TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Unconfidence Archive

View 9 posts and 2,166 comments by Unconfidence on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 2,166 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

The concept that more chances = more success is so basic that many people can't understand instances where that doesn't work out.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 04:53 PM
2

Women are not a singular person. By and large it is easier to find both a partner who expects more and less now than it was even ten years ago. This is true regardless of gender.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 08:51 AM
3

MRW I'm an intrepid, wild, yet well-groomed Visigoth Warlord feminist that likes kittens.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 08:50 AM
2

You should at least sample the buffet if the food looks good. Not when the buffet has a "If you develop a parasite as a result of eating our buffet you have to carry it to term and raise it or face jail time" rule, or even supports such a rule existing if they could make it happen. The party denying abortion access and downplaying the existence of date rape have no business pushing the idea that casual dating is risk free. Y'all want dating to be an inescapable pit of social obligation leading p…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 02:05 AM
4

Conservatives: "Lying about your politics to get sex should absolutely be legal, but lying about your politics when you take our mandated political assessments of every college student and professor should be punishable by law."
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 02:01 AM
7

Because the concept of a relationship being mutually beneficial was never on the table here. He's only caring about his own needs and wants, and pretending that in doing so, he's mature enough or ready for a real adult relationship. Like, you can't make this shit up.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 01:58 AM
1

They're political alignments according to something called "the Political Compass", which is an oversimplified two-axis extrapolation of politics. For an example of just how stupid and oversimplified this compass and these terms are, according to the political compass as it is used, Nazis are not right wing. You're best off disregarding these labels and approaching anyone who uses them with less credibility. Think of it like someone who claims to understand zoology but keeps talking about alpha …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/21 01:49 AM
4

Bernie Sanders. If he wins the nom I'll campaign door to door for him.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 06:02 AM
2

Bernie god damn Sanders. He's the only one who has consistently taken a line of defending people like me since I was a child. That's like, point #1 I want in a president.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 06:00 AM
-1

Seems to me like it's a RedPill echo chamber, and that anyone who isn't some shade of purple to red is not at all welcome there.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/20 05:54 AM
1

More like closing a gay conversion therapy clinic because it's peddling harmful ideologies which will only lead people to worsen their own lives and the lives of others.
/r/TheRedPill08/10/19 04:26 AM
1

That's cool, enforce sexist rules in a gender debate sub. Perhaps you all should reconsider these rules?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/18 03:48 AM
1

So I should have to participate in sexual segregation just to be a part of discussions on this sub? I call this shit out when fellow feminists do it, but I'm supposed to just be AOK with it because rules?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/18 03:46 AM
1

Man here. I guarantee you that men do not have a nigh-universal commonality on hotness outside of "not fat", which is a commonality that also nigh-universally applies to women.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/18 03:42 AM
1

This rule sucks.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/18 03:32 AM
1

How can women not all come to the same consensus on hottness like men do? Man here. I guarantee you that men do not have a nigh-universal commonality on hotness outside of "not fat", which is a commonality that also nigh-universally applies to women.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/18 03:12 AM
3

Considering that the woman ate some pot brownies and got cured, I'd say her specific problem is that she really hasn't figured all of herself out yet, and that some of her psychological facades were repressing her sexuality, causing a cycle of disinterest. It's never one or the other person's fault that these things develop. Many people aren't ready for the harsher realities of spending a life with someone, like dealing with them sexually when they're not 100%. Rarely are people 100%. When you'r…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/18 03:10 AM
2

I wouldn't care one way or another. I'd be upset that I had to go that high to find someone to be the last one.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/18 02:39 AM
1

Somewhere over 70 but not above 85. I stopped keeping track.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/18 02:36 AM
1

I dunno, there is definitely a non-zero number of women who previously rejected me who came back years later, some with kids, and showed a disturbing level of attraction to me. But no, there's no wall, people just get inflated notions of how attractive they are based on our society's sexualization of youth.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/18 09:06 PM
3

Like going up and expressing open interest, and just asking them if they want to go on dates or get physical. I can't remember how many times I ended up sleeping with a woman because we were talking, and I just broke with "You wanna go somewhere and make out?" Believe it or not, there are a lot of women out there who don't appreciate "the game" and just want someone upfront and honest about what they want.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/18 01:45 PM
3

