TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

SmashTheKyriarchy Archive

View 3 posts and 109 comments by SmashTheKyriarchy on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
5

I don’t think there are very many divorced men on the manosphere at all. It’s deceptive, because they relate very closely to divorced men, and constantly talk about family law, but if you look closely you will see that very few are speaking from personal experience. And that makes sense, because most divorced men are content with the custody arrangement and have moved on to a new parter. I don’t think manosphere users are actually getting married.
/r/ExRedPill24/08/22 07:22 PM
5

But seriously, I realize that big age gap marriages aren’t common and there is nothing wrong with young men. The point I was trying to make is that being with a young man is not typically a fantasy or status symbol for rich older women. And it is for a lot of rich men.
/r/ExRedPill12/08/22 09:07 PM
1

So…the majority of women in the U.S. go for older men?
/r/ExRedPill12/08/22 09:04 PM
10

You watch too many TV shows written by men. No one is above getting cheated on, but women rarely go for younger men. Also, the men in the examples i gave aren’t rich. That was the point.
/r/ExRedPill12/08/22 02:52 PM
2

This is hilarious. You get that you contradicted yourself when you cited two studies that show that in general women experience a decline sex drive over the course of a marriage. They didn’t find an exception for women married to alphas. It’s just a common feature of desire in women. And despite that most married men are happier than they were single. I’m done. This is just silly.
/r/ExRedPill12/08/22 01:50 PM
1

Right. You’ve given a pretty narrow definition of this betabux type marriage. It’s basically a relationship with no initial sexual chemistry but the woman stays for material reward. We are excluding religious couples who just didn’t know they didn’t have sexual chemistry and also couples where one person has a fundamental problem with their sex drive. Do you have any reason to think this scenario is common (>3%)?
/r/ExRedPill12/08/22 01:32 PM
3

So you are saying we can spot these betabux relationships because there was never a lot of sex and it wasn’t very adventurous? Even with that framework you haven’t demonstrated there are a lot of long term relationships like this. But I don’t accept your framework and I think it demonstrates the shallow reductionism of redpill philosophy. People do not have a constant baseline need for sex. People desire sex for a wide range of reasons and thus their appetite for sex varies by the week, day, hou…
/r/ExRedPill12/08/22 01:16 PM
2

I think if you Google “Nick Cannon”, the first few results would demonstrate my point.
/r/ExRedPill12/08/22 12:54 PM
7

The problem is that you originally framed declining sex drive as a result of settling. The question at hand is do many (>3%) women settle for a “betabux” type. You can’t claim declining sex drive as evidence when it is a typical feature of sexual desire in women. If you think you’ll be happier and more sexually fulfilled single, go ahead. But married men are happier, healthier, and live longer so I don’t think your lifestyle choice would be right for most hetero men.
/r/ExRedPill12/08/22 12:52 PM
2

I mean…people do frequently overcome their genetic drives. Otherwise there would be a lot more Nick Cannons in this world.
/r/ExRedPill12/08/22 12:36 PM
5

You made one substantive argument in this comment and it relied on two studies which don’t appear to support your point. Both studies conclude that sex becomes less frequent in long term relationships. As far as I can tell, neither study finds an exception for high status men with top looks.
/r/ExRedPill12/08/22 12:33 PM
3

Yes. Also, biology isn’t destiny. There is a long continuum between a biological imperative and a biological nudge. Given low fertility rates for the rich, we can surmise that even the strongest biological urges can be hijacked or overwritten.
/r/ExRedPill12/08/22 12:27 PM
12

There are so many misconceptions packed into one paragraph that it’s almost breathtaking. I really don’t know where to start. There are a lot of reasons that sex tends to peter out in long long term relationships, and if you think this doesn’t happen to men with top status and top looks, then you are wrong and destined for failure by your own metrics. Keeping desire alive with one person for an entire relationship is too intricate and nuanced for this forum, but I promise the recipe isn’t “top l…
/r/ExRedPill12/08/22 11:44 AM
7

