TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

SoloDoloFE Archive

View 16 posts and 269 comments by SoloDoloFE 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)
1

Like everyone else said, absolutely not. I will not feel bad because some woman assumes that I want to rape or murder her.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/20 05:53 AM
2

Not an expert, but what is most likely is that good looking kids tend to become better socialized, giving them personalities more attractive to women
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/20 05:55 AM
1

children tend to be very confident they can do things they've never tried Being confident in something you've never tried and being confident in something you consistently fail at is not the same
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/20 05:34 AM
0

Arguable. I see where you're coming from, but it sounds overly cautious for the average man, to me. For a guy of average or higher SMV, women probably aren't going to approach you just to fuck with you. If you know you're like a 3/10 man and some 8/10 approaches you, that might be cause for concern.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/20 12:16 AM
0

Again, I'd agree with your OP in principle. Using your definition, I'd disagree. The majority of men have, in fact, had at least some positive romantic interaction (if not relationship). My only issue with your OP was how much the incel count is exaggerated.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/20 12:07 AM
0

I mean I agree with you in principle, but For the vast majority of men, they’ve never heard a kind word from a woman other than from family members their entire lives. The "vast majority" of men aren't handhold-less, kiss-less virgins. There's a lot of hyperbole in your post.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 11:19 PM
1

You don't get it. Men do not choose to wake up every day thinking about sex with a hard on. Women do not choose to have an intense drive to become pregnant. Sure, the reproductive aspect in itself can be eliminated with a vasectomy/getting tubes tied/birth control/etc., but for the VAST majority of heathy people, they are lying to you if they tell you the drive does not exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/20 01:29 PM
1

Missing the point.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/20 01:16 PM
1

It doesn't hurt me at all. If you're being honest, and you never have the desire to have kids for the rest of your life, you would be a true outlier. We are animals and we are meant to reproduce.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/20 01:11 PM
1

So you and all of these other women are so unique that you can mentally overcome your sole biological purpose. Calling BS. It's believable while women are still in their 20s and having fun, but once they hit a certain age, a woman saying she doesn't want kids is like a man saying he doesn't want sex. It's bullshit.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/20 01:09 PM
6

Women definitely do have lower sex drives. For men, sexual release is a need; almost like food and water. The equivalent for women is the desire to have children as they get past their 20s.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/20 01:04 PM
1

Do you think it's a good idea to treat demographics with vast differences as 1:1 equals? You treat differences with equity; not equality.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/20 05:07 PM
1

How are you coming to these conclusions? I explicitly said that men and women are not equal in the OP lol
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/20 04:55 PM
1

I actually believe the opposite of what you're saying. Men and women are absolutely not equals but they are better together.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/20 04:50 PM
1

Ok, you're right; they do more housework than men. According to trp, the smv tradeoff would be equal as dont women "hit the wall" at 30 and men magically become in high demand? I don't subscribe to the idea of the wall as TRP sells it.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/20 04:43 PM
1

Good post. You are definitely right a lot of the time. There is still a large group of people who will argue for 1:1 rights and responsibilities for men and women, which would certainly not be just-- this is really what I'm getting at (I'm sure you already got that). A lot of TRP rhetoric is BS from guys with very limited experience with women larping as heartless players. However, I believe what the Red Pill in itself represents is truth; regardless of its representation on the internet. Other …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/20 02:27 PM
2

Gotta disagree. IME, most guys in the conversation are "she picked Chad and not me, go MGTOW"
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/20 01:37 PM
1

I worded part of my post poorly When I said that those subs are obsessed with creating a level playing field, I meant a level playing field relative to that sub's bias
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/20 01:32 PM
2

Not sure I can say the same, but you may be right. When I said most people, though, I wasn't specifically saying this sub
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/20 12:41 PM
1

I'm not sure if I completely missed it or if you edited your comment, but didn't even see your second paragraph referencing TRP and FDS until just now.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/20 12:33 PM
2

Have to disagree with you there. Most people want 100% equality (or they say they do, at least).
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/20 12:32 PM
2

Can you provide an example? I'm referring specifically to the privileges and differences between men and women.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/20 12:21 PM
0

I wouldn't necessarily describe women as children, but lmao if you think women are doing all of the housework in 2020. Women get the benefit of being allowed to be emotionally weak and/or volatile, lesser physical standards, and far lower financial expectations. Most women are born with at least average SMV-- most men are not. The trade-off is even worse with the absolute excess of sexual and romantic prospects women have with the advent of social media and OLD.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/20 11:53 AM
9

Not significantly enough to turn a tall man into a short man, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/20 06:44 PM
0

This is actually pretty obvious, but women have a tendency to delude themselves into believing whatever sounds best
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/20 01:03 PM
1

You are absolutely right. I didn't understand that until the last couple of years. That being said, it does not contradict the fact that men have far more difficult dating lives; rather, it supports it.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/20 12:46 AM
1

No, I haven't. I'm not looking for sympathy, but I have been ghosted by women after putting a lot of effort and/or money into a date. You've got to be delusional if you think women have it easier in a relationship
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/20 12:11 AM
1

You ever been guilt tripped because someone threw a lot of money at a date and wanted a second "I got a free meal and I'm complaining because I don't have the guts to tell him I'm not interested"
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/20 11:59 PM
1

Please don't tell me you think getting all gussied up every other Friday night is effort
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/20 11:07 PM
0

Women put in far less effort than men in relationships
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/20 10:51 PM
1

By and large I'd say this is true for women but not men
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/20 03:36 AM
1

They exist because a lot of the time they're based on facts. There are double standards for men in domestic violence and that's ok because we rape and kill, but a double standard for women is just the devil. This is exactly what is meant when it's said that women want all of the rights of men without the corresponding responsibility. Also, the shaming language in this sub is ridiculous. Whenever guys have a stance that they can defend and that women don't like, we're called insecure. You can't s…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/19 03:01 PM
1

Based on a lot of the comments my posts get, it's not obvious to most people here lol
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/19 01:13 AM
0

How am I biased? I intentionally mentioned one example that men benefit from and one that women benefit from. Even if I was biased, you could still try to actually refute what I said
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/19 01:09 AM
0

Because I can't list every possible example of what is and what isn't a double standard
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/19 01:00 AM
2

I'll admit I don't know shit about details of the law, so if you're right I'd probably agree.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/19 12:45 AM
1

Well if you're right, the change is that people are labeling things as double standards when they're not. Either definition works for me.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/19 12:39 AM
1

