TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Status-Position-8678 Archive

View 0 posts and 42 comments by Status-Position-8678 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
18

100%. 68 year old Jerry with a wife and 3 kids in college isn't hoping to date the 20 year old he hits on, he's basically just bullying her.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 01:21 PM
2

>maintain weight on a calorie deficit This is a contradictory statement, you cannot maintain weight if you're eating less than your body requires to function. Unless you're suggesting that your body can break the laws of thermodynamics. >100 lbs rapidly after my insulin resistance was treated correctly? Because you ate less because insulin makes you want to eat more, it doesn't summon fat from the ether. >It's about carbs, and your body's ability to process them. Straight up science denial right…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/25 07:13 PM
1

You literally lose weight if you can eat less, because that's how the human body works. Calories in = calories out. It's a simple matter of willpower, does it differ between different people? sure. But it's all about willpower at the end of the day.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/25 06:12 AM
0

1-People almost always had 3-4+ kids before modern times 2-the chances of every single child being a girl is pretty low unless you only have one or two children. For example if you had 4-5 kids which was typical, the chances of all of them being girls is only 3%, my point is that it's not statistically relevant enough to change the conclusions
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/25 08:36 AM
0

Basically, they take look at how diverse the mitochondrial DNA is, the one derived from the mother's side, and then they look at the diversity of the Y chromosome, the fathers side, they compare the two, and they can extrapolate how many women passed on their mitochondrial dna vs how many men passed on their y chromosome
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/25 08:22 AM
4

>Ask chatgpt and wikipedia, some definitely exist That's why I specifically used the definition "a society in which women hold the majority or all of the wealth/power " Every "matriarchal" society they list is matrilocal (family structure is built around a head female rather than male) or matrilineal (wealth/family name gets passed down the female line) But those societies are still dominated by men when it comes to wealth and politics. So they're not matriarchal. For example alot of Jewish comm…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/25 07:57 AM
0

I'm not too sure on the details, but I think they just compare how much genetic information is derived from the mother's mitochondrial DNA and compare that to how much genetic information is derived from the father's y chromosome and they can tell that more women reproduced.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/25 07:46 AM
2

>Matriarchal societies Matriarchy is a contradiction because of biological realities. Talking about matriarchy in humans is like talking about a square with 3 sides. To my knowledge there has never been a matriarchal society (a society in which women hold the majority or all of the wealth/power) ever. There's a simple reason for that, every society is built on base layer on violence, men as a collective have a monopoly on violence because of biology, so men as a collective can impose their will …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/25 07:44 AM
2

>look where it lead us ??? Is this supposed to be good or bad
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/25 07:36 AM
-4

We can tell how many women/men reproduced though, we can look at the mitochondrial dna and the y chromosome and see at what ratio men/women reproduced. On average through most of history it was a 2:1 ratio, 2 women reproduced for every man, this makes sense considering humans are quite dimorphic (Lions are good analogues, everything from manes/facial hair and the size difference lines up well with humans) and sexual dimorphism is a very good indicator of that ratio.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/25 07:34 AM
0

I think he's referring to the fact that there's a very large disparity in how many men report to be single in surveys vs how many women report to be single. This disparity is way more prevalent under the age of 35
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/25 07:27 AM
2

I said that the majority of women who actively look for/select for men with lower body counts are conservative/religious. I didn't say the majority of conservative/religious women select for men with lower body counts, because I honestly don't think that's true
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:48 PM
–

The stuff that I've overheard, not even in conversation, just overheard from women is 10x more explicit/confidential than what I hear men talk about in private around only other men. That could just be my experience though.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:46 PM
–

OP isn't debating morality or whether something is logical. He's arguing that men will still be widely accepted and respected for having a high body count by both men and women while the opposite isn't true. People in 1930s Germany accepted Hitler, doesn't make him moral or logical in his actions, public opinion doesn't dictate morality.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:26 PM
–

Because tbh I have no idea if that's true.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:23 PM
–

Agree, but based on my knowledge, the Chinese, mesoamericans, Indians and peoples of the near east all had some form of shame/value placed on virginity, and all of these cultures arose completely independently.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:22 PM
–

He's saying that women's issue with body count isn't the promiscuity itself, but the implication of it, in this case it's the lack of commitment. But men on the other hand are just disgusted with the concept of a high body count/promiscuity in and of itself, regardless of any down stream effects of said promiscuity.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:21 PM
–

No. I think a minority of women in general actually judge/pick men with lower body counts. If we're going to make any assumptions that are more complex then we're just guessing with no solid proof
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:19 PM
–

Usually word spreads around way faster and wider in female social circles than in men. Women share crazy details on their dating/sex life that men almost never do (That's why I think "locker room talk" is mostly projection by women because they're the ones who usually share explicit details without their SO/partners consent). Women usually know when a man is a player, it's not a surprise.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:15 PM
–

I agree, I'm just saying that a "circle" isn't some abstract entity that manipulates women, it's just a group of women.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:12 PM
–