In what real and practical terms are these men being “settled for”? They have an overall higher quantity of desirable qualities than the other men. Not less. Also, with a little nuance, the post you linked compliments my point, so maybe you could devote more than a sentence to explaining how you think it refutes my point. Edit: added missing word “desirable”.
/r/ExRedPill12/08/22 10:59 AM
16

In general, most women are not as motivated by looks as men. It’s more like we have minimum requirements for looks but find accomplishments really attractive. That’s why starving artists and penniless professors tend to have hot wives. Most people, regardless of gender, take some practical things into consideration when picking a life partner. It’s in the name. A “life partner” is someone with whom you build a life. You take on the challenges of life as a team. Most people, regardless of gender,…
/r/ExRedPill12/08/22 10:08 AM
6

Just to be clear, children in all demographic groups are doing better on international exams than their parents and grand parents. Everyone is on an upward trajectory. It’s just that women are gaining ground more quickly.
/r/ExRedPill29/02/20 01:49 PM
1

It's late and no one else is going to see a thread this old, so i'm leaving after this comment. If female insecurity wasn't a thing, then why is it the case that NO MATTER HOW MUCH a woman is making, she always looks to marry a man who makes more than her? Women find different things attractive than men. Men are always trying to marry the most physically attractive woman they can. I don't see how women are more insecure than men. of course this is not true, 75% of women are initiated by women wh…
/r/ExRedPill04/02/20 05:22 AM
1

I do think that insecurity is what makes love something that cannot be unlinked from social and economic status, regardless of how much work we do to pay women more. First of all, you still haven't shown that women are more insecure than men. You just haven't. Also, Romantic love is definitely linked to social status, economic status, and to sexuality. That's equally true for men and women. Romantic love is not unconditional. If someone is ruining your life, you should leave them. If your relati…
/r/ExRedPill04/02/20 03:48 AM
1

Yes, I do. I don’t think a rational fear of sexual assault affects women’s ability to love, makes women less mature, or is “spreading trauma”.
/r/ExRedPill04/02/20 03:10 AM
1

What, precisely, is your rationale that women are more insecure? And more insecure about what? Looks? Sure.
/r/ExRedPill04/02/20 03:05 AM
4

See this is the problem with TRP. They take a grain of truth—in this case that women are more attracted to accomplishments and status while men are more attracted to appearance and youth—and then they build a sick and misguided ideology on that grain of truth. Women don’t love differently than men. Women can be shallow. Men can be shallow. Some men are less shallow. Some women are less shallow. Both men and women are willing to overlook their partners faults. Some men dump their wives for a youn…
/r/ExRedPill04/02/20 02:55 AM
1

TRP is simply the frank explanation of sexual strategies. No it isn’t. I’ve cited several instances of prejudice. Either engage with those examples or leave. I’m not going to restate all of my comments.
/r/ExRedPill30/01/20 09:34 PM
1

Generalizing about all people in a group is immoral. It is the origin of prejudice and it is ultimately dehumanizing. You can either encourage people to adopt a nuanced approaches or you can say All Women Are Like That. TRP says AWALT. Generally, men have to make the first approach. Generally, women are gatekeepers to sexual activity. Those are not immoral in content, nor is the existence of the generalization immoral. This isn’t generalizing. For one thing, you are noticing a social norm not a …
/r/ExRedPill30/01/20 08:12 PM
1

Holy entitlement, Batman. I’m not obligated to answer any of your questions much less answer them the exact way you want. Maybe instead of repeating yourself, you could try clarifying your hypothetical? Are you asking what I think people should do or what is ethical?
/r/ExRedPill22/01/20 08:16 PM
1

It’s just kind of bizarre. Like if you are asking me what people should do, I told you. I don’t have a lot of advice for how to make commitment work when you refuse to have premarital sex.
/r/ExRedPill22/01/20 07:44 PM
1