Or maybe, just hear me out on this, just maybe...women aren't more prone to manipulation and lying at all, and what you're experiencing is confirmation bias on the back of traditional gender expectations?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/18 01:36 PM
3

Sounds like this whole normie dating game just isn't your thing. Have you tried going for women more receptive to alternative approaches?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/18 01:35 PM
1

As long as all parties involved give informed and continual consent, I don't see where there would be a problem. I wouldn't have a problem dating someone who did this in their past. I think the increase is a generally good thing but is kind of mixed in that it shows a large amount of unaddressed sexuality in men. I think in the future we'll be better off for having opened these doors.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/18 01:29 PM
1

Every group you can cite is a block in some way or another. I mean this with no offense, but I see some hypocrisy in saying antifeminists aren't a block but also citing how mainstream feminists don't accept the idea of toxic femininity. I mean I've got slews of articles from notable publications about this subject. I absolutely agree that it needs more voice to it and much more discussion, but I don't agree that it's not being talked about. Pro Anti
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/18 01:40 AM
3

Just how common is this trope of "smart woman deciding to dumb herself down to find a man" in real life? I've never noticed it. When someone presents me with their public face I tend to take it at face value. So if someone acts dumb around me they're automatically excluded from my romantic interest. That's not to say I haven't slept with some women like that, but never in any sort of relationship scenario. How would you feel if you found out that a woman you were dating was pretending to be dumb…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/18 01:23 AM
2

Preface: I agree with hepaticfeedback that this is likely fake. The fact that she is pressing for it despite any resistance from him at all is manipulative, due to the implicit understanding in forming a relationship with the possibility/promise of procreation that it will be two people in the same relationship. She knows this is the case, as evidenced by her asking him. She's changing the terms of the agreement, and pressing despite his resistance. He said no. If she wants to divorce him for it…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/18 01:19 AM
4

That's because it's not "toxic feminism", it's "toxic femininity". Here's a Sydney Morning Herald article discussing it. We discuss this stuff plenty. The problem is, it isn't the kind of discussions antifeminists want us to be having, because we aren't attacking feminism, but rather bad aspects of feminine gender roles. EDIT: Just so you know I don't necessarily agree with that article, just showing an example of that this is an issue of discussion in feminist circles.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/18 12:15 AM
1

It's not very obvious to me, and I've been involved in feminist activism for some time. We're well aware of the slut shaming and toxic femininity coming from traditionalist and/or conservative women, and oppose it. Meanwhile TRP is literally pushing devaluation of women on the basis of sexual experience. If you think the mainstream has a singular opinion or that they aren't nuanced, you're probably oversimplifying the diversity of human opinion.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/18 11:58 PM
4

Look in this very thread for feminists and BP folks saying otherwise.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/18 11:47 PM
2

No.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/18 11:44 PM
3

Because people take "women are often equally culpable" and extrapolate thesis statements like "Women — but not men — seek to actively punish sexualized women".
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/18 11:12 PM
1

I think part of the problem you're dealing with, and this is just conjecture mind you, is that maybe you're conflating the anger that is resulting from your feelings of sadness for the feeling of sadness. For many people, it's easier to deal with anger and hate than it is sadness and loneliness. I don't know for sure that's what's happening, but I figured maybe it's something you should consider. Unlike everyone else, I won't tell you not to pursue things for the sake of someone else. Some peopl…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/18 11:05 PM
1

As long as all parties involved give informed and continual consent, I don't see where there would be a problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/18 10:57 PM
1

The daughter isn't involved in the relationship, hopefully.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/18 06:34 PM
4

What, 17 years now? About that. And RP ideology would fail spectacularly among my friend group. That's all I can speak for, really.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/18 05:57 PM
2

I choose whichever one I'm in love with. The numbers are irrelevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/18 05:32 PM
8

I choose whichever one I'm in love with. It might be the second, and is most likely not the first. The numbers are irrelevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/18 05:03 PM
0

Good talk.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/18 01:22 PM
0

Sure they could. They just have to do the single thing being cited as a prerequisite for achieving it as a woman. Abandon all standards. I guarantee you'll find 100 people to have sex with if you try, and don't filter anyone out.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/18 01:21 PM
2