This is my more subjective take, as a very redpilled dude. I've been hit by women before and it has literally done no damage other than stinging for a few seconds. Women know this. Personally, I'd rather just restrain a female attacker than really fight back because it's not a big deal IMO. Of course, there are limits to this. On the other hand though, if I hit some girl (to be fair, I boxed competitively for a lot of my life) from an emotional outburst, she's probably going to be seriously hurt…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/19 12:36 AM
1

Agreed
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/19 12:28 AM
1

It does come with risk that would need to be mitigated, but IMO men and women are far too different to be treated identically under the law in certain cases.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/19 12:27 AM
1

This is interesting and I'm not 100% on how I feel about this, but I'll try. The girlfriend assaulted Chad, and he defended himself. With the possible gun in mind, I'd say that Chad was not in the wrong. Take the gun out of the equation, and I'd say that the dropkick was excessive, given the situation. Do I think that Chad should get additional charges? Probably not, unless he's some trained fighter and the kick was crazy brutal, or if he starts beating on her afterwards in 'self defense'.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/19 12:26 AM
2

Agreed. Some privileges women have don't come with the additional responsibility that men have for those same privileges. Our domestic laws (on paper, at least) operate under the premise that men and women are pretty much equal. If we take that premise away, then we could tailor laws that are respective of gender contrasts.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/19 12:13 AM
1

Fair? Sure. Not sure I understand what you mean exactly, can you give an example?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/19 12:04 AM
1

I'm not familiar with them
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/19 12:01 AM
1

I actually thought that too, and was going to make the same post accordingly until I looked up the formal definition: dou·ble stand·ard /ˈdəbəl ˈstandərd/ noun a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/19 11:58 PM
-1

Sure, I'd agree with you. If a woman hits a man it's still assault. What I'm getting at is that having a massive stigma against men who abuse women might not be so bad. Of course, the converse is ok too, but it's probably not as crucial.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/19 11:52 PM
-1

The point I'm making is not that they should exist. Just that some ideas based in fact could be called double standards, and just because it is a double standard doesn't make it wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/19 11:39 PM
1

20M 3+ times a day
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/19 09:30 PM
1

Me 18 her 27 Me 20 her 16 Nothing crazy
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/19 09:24 PM
3

Full disclosure, I've had these conversations with women in my family. My 19 year old sister disagrees, but my mother and older women definitely agree with the sentiment that men are generally more fit to lead than women. Frankly, I don't care enough to battle every one of your points here, especially with how ironic it is that you say I pray for the real ones out there who protect their queens. Not betray them I've no qualms with traditional ideologies of men leading and protecting, and women b…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/19 04:32 AM
3

The assumptions about me and my personal beliefs that I had not explicated here. I believe that (black) women should recognize and be appreciative of the protections afforded to them by men. This is not hypocritical for me personally because frankly, I don't believe that women deserve some societal/legal privileges they have in 2019.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/19 04:06 AM
0

Jeez that's a lot of assumption and ad hominem in one post. This isn't really this kind of board, but I love my people; women included. I think it's very possible that one or both of us don't understand the other's stance very well if you think I advocate for oppression. No clue where you got the idea that I'm some uncle tom snow bunny chaser either. I would argue for OPs stance because I absolutely do believe in the validity and necessity of traditional gender roles
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/19 02:28 AM
1

I'd tend to disagree. You explained that the mentality that "those previously oppressed should be grateful they're treated as humans now" is unproductive, which I agree with. The part I disagree with is that the rhetoric is equally applicable to any oppressed group, and I provided an example explaining why. Edit: "applicable" to "equally applicable"
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/19 02:04 AM
0

I didn't take what you were saying that way, I was using an example. Sure, the "be happy it's not worse" argument is dumb, but the rights that women have now are not the same contextually as rights given to minorities on the basis of race. Btw, I'm black and from Detroit.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/19 01:33 AM
2

I'm aware. I don't think I implied mutual exclusivity
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/19 01:19 AM
-1

There are a few reasons giving women rights and giving minorities rights are pretty different. Differences between men and women are bigger than differences between races Races can be segregated from each other. Entire races can be eliminated. You cannot reasonably do the same to men and women. How women were treated 250 years ago was in no way comparable to slavery, except for the fact that they were both forms of oppression. The nuances don't align at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/19 11:57 PM
9

Honestly surprised this post has so much debate. It's pretty simple that men protect women because they can't protect themselves from (bad) men. Someone said "what if nurses stopped caring about male children" and this is a good point. If men abandon their protector roles or women abandon their caregiving roles, humanity is obviously fucked
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/19 10:58 PM
-5

Race and gender are rarely analogous and aren't really comparable in this context
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/19 10:49 PM
7

Women are not usually friendly and warm, unless they're interested in the guy; they're just non-confrontational. I've seen women treat men with far more indifference than any man treats women
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/19 01:00 AM
1

I've never heard this complaint before, and from what I've seen the majority of guys in comedy are not Homers. Can you expand on what you mean?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/19 01:16 PM
1

That was taken out of context so blatantly lol
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/19 12:43 PM
1

I don't have any rich friends. It's analogy for what OP is advocating.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/19 02:17 PM
8

This sub can be so shit "Men, why do you care if I was a slut in college? If I lie about it, it's your fault because you would leave me if I told you who I really was." I should just start using my rich friend's Lamborghini and mansion to fuck women
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/19 02:07 PM
5

It applies to alphas too. Dogs bark, babies cry, and women leave (especially when they're enabled to do so in 2019)
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/19 12:19 PM
6

But, incelfaggot, he said his girlfriend isn't that type of person!
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/19 12:17 PM
3

Women leave and will even cheat on alphas. High SMV women will get with lower quality men, especially when they need their betabux. They'll cheat on them even easier. Women are slick man she could cheat for years and men will be too head over heels to notice.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/19 12:16 PM
2

is a great step dad There had to be something in there
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/19 11:47 PM
3

It's interesting, and hard to say for certain. If needs are met, I think the choosiness that develops stems from having the option to choose things that are generally better. The question is, is that because of who someone's true self is, or because humans usually prefer nice things over shitty things? Having money certainly makes it easier to be a decent, happy person; but I'm sure that many friendly rich folks could become bitter under more unfortunate circumstances. I'm really not sure. I'd s…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/19 08:48 AM
3