I gave my answer. People should have sex before commitment regardless of penis size.
/r/ExRedPill22/01/20 03:23 PM
1

I think that’s a bad idea. People shouldn’t do that.
/r/ExRedPill22/01/20 02:29 PM
1

I fail to see how this is relevant and I generally think people should have a sexual relationship before they commit, so this hypothetical doesn’t really apply. Side note-I realize having a micropenis puts a person at a disadvantage while dating, but there is a lot more to sex than intercourse. A lot of people would be willing to marry someone with a micropenis.
/r/ExRedPill22/01/20 01:42 PM
5

You made a moral argument about the problematic nature of making generalizations, not a practical argument about why the specific ones employed by TheRedPill don't have utility. I was entirely transparent about the fact that I'm not going to sit here and dispute the "science" that underlies TRP. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel, when better redditors than I have already put in the time to write a more thorough document than I could create. Generalizations are immoral. What's more they are a d…
/r/ExRedPill21/01/20 04:51 AM
8

If you really think that the Redpill is based in convincing science then I recommend you start here with the Ex-Red Pill First Aid Kit. Honestly, I have a full time job, so I don't really have time tonight to dismantle the entire Red Pill philosophy. I will try to get to it in the next couple of days. In the meantime, I'll address your central point about absolutism. It's much easier to say "AWALT" instead of issuing some disclaimer along the lines of "there are outliers in any attempt to classi…
/r/ExRedPill21/01/20 01:36 AM
51

The Redpill literally tells men that all women are immature, manipulative, and deceitful. They encourage men to generalize with AWALT. They take the most cynical possible approach to human relationships which destroys men’s self esteem. They conflate strategies that work for casual sex with strategies that work for getting and keeping long term partners. They encourage men to have sex with as many women as possible while openly claiming that women who do the same are disgusting. They discourage …
/r/ExRedPill19/01/20 01:15 PM
2

Women do especially love to fuck crazy psychos. It's always nice when the mask slips.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/18 08:45 PM
1

Okay, if the scientific method can tell us about human nature, then it applies to any theory of human nature.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/18 07:20 PM
1

Seriously? There may be a cultural narrative that women are pure, but there is also a cultural narrative that women are manipulative slutty liars. The problem with the madonna whore complex is that women are just as complex as men. We aren't all madonnas or all whores. Just like men. Instead of picking between two shallow and demeaning definitions of female sexuality, both of which were written my men and for men, maybe try actually listening to what women have to say? ​
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/18 06:30 PM
1

Differing mating strategies lead to woman being far more selective, and men being far more liberal. Being selective doesn't equal branch swinging. That's a logical leap. For one thing, being constantly dissatisfied would make it harder to raise a child, and if your children die young, from an evolutionary perspective, it is just as bad as if you never had them. Why would women be programed this way? It's also pretty silly to argue that, in the context of a relationships, wanting to have sex with…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/18 06:24 PM
1

>They don't want their future spouse to think it's ok to fuck around with crazy psychos and then settle down with someone who's the exact opposite. Wow. 1.) TRP basically encourages men to fuck around and then settle down with someone completely different. 2.) You went from "some women are willing to sleep with a psycho" to women especially love to fuck crazy psychos. ​
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/18 06:16 PM
1

>Hypergamy is a statement of female sexual nature, why are you applying the scientific method weirdly? So, in your mind, the scientific method has nothing to do with understanding human nature/
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/18 06:13 PM
1

>As numerous people have told you this is NOT hypergamy. This is a different phenomena unrelated to hypergamy (ovulatory shifts in attractiveness). Are you not familiar with TRP literature, or just a liar?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/18 06:11 PM
1

I would consider anyone trying to use ovulation studies to prove it, just as foolish as someone trying to use it disprove it I wasn't trying to "disprove" hypergamy with one study. I've said, and will continue to say, that the evidence for it is now much less robust. I appreciate the irony of being told I don't understand science by the same people who can't understand that simple sentence.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/18 06:09 PM
1