Did they also smokes with cigarettes?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/18 12:18 PM
0

Yes. So could men, with the same approach.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/18 12:16 PM
2

Nope, not even 10%.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/18 12:15 PM
1

If it's a "Lesser of two bad options" situation, neither.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/18 12:12 PM
4

I choose whichever one I'm in love with. It might be the first, and is most likely not the second. The numbers are irrelevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/18 01:25 AM
1

As long as all parties involved give informed and continual consent, I don't see where there would be a problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/18 12:12 AM
1

Cool
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 09:06 PM
1

I feel like there's a difference between recognizing insecurity, and positing that someone who had more sex with a previous partner must think sex is a chore.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 09:01 PM
1

Have you considered that what you're talking about is really just your idea of what a relationship with you should entail, and not necessarily universal? I know next to no women who expect their man to pay their way through life.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 09:00 PM
2

No, but the fact that she had more sex with a previous partner doesn't necessitate this. For instance, one of my friends complained after leaving a relationship that she was expected to frequently have unpleasant sex with her previous boyfriend. There are a dozen reasons for why a woman would have had more sex with a previous partner than with their current one, other than that she prefers another man. It just seems like the reds and purples on this subreddit are obsessed with the idea of other …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 05:14 PM
1

Ten thousand years of civilization has the tendency to change the priorities of the people engaging in it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 03:21 PM
1

I just did the "not in the mood" to my partner. I'm a dude.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 02:43 PM
1

And I'm saying that at 60 or 80 you may not be having sex at all, which keeps in mind your position that sex changes with age, and extrapolates on that to show how your original comment of "I would never be in a relationship where sex wasn’t joyful and frequent." seems pretty short-sighted. Kinda difficult to call that a straw man or ignoring your point.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 06:57 AM
1

Can you quote me where I misrepresented your argument?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 06:45 AM
1

How about you don't be an asshole to people on a discussion forum for discussing shit. Happy Holidays.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 06:37 AM
0

Cool
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 05:59 AM
0

That's how we end up using different definitions and talking past each other, I've gone down that rabbit hole too many times. There's a reason the very first thing they teach in English 101 is always the definition essay. Define your terms.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 05:31 AM
1

As a general rule; women still select for strength and height. As a general rule, women select whatever is most commonly presented as the ideal by media, as do men. This can be shown by looking at the transformation of the female ideal in men over time. Tribal societies and primitive humans did not idolize any of the frailty currently idolized in women. Such frail women were less likely to survive childbirth and be able to nurture children. From an evolutionary standpoint, nothing is more appeal…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 05:15 AM
0

Can, sure. Won't.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 04:59 AM
1

Right, because strength is what we idolize in men, not low body fat, lack of body hair, etc. What's the "evolutionary mating strategy" in women moving away from hairy guys, or toward six-pack abs? Why aren't giant grizzly beards sexy to all women? As for "Intrasexual male infighting", if they're a significant portion of their population, sure. Like I said, mass lifesaving or mass murder. But if you become a serial killer today you'll still never have a tangible effect on human evolution. There's…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 04:58 AM
1

I think humans are germorphigarph. You need to define these terms.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 04:47 AM
1

Dude, one comment chain at a time.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 04:46 AM
1

Yeah, it's almost like that was my point, that ten thousand years of civilization has pushed any possible evolutionary impetus out of the realm of consideration when discussing the motivations of humans seeking partnership. The very fact that we idolize unhealthy body standards is pretty clear evidence of that. Furthermore you can't prove any genetic component to "mating strategies". You want the answer to the question? Female deer don't choose bigger antlers, bigger antlers kill other males and…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 04:45 AM
1

Speaking from a pure numbers perspective, the best way to ensure smart and healthy kids is to impregnate every woman you can, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 04:40 AM
1

Consider 40 young. If you meet your life-long partner at 20 and you both die at 80, you've only spent a third of your time together already. This constant overinflation of the importance of sex is just youth and media, nothing more.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 04:36 AM
1

