but literally irrelevant when talking about all humans. The first and second sentence here are not properly connected. A small sample is not an indication of a selection bias. And a sample size does not need to correspond to a certain fraction of the group being examined to have any validity. Second, they choose people who are in university so the majority o…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/22 07:39 PM
1

All right, let's try this then. I'll let you see some evidence one by one, and we can see where your issues may be. But the question remains: does promiscuity predict infidelity? Our data are consistent with those of Essock-Vitale and McGuire (1985) in suggesting that a substantial proportion of the variance in infidelity can be accounted for in terms of number of sex partners, but this conclusion is compromised by the fact that the number of sex partners is confounded with the number of EPC par…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/22 05:52 PM
1

No, having a lot of sexual partners is however a predictor of extra-pair copulation in future monogamous relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/22 05:31 PM
0

No, crime is not analogous to being violent. Cheating is on the other hand perfectly analogous to cheating.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/22 03:57 PM
5

What are their qualifications, what is their data material, and how do they define an alpha male?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/22 05:31 AM
1

You don't need causation to see a connection. And why does infidelity mean nothing?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/22 05:22 AM
1

Evo psych is not reproducible, so it isn’t a science. So, you start off being wrong right off the bat, there's already been replicated evo-psych studies. Within and between culture replication is necessary for any hypothesis to be strengthened. Social science has some challenges to sort out, though there's no need to consider it all bunk. With a bit of expertise it is possible to navigate the terrain.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/22 06:29 AM
1

What I said was this is evolutionary selection pressure. Of course, though selection pressure does not mean that an adaptation exists for it. That would have to be tested yet you considered that possibility so detrimental that it would outweigh any evolutionary advantages of non-monogamy for women No, you don't seem to quite get my position. I've rather been of the perception that informed polyandry seems to not make sense. With infidelity and serial monogamy, there's nothing wrong with it. Of c…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 06:43 PM
1

Then that number doesn’t check out at all. You're not really giving any figures of fetus deaths in your calculation, it is the risk for the individual that is of interest. Having a Rh+ child is not an automatic death sentence. But from what I have seen, evo-psych is considered notorious, even among other social scientists, for making sweeping claims based on very limited to no evidence. There are some authors with an axe to grind, often because they consider the results politically undesirable. …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 02:00 PM
1

No, do you? You presented as much evidence for your theory that stepchildren are murdered so much women would never cheat or sleep around as I have for mine. Good, I wouldn't claim that. I think there's a distinct disconnect between cheating/sleeping around, and polyandric relationships. I can't say I've heard of a significant society with polyandry. I don’t have a lot of faith in your math here, but aside from that, the total mortality rate is completely irrelevant to any individual woman. For …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 01:17 PM
1

That's the thing, for most measures we're not talking about something we can directly measure when we're talking about psychology. And evolutionary psychology relates to the present, it is in the present we are able to falsify the hypotheses derived from the theory. Putting the local approval aside of course, as it is not really meaningful or relevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 11:32 AM
1

Oh yes, there can be benefits to having a little on the side on the down low. That's the key of the risk/reward game I mention. Maintaining a high perception of certainty in paternity, even when it is actually low, serves the woman with a contributing partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 06:30 AM
1

Yes, they are falsifiable. That's kind of the point of the hypotheses derived from the theories.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 06:26 AM
1

This is likely cultural. In some tribal environments, paternity was believed to be shared among multiple men, so not always the risk you’re picturing. Sure, do you have comparative analysis of child mortality rate between fathers and non-related caretakers in polyandric relationships? Plus, the domestic violence and murder rates were catastrophically high already in many hunter-gatherer societies, based on the archeological record, so it’s possible this risk was not that noticeable. Does archeol…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 06:25 AM
1

As for Gannon's article (first link), I've had the luck to read it before, and to know it was competently responded to in the same issue as it was brought up. I think it's clear that among other problems, she didn't fully consider the meaning of falsifiability in research that doesn't directly investigate its subject matter. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1461666031000063674 As for the second, I would agree that EP and feminism are incompatible. Though when it comes to which of the …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 06:14 AM
2

They tend to be shy. Mostly because they usually reveal that they haven't got the citations they require for their conclusions when talking to someone familiar with the subject. But it's all right I'm having fun anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 08:21 PM
1