I'm not conflating the two. I'm saying that they are related concepts. The ovulation studies were taken as proof that women were instinctively sexually attracted to two different kind of men simultaneously. That was taken to support all kinds of TRP theories including the basic beta/alpha dichotomy. Now, that evidence is much less robust.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/18 06:04 PM
2

>It isn't that women are literally attracted to seeing a man abuse children. You're strawmanning the concept really. Pot meet kettle. It's bizarre to interpret my post as saying that women are actively attracted to child abuse, and even more bizarre to turnaround and accuse ME of attacking a strawman. >What is being argued is that most women, because they can't get "the perfect man" (i.e. a hot dude who would be a great husband and father), will try to fulfill both needs through getting one of t…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/18 05:45 PM
1

Every single human trait has both a biological and a social component. IQ and other hereditable traits contribute to a person's overall life outcome. Overall life outcome includes things like making money so that you can feed yourself and your family. Why would people who are bad providers have a genetic advantage?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/18 05:10 PM
1

Please spell out exactly how this a reply to my comment.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 10:27 PM
1

The genetic benefit of not being able to provide for yourself?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 10:25 PM
–

How is it not relevant that the most robust empirical evidence for hypergamy was debunked? And please don’t say the original research wasn’t considered evidence for hypergamy by many prominent people on TRP because that is demonstrably false. Aren’t RPers supposed to be the ones who care about empirical evidence?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 09:35 PM
–

Why would that matter?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 09:30 PM
–

If the predictions your model makes don’t happen that undermines your model. Are you arguing the hypergamy is an unfalsifiable concept, because there’s another word for that...
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 09:28 PM
1

Right. An even more extreme version of the eco-psych theory that inspired it. Now both have been debunked.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 09:21 PM
–

The article doesn’t support the TRP version of mate preferences. (See above in the thread where the author is quoted saying the long term/short term effect is very small.) And it’s completely ridiculous to say that hypergamy is just about mate preferences or that the evidence for the aforementioned mate preferences is robust without this evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 09:19 PM
–

Actually, someone else linked to the evidence showing men do this above. And by “this” I mean a tiny preference for less attractive features when considering a long term relationship. Another person dug into the original study I linked and found a quote that warned that the difference in results for women considering a long term relationship was very small and does not support the dual-sexuality theory. Again this was written by the person who literally wrote the book on dual-sexuality. Maybe th…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 09:12 PM
–

Just most of the research that supports it.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 08:56 PM
–

It seems perfectly rational to care more about a person’s personality when considering whether or not to spend a large fraction of your time their company. Men and women do that.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 08:55 PM
–

Your quote does literally nothing to justify AF/bb. Group level differences between men and women do not prove or even really imply that women want to procreate with men who would be bad father and bad husbands. It is moving the goal post to say that AF/bb means that women look for different thing in a long term relationship than a short term relationship. That can’t possibly be the definition of hypergamy, because hypergamy is unique to women and what you described is absolutely true for men. I…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 08:53 PM
–

Both links refer to the same paper which was an “online study of women in the USA and India”. My link refers to the entire body of research. Dual-sexuality is not alive and well because of one internet survey.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 08:41 PM
–

This is a little thing, but you make it sound like right now it’s a wash between pro- dual results and anti-dual, but that’s not the case. The bigger better studies get anti-dual results. The studies with significant math errors had pro-dual results. At least one prominent researcher in the field thinks the evidence shows that there is a low likelihood that anything about the dual-sexuality theory is true and he wrote a pro-dual book.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 08:36 PM
–

Quick aside: are you aware that everything you have about women in these comments is very likely true for men? So much for AWALT. Hypergamy: Your explanation for the fairly unexciting phenomenon that some women are slightly more interested in handsome men if they those women are considering a short term relationship, is not supported by any evidence. I guess you can still choose your explanation over alternatives like the one I mentioned, but the empirical evidence is no longer there. As for you…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 08:28 PM
–