Right, it's an example. I'm not relying on the fish to make my argument, they just help. You, on the other hand, need me to compare women to deer in order for your argument to work. And no, just not playing your game. You need to learn not to make your debate socratic. Works for teaching, less for dealing with someone who won't willingly go where you're trying to lead conversations. When deer have a ten thousand year old system of social interactions and language, have developed simple technolog…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 04:31 AM
1

No, we're not talking about deer, because we're talking about women, and the two are not analogous. It's funny to me that any time I bring up that the complexity of human society and the interactions therein completely overshadow any remnants of evolutionary strategy in me, that RedPillers such as yourself immediately jump to some example from the animal kingdom. Sure, if you reduce us all to base animals and ignore the context of tens of thousands of years of human civilization and societies, a…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 04:23 AM
2

Except you're not attacking the bias of the argument, you're saying that there must be bias because of personal investment. Which is a circumstantial form of ad hominem. And is that how women choose their mates in modern society? Antler size?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 04:16 AM
3

Christmas just makes me jealous of my girlfriend, who will be making holiday pay tomorrow. I wish I got holiday pay.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 03:52 AM
1

Been with my partner for five years now and we still gaze into each others' eyes for extended periods. I feel like the sunshine and roses of storybook love really only fits a small portion of humanity, but has been unfairly universalized, at the expense of common folks.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 03:49 AM
1

Unconscious =/= Subconscious A school of fish does not move consciously or subconsciously. Similarly, we do not evolve consciously or subconsciously. It is an entirely unconscious action over which we have no direct control as individuals, at least not through mating. Unless you're talking mass lifesaving or mass murder, you're not consciously affecting the course of human evolution with your life. And it absolutely is an ad hominem (circumstantial) to say that my argument should be taken with l…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 03:43 AM
5

A straw man followed by an ad hominem. Yawn. Got any actual arguments or can we be done?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 03:34 AM
2

I should just add, while all these RedPillers here have been telling you to "Not be afraid to change your fundamental truths", not a one of them have advocated you actually educate yourself. Everything they say is just a code for "Accept our ideology and reject all contradictions". These people would rather believe that academia itself is intellectually corrupt than to believe that they might be intellectually corrupt. Imagine the hubris necessary for that.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 03:31 AM
3

Is that why you choose a partner, because she fits your evolutionary based mating strategy? I mean, for real, these evolutionary processes you're talking about are entirely unconscious, and we do not further or hinder them with our actions. Swim as strongly as you like, little fish, you're just part of the school. But as soon as someone termed it "Success" people were going to be fighting over it. Meanwhile I am who I am today because I had a wonderful stepfather willing to face the pointlessnes…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 03:16 AM
2

More like the exact opposite. Soon as I started to drop the predation and actually just regard women as human beings, they started throwing themselves at me left and right. Turns out people in general like being with someone who respects their humanity, who'd have thought right?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 03:09 AM
16

I think we'd be far better off unraveling some of the ridiculous importance so many of you place on "genetic success", and to get people to realize that such actions come from a psychological need for validation, not some primal instinct. Sure, we have conditions in the brain that make us want to fuck, but this idea that there's some ingrained evolutionary reason for wanting X woman or avoiding Y woman is pretty silly. But hey, you create the tiniest and most inconsequential of hills, and humans…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/18 02:59 AM
1

Yeah, but what does that have to do with your SO having had more sex with a previous partner?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 11:48 PM
1

Do you have the secret to eternal youth?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 07:52 PM
12

No, people change. I don't have as much sex now as I did before either. It's not a bad thing, just part of life. I can't even imagine how you folks looking to procreate feel about it, I imagine kids must be a real buzzkill in terms of freaky times. EDIT: Just should add, not the "sex is a chore" part. Why do PPD questions always go to some extreme?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 07:50 PM
2

New Orleans is another world entirely.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 07:06 PM
5

Because I want to, and it makes me happy. That's it. I could have all the same terms laid out in a non-marriage relationship. But I want to get married.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 06:53 PM
-2

I'd be like, "Holy shit, when the fuck did I get kids?!"
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 03:51 PM
4

Holy hyperbolic scarecrows Batman!
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 03:11 PM
1