All right, I'd be keen to see what specific hypothesis, if we put pop-evo aside, that reflects such a quote. From what you outline, any non-behavioral psychological theory that makes any guesses about internal mental processes is going to fail to directly test what is being theorized about. Could you provide some concrete examples of a hypothesis where evolutionary psychology fails, and a similar hypothesis where another domain (social, personality, or cognitive, for instance) fares better to an…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 08:18 PM
2

All right, I'm plenty qualified, so if you feel like asking any questions about them at any point, feel encouraged to engage.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 08:12 PM
1

I’m familiar with some. Certainly not all. I’m an biologist/ecologist who sometimes deals with evolutionary questions concerning the behavioral and physiological adaptations of other (much simpler) animals. That is interesting, I'm working with a biologist at the moment on questions of evolutionary psychology, and have generally found the insights helpful in that respect. To be clear, I also don’t think that all EP is inherently dubious. I just think it’s a field where there can be an especially…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 08:10 PM
2

And?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 08:00 PM
1

Hypothesis based on evolutionary psychology: “women prefer tall men because in our evolutionary history tall male protectors increased the chance of her and her offspring surviving.” I can't find the quoted hypothesis in my look into the literature around evolutionary psychology. Are you considering a layman's pop-psychology here, or quoting a theory from a published peer reviewed article on evolutionary psychology?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 07:59 PM
3

You guys always overlook the evolutionary benefits of having more than one male sexual partner. Hmm, with the murder rate against step-children, additional fathers seems like a heavy risk/reward game. Plus the whole game-theory thinking as far as paternal insecurity is concerned. In addition, there is a substantial benefit for the woman to bear children from different men. If she is purely monogamous with one man who carries a serious genetic disorder, then there is a risk that all her children …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 07:56 PM
2

Right, that might not serve you well. Do you perhaps have sufficient familiarity with the subject to point to any contemporary evolutionary psychologist who engages in promoting genetic determinism or panadationism for example?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 07:39 PM
3

In that case I'm more prone to agree. Of course, Buss and Schmitt are both very clear that genes are not absolute, and that social influence is of high relevance when looking at evolutionary psychology.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 07:37 PM
1

Strength is also a predictor of the offspring's ability to defend themselves in the future, this is an important measure as you are comparing two tradeoffs when looking at women's choices: Is this a good long term partner, and is this a good short term partner? Both these questions can have different conclusions. A strong man is not good because he would protect his offspring, if his behavioral traits do not indicate a willingness to defend. And yes, the milk production is not related to breast …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 07:35 PM
1

Oh absolutely, it is the quality of the indirect inspection, in addition to whether or not they lead to the same conclusion that is important. Of course, evolutionary psychology has a series of different methods that are meant to find the answers that is relevant to the field of study. Are you personally familiar with these methods?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 07:31 PM
2

You would be served in knowing my familiarity with evolutionary psychology before assuming I'm primarily citing articles and blogs.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 07:27 PM
1

All of evolutionary theory is inherently not falsifiable. I can't say I see your logic working out here, you can falsify evolutionary psychology, and it is through attempts at falsification the hypotheses derived from it can be tested. How about we look at some examples and explore this more properly, you surely have some examples of how evolutionary psychology is inherently not falsifiable? Do you have a hypothesis in mind?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 07:25 PM
1

Normally in science, you can ask a question, formulate a hypothesis, and test for whether or not your hypothesis is supported using statistical modeling. Problem with EP is there is no way to collect data on early human brains. We can’t even collect data on early human behavior. You might want to take a deeper dive into how theories work when they don't have direct access to the subject matter they explore. There's a huge stretch of scientific theory that has no direct way to inspect its subject…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 06:20 PM
0

Critics of evolutionary psychology accuse it of promoting genetic determinism, panadaptationism (the idea that all behaviors and anatomical features are adaptations), unfalsifiable hypotheses, distal or ultimate explanations of behavior when proximate explanations are superior, and malevolent political or moral ideas. All right, this is a poor quality criticism, now what?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 06:15 PM
3

I think you would find this to be demonstrably untrue with a bit of inspection of the subject.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 06:12 PM
4

That's interesting, I'm also doing some research, both on cognitive and social psychology, though I don't tend to consider evolutionary psychology to be garbage. At least not in a sense that it stands out from other domains, do you have any particular examples, especially when compared to your specialty domain?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 06:10 PM
4