When it comes AF/bb: Without the link to menstrual cycles you lose evidence for the concept that beta bucks. A small up tick in the preference for masculine men when considering a short term relationship could be explained by anything. For instance, the assumption that more handsome men will be more likely to cheat. When it comes to AWALT and hypergamy: Without the link to menstrual cycles you lose evidence that women have a uniquely hypergamous sexuality. It is pretty typical for Red Pill men t…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 07:16 PM
–

The definition of hypergamy isn’t in dispute, the validity of the concept is what’s in dispute, and things aren’t looking so good.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 07:03 PM
–

The follow up studies are new. They do take birth control into account. They don’t validate the theory or the original birth control iterations.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 07:00 PM
–

Even if it is true that RP isn’t based on studies, like any model of the world, it makes predictions. When those predictions are incorrect, it undermines the theory. The fact the women’s sexual preferences very probably don’t fluctuate based on menstrual cycles isn’t neutral. The fact that women don’t predictably prefer masculine features isn’t a neutral fact. These results undermine AF/bb, AWALT, and even the narrow TRP concept of dominance.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 06:58 PM
–

What do you mean by “somewhat” true? What prediction would you make based on that belief? The fact that women’s sexual preferences very likely don’t fluctuate during their menstrual cycle is not a neutral fact. It actually undermines the theory that women are naturally hypergamous. If women aren’t hypergamous in nature, then the whole AWALT premise is hanging by a thread.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/18 06:54 PM
11

Also, the photos are cherry picked to illustrate his point. I promise you I could find tons of selfies where women are kissing a mans cheek and the man is looking at the camera.
/r/ExRedPill22/10/18 11:15 PM
1

is it unethical to allow people to suffer? Short answer: Yes. Is there a country on earth where it is legal to walk away from a drowning person? Long answer: Suffer is the wrong word. We can't measure suffering. We can't necessarily control suffering. Suffering isn't always bad. Humans have a responsibility to each other. That is the axiomatic belief that undergirds nearly every moral system, and I haven't met a human that doesn't agree. In fact, failing to hold that axiomatic belief is basicall…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/18 09:29 PM
1

First of all, a lot of people become poor unexpectedly. Recessions, injury, disease, unemployment, these things happen. People in the U.S. go bankrupt paying for medical care all the time. It is simply not the case that all or even most people who use governement benefits expected to need governement benefits. Second, the redistribution of wealth is a positive good. Participating is not unethical. We have enough food and shelter for everyone. It's bananas that anyone should have to worry about b…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/18 07:12 PM
1

Or a lot of intimacy to be incapable of. Avoidant attachment style is like a thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/18 02:04 PM
1

hear is the argument for not helping. I'm pretty much familiar with the argument for visiting the sins of the father on the son. It's not that complicated, and it is incredibly unethical.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/18 02:03 PM
1

I personally believe that in most relationships sex improves for both partners over time in an LTR if there's good communication. We agree. Yeah, we do agree. they don't want the upkeep that goes into getting sex from their girlfriend. I hear what you are saying, but what are the chances that these men actually "don't like LTR's"? I mean most men end up married, want to stay married, and are depressed if they get divorced. A lot of men and women are single right now, because all of the LTRs they…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/18 02:54 AM
6

Somewhere in this world of five billion people there lives the best-looking, richest, smartest, funniest, kindest person who would settle for you....The laws of probability say that someday you will meet a more desirable person, and if you are always going for the best you can get, on that day you will dump your partner. Married people hang out a lot. In order to have a successful marriage, you have to be able to see someone's face nearly every day, usually for at least a couple of hours at a ti…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/18 02:18 AM
1