I think it's good to talk about it with any prospective long-term partner. In general you're right, but there are nuances that can lead to trouble if left unaddressed. For instance, if your girlfriend makes out with another girl to turn you on, is that cheating? In my relationship, it absolutely is, but for many guys they'd want that known to not be cheating. The biggest one I've seen here is sexual expectation. So many people on this sub argue that if a spouse isn't giving sex on the regular, t…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 02:48 PM
11

People seem to think that this "harassment" is just being thrown around like beads at Mardi Gras. Lemme break this down for you. Harassment is a charge that can be levied against someone who knowingly antagonizes another person. Standing on a street corner shouting? That's fine. Following me down the street shouting? Not so fine. Did I explicitly say that it's not okay to do that? No, and I shouldn't have to. People in generally should be socially aware and respectful enough of the people around…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 02:34 PM
1

Damn dude, I'm saying that you need to hammer out what your definition of cheating is, and abide by it. I'm not saying to need to ask permission to breathe, lest it disturb your partner. All I'm saying is that the people in a relationship decide what is cheating, and that if the people in a relationship don't agree that something is cheating, it usually isn't. No need to straw man me into the crazy box you have in your head.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 02:06 PM
1

Individually. You and your prospective partner(s) decide what is and is not cheating. If your partner and you decide that extramarital sex is okay, extramartial sex is not cheating. If the same couple decides that eating at Joe's Crabshack with anyone other than each other is cheating, then it's cheating. You determine the rules of the relationship by hammering them out with your prospective partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 12:26 PM
5

I prefer to call myself a "sloot", it has a ring to it.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 06:13 AM
1

I just don't understand why people are so averse to making the details of the marriage agreement and potential divorce arrangements as part of the marriage contract. Alimony can only exist if you don't spell out that you don't want it being a possibility.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 03:46 AM
7

I don't want kids so wouldn't like a SAHM. But I think your overall point is valid, for more reasons than you list here. Not only are you more likely to find someone financially stable, but you're also more likely to find someone more emotionally stable, if you're looking in your 30's. I legitimately know zero people who married and had kids before the age of 22 and who are still married. People just don't normally have themselves figured out at that age. If being a SAHM is what you want to do, …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 03:38 AM
2

It's almost like children ruin everything.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 03:28 AM
0

I see you can't formulate an actual response to my brilliant trouncing of your points. Obviously you concede to my superior argumentation.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 12:33 AM
-1

This kind of retort is not helpful.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 12:31 AM
2

At this point I don't even care.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 12:30 AM
0

I like when people use the term "straw man" completely inappropriately. It just lets me know off the top who I'm dealing with.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 12:23 AM
0

Because they have ridiculous systems of personal hierarchy in which they place some strangers and acquaintances as objectively more valuable than others. It's fairly exclusively based on physical attractiveness.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 12:17 AM
2

facepalm I'm done with you dude.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 12:06 AM
3

Until you can tell me what exact emotion you're referencing, then this conversation is really empty.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/18 12:01 AM
5

No such thing as neutral stats and information. And likely you will adopt a different stance from "Men are the most oppressed group". It takes a really cursory understanding of history and sociology to show you differently. If I had any advice for you it's that you're both 18, and both have a lot of mental and ideological development to do. If I were my 18 year-old self in today's world, I might be saying the same things he is, as I was a very impetuous teenager. You'll both change a lot, and if…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/18 11:58 PM
5

I don't have to fight not to succumb. Not really sure what compulsion you folks are talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/18 11:51 PM
9

No matter what he intends to do, a woman's mere presence can compel him to change all of that. Yes, rationalize the choice you've made to succumb to your emotions. You and all men are merely mindless sex-beasts who cannot control their minds when in the presence of unveiled women. Surely everything, including relationships, are just realpolitik in action, and women absolutely flock to men who think that way.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/18 11:33 PM
5

Because we've decided it is. It's no different than why it's bad to cheat in a game. You entered the game and agreed to the rules, so you play by the rules. You don't like the rules, don't agree to them. Plenty of people have open marriages. My partner and I do not. For us, we're both very covetous and worrisome people. Neither of us would do or respect the will to do things which unnecessarily rock the perfect boat we've established. Sure, having your dick sucked by two people at the same time …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/18 11:22 PM
13