Large breasts = nourishment for the offspring. Strength in men = ability to protect said offspring. The tendency to reject homosexuality is also related. Homosexual activity can’t produce offspring. I don't think anyone is served with these gross oversimplifications. You should elaborate further, or leave sooner points out for brevity.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 04:57 PM
7

If men are strong to provide for offspring then why are they "biologically programmed" to spread their seed far and wide with tons of women? That question builds on an incomplete assumption. And what's the evolutionary basis for men's fixation on n count Previous behavior is a predictor of future behavior. If it really mattered to evolution there would be a visual change when a woman had a high n count Only if women were served with signalling n count as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 04:42 PM
2

Rather that it is an indirect side effect of something generally genetically advantageous.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 04:39 PM
0

That tends to be wrong in the way that theories are verifiable.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 04:35 PM
1

Did you forget about tomboys?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 01:03 PM
2

No meaningful earning potential or future prospects.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/22 09:14 PM
4

It's a very common preference that has a lot of insecurity attached to it. People don't want to be reminded that some of their hedonistic choices have negative consequences in the future. Much of the mentality shares a lot of traits with the "health at every size" gimmick.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/22 08:45 AM
1

Yep.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/22 08:34 AM
1

A socially constructed assumption of accepting any and all consequences is in place for the latter. There's no big moral difference in the case of a mutual understanding of undesired parental responsibilities.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/22 03:50 PM
2

Would there be anything wrong in wanting a partner with less experience?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/22 11:44 AM
33

It would be hypocritical to say "sexual history doesn't matter" but then act like it matters if it isn't the right kind of sexual history. Several of the arguments I've seen about it tend to fall into the "it is hypocritical" bucket.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/22 11:38 AM
2

You're quite welcome, I think that the exclusive focus on the societal is a disservice at times. Just like an exclusive focus on the biological would be.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/22 08:21 PM
1

Of course, if one can provide empirical evidence of something being arbitrary, that should be considered. Though we don't pretend that all standards for beauty are arbitrary, much like we don't pretend that social initiation and negotiation of romantic relationships are entirely social.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/22 08:14 PM
0

Societal concepts often have biological and evolutionarily based foundations. There's no need for something societal being not biological.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/22 07:52 PM
3

We evolved with communication, status, mating, and resources as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/22 06:16 PM
4

We evolved without KFC and McDonald's too, but I can tell you about the biological traits that influence how they're so successful. Levels of abstraction are possible without being destructively reductive.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/22 06:08 PM
3

Accept it, work with it, and change whatever can and should be changed through minimally intrusive social norms.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/22 08:56 AM
4

Men being expected to pay for dates is not biological Do you really believe there is insignificant biological influence on this? It seems like a poorly considered implication.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/22 08:55 AM
7

The gender differences are not hormones. It’s socialization This is entirely wrong. Sex, biology, hormones, is massively important to differences in sexuality. Socialization is a factor as well, though even that is affected and caused by biological realities. A belief that it is arbitrary social norms requires proper evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/22 08:52 AM
1

Some suggestions would be nice, I have no idea what issues you have in mind.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/22 08:30 AM
5

It's not emblematic of a problem. As long as you're looking for a long term partner, being strikingly attractive will never be the standard you have to meet. Physical attractiveness without any familiarity is very different from attractiveness as a romantic partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/22 07:22 AM
2

there is zero concrete evidence to suggest a higher number of sexual partners mean anything for your romantic future. I'd like to explore this statement in particular. Do you mean to suggest that there is no correlation between number of sexual partners and likelihood of infidelity?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/22 05:37 AM
2

You might be misunderstanding. The chance for extra pair mating is not a reason why a man should value a low number of previous sexual partners, it's an explanation for why men generally do so. You seem to attempt to deny a couple of basic things without being properly able to name them, and refer to what appears to be random blogs rather than research. So: Men tend to have a preference for a lower amount of previous sexual partners in a long term partner. This seems to be partially explained by…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/22 05:16 AM
24

I think you've got the causality reversed for most unsuccessful men.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/22 07:50 AM
1