>women with low body counts or virgins want to date other virgins/low body count men. I never said that, I said that there's a minority of mostly conservative/religious women that do care about a man's body count. >the women dating men with high body counts also have high body counts Not really
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:11 PM
5

They do care somewhat, obviously. What I meant was more so that we don't care enough to let it influence our relationship decisions in any meaningful way. trophy wife The trophy wife phenomenon is pretty rare, most high status wealthy men aren't married to a 21 year old model, they're married to usually wealthy, successful career women their age.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:10 PM
–

Well women are their circles
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:08 PM
–

The shaming of male hoes is mostly performative, it's never done out of the blue it's always a reaction to a man shaming female hoes.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:07 PM
–

>Women could care less if theyre viewed as a hoe or not by women or men. Maybe that's what they should think, but to say that women don't care if they're viewed as a "slut" by women or men is just insane and obviously false.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:06 PM
–

I think it's a mostly biological innate instinct because it's present in virtually every culture, even ones that developed independently
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:05 PM
–

While the statement "women are a hive mind" is kind of extreme, I see where OP is coming from. Most men don't really care what their friends think about how attractive/nice etc... their girlfriend is. Women care ALOT about what their friends think about their SO.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:03 PM
–

>a ring on his finger This isn't just an anecdote I'm pretty sure they did a study on this, I could be wrong though
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:02 PM
–

I'm not denying that some women, especially more conservative/religious women, avoid dating men with high body counts, but at the end of the day that's a minority. Most women don't just accept, they pursue men with high body counts. A woman who's known as a "slut" in a community/group will have her dating options drop by quite a bit, a man who's known as a "player" in his community/group will get more attention and don't even try to deny this I've seen it play out a million times.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:00 PM
–

>Men should also stop praising other men who have high body counts. That would help the issue just as much if not more than women condemning the practice. That's just insane, most men if were asked to pick between female validation/attention vs male validation/attention, 99% are picking the former, when it comes to dating dynamics women have way more authority than men because they get to select the men, and so they signal what traits they reward. I'd also like to add that the reason that men pr…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 06:48 PM
–

The bottom line is until women actually genuinely shame and avoid dating men that have high body counts there will always be a double standard when it comes to body count/promiscuity. The truth is that women don't just ignore it, they actively encourage it by picking men who they know to be more promiscuous. The opposite doesn't happen. The ball is entirely in the women's court when it comes to this issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 06:42 PM
–

>it is near impossible this will happen the only thing stopping this from happening is men's decision to allow women to have rights, this is what OP is referring to. If a majority of men in America woke up with the same views on women as the Iranian leadership the US would very quickly turn into Iran
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 04:58 PM
–

It's not "one day", feminism and social justice in general is the logical conclusion of the classical liberalism born out of the enlightenment.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:41 AM
–

>It also extends to the organizations women formed to put civil pressure on governments. Why would governments surrender to that pressure? what incentive does a supposedly patriarchal and sexist government have to give women rights? >Why doesn't it make sense? And what alternative explanation do you have for governments to surrender their war on women? Because people in government believed women deserved rights??? Teddy Roosevelt, who was at one point arguably the most powerful human on Earth, s…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 07:02 AM
–

People don't understand that violence is the only reason society can exist. It doesn't matter how egalitarian, empathetic, just, a society is. The only thing that stops people from murdering each other is laws, laws that are underpinned with a threat of violence. If you refuse pay your taxes the government will send a group of armed men to your house. Every law that we follow, we follow because we know the consequences of not following it is violence.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 06:59 AM
–

I get what OP is trying to say, he's just wording it poorly. Everything in society is underpinned by the implicit or explicit threat of violence, laws for example are followed because there's a threat of violence if you don't. And so whoever has the monopoly on violence has all the power, in modern society that's the government. What OP is trying to say is that in any political system, even an egalitarian or matriarchal political system, men still have power as a collective over women, because m…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 06:57 AM
–

>political pressure I'm confused, women didn't really play a role in politics so what pressure did they have. >they organized, picketed, civilly disobeyed, started lawsuits I highly doubt this was the reason, it just doesn't make sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 06:48 AM
15

it wouldn't be a bad thing if 63% of women also refused to date a man who has slept with women before, but the fact that it's a man is what makes it a dealbreaker. Think about it this way, imagine if 5% of men said that a woman having slept with any man is a dealbreaker, now imagine 63% of men said that a woman having slept with a black man is a deal braker. Wouldn't that imply that most men were racist? The same logic applies here.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 06:29 AM
2

Because only they do it?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/25 02:29 AM
4

Even logically consistent pro-choicers don't deny the fact that a fetus is a human life. Any biologist can affirm that statement.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/25 05:41 AM
–

This feels like just world fallacy type of thinking, and tbh it doesn't really track with what I've seen in real life.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/25 10:07 PM
12

>Women like different men Let's not act like there's not a massive amount of overlap, both men and women tend to find the same traits attractive as other men and women.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 06:44 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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