I think you're right that a lot of men want to leverage trp for LTRs, but I don't think that's what its purpose is. TRP is that there are no unicorns, and that all women may not cheat, but they all have the capacity to. With this definition, it absolutely does not make sense to force RP into serious relationships. TRP actually does explain women pretty well, though. AF/BB is a real phenomenon. Women will date betas for one reason and alphas for another. Sure, there are women who are more blatant…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/19 03:04 PM
1

That's an accomplishment in 2019. However, is it safe to assume that you're not the elderly couple bound by a need for companionship? In my main post yes it was. I did actually have my view on this changed a bit in one of the earlier posts though.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/19 01:21 AM
1

How do you know this? Are you in a 25 year old marriage? My point was that men's feelings of love will make them overlook many aspects of a person that they normally wouldn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/19 01:18 AM
1

Just because a relationship isn't strained doesn't, in itself, make it disingenuous
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/19 01:15 AM
1

A far cry from a few days, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/19 12:59 AM
1

I understand English. If I missed your point, repaint it for me.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/19 12:54 AM
1

Nah, with girlfriends/girls they were talking to. Thinking about how much attention I paid to every little quirk and detail of some high school gfs is pretty cringe, but was definitely into more than just the idea of them.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/19 12:52 AM
1

Honestly, I've experienced the contrary. It's amazing how delusional I was about certain girls just because I was really into them (like finding their laugh cute, and then after getting over them thinking it's like nails on a chalkboard). My opinions will continue changing though. I'll report back if I ever end up spitting out the red pill.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/19 12:48 AM
1

Eh, not sure I'd agree. In my personal experience I've been infatuated with certain girls to the point of losing sleep for months (when I was like 15, lol). I've heard lots of guys with similar oneitis, especially if you count what's online.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/19 12:41 AM
1

If you're acting lovingly but feel nothing for the other person can you really call that love?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/19 12:36 AM
1

We're getting into the realm of anecdote/opinion here, but I'd say that what makes the 80 year old couple smile at each other is equivalent to a best friendship 50 years strong. I don't think that would be romantic love, in the traditional sense, at all. What is felt as romantic love eventually either fizzles out (to your point) or evolves into something more platonic.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/19 12:35 AM
1

Feeling loved by a significant other feels great. I don't have faith in love, so it would follow that I can't feel loved. I'd genuinely like to see something in my real life to prove it exists- I haven't yet.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/19 12:30 AM
1

With that said, it's still useful to break down exactly what each sex requires to be offered to them since they are vastly different.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/19 12:22 AM
1

I'd agree with you, but it is also a feeling.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/19 12:14 AM
1

Can you elaborate? I actually have changed my mind some on this already, but I'm not sure how what I argued initially is unfalsifiable. I was under the impression that what is platonic and what is romantic behavior is pretty clear if we set aside semantics.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/19 12:11 AM
1

Fair enough, but ad hominem isn't really contributing to the discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/19 12:08 AM
1

Question for you. If it's very rare, then it follows that very few could find love. Would you say that comparability is rare enough that we could say searching for love is futile?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/19 12:05 AM
1

I like the way you put it. You changed my view. This is what I would think now. Men love women genuinely under the condition that they are a sexual prospect. Women love the provision afforded to them by men, and the way that masculinity makes them feel. I think that this dynamic makes sense. Men can love women more easily because they are meant to be protectors. Women have higher standards for men because they need to ensure the health of themselves and their children. Not sure that you'd agree,…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/19 12:02 AM
0

Not necessarily what I was getting at. What I'm saying is that it's impossible for two people to love each other solely for who they are as a person. Men and women who don't meet each other's 'needs' are generally going to just be indifferent to each other.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/19 11:52 PM
2

I don't think I ever said unconditionally. Genuine=/=unconditional.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/19 11:45 PM
1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the family worth only (lol) like $400b?
/r/TheRedPill10/12/19 08:49 PM
2

It's like this board misses the point on purpose
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/19 01:01 PM
13

And to make it even worse, men are starting to be encouraged to show emotion more, but it's all a facade. Even 2020 society can't save men from the fact that emotional weakness is disgusting in the eyes of women. So maybe men caring about women's emotions isn't completely genuine, but men are literally berated for ours.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/19 01:00 PM
2

Don't get me wrong, I love my mom, but I've gotta be honest; her word means absolutely nothing. She swears up and down about you name it, and never follows through. She lets some people walk all over her, but will blow up at people she's really comfortable with like family members. My parents had a horrible relationship. Fought and screamed every day, sometimes putting their hands on each other. Thought it was normal for a long time tbh. Also gave my sister preferential treatment. Hated my dad f…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/19 04:11 PM
1

No one said it was a delight-- cheating has astoundingly different effects on the two sexes. Male promiscuity is normalized in many cultures because it is more natural to men than women.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/19 04:52 PM
1

You are saying that you cannot empathize with someone who has shared an experience with you, but you absolutely can. It's actually when you can empathize the most, usually.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/19 02:32 PM
1

It's not about being into you. The men who waited 4 months didn't have any other options.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/19 02:21 PM
1

I mean I guess if they worked hard for it, but something about being proud of vanity itself doesn't sit right with me.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/19 01:03 PM
1

This is the difference between men and women when it comes to this. For men, the mental image of a woman they love with another man is viscerally disgusting.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/19 12:56 PM
1

You really can't know. If I have reason to believe she has, then I'll go with that. Otherwise, I'll stick to my standard of 3 dates. If I know that a girl is a virgin(I'm 20, it's rare, but I still encounter some at my age. Also had a few in high school), or very low (<3) n count then I'll play it more by ear. maybe wait a couple months.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/19 09:06 PM
1

Let em talk as long as you're getting what you want. If what you want is stimulating conversation then of course next.
/r/askTRP03/12/19 08:55 PM
1

I'm saying that I will not let a high N count woman do it. I'll just stop talking to her if I know she's had a lot of casual sex but wants me to wait. If we do hit it off, N count is still a major red flag in my book. I'd keep it casual.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/19 08:52 PM
4

Beta men are seen as beta. Beta men take what they can get. It's that simple.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/19 01:58 PM
15

Submissive women text first.
/r/askTRP03/12/19 11:14 AM
2

For an additional perspective of a man who cares a great deal about N count, I don't mind waiting longer for a feminine woman with a low one. What I will not do is be strung along by a girl with 30 bodies. It can be possible for the sentiment to not necessarily be contradictory if different women are held to different standards.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/19 11:06 AM
1