Objectification, as in viewing someone as a nonhuman object cannot be ascertained towards actions permissible towards humans and objects - which is most of what you described. I'd say it is all the examples I offered. It was the purpose of the examples to be everyday and inoffensive examples of objectification. In the sense, objectification as you defined is almost useless because it encompasses pretty much every human interaction ever, and it also isn't inherently bad because why would it be? N…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/22 05:30 AM
1

Absolutely. There's degrees and nuances to consider when we talk about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/22 06:23 PM
2

You have sexual objectification in viewing a person as either a visual or tactile means for sexual pleasure. You have objectification in viewing a person as a tool that performs a job without considering their deeper emotional state or history. Cashiers, bus drivers, and the like. You have objectification in viewing a person as a highly complex you rent or use to get a specific kind of labor done, where upkeep and maintenance of the tool is part of your responsibility, an employer, or someone hi…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/22 03:45 PM
3

No, you can consent to being objectified. And objectification is not an all or nothing process, there are degrees and domains of objectification that are more or less common to engage in.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/22 03:05 PM
2

The best answer I’ve been given is simply a man won’t want her. But, in all seriousness, who would even want to be with a man that considers your only value to be how close to a virgin you are. Why would you ever think someone would want to be treated as an object like that? "only value" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, considering that it's wrong, the rest of the supposition kind of becomes moot. The simple truth is that most people are going to go for the best partner they can get, so for…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/22 12:54 PM
21

People tend to want to be treated how they want to be treated. Most people are happy to be treated like objects in the right situation, and treat others like objects without second thought. The problem generally comes when there is a perception of non-consensual objectification. Though even there the discussion is pretty broad. People non-consensually objectify often, it is when the person notices that it can cause a negative reaction.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/22 10:20 AM
1

Best thing to address anxiety is exposure therapy. If you're clinical, go to a psychologist who will do it, if you're normal levels of nervous, self administer rejection in manageable doses until it's not a big problem any more.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/22 07:39 AM
3

Men cheat more, women justify it more.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/22 07:13 AM
1

Why would I pay for sex with some stranger?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/22 09:15 AM
1

Might be some emotional confusion, I would guess you find a lot of damage in most of these women's lives. Confounding fear and arousal is not entirely uncommon, might be an extension of that. Plus a healthy share of bored women engaging in fantasy play with no expectation of it being anything but a fantasy.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/22 09:14 AM
3

To be clear, you're only talking about arm candy for photo shoots and paid party attendees, rather than those who date or otherwise romantically engage with high status men?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/22 07:39 AM
1

Most people have well rounded dating priorities, looks and resources are simply the places where the gender differences in priorities are most noticable. I don't think these gender differences preferences are problematic.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/22 06:43 AM
2

I've yet to see a study that finds women have a stronger sex drive than men, but if you have any research literature in the list that I missed, I'd be happy to see it. Seems like the book was just some journalist writing, rather than a study.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/22 07:06 PM
2

Adoption, generally speaking, requires consent from both parties. And in accordance with the above principle, it is a dereliction of duty by the parents. Abortion...well I assume you know what's going on with that now, setting aside the fact that even before Dobbs abortion was never absolute and did not carry any children into the world to support "Into the world" is a phrase that is at the core of the abortion debate. Some say that "conception" counts as into the world, some that only post nata…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/22 06:01 PM
4

And following that logic. Ban adoption, a range of abortions, safe haven laws, and make it a punishable offense to not list the correct biological father at birth.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/22 07:25 PM
6

No worries
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/22 03:21 PM
15

That's what happens when oppression is a presupposition, any evidence gathered or logic applied will necessarily have to support it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/22 03:03 PM
56

If you start out with a presupposition of oppression, then it will be a rather natural conclusion that any exclusionary group can be its source, and thus have to be disrupted in order to maybe decrease oppression. The truth of it doesn't really matter to whether it feels like a solution.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/22 07:26 AM
1

Okay, so from what you're saying, OP is wrong about the stated preferences?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/22 07:09 AM
1

Exactly. It's like saying that dairy contains more fat than almond milk. It's a bad and unspecific comparison.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/22 07:04 PM
1

Removal of the clitoral hood is not evidently worse than removal of the foreskin.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/22 05:23 PM
1

I don't know what you mean, this conversation is neither about bad people or nauseous people.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/22 02:41 PM
1

