TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ScoreChe Archive

View 0 posts and 17 comments by ScoreChe 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)
3

those are nice descriptive factors about yourself as well as stuff you do for yourself, for your own benefit e.g. taking care of your own personal situation and health. The question was about something totally different though: what actions (e.g. as in: "acts of service" to put it in "The Five Love Languages" terms) do you do that are just for your man and not primarily self-serving?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/21 04:43 AM
1

In both cases it's about preventing a risk that would ruin the other persons future life. The fact that both cases aren't absolutely identical in the minor detaily is totally irrelevant to an analogy (that's precisely the difference between an analogy and identity), especially when it's just details that have absolutely no incidence to the core subject the analogy is about, which in this case is (solely) the question of double standards in the justification of wanting certitude vs demanding blin…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/21 03:09 AM
6

If you don't want to be used, then you should weed out the type of diggers who would use you. It makes absolutely no sense to pay at the beginning (that's exactly how you set yourself up for being used). The only way that does make sense is to go dutch at the beginning and then later, once there's a stable relationship, switch to alternating footing the whole bill.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/21 02:51 AM
1

Precisely: in her default state she's (pseudo-egalitarian) feminist, then when the bill comes, she temporarily forgets about egalitarian principles and switches to traditional gender roles (so that he's supposed to foot the bill alone)… and after he has paid, she switches back to pseudo-egalitarian feminism.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/21 02:38 AM
1

The first thing can be just precaution, the second is closer to blaming them. I Don't see at all how a difference in that regard would follow from the difference in time. You could just as well formulate it the other way around: "The second thing can be just precaution [against precisely the case of a potential future losing years of your time and money on a child that wouldn't even be yours], the first is closer to accusing them [of being a violent criminal]" It's the same problem in principle.…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/21 03:11 PM
1

the subject and scope of the analogy isn't at all about prevention or consequences either but about the question of double standards in whether it is justified to want a test vs to reject the demand for a test under the pretense of demanding total "trust", thereby unilaterally shifting the risk to the other side… i.e. the double standard that some people would want a test where it suits them but feeling bruised where the other side wants one.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/21 02:49 PM
1

I think it does. Anyways: every analogy has its limits (that's why it's an analogy and not identity) and that isn't a problem. The core point isn't the implementational details of such a test but the question in principle of what position people have towards the other side accessing knowledge in both cases (assuming there was a test).
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/21 01:12 PM
1

don't you mean "back to traditional gender roles" instead of "back to equality"? because the latter would mean going dutch
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/21 09:06 AM
1

My understanding is that this time constraint in OPs model is there to make an analogy to the fact that paternity tests are typically only done after birth if at all. The thing is: your idea of doing OPs violence test early on de-facto has no correct analogy in paternity tests… hence that timing constraint in OPs model does actually make a lot of sense. While a paternity test would technically also be possible at some (later) gestational time, it would still not be "early on" at all and it would…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/21 08:34 AM
1

It's really men who want to avoid marriage, not women The thing though is: it's not just men with a loose sociosexual orientation who want to avoid marriage, but also romantically minded men with a restricted sociosexual orientation The latter still want a lasting loving relationship and "happily ever after"… just without the formalistic and legal threesome with the state that marriage has become and without the shitty risks and disadvantages that come with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/21 06:29 AM
1

people (unless they're marketing victims) want something not for the formal status of having it but for actual advantages it has and that surpass the disadvantages. And it just so happens that unlike the olde times (when marriage was the only way to have those advantages)… that's no longer the case now. For pretty much everything that marriage used to be a requirement for, there are now other options. Without the disadvantages. The hollow shell of the added formality is not something that people…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/21 06:22 AM
1

Don't know about the US, but in Europe, it's possible even if not married. All that is required for that is a prior declaration (e.g. patient decree or similar) defining what rights you want another person (e.g. a non-married partner) to have. iirc the same should be possible in the US with an Advance healthcare directive.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/21 03:47 AM
0

Even non-religious people who don't intend to have children can value marriage and find it important and meaningful. That's not a reason though. Just an appeal to… the views of some unspecified group of other people It's a traditional wow, we're accumulating here: appeal to tradition. Not a reason either, unless you're a tradcon. prove one's intentions and confirm your desire to spend quite a long time with each other. except it doesn't… as the divorce statistics show. confirm your relationships…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/21 09:23 PM
7

but you can have that without being married… which bears the question: why turn the couple into a threesome with the state?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/21 08:47 PM
0

I think OPs question was about marriage as a formal/state institution, not about the value of a committed relationship. The latter is just as possible without the former. Thus the question: why marriage?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/21 08:19 PM
8

otherwise you'd be called a rapist, unless you're 8+/10 in looks actually even if you're an 8+/10 in looks, you have that risk. But don't take my word for it… here's what Henry Cavill (the actor known for Superman and The Witcher among other roles) has to say about it: I think a woman should be wooed and chased, but maybe I'm old-fashioned for thinking that. It's very difficult to do that if there are certain rules in place. Because then it's like: 'Well, I don't want to go up and talk to her, b…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/21 07:22 PM
2

so basically FDS and its mindset is about a transactional view and strategy, i.e. prostitution
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 05:19 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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