Physically weaker, smaller, less effective leaders, less decisive... The list goes on. There is a reason women like men who take charge. Ok, arguable. But that's not what I argued here, at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/19 11:02 AM
1

No, the differences between the sexes are far larger than differences between races. No one said that yelling AWALT everywhere you go couldn't be silly, it is just not the same as crying sexism at all. I don't know what's so hard about that.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/19 10:53 AM
1

Enough women would sleep with your average star athlete to validate the generalization.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/19 01:58 AM
1

Hypergamy is at the Crux of AWALT
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/19 01:55 AM
2

Can we not generalize that humans have two hands even though some have none? Of course there are exceptions to rules, that doesn't invalidate them.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/19 01:54 AM
1

No it isn’t lmao. This isn’t even difficult. First of all subordinate means rank, and there is no fundamental rank of human beings, we make them. Secondly, within the ranks we make... no? No they’re not. The argument suggests that women are subordinate to men because of the genders that they are, and this isn’t true, nor is it true that within areas where a rank is relevant such as jobs, women outrank men very often. You could say that most CEOs are men, however that doesn’t make women subordina…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/19 06:48 PM
1

I guess it would depend on your personal definition of what sexism is. If we're taking statements like "women should be raped because they're women", I'd agree with you. Let's be honest, though; that's not an argument that's usually put forward. It's usually something closer to "women are subordinate to men", which is MUCH more arguable, and MUCH harder to say is "fundamentally false", based on the massive differences between the sexes. AWALT can, and does, offer insight. You can make a generali…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/19 04:08 PM
1

Yes, ad hominem is completely comparable to an attempt of explaining why it is women behave in a certain way (regardless of the accuracy of that explanation). This is how these two points are used in arguments. Argument: woman did X. She did it because she's a woman. Response: that's incorrect because that's sexist (insult rather than refute an argument) Argument: woman did X. She did it because she's a woman. Response: that's right because all women are like that. (Attempts to explain why the w…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/19 03:33 PM
1

The priority stack for women is Good Relationship > Single > Bad Relationship If this were true there would literally be no women in bad relationships, but a very large proportion are.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/19 04:16 PM
1

It's still 90% the same. How? Again, context matters. Is a guy saying "men are funnier than women" because it's proven or is he saying it because he think his dick is God's Gift to Earth? You're right, but I'm making generalizations about how the two points are generally used in arguments. If the person has a good explanation, then saying "you're wrong because your points are sexist" is valid. Yes, but this is not what I'm getting at. I'm saying that it's not valid because they are calling an ar…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/19 04:21 PM
0

I think it certainly can be a copout, but it's not used in arguments the same way as crying Sexism is. People AWALT to explain why a woman might act a certain way (even if that explanation is horribly inaccurate). Saying "you're wrong because your points are sexist" is not the same at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/19 04:08 PM
-1

AWALT isn't always accurate, but it's used as an explanation/justification of feminine behavior. Saying something is sexist or misogynistic as an argument is simply a descriptor for any statement about women you don't like.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/19 02:24 AM
2

You're right, and I guess this is what my real point is. Saying that women shouldn't be raped and killed because it's (irrationally) sexist. Pointing out differences and men and women is often seen as sexism, which is retarded. You worded it better than I did.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/19 02:11 AM
-4

Not comparable in the least.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/19 01:02 AM
1

Women aren't equal
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/19 12:51 AM
0

If you're a truly masculine man with options you'll pass shit tests without having to think about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/19 04:39 PM
1

The antithesis of logic, science, and truth
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/19 11:22 PM
1

Nonexistent
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/19 05:06 PM
1

Yes, I'd say enter relationships and stick them out best she can. If that's not an option, the solution to keeping her body count low would be to buy a vibrator. Women can have whatever N count they want, but they would just need to have realistic expectations as to how they'd be received by high quality men.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/19 01:51 PM
3

All of the above
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/19 02:56 PM
9

The question should be is "why do men choose these high paying fields"? There is a lot of pressure on men to be successful providers, and that pressure could partly contribute to higher suicide rates. Not only that, but higher paying fields tend to be more demanding in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/19 02:55 PM
2

Women choose lower paying fields because high paying jobs, generally speaking, are more demanding. Directly in conflict with their innate desire to be caregiving mothers.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/19 02:26 PM
2

For a woman idk... Less than 10. For a man, guess it depends on the women he's fucking. If they're relatively high quality I wouldn't say there's a Max Shitty lock master key yada yada
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/19 01:55 PM
2

If you meet those criteria and takes care of shit at home I wouldn't mind her not working at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/19 07:14 AM
2

There's something repulsive about a relationship with a woman with tens of bodies
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/19 07:13 AM
0

Brad Pitt is extremely and traditionally masculine. Being good looking isn't inherently feminine at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/19 08:33 PM
3

Generally speaking... Men are judged on general competency. Women are judged by their looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/19 08:30 PM
1

The level of audacity in this post is outrageous lol
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/19 04:48 PM
1

Masculinity is in the eye of the beholder. If a girl looks feminine and hot enough most guys won’t care. Masculinity and femininity are objective concepts. For the second point, I'd agree if we're talking sex only. Long term, I'd question the quality of a relationship between an effeminate man and a masculine woman. For a specific example, men generally don't like women to 'wear the pants' in a relationship, and women are generally repulsed by men who won't (or can't) take charge. Women are attr…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/19 02:51 PM
1

Nah man. Masculinity is unattractive to men and it's attractive to women. If the behavioral characteristics of the opposite sex are a non-factor in your attraction, then you are the weirdo/outlier.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/19 12:31 PM
3

Race and sex aren't analogous in this context.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/19 12:26 PM
2

Based on the story, it sounds like her interest level isn't very high unfortunately. When that happens, they flake
/r/askTRP21/11/19 11:53 AM
2

Sounds like she's gonna flake and give you the run-around if you let her.
/r/askTRP21/11/19 10:08 AM
3

I'd personally say that part is bullshit. Unless you're chad most girls are not acting like they're disinterested-- they are disinterested. Women shit test, yes, but if they are interested they will send signals. Obviously it's possible to raise interest, but it's really not worth the time.
/r/askTRP21/11/19 12:15 AM
1

It's all in the moment emotions which are difficult to put into words. they don't know what they want, but they know how they like to feel.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/19 02:03 AM
2

No offense taken.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/19 04:00 PM
1