I think you have the causality flipped: I agree that we need resources to survive, and have needed it throughout evolutionary time. But I'd suggest that the tendency for women to select men with resources has caused immense motivation for men to be the main earners.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/22 11:29 AM
1

Anecdotes tend not to disprove general tendencies. it's not disproving to bring up an anecdote.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/22 11:15 AM
1

I don't get it?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/22 11:14 AM
2

Your question doesn't seem to make sense. General statements are not applicable to special cases.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/22 08:48 AM
1

male circumcision isn’t right but it’s nowhere near as damaging as fgm. First, not a plain truth, second, which is legal in the west? It really seems like a low resolution defense all in all.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/22 08:42 AM
1

I've yet to see evidence from a culture where women have as much of a preference for youth as men in long term partners. Do you have any available?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/22 08:34 AM
-1

I think it’s wild that the biological drive to mate with the most genetically fit option is believed to somehow only apply to men. It doesn't. But there's more than the genes to get from a partner, and women prefer long term partners to a greater degree. The best youthful sperm in the world isn't going to do you good if you're left high and dry and the kid is born malnourished and sick. Focusing on spontaneous lust is kind of useless when mating behavior tends to be far more pragmatic.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/22 08:32 AM
-2

Well, I am a tedious pedant. Though that would not be an argument about how the misapplication of statistical terminology is sensical.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/22 08:38 AM
5

Do note that HPV can cause cancers in men as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/22 08:36 AM
-3

Am I having a stroke or does this sentence make no sense? How would you statistically test for something before doing a study? How would you even test for statistical significance of having literally never been happier?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/22 08:22 AM
3

Do you have a set of studies in mind that you reject? Or are you talking about the Reddit explanations? They're probably on par with the "media is behind all beauty standards? Madness.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/22 02:14 PM
3

But to get into nuances, you’d have to abandon biological or evolutionary explanations for the dating behavior of people. I'd suggest the opposite. If you want to abandon nuance, the first step is to cut biological and evolutionary explanations. Then people can make short sighted claims that socialization is to blame, like the Principal Skinner meme.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/22 02:09 PM
6

Male birth control is on the way, but I suspect it will be a faustian bargain much like the female birth control.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/22 07:56 AM
2

That isn't quite a solution. People make mistakes, and stupid people more than most. We could spread teaching further, but all contraception that has an amateur applying it is vulnerable to human error.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/22 07:54 AM
1

Attractiveness, desirability, interest, or willingness to date are all relevant metrics for assessment. Women tend to care a lot about who they're giving a chance, they don't want to waste their time. If several other women have already shown interest in a man, even if she doesn't know much about him, that's considered a good trait, and can help get him past that first hurdle. Most women don't want their husband to be a virgin. If we have one specific fictional woman who wants that, cool. And so…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/22 08:05 AM
1

Some women might of course be exceptions that would rather have a virgin husband than a husband that has been approved by other women. But show a virgin woman an unattractive man on a date with an attractive woman, and ask her how attractive he is, she's bound to think that there's something she's not seeing, and consider him more attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/22 07:17 AM
1

That's not really what's seen. Women tend to be more, rather than less, attracted to a man who has been approved by other attractive women. The effect of mate choice copying is also stronger among virgins, rather than the other way around.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/22 06:57 AM
1

Has been with in this case. Which is just confirmation that a lot of women find him to be of high enough quality. Women rather mimick the mate selection of other women than pick based on virginity.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/22 06:00 AM
34

Men are ready to give the requisite regular validation that a low self-esteem requires. Women don't want that kind of emotional labor on their plates.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/22 07:27 PM
1

Mostly because virgin women don't mind that nearly as much as virgin men.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/22 07:19 PM
1

Do drug addicts get anything along the lines of the following? "happy father's day to all single and great moms" "Mom, you're the best dad a kid could have" "To all the single mothers out there that do an amazing job, both as a Mother and Father. Thank you, have a great father's day" "Happy father's day to the single moms putting in work for the dads that aren't around"
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/22 07:49 AM
1

More than drug addicts, rapists and murderers? I seriously doubt this claim reflecting any form of commonly accepted attitude. Of course, there may be some people who have claimed that they "celebrate murderers" on some national holiday.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/22 06:58 AM
1