I sent you a source, you didn't like it. Yeah, it sucked, and it appears that your entire opinion, prior to that Google search, was based on your "common sense". If you can't defend your position, you are welcome to stop trying. This entire time I have been saying that men are more likely to crave variety than women. Ok. Let’s recap. You said that casual sex is satisfying in so far as it scratches an itch, but you prefer sex with feelings. I said that I think men are the same way (still do). You…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/18 01:50 AM
1

men have to foot the bill for the mistakes of single mothers So, we should let more women and children starve or die of exposure in order to set an example for other women? I mean that what this means, right? The sexual behavior of single mothers is so abhorrent to you that we should let some of them die. Oh and ditto for their children? And somehow not letting them die is sexist?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/18 01:31 AM
1

I don't think it's actually any different for men. This was the very first line of my very first reply to your comment. If you don't think it's different for men, why didn't you say so at the time? You are being incredibly defensive. This is a debate sub. Justifying your position is the norm. You should expect to have your thinking challenged.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/18 01:21 AM
1

First result on Google. God I would hate for you to actually do work to prove your point. The experiment shows that women preferred the exaggerated familiar faces. But men, while preferring familiar male faces, tended to prefer novel female ones. Sorry but how the heck do you get from this to men prefer sex with randos to sex with feelings? There are like twenty assumptions between point A and point B.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/18 08:49 PM
1

The women that tweeted out those tweets? I read the post and I don't see what you are talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/18 07:06 PM
1

The burden of proof is on you, I'm just pointing out a plausible alternative to emphasize the need for, ya know, proof.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/18 07:05 PM
1

Source? By all accounts women are more sensitive to variety than men.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/18 10:18 PM
1

These women are not empathizing or sympathizing. They are unwilling to look at the root cause, and just blame the man for using them. Who are "these women" and how do you know how they behave? It seems like you are building a strawwoman to attack.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/18 10:14 PM
1

Now, I have a crazy high sex drive, so I get how a ONS could be fun because it would scratch that itch. But sex (in my experience) only improves the more emotional connection you build with someone. I don't think it's actually any different for men. Even just from a technical perspective you get to know a persons preferences better over time. Men get social capital from having multiple partners, but they don't actually as a whole find casual sex with strangers more pleasurable.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/18 07:24 PM
1

I mean this isn't really about blame so much as what makes a good partner. Most people who are emotionally unstable just got unlucky, but that doesn't make them good partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/18 07:15 PM
1

When you add my experiences to those of millions of other guys it doesn't take long to get an adequate sample size. Millions? Where? I'm sure everyone has met jerks. Not sure how you get from some women are jerks to women are disloyal. Gotta love how BP folks demand statistical validity from RP folks but not themselves. That's just a baseless accusation. This is our first interaction. From where I'm standing RP doesn't have a strong grounding in Science or logic, just hubris.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 11:32 PM
1

People that are not capable of a high level of nuance and integrating many variables and influencing factors with each other into a cohesive holistic understanding of a subject don't really have the tools to engage in productive conversations about complicated topics like the social sciences. You are using big words, but really this is just a cheap ad hominem attack. If my reasoning is wrong, you should be able to articulate that without insulting me or my intellect. If you can twist any event t…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 11:30 PM
1

What I do advocate is that guys people need to protect themselves because there is a very substantial chance (perhaps a probability) that the relationship will fail. Fixed it for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 11:09 PM
1

I'm 53 years old and have my share of relationships Sorry bro, but this is not a statistically significant sample size. I feel your pain, but it's sexist and stupid to generalize about all women based on a handful of shitty ones.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 11:04 PM
1

TRP in general is information. TRP is misinformation. TRP is a theory and a set of suggestions. AWALT is not a fact. It isn't " information". It's a set of suggestions for how to think about and approach the world. The justification for those suggestions involves extrapolation, inference, assumption, and, ultimately, human bias. In this case, your theory and the TRP don't appear to align. Maybe if you persuade enough people, you could update the theory, but that's then and this is now. You seem …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 09:06 PM
1

Because that says explicitly that you are doing this. We working with different definitions which I clarified two comments ago... Really don't understannd why that didn't clear things up.... RP's basic model of how human sexual relationships work. TRP doesn't have a "model" by your definition of the word. It is a set of ideas that are only loosely tethered to outdated and misinterpreted science.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 08:47 PM
1