20
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/19 01:05 PM
3

Do a Google search for a good Muay Thai/boxing/kickboxing/mma gym. Try a class/open gym. Stick with whichever gym you like best. After a few months of consistent training you should be ready for an amateur fight. If you're dog serious about training and eating right, you could turn pro after maybe 5 years...
/r/askTRP19/11/19 01:52 AM
7

I'm only 20 and I've been redpilled for less than a year now... Just ask yourself this: out of those 10 guys who want that 9/10, do you think one of those guys is the best option for her? If so, then what's stopping you from being that? Good luck man
/r/askTRP19/11/19 12:35 AM
22

This is gonna sound pretty corny, but you just have to believe you're the prize. You gotta believe you're her best option, and the best way is to actually make yourself that by being on your shit. You have some confidence issues right now. It's understandable since you're so young, but keep working on it.
/r/askTRP19/11/19 12:26 AM
30

This is part of your problem man. You can't have the mentality that you'd be lucky to have a good looking girl. Gotta genuinely feel like 9s are lucky to have you.
/r/askTRP19/11/19 12:19 AM
1

It's not searching for "the one"... It's just promiscuity born out of hypergamy
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/19 11:52 PM
2

Because women end relationships far more readily and frequently.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/19 11:41 PM
3

It's hilarious how much women claim to want to find "the one" but spend their twenties in and out of tens of failed relationships
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/19 11:13 PM
4

Not worth your time if you're not already super well known irl. If you are... Then just follow people you know. Then follow their followers, and after a few weeks just unfollow everyone who you either don't know, or didn't follow back.
/r/askTRP18/11/19 05:09 PM
4

That's pretty bluepilled of you to say. Wondering where you heard that.
/r/askTRP17/11/19 06:27 PM
8

Yeah, but honestly women get over romantic heartbreak ridiculously fast compared to men.
/r/askTRP17/11/19 05:18 PM
1

I like this one
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/19 09:47 AM
2

This sub is filled to the brim with idiocy
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/19 01:05 AM
9

The article is saying that you would find their bodies more attractive if they were muscular, without exception. It's not trying to communicate that no one's attracted to out of shape men.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/19 04:52 PM
1

Short, ugly, and awkward is enough to fuck most men
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/19 04:01 PM
1

I'd tend to disagree on the details, but your definitions weren't bad for what a cuck is. Doesn't mean a man failed to satisfy. She likely just found an option she perceives as better. If he stays with her while.knowing she wants other men (even if she hasn't done anything with them), he's a cuck. Most men are emotional cucks. Cuckolds are present in most relationships. Women always keep their options open.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/19 02:02 PM
1

I'm sure that some of my boundaries would be offensive to someone like you.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/19 11:57 AM
3

Disagree, most dudes will never take the red pill. They need to be told.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/19 05:49 PM
1

Giving sexual/romantic prospects minimal priority Not compromising Setting boundaries. I don't try to control a woman's life; if she acts in a way I don't appreciate I'll just ghost. No need to waste anyone's time. If I don't feel that a relationship is serving me I end it. This mentality has gotten the women I date to respect and desire me way more than they did when everything I did was to appease them. Sure, I could've continued dating/had sex with some of the women I've left, so I lost out a…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/19 04:17 PM
1

You know what, that's a good point. You're right, your stat would be encompassing of my point. I'd be interested to see how/if those rates change as the socioeconomic gap between husband and wife increases. I know that I didn't say this initially, and I'm not the type to fight tooth and nail when I'm proven wrong. However, you just made me think of something else that may be likely: unmarried couples are probably more likely to survive if a guy cheats because in marriage there's more incentive t…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/19 05:34 PM
1

Feel free to tell me if and how I'm wrong, but I don't think you have a thorough understanding of the argument I've made here.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/19 07:05 PM
1

I'm glad you were able to come to that conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/19 06:48 PM
1

That's a far cry from what I've argued here. If there are vast differences between given groups, enforcing universal standards doesn't really make sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/19 05:24 PM
1

Fairness respective of difference rather than indiscriminate standards for all
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/19 02:15 PM
1

I believe in equity over equality.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/19 02:09 PM
1

This is a great answer so thanks for actually addressing the question. You'd definitely be right that women are not necessarily monogamous either, but I would have to disagree that they give up as much as men. The female strategy is much closer to "get as much quality as I can" rather than having the urge to have sex with almost anything moving. Also, I don't really think the male post-orgasm refractory period is really relevant as it's like 10 minutes max. You are right in saying that their nat…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/19 02:03 AM
1

You're being too selective
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/19 08:53 PM
2

I'm assuming you're a woman lol
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/19 08:48 PM
25

Marriage was a much better deal for men in Carnegie's time. Any woman who wrote a book titled similarly to that in 2019 would be shunned for anti-feminism.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/19 08:45 PM
1

Feminism happened because some naive people thought it sounded like a good idea. Do you seriously believe that BS about gender roles being socially constructed? Power comes with responsibility that many are unfit for.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/19 08:40 PM
1

If you'd read through the thread you would know I don't disagree with you there
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/19 08:37 PM
1

It's ironic you call me out for "feelings, yet all of your responses have been pure opinion and you haven't made a single point yet. Would you say that not being a leader is inherently negative?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 02:49 PM
1

This thread has actually given me some new perspective. In another post I said I'm not convinced of the immorality of male polygyny. I am considering its possible effects on society, however. Good post, thanks for actually answering the question.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 02:14 PM
1

Bias=/=Bullshit. You can be biased toward fact. I'd argue that traditional gender roles benefit both men and women. What's your rebuttal if my argument is complete BS?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 02:11 PM
1

Generally yes. I'd say that on average the differences probably aren't MASSIVE (except physically obviously). When you get to the sides of extremely innovative leaders, you're going to be looking at pretty much all men.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 12:13 PM
1

Does that make it untrue?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 12:08 PM
1

If men being the ones to end/damage the relationship means not financially satisfying their wives, you might be onto something.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 12:07 PM
1

It's not. Why do you think that a man can have practically limitless numbers of children in their lifetime? Do you think we evolved that trait by accident? Congratulations then. Men who are ok with sacrificing this part of their sexuality are not very uncommon, especially now when we're socialized to do such. I've got a better one. Why should men be faithful with women who aren't bringing an equal amount to a relationship? Keep in mind that men don't select partners based on wealth/status, so it…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 12:06 PM
1

I'd say that's more socially integrated as men are not natural caregivers of children.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 12:00 PM
1