Past behavior, if you can access an accurate record of it, is one of the best predictors of future behavior. If you want a long term partner, you want to maximize the chances that the offspring you eventually invest in, are your offspring. High promiscuity is related to a higher risk of extra-pair copulation. A man who ignores promiscuity as relevant information in a partner would have a lower chance at reproductive success than one who is vigilant of promiscuity and picks less promiscuous partn…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/22 08:57 AM
1

I'm not a sure it's underrated, but I'm quite sure that normalizing it would be an uphill battle.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/22 09:03 AM
1

Interesting, I'd consider that tied to the evolutionary biology and psychology of humans as a primary cause.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/22 07:50 PM
2

I don't think I'm familiar with what that entails. A kind of selection pressure on societies that works like biological evolution?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/22 03:42 PM
2

And beyond that, why do people want the things they want in a partner? How did these desires come to be?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/22 02:07 PM
8

As a mechanism, that is fair, but what makes the chemicals appear with some people, and not with others?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/22 11:20 AM
31

Cool. People fall in love, those feelings are genuine. Now, isn't the more interesting question what makes people fall in and out of love?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/22 10:14 AM
1

Yep. Defending a cub makes sense on the face of it. Holding a grudge and avenging a cub requires another level of social animal for the most part.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/22 03:07 PM
1

Of course, if he's not established it would fall outside the purview of the original claim. The high regard for animal honor/moral behavior is pretty curious I'd say. Especially a natural anarchist argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/22 02:42 PM
1

From what I understand, the killing of the cubs is rather normal procedure. And keep in mind the original claim here is that a tyrannical lion would be "killed and replaced." Though it seems that cub killing is not cause for replacing a head of the pride.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/22 12:48 PM
1

These claims seem conflicting. Are they killed in revenge when they are in power, or are the cubs defended without further reprisal?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/22 11:49 AM
0

Men who say they wouldn't date an OF girl are adding to a culture that rejects that girl from the dating pool, making the decisions of those she would like to date more culturally acceptable. The individual doesn't need to reject any specific OF girl, they just need to add to the culture that makes them unappealing long term partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/22 07:52 AM
9

Probably, but not because the average woman is shorter. You're being compared with her options first and foremost.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/22 08:09 PM
2

If you showed sexual interest in a male upon first meeting him, how many times do you think they would treat you like a creep or even become physically violent with you? Around 1%. How many of them would be disgusted? Maybe 10%. For how many would feel flattered? Probably 80+%. Plus a 50/50 chance for them feeling a bit awkward.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/22 07:58 PM
6

Mostly the sources for not liking feminism seems to be feminists, for most people. About women? Experiences in the behavior of girls and extrapolating above the age of majority.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/22 02:38 PM
2

Same as I feel about average 35 year old women thinking they're as or more attractive than 25 year olds. Not a problem if they behave like adults.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/22 06:36 AM
2

Interesting, from the research I've seen, most people are able to rate their own attractiveness with a fair amount of accuracy. I've yet to meet an average guy who thought he was very attractive, though they'd probably exist. What are the behavioral indicators that nail it down for you?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/22 06:34 AM
2

Eh. Then it seems more like you might be over interpreting confidence as delusions of high attractiveness. How often do you tell men that they're not as attractive as you think they think they are?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/22 06:23 AM
2

Exactly, having low standards goes a long way, and lots of people ignore the particulars to arrive at the conclusions they want. Men and women often think that n-counts make them attractive rather than easy. Older men and women think they are still attractive because they can still sleep around. Attractiveness is only a small piece of the puzzle, and validation through sex is destructive in the long term, for men and women.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/22 06:14 AM
3

So, same as the fat girls who sleep around and think they are attractive because guys will sleep with them?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/22 06:02 AM
0

Looks is pretty irrelevant in long term relationships for women compared to men. Resources on the other hand, matter more to women, and tend to accrue with age.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/22 02:38 PM
0

I have doubts that sugar dating has a huge impact. Though older women being more likely to hit on men (and focusing on men their age) makes sense, and conforms to the hypothesis. And it's correct, 25 year old women don't tend to date 50 year old men, but they do tend to date older men. If you were to bet, do you think there are more 25 year old women dating 20 year old men, or 30 year old men? Or for 30 year old women, more dating 20 year old men, or 40 year old men?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/22 01:41 PM
4