How would the women of the world react? Well, first they'd have to form the Congress of Femininity, wherein all women in the world come together to hash out what all women want. Then they join together to become one being of single mind and purpose. That being instantly knows what's best for all women, and RedPill ideology grants you insight into the workings of that being's mind. Hopefully one day you may ascend to the level of being chosen by the all-woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/18 11:15 PM
1

As long as her mental illness doesn't result in abuse, I'm fine with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/18 01:25 PM
2

Likewise, what RP describes as "assertive" might simply be described as "good communication" by someone who is good at it. I wish. No, they legit say to emotionally stress your partner every so often, to keep them on their toes. If only what they were saying boiled down to simply being upfront about what you want. Most RPers think they shouldn't have to communicate their sexuality, it seems.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/18 11:27 AM
8

Being RedPill.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/18 11:23 AM
1

Don't trust, verify. Build a foundation where you know your partner is not doing bad things, because you check, and they don't, over and over.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 09:12 PM
8

I'd argue that if looks were the deciding factor for your partner, in a permanent sense, that you've lost the ability to have a serious LTR in the first place. People get old, old people aren't sexy. You have to learn to find them sexy, not just their body. The overvaluation of physical attractiveness is part of youth. But then, so is RP ideology, with some rare exceptions.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 09:10 PM
1

A bit of column A, a bit of column B, a lot of column C. Men do things for a plethora of reasons and with a million different motivations. These are the people awash in the chaotic state of modern gender roles, who are unable to recognize or reconcile the repression inherent in our conservative culture, and who are thus unable to entertain the idea that they may be still subject to social repression a la Victorianism. This repression prevents them from doing things like seeking prostitutes on th…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 08:55 PM
1

Basically I've met a handful of girls who have been able to maintain a genuine emotional attraction from me the whole time we were talking, and even most of those only had that due to the brevity of time which we were acquainted. Only one woman has managed to keep my affections in the long-term, emotional sense, and she's kept them for almost twenty years now. My reason to believe that her affections for me are true are as numerous as the memories in those years. I'm not one for such top-down no…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 08:34 PM
2

Yeah, but it also depends on the person. I can't. If I'm genuinely attracted then it's not going to work out with someone as a friend. But attraction for me is like walking a tightrope, and few people can manage it for very long. It's really not been an issue past the age of 23 or so.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 08:23 PM
1

Just keep in mind, I'm one of those super-PC social justice types, and I'm totally okay with it. Almost all the hard-left folks I know would be. As long as you're upfront about it and it isn't coerced, pretty much everything between consenting adults is okay. What you're doing isn't politically incorrect at all to us lefties, we're totally cool with rejection of monogamy.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 08:20 PM
1

No, but when someone shows up three days after I make an argument that unicorns don't exist, and they have a three day-old account, claim to be a unicorn, then delete their account immediately after making the post claiming to be a unicorn, then something's fucky.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 07:32 PM
3

Me: "RedPillers above 50 are exceedingly rare." RPers: "Waargarbl!" three days pass Random Dude: "Hey, I'm a 50+ year-old super sexy and fiscally successful Redpiller who once had a high-visibility finance job. I'm posting from my three day account, with absolutely nothing to say other than that I exist. Oh, let me delete my account after making only this post."
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 07:24 PM
2

He just wants to make sure that everyone knows that he's a successful and wealthy older man who still keeps RedPill ideology, a direct experience contradiction to my oft-cited point that RedPillers above 50 are exceedingly rare. It's interesting that he needed to make an account three days ago just to say this, and then delete the account.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 07:22 PM
1

The point is to make a fake post from a troll account created three days ago, when some unnamed BluePiller on this sub (it was me) began popularizing the fact that there are extremely few RedPill men 50 or older, under the rationalization that it is an immature ideology which cannot sustain long-term relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 07:20 PM
2

This is a fake post by a troll account created on Nov 18th.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 07:18 PM
2

I don't think you know how to keep a train of thought my dude.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 07:17 PM
1

Right, so because they're no longer fuckable to you, they no longer count as women?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 07:10 PM
0