Massive differences in innovative, leadership, decision-making, and physical capability.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 11:56 AM
1

That stat doesn't account for socioeconomic status. If you can find something that says women who marry men outside of their tax brackets are just as likely to leave a cheating husband as any other woman, you would be addressing my point.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 11:54 AM
1

Except they are. Men are still the high earners and pay for more even when salaries are equal. Most women will openly admit that they want a successful, good looking man (nothing wrong with that). If a man wants a virgin homemaker, he's a misogynist. Technically, yes. Two points against this though. First, men are still financial providers, protectors, and pursuers as I've said multiple times in this thread. Housewives are the minority. Men give up a lot and women gain everything. Second, women …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 02:07 AM
1

That's where I'd disagree. Men's standards are way lower on average and are generally more willing to commit (assuming they are not the top echelon of men who can essentially take their pick)
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 01:58 AM
1

There's a sacrifice, but it's not the same for a couple of reasons. Women aren't held to traditional marital standards anymore, and now offer fewer things that men in generally actually care about (most men don't settle with a woman for her career or status). Having as many babies as humanly possible is not a female imperative.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 01:53 AM
1

I'd tend to agree with you there, but that doesn't imply that men are generally only loyal partners to women they deem as in or above their league.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 01:47 AM
2

Maybe from the man's subjective perspective, you'd be right. Objectively, however, men are far more likely to date/marry down than women.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 01:35 AM
1

Women are the fairer, submissive sex. We are not held to the same standards, and we do not have the same responsibilities or obligations. I wouldn't necessarily say spreading seed benefits an LTR, it benefits the man (and that's the point). I'm not arguing that men should get married and spend the rest of their days chasing pussy. My point is that if a man is making such a large sacrifice, and the woman's end of the deal isn't being held up, then perhaps the man has no reason to commit. If a man…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 01:29 AM
1

No. That's a big reach from what I said.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 01:21 AM
1

It's ironic that you call male mating strategy primitive but "do better, fuck hotter, and get more than you" (aka hypergamy) is all well and good.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 01:18 AM
1

You're absolutely right, it's just that absence of a biological father causing the death of a child wasn't and isn't a common enough occurrence to be relevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 01:16 AM
0

The difference is that men are the dominant sex and women (theoretically) submit to them.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 01:11 AM
1

It's not about the monogamy itself; I specifically am referring to the sacrifice implied by it.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 01:10 AM
1

Not true. See: Male and female divorce initiation rates.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 01:08 AM
1

Did you pull that 3 to 5% statistic out of thin air? Lots of 1% guys have been dumped/divorced for cheating by women of similar status. Most famous guys date famous women.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 01:05 AM
1

In some aspects, yes. I thought that was made clear.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/19 01:03 AM
2

No, I don't think I do. I'd probably be a hypocrite to say otherwise. That's a hard question that's really making me think.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 05:14 PM
1

I am a Christian. I don't necessarily take the Bible at face value, a lot of my views misalign with it. I probably wouldn't have had a problem with am expectation of monogamy in Biblical times... Or 70 years ago for that matter. Feminism has harshly stigmatized the leading husband and submissive wife in most developed nations. Exclusivity is not really a fair trade for men anymore.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 04:59 PM
2

I'd agree with your first point to an extent. I'd also add along with the expectation of fidelity from her end as you mentioned, we expected some level of home-making. Second point, yep. Hypergamy is only stigmatized in the redpill community. Male polygamy is bad everywhere. Third point again, yep. "My body my choice", fine. Isn't it a tad bit unreasonable to say that the father and provider to said "choice" has absolutely no say in what happens to it? I like your points.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 01:03 PM
1

Great example. Probably too harsh for this sub though lmao.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 12:57 PM
1

When I said "a lot of different men", I was using male numbers as a measuring stick. That's more subjective but you're right having 10 kids with 10 dads could definitely be "a lot". For second point, that's not true today and wasn't true historically.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 12:23 PM
1

Monogamy isn't a bad deal if you're coming home to a clean house, dinner on the table, absolute fidelity on her part, and regular sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 12:08 PM
1

The part that your argument is missing is the part that it's not a theory. Men can potentially have thousands of children in their life time, where a woman can have.. maybe 30? Being generous. It is absolutely not in a woman's nature to have children with a lot of different men, as it's simply not possible. For the theoretical portion, their sexual strategy indicates they should pursue quality rather than quantity (and they do, generally). Now how does this tie into modern day society, where sex…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 12:03 PM
1

I don't. I'm on this debate sub to see others' thoughts on it.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 11:57 AM
0

Thanks, this is a nice perspective to think about. I haven't been convinced that a man cheating is morally incorrect (nor do I think that was your goal), but I will definitely consider your thoughts on how male polygyny could affect society as a whole.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 11:56 AM
-2

Sacrifice is inherently voluntary. That first point doesn't really work. Your last point brings me to two things. First, with your logic it is absolutely impossible for a significant proportion of men to find this high-quality woman. Second, women are absolutely hypergamous and marry men they admire. If she's a high quality woman, it is more than probable that the man is even higher quality. So, we still have men giving up their mating strategy for women of equal or lesser quality.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 11:44 AM
1

Good point. Couple more questions: Is that inherently bad? Would you not agree that the society in your model is allowing natural selection to take its course? (Playing devil's advocate, I don't necessarily believe the majority of men should be fucked like this) Where does morality come into this? How much moral fault should be given to a man who cheats in our current societal model?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 11:38 AM
0

So to clarify, you're saying that men shouldn't spread their seed due to the financial strain put on the mothers of his children. This is a solid point. It just doesn't really pertain to my question, as I'm referring to solely the act of sex. I might not have made that very clear. I would definitely agree that a man shouldn't have kids with a hundred women because of the financial strain it puts on her.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 11:33 AM
2

Can you elaborate further on that? I've definitely seen the argument that a society where men are not monogamous creates a disparity. You get a bunch of guys who don't get any women, some guys who get a few, then a small percentage dudes fucking everything in sight. This could definitely stir a lot of resentment in those guys at the bottom of the totem pole. I'm not sure if this is what you were getting at.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 11:27 AM
-1

This is a debate sub lmao
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 11:20 AM
0

Exactly. If a woman can do (what she perceives as) better, she will.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 11:19 AM
-1

Rather than try to come up with an actual justification, just create a new question and answer it yourself. I guess this is how this thread is gonna go.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 11:16 AM
2