Hmm https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/online-dating-out-of-your-league/567083/ In the study, men’s desirability peaks at age 50. But women’s desirability starts high at age 18 and falls throughout their lifespan. It just seems that men and women tend to have opposite correlations between age and desirability. I'm not sure the physical factors are as important for women as they are for men when considering long term partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/22 06:00 AM
0

Hold up. If you want someone who has slept with few people, you should be expected to pay for the exclusive sexual contact? I'm with you that people should be willing to wait for sex when they want partners who wait for sex. Though I'm not sure how this implies that a woman who waits for sex should be paid for this restraint in a monetary sense. Shouldn't someone like that want to have sex with someone they love and respect, rather than as a transaction?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/22 04:36 AM
3

No. Neither do feminists though.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/22 09:57 PM
4

Paragraphs.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/22 09:56 PM
1

You said you had acquaintances that paired off relatively early, did a large part of them exhibit these behaviors and not outgrow it?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/22 08:28 PM
1

Cool, want to work with it?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/22 07:57 PM
1

No, we're looking at where this grates, when spending time with friends becomes cause for suspicion, when phones are snooped at because it worked last time. When you're treated like a cheater because you got a text message.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/22 05:19 PM
1

Jealousy applied to your actions because of a previous partner? Not wanting to be treated as a cheater over history you cannot control is cringe?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/22 05:09 PM
1

And do you have any concrete observation of the lion's revolution?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/22 04:55 PM
1

Ah yes. For most people, they go through more partners, some have bad experiences and get emotional baggage from this. And others keep dating when in bad situations, seeking validation in things that will often give them extra baggage.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/22 04:54 PM
1

All right, you might be relating to a .1% of self-realized enlightenment.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/22 04:45 PM
1

In response to tyranny, not as a power grab for the benefits of being on top?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/22 04:43 PM
1

You've never encountered someone who has been jealous or insecure after being cheated on in a previous relationship?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/22 04:42 PM
1

Self fulfilling prophecies are a pretty well known psychological effect, not to mention confirmation bias. People do tend to get what they allow, but people also tend to get what they expect, one way or another.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/22 04:28 PM
3

No, people tend to get what they expect. Self fulfilling prophecies generally come about through the actions of the prophet in these cases. The repeat often comes from expectations that create the circumstances for failure, or oversensitivity to innocuous cues. Take jealousy as a simple example.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/22 08:28 AM
5

Hmm, I'm not sure that translates one to one. I would expect jaded to mean something like having negative expectations from previous bad experiences.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/22 07:00 AM
4

They're less likely to be independent or capable of spotting bullshit behavior from a partner when they see it? How many men say this? I can't say I've seen it stated before.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/22 06:45 AM
4

When looking at short term dating preferences, men prefer women in their early to mid twenties. When it comes to mating preferences, men tend to be more short term oriented. When it comes to long term mating preferences, men prefer younger women. In the absence of chronological age, markers of age are used as informative proxies. Women tend to have somewhat different preferences that results in men's mate value to not be as strongly negatively correlated to age. I think the exact phrasing of the…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/22 11:33 PM
1

It is a group of coalition lions they rule for starters Do you have anything besides a Quora link to point to here? And a leader who doesn't get along with the rest gets pushed out at best, and killed as worst. Again, do you have any case studies for a single male leader killed by the pride among lions? Even if you are the single alpha, you age and some day a younger more fit alpha will come knocking cause he has banked on the wrong indicators. For lions, this is not tyranny being the indicator,…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/22 09:19 PM
2

We're talking about a lion that has a pride that it leads, or has a pack of non leaders it hangs out with. I don't see how this supports the original claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/22 08:33 PM
1

How did you get that from this answer? The temporary male pride is only for what would classify as betas.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/22 07:59 PM
1

Which species?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/22 07:56 PM
5

If a lion or a wolf did this, they would be killed and replaced I'm curious, is there any case study of a male lion being killed by the females of the pack for being selfish?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/22 04:26 PM
2

Competent and violent, probably. Though their success was probably marginal compared to more harem oriented species.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/22 04:05 PM
1

This assumes 100% overlap in who women pick. If we reduce this even a little, to 80%, every man would get picked at least once.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/22 05:47 AM
1

Interesting, I'd put sexual politics in a minority share compared to evolved sex differences in most cases of mating or dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 09:12 PM
2

It might be practical as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 07:03 PM
1