Do you think the is an accurate representation of TRP or an idealized version? My claim is that TRP, as presented in the side bar, wiki, and glossary, encourages unethical behavior. TRPers advocate for active dread games. Active dread games are unethical. Case closed. You might be able to find a way to dodge the unethical bits, but thats only relevant if we are discussing your personal philosophy on life. I'm here to discuss TRP, not you. That said, passive dread games aren't ethical or really p…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 08:37 PM
1

Inserting morality into a model is the wrong place to insert it. All you want from a model is accuracy. Where you want to insert morality is towards your actions, not your understanding of the world. Feel free to continue arguing with a strawman, but it seems like a waste of time since: 1.) I don't do the thing you are trying to convince me not to do. And 2.) I haven't seen a trace of your pure model of dating on TRP, so I'm not even sure who you are defending.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 08:22 PM
1

1.) The red pill aint here to police randos thoughts and emotions. My original post was abput TRP in general, not your personal philosophy. 2.) As I suspected, I'm familiar with that research and if it supports your theory, it does so very weakly. Wouldn't you expect women to cheat more AFTER they have children rather than before? Wouldn't you expect women to cheat in LTRs rather than STRs? Couldn't you just as easily say that women drink less with age, speed less with age, and generally act mor…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 08:01 PM
1

If it's true it's true It's true. But hey, name another predicition. Any advice that starts with "just be" or "just have" is bullshit advic You are attacking a strawman. I never gave advice much less the kind you are complaining about. There are plenty of other sources for tactical advice. For instance, the Art of Charm. Any task that requires fiddling with the mind like confidence is a lot more complex than telling people to do specific actions. Taking specific action is HOW you fiddle with the…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 07:53 PM
1

1.) A lot of TRPers haven't gotten the memo, based on the number of people who think women aren't capable of love or reciprocity. 2.) Can you link the "latest studies"?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 06:57 PM
1

Also red pill theory does not "vilify" woman. I mean does TRP glossary and side bar count? Because there is plenty of vilifying in the glossary, wiki, and sidebar links. Characterizing all women as u trustworthy, immature, manipulative and irresponsible? That's vilification. Hilarious how you virtue signal about ethics and morality as you downvote my comments. (against the rules of this sub btw) Is downvoting unethical? If so, why? Also, I'm not "virtue signalling" and honestly that seems like a…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 06:52 PM
2

This is based on the double blind human subject trial you conducted?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 06:41 PM
1

It's tongue in cheek but fundamentally earnest.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 06:40 PM
1

Related to the reciprocity issue TRP has helped revise my expectations regarding female loyalty. I now understand that while almost every female will loudly proclaim their loyal nature very very few actually are. Most are loyal only so long as its in their best interest to be. Once a guy is no longer her best option she's unlikely to stick around. Learning this lesson saves guys lots of grief. Humans don't give unconditional love. That's not exclusive to women. Men and women are both capable of …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 06:36 PM
1

Yeah. I do think idealizing women is sexist. So is vilifying women. We are just people. Capable of being ethical and unethical.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 06:15 PM
1

I mean you could say the same thing for any self help guide. Art of Charm comes to mind. TRP is only unique in how overtly it encourages misogyny and selfishness.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 06:14 PM
–

So you're going to add onto that with "well women can't help it, it's just their nature". Instead of holding them responsible for their actions, you fall back to pity because she can't help herself. No. I strongly disagree with TRP. Women are no more likely than men to be unethical. It's incredibly easy to find examples of people behaving badly, so if you approach the world with the assumption women are bad you will find confirmation. That's why hate is contagious. It's fundamentally easy to bel…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 06:12 PM
1