/r/truestory
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 07:07 PM
0

"The reasons men give for cheating are okay, the reasons women give for cheating are shameful, did I mention I'm not misogynistic at all."
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 07:05 PM
1

Just wanna say that I read this and you shouldn't feel weird or out of place at all. The social conditioning to seek monogamous relationships is strong. Personally I think lots more people than we think would be happier abandoning the idea of monogamy and just trying to have fun with their lives.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 07:04 PM
1

Meanwhile, people on this subreddit are literally arguing that a man whose wife doesn't have regular sex with him, for any reason, is fully entitled to seek extramarital sex with or without her approval.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 07:01 PM
7

MBTI results! Just what I needed, almost out of fertilizer...
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 06:59 PM
3

Or maybe, hear me out, just maybe, you have a false and oversimplified preconception of women, based on some pretty heavily misogynistic ideas. I mean, what's more likely, that 3 billion women are as simple as you claim, or that you're one of millions of men who claims to understand women and is utterly wrong?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 06:57 PM
3

Why female hypergamy has become so prevalent. What, because men are finally not inhibited from expressing insecurity, but now can't seem to keep their own under control? I love the hypocrisy in RedPillers projecting their fantasies of hypergamy onto others.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 06:54 PM
-1

I mean, do you really think people choose big booty girls, or skinny girls, or emo boys, or anorexic bodybuilders, because of evolution? That we're more likely to care about good genes than whether or not we can sit down and watch a movie together without arguing? Do you think genetics at all plays a role in who women end up sleeping with, really? All evolutionary and genetic reasoning has been buried under thousands of layers of social pressures, expectations, and conditioning. I mean, consider…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 06:36 PM
1

Did you somehow interpret that I don't believe in evolution, simply because I don't think our everyday choices are a result of some evolutionary imperative, and that the progress, "success", or "failure" of human evolution is largely irrelevant to our choices? Because if so, you might wanna work on that reading comprehension.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 06:23 PM
3

You are playing chess with a pigeon, here.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 06:22 PM
3

There's nothing inherently special about it. If it's important to you, it is. It's like a flag. To me, a flag means jack. To others, they'll insist that disrespecting a flag is a grave offense. It's all in how much importance you give it. I've fantasized about my wedding day since childhood. So it's really important to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 06:07 PM
17

It's funny, you get a degree in Nuclear Engineering, and nobody argues with you about nuclear physics. Get a degree in History, and apparently jackasses on the internet know better than you about any and every subject.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 06:04 PM
3

Graduated with degrees in History and English.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 05:40 PM
11

How do you define defects otherwise? I don't even know what you're talking about here. I just mean that evolution has absolutely no bearing on the way we live our lives. Nobody evolves into a Blastoise in their lifetime. Biology is some all-important arguing tool for RedPillers, but really it means little in regard to the choices we make in our lives, especially in the grand evolutionary sense you mean. You're not going to have any willful effect on biology or human evolution, unless you want to…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 04:08 PM
4

It doesn't, that's a RedPill belief I don't ascribe to. I guess maybe I should put it in quotation marks.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 03:59 PM
6

Speaking in evolutionary terms, isn't this true? Is that how you live your everyday life, in evolutionary terms? RP doesn't state this, though. Sure it does, in the comment section of nearly every question about dating. Every romantic issue boils down to physical attractiveness. And I don't deal in trying to predict "what women prefer", because I don't want women, I want one specific woman, and I want to know what appeals to her.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 03:55 PM
1

Wanting someone to be around you all the time. It's just a preference. I'm clingy.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 03:16 PM
29

The thing is, RedPill ideology can't deal with this kind of thinking, because it assumes there is in fact more than one way to be truly happy, and that the happiness of people who find their way to contentment through something other than RP ideology is inherently hollow. "A man who doesn't want to procreate is defective, as is a woman who doesn't want to bear children." It's really tough to argue with positions based on self-superiority and devaluation of others, because they don't tend to be v…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 03:10 PM
3

Keep in mind I mean wallflowering, not actively pursuing women. Go there, do your own thing, read some books you don't have access to in a public place, then leave. Let them approach you. Mutual friends is ideal, but for the antisocial, not so tenable.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 02:47 PM
6