So men should be grateful that we're settled for. Gotcha.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 11:14 AM
6

Marriage, in its current state, is absolutely outdated and worthless for men.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 11:11 AM
-6

That's simply not true. Women who are average in terms of social status are perfectly willing to be with a man who "cheats" on her if he is high-value enough. (See: any celebrity with a multimillion-strong harem of women who would drop their entire lives to fuck them) Of course, women will be less willing to put up with this the smaller the difference in status is between her and the man. You're absolutely right, I would never be in an open relationship. So I ask again, how are women balancing t…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 11:09 AM
-1

The point is that men sacrifice an integral part of their sexuality in a monogamous relationship. How are women balancing the scale?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 11:01 AM
1

This doesn't really address the question.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 10:51 AM
1

The terms alpha and beta are quite simple in concept and it honestly baffles me that people argue they are not genuine phenomena. Alpha= Strong. Gets women Beta= Weak. Doesn't get women. Obviously, both of these types of men exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 09:59 AM
1

Yes, I would do it. Apparently your setting isn't entirely accurate to what actually existed but I get your point. It's a much better deal than we get now.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 09:53 AM
3

/u/poppy_blu is hilarious. Condescends through the entire thread in sarcasm, yet fails to make a single relevant point anywhere. What's even better is how she puts her hands on her hips and tells you you're wrong, (while clapping her hands on every syllable) then vanishes when disproven.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 09:31 AM
1

You didn't know that you're allowed to make reasonable assumptions based on data?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 12:13 AM
1

I've been reading your posts here and it seems you don't read very closely. For this example, I'll talk startups. https://www.geekwire.com/2019/gender-gap-women-led-companies-make-8-geekwire-200-startup-list/ data here suggests influence from one or all of the following factors. Key words, 'data here suggests'. Don't put your notions in others' mouths.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 12:09 AM
2

So first, women, specified to be childless and only including women in their twenties out-earn ALL (including men who do have children) men in the same age range, by a measly 8%. Not very compelling evidence. Second, yep. Not surprising. Women have been doing better in college in raw numbers for a long time. Something you might want to keep in mind is the fact that men are far more likely to choose careers that don't require degrees (physical labor and skilled trades) than women are. Third. We k…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 12:02 AM
1

Wasn't generalizing minorities as being less competent. Just think it's wrong to force any demographic into a given area. For this example, I'll talk startups. https://www.geekwire.com/2019/gender-gap-women-led-companies-make-8-geekwire-200-startup-list/ data here suggests influence from one or all of the following factors. Women are not as capable as men in workforce leadership Women are not as interested as men in being a part of workforce leadership There is something preventing women from br…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 11:51 PM
1

Source? I believe the more degrees portion as that's always been the case, but the other two I'd like to see
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 01:04 PM
3

From what I've been told, succinctness and being more likeable than your competition. In the past, really knowing your technical shit was enough to give you a shot, but apparently everyone studies their ass off and knows it now. When there's a bunch of 3.8GPA+ applicants from top notch schools and they all know their shit, a lot of the times they're picked based on how concise and to the point their technical answers were, and then whoever was the coolest bro there (who wants to spend 90 hours a…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 12:50 PM
3

Yes, quite a few. I live in Jersey and spend some time in New York, so they're not uncommon here. I believe that most people probably don't know IB, but if you visit any University campus a very large chunk of kids (vast majority men) studying finance/econ are aspiring bankers. They can tell you how cutthroat the interview process usually is.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 12:40 PM
3

This is the best challenge I've seen for this argument. I agree that a woman or minority may have something different to bring to the table, which is why my point is to give equality of opportunity above all else. However... Do you believe, in theory, that the benefits of potentially different perspective from a given demographic outweigh possible consequences of sheer incompetence? I am actually a black man and advocate a lot of pro-black movements. With that being said, I don't see too much pr…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 09:46 AM
1

Honestly surprising. I definitely don't feel that is morally right as an advocate of equal opportunity, so my point still stands.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 09:14 AM
2

Sorry, that was definitely hyperbole. My point is that women (and to a lesser extent, minorities) are given many breaks and special treatment in a lot of large companies. It is problematic that we are even having the conversation "we need x% of XYZ demographic in 'enter literally anything competitive here'", rather than seeking talent. The first companies that come to mind are Johnson and Johnson. Large investment banks have a significantly less rigorous interview process for female applicants.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 08:50 AM
2

Back at ya. The goal isn't to have women compete with men, but there is constant conversation about how there are not enough women in 'younameit'? I find it ironic that removing what you describe as systematic oppression inherently requires qualified men to be denied opportunities because there is an equally (or less) qualified woman somewhere competing for that spot. Don't get me wrong, give her the opportunity if it is earned.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 08:41 AM
0

I do not justify discrimination, as I previously said that equal opportunity is a good thing. My definition of equal does not mean the same in every way. I never once implied that. The differences in men and women are so pronounced you have to do a ridiculous amount of mental gymnastics to convince yourself they don't exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 08:37 AM
1

I was more referring to physical labor, of which women make up less than 5% of the workforce (understandably).
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 08:34 AM
0

Yes. Can the idea of gender equality truly be moral when it contradicts what is real?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 08:32 AM
1

Is it really moral when it comes in direct conflict with fact? It is certainly relevant to judge men on their ability to innovate and lead. Perhaps the physical differences are irrelevant, but even then, not really. There is still a need for physical might in 2019.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 08:29 AM
9

I actually agree with you. Equal opportunity is a good idea. It becomes problematic when what was just 'equal opportunity' turns into 'we have a quota of 50% female employees, so a disproportionate number of qualified men are shorted'. This is why it's important to acknowledge the differences between the sexes.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 08:25 AM
0

What CEO doesn't want stronger leadership? A fast track would be to pick the most qualified candidates, and disregard the M/F checkbox. Today's setup is better for him because it is today. To your point, siding with me would be suicidal.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 08:21 AM
1

I would probably tend to disagree with your first point. It does matter quite a bit if men and women are equals. If we treat them as such, we get some poorly performing women in F500 leadership roles (of course there are poorly performing men here, but nowadays men are far more likely to be in these positions because of sheer competency, now that our competition has nearly doubled with women being forced into the playing field) for the sake of diversity, and then grown men who are stay at home n…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 08:08 AM
0