How so?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 06:07 PM
1

Men cheating more is the mainstream stereotype, so you're not exactly going against the grain or breaking new ground by saying that. I'm pointing out an empirical fact. Not sure what stereotypes have to do with it. But hey, show me some real world predictio s TRP gets right. Vague concept. Actually, all of these concepts are actionable, and yes a one word summary is going to be vague... Name one thing unethical about TRP. OK. If I were to pick ONE thing... Dread games aka intentionally breaking …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 06:07 PM
1

But what a good model would tell you is whether lying works, and how and when it works. Are we talking scientific models or dating models. Because last time I checked TRP is the former not the latter. My assumption is a dating model is going to include dating advice. OP can clear this up, but you are misunderstanding me. How do you feel about the morality of probating correct information about women, even if some men may use this immorally? Because that’s largely the issue here. Strongly disagre…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 06:00 PM
–

You can be default shitty and still choose to not to be shitty. These aren't mutually exclusive. TRP isn't saying women lack free will. However, AWALT is part of a larger theory which explicitly states that women are less capable than me of behaving responsibly, being honest, and developing meaningful attachments. In other words, women AWALT is part of a theory that women are default shitty. That's wrong. It's fucked up. It encpurages hate and bitterness. Conceding that some women are capable of…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 03:56 PM
1

Facts aren't moral or immoral. What you do with them can be moral or immoral. Lying, for instance, is often a good short term strategy for dealing with people. Lying is also often unethical. My ethics is a little more rigorous than how something "strikes me". Propagating misinformation about the character of women in general is, IMO, unethical. If that's a part of your model of human behavior, it fails my very first test.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 03:48 PM
1

There is no "but this got me laid" exemption when it comes to ethics. If a certain behavior is unethical outside of dating, it's still unethical behavior while dating. The bare minimum for any dating model should be that it isn't straight up immoral. Beyond that, any model of human behavior should make testable predictions about human behavior. For instance, TRP would predict that a lot more women than men cheat. Turns out that isn't true. That said the science of attraction is not actually that…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 02:50 PM
–

How?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 02:38 PM
–

Teaching men to be suspicious of women affects women, so it's our business. It affects how we are treated. In fact,that's the stated GOAL. It's especially our business when men are being taught incredibly negative false generalizations about women. It's entirely possible to teach men social skills without spreading false generalizations. All people are capable of unethical behavior. It's emotionally intelligent to make sure that people have earned your trust. It's a bad idea to idealize women. T…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 02:37 PM
1

Well for one thing Feminists don't say AMALT, so #notallmen is a way of derailing the conversation rather than a rational response. AWALT is literally AWALT. It is literally spreading negative generalizations about women. Not all women are like that is a DIRECT response to AWALT.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/18 02:30 PM
–

if you give 5 dollars to help people in general, Unless that service that is supposed to help people "in general" seems to actually be tailored more to the needs of men than women. In that case, hundreds of millions have been spent on services for men and now a small percentage of that money is going towards a service tailored to women's needs.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 10:02 PM
3

The programs are not currently focused on men. On paper. But they are generally created with men in mind. You might disagree with this, but it is the argument that these policy makers are making. It's an inaccurate misinterpretation to say that these policy makers are designing services for women, because they value women more than men. Edit-Also, just to be super clear, they aren't proposing gendered "programs" they are just working on a website with information for women.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 09:36 PM
–

By aiming it specifically at a gender rather than increasing it in general, they are saying that one gender is more valuable. First of all, they are doing both. Second of all, they aren't saying one is more valuable, they are saying that men and women tend to be different. If the previous services were non-gendered, then it isn't discriminatorily applied. Both men and women can use that service. Except that actually it was designed for the "average" drug user, who is a man. It's pretty common fo…
/r/MensRights15/02/17 09:12 PM
-4

The idea is that OD prevention is ALL targeted towards men already, because men constitute the majority of drug users, drug addicts, and OD patients. Men are treated as the default, but the number of women ODing is going up, so they are now trying to differentiate services. Men aren't being ignored. In fact, it's the opposite.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 08:19 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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