I don't entirely disagree. Anonymous flirting is a death of social interactions.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 05:23 PM
0

You likely won’t swipe right 40% of your first session. The curve isn’t that steep. On your first session when you open up the app the 95% of the choices you’re shown will be from top 10% of the profiles I can't say this seems like easily combined perspectives. Though again, I'd be up to see the algorithm clearly and see how it meshes out behind the scenes.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 05:21 PM
1

Looks like it doesn't quite map to most men, but it's not surprising.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 03:47 PM
1

Exactly, so presenting all the top picks first wouldn't be a long term strategy. Rather, it should over-represent the cream when training the user, then dole them out semi-randomly like a skinner box.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 03:46 PM
1

So we want to keep some good quality around to keep encouraging digging. If I swipe 40% right one day, then 20%, then 1%, I'm gonna call it quits when I see the pattern laid out. That's one less person's interest to sell to paying customers because the algorithm blew its load early.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 03:30 PM
2

Making money on subscribers requires a userbase that makes subscription seem worthwhile though, that's the first problem to solve, keeping enough women around and engaged with the app.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 03:12 PM
1

Why would you stick around and swipe as the quality drops off? Makes more sense to semi-randomize to encourage the dopamine seeking from users.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 03:09 PM
1

With 150+ swipes a day, a woman would exhaust her supply of top 10% men relatively quickly in a medium sized city. After that the incentives to stick around would be rather few.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 03:07 PM
0

It just wouldn't be the best way to keep users.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 03:00 PM
0

Well, plausible from the app developer wanting returning users point of view. Giving up the goods in the start too much would increase churn as interest drops off with the decrease in good partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 02:59 PM
5

Your evidence seems to focus on one night stands, that's not the only form of hooking up over could expect to see. The analysis doesn't seem sufficient for the conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 11:19 AM
1

I can't say it sounds very plausible from what I know so far, but I'd be keen to get my hands on the algorithm.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 11:15 AM
1

Seems fair to date around until it happens if it's out of your control. Plus, you need to date people to be sure, it's not like love at first sight is realistic.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 11:13 AM
1

Presumably break up at some point so they can find their soulmate?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 10:06 AM
1

And if the partner you have is not your soulmate, what should you do?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 09:57 AM
5

The two of them obviously had a good time with each other for a few years, now they're moving on. Lots of normal relationships have gift exchange without being prostitution.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 09:55 AM
0

That doesn't mesh well with the evidence. The average woman swipes left 5% of the time with the top 10% of men?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 09:51 AM
1

Is this for everyone? And is there one soulmate per person?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 09:48 AM
1

Hmm, that seems like it would be bad when keeping user engagement high is a core point, and doesn't mesh with my own experiences, but I might be wrong . Do you have a source?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 09:41 AM
3

Interesting, what is the algorithm Twitter uses for presenting individuals?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 09:33 AM
3

Huh, I figure ideal relationships are as long as they need to be for both parties to come away better off than they started. I can't say any of my shorter relationships were less good for being brief. Hell, my longest one overstayed its welcome, no doubt.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 09:20 AM
8

Nobody is owed an everlasting relationship, it's not a problem to have an end date for a romantic entanglement. Though I'm not sure this person was in any circumstance paid for sexual services, so I'm not up for calling her a whore. What's wrong with breaking up after a few years? People grow apart, especially when interest fades.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 09:18 AM
25

Women swipe yes to just one in 20 people while the majority of men swipe yes more often than no. Yep, that looks about right. Men in the bottom 10% see just one match per week at most. Success varies greatly among women as well. However, even those in the 10th percentile (meaning those who receive matches less frequently than 90% of women) can usually match about once per day. Pure ratio doesn't quite seem to explain the differences here.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 09:14 AM
3

I'm unclear, are you a traditionalist who want people to pair up for life regardless of their preferences?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 08:57 AM
14

It's absurd to have a preference? Or sleazy to break up with a partner? I don't think preferences need justification to have, but I'm keen to learn what you mean.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 08:20 AM
30

A cutoff is a cutoff, generally it is hard to find a significant difference if taking only one step beyond the cutoff, but that's mostly meaningless dismantling. The guy probably has a preference for short term relationships, and a preference for women in their early twenties. At that point, someone well into their mid twenties would probably breach the preference.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/22 05:16 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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