Haha good response. Totally agree. I ask this because even redpill guys say ridiculous things like "feminism isn't a bad idea just poorly practiced..." and insinuate that men and women are actually equals. All I ask from people is to think critically... Men and women are equals? Equal how? It's probably a fool's game.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 07:54 AM
16

This. I also wouldn't find it hard to believe that women care for a sick partner more for a couple of reasons. Men mostly want sex from a woman. With a spouse who is sick for an extended period of time, sex is probably out of the window (especially with heart problems). This would bring strain to the relationship that may have not been there before. Women want money and status, and they stick around on the condition they are provided for. A sick spouse does not necessarily mean a broke spouse. W…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 07:32 AM
2

OP knows he fucked up. It's pretty obvious he just has oneitis, but at least he's able to recognize that some action needs to be taken. The point I am making is that your questions aren't guiding him to a solution.
/r/askTRP06/11/19 01:04 AM
1

What is the purpose of such condescending, interrogation-like comments?
/r/askTRP06/11/19 12:51 AM
1

Nice job nipping this in the bud man. I'm younger than you, but had something similar earlier this year. Let it go on for too long (3-4 months) and it took a lot for me to walk away even after knowing she was a walking red flag.
/r/askTRP06/11/19 12:48 AM
1

Don't commit to one woman. You're a grown, unmarried man. Even if you're in an LTR do what you want. 99 times in 100 she's doing the same.
/r/askTRP04/11/19 09:06 PM
1

Thanks man. Hopefully they'll learn by themselves eventually as they are open to some of the concepts, but I understand that I can't force them to change/it's not my responsibility.
/r/askTRP04/11/19 04:47 PM
0

Again, that was just a one-off example. Just because my friends and I sometimes make comments on specific women doesn't mean I don't believe AWALT
/r/askTRP04/11/19 02:47 PM
1

Thanks. They're great guys who have been around with me since middle school, so I won't be going anywhere. It's just one aspect that is sometimes frustrating, but I guess it is their choice whether or not they decide to embrace the philosophy
/r/askTRP04/11/19 02:46 PM
1

No one cares that she's a slut, it's just locker room talk. Not sure how you've come to these conclusions about me from a paragraph long post with a one-off example.
/r/askTRP04/11/19 02:43 PM
1

Yeah I may have not been clear. They agree with a lot of red pill philosophy in conversation, but don't practice it. Oh well I guess, they have their lives I have mine.
/r/askTRP04/11/19 02:39 PM
4

Just pull back, no contact for a week or two. She'll come back
/r/askTRP04/11/19 01:20 PM
1

Never start a tinder convo based on her bio. Just use your standard intro and if she's a slut then she'll be a slut. An account with an intro like that is either 1. A catfish account 2. Used to weed out the thirstys
/r/askTRP03/11/19 12:33 PM
0

Was at first curious as to why you ask, but checked your post history and it's literally nothing but throwing insults. You ok junior?
/r/MGTOW22/10/19 09:24 AM
2

Fair enough, I definitely hear ya.
/r/MGTOW21/10/19 12:36 PM
1

If you want to go monk mode, more power to you. Personally, I'm not willing to forsake one of my most basic desires for the rest of my life.
/r/MGTOW21/10/19 11:41 AM
2

You're not wrong. Monk mode is probably the best way to go. Unfortunately, many of us(myself included) are willing to take a calculated risk for sex only. For me, going my own way just means that I am the center of my own life.
/r/MGTOW21/10/19 11:38 AM
4

You have a great point. However, MGTOW doesn't mean no pussy. I'd wager that a large chunk of guys on here are still interested in women sexually, but swear off marriage. If they're gonna deal with women, there's a right and a wrong way to do it
/r/MGTOW21/10/19 12:58 AM
3

She feels bad that she doesn't have a boyfriend anymore, not about what she did
/r/MGTOW06/10/19 03:09 PM
1

Agreed. I'm 20 and in the same boat as you. If you want to be celibate, your choice, but telling other men to completely avoid sex doesn't seem to have much purpose. Sure, don't get married, don't co-habitate, but get a vasectomy and be careful, then fuck all the bitches you want. I thought the point of MGTOW was to put yourself above romantic relationships, not to deny yourself pleasure. Edit: now I don't agree with name-calling and female shaming, but a lot of shit posted on this sub does seem…
/r/MGTOW09/05/19 05:52 PM
3

Agree with most of your points but him fucking a lot of girls=/=her fucking a lot of guys because of obvious biological differences. Not saying it's the 'smart' or 'right' thing to do, but the situations are not equal. Master key vs shitty lock yadayada
/r/MGTOW09/05/19 02:44 PM
1

Get a vasectomy first
/r/MGTOW09/05/19 02:42 PM
1

Yup. Marriage forces you to give that mentality up, giving the woman a lot of the power
/r/MGTOW06/05/19 01:55 PM
0

I understand what you're coming from, but all of a woman's male 'friends' would fuck her given the chance, and she knows this. Men don't allow themselves to be friend zoned by women they find unattractive, they'll just move on.
/r/MGTOW06/05/19 11:45 AM
1

Agreed. A man's love isn't unconditional, but a woman's "love" is just flimsy.
/r/MGTOW01/05/19 12:26 AM
2

The comments are disgusting
/r/MGTOW30/04/19 05:14 PM
2

Wise words
/r/MGTOW23/04/19 11:36 PM
1

Thanks man. Went into it thinking she might be different from the rest of the girls I dealt with, nope. luckily her true colors were showing in 3 months rather than 3 years like a lot of other stories I've heard.
/r/MGTOW22/04/19 12:11 PM
1

Sorry not sure what you mean. Do you think I'm a single mom?
/r/MGTOW21/04/19 09:00 PM
1

We're definitely blessed to have such easy access to you all's wisdom and experience.
/r/MGTOW21/04/19 08:21 PM
1

Not really the short story I guess, sorry.
/r/MGTOW21/04/19 05:15 PM
1

I'll say the short story. From early January to mid March everything was great. I believe this to be because I was very distant, usually too busy for her, and she was constantly blowing up my phone just to talk. Now I did have feelings, but this was a sort of defense mechanism for me because I knew things couldn't last. She was pressing me for a relationship, and I agreed to be exclusive but I didn't give her a title and wouldn't introduce her to my friends or anything. Mid March I tried to brea…
/r/MGTOW21/04/19 05:15 PM
1

Thanks man. No one said it would be an easy pill to swallow.
/r/MGTOW21/04/19 05:07 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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