I used to wallflower at a few bars when I was single. Nothing ever came of it except a few random hookups. It's really a terrible way to meet LTR prospects. You can succeed this way, but honestly I've never met a couple married 10+ years that said they met in a dive bar. Maybe at a place that has a bar like a beach with bars or at a convention with minibars, but it really just seems more like the illusion of romantic success predicated on a need to project success, than it does any reality of ro…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 01:23 PM
1

I'm 35, have two shit degrees, work a shit job, and am a house husband for the most wonderful person I've ever known. Hard to complain. Seems like it's more about making your own happiness than relying on percentages.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 01:15 PM
1

BP - I can't speak for the ideology as a whole, here are mine. Think of other people as humans just as capable and intelligent as you. Don't look for excuses to condescend. That man walking down the street at 50 who looks like they're on their way to work? He's not a loser, and you should hope that when you're 50 you still have the strength to do what's necessary, rather than falling into destitution. Instead of thinking how bad his life must be, stop and give him a ride. Thing is, a lot of peop…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 01:13 PM
2

I'm a BP feminist, but the spotlight which has been cast on the holes in modern feminism by the MRM, and the points of ignorance illuminated by TRP, are actually pretty important issues in my opinion. My only problem is that these movements have let themselves become co-opted by the traditionalist and authoritarian right wing, rather than maintain their political distance. It prevents anyone from taking them seriously when they suggest that they want to work through these issues, rather than to …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/18 12:46 PM
1

File for divorce, of course.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/18 12:16 AM
1

Or, just tossing this one out there, maybe you shouldn't date someone who, if left unchecked, will fuck your shit up.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 09:37 PM
1

Yes, that is indeed what I just said.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 09:37 PM
1

They're talking past each other. Women aren't social wizards. Sometimes we're idiots, too. See, this is something I think needs to echo through the minds of every feminist and antifeminist. Women make mistakes, and even self-titled feminist women sometimes aren't as progressive as they can be, and need to be set straight. Like, my favorite is when feminist women try to assume that because I'm a guy with long hair that they can teach men tips and tricks about hair care that are basic shit off the…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 02:52 PM
1

Exactly. The term seems like it might be picked up by people who are actually externalizing blame, but that externalization of blame is not inherent to the usage of the term.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 02:45 PM
2

Yeah, see, this is pretty much spot on my same criticism. You can't take a phrase, scare quote it, and expect people to not associate it at all with the actual meaning. Even if you 're not just trying to hide your own negative agenda, and are genuine about your usage of the term, you'll constantly seem like someone with such a negative agenda to people who haven't been taught better. "Nice Guys" and "Friendzone" are two of the issues which I disagree with many feminists about.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 02:44 PM
1

Being obligated not to lie doesn't mean being obligated to tell the truth. She has the ethical option of openly refusing to answer.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 02:41 PM
1

I disagree, people tend to act like dealing with pain is something you can only do by football tackling it head on. Especially with huge grief and real trauma, sometimes you have to learn to fight a running battle. Getting some distance can give you perspective. I think it would be more apt if this were something the rejected party should blame themselves for, but nobody should blame anybody for rejection on either end.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 06:48 AM
2

Yeah, but I feel like shifting it to a passive isn't shifting the blame for it, it's just distancing yourself from it. "Mistakes were made" sounds softer than "I fucked up". "You got friendzoned" is similarly softer than "She rejected you." I'm just not sure where this assumption of blaming the rejecting party comes from.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 06:39 AM
1

Which is another editorial article that links to the study here, behind a paywall.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 06:30 AM
5

the fact that you’re complaining about it is the implication in and of itself. Wait, are you saying that any sadness that comes from rejection stems from entitlement?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 06:28 AM
4

I've only ever heard the term used between men to lament being gently rejected, and never once has it been accompanied by any statements or implications that the woman owed the man sex or any sort of attention whatsoever. It is nothing more than a whine. But gender roles are deep, and even feminists are not immune. Males aren't allowed to whine by their gender roles, and whining will be interpreted as something else. The Hollywood hero-man doesn't complain about things that are nobody's fault bu…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 06:14 AM
1

Feminists are the only group I hear complaining about it, and plenty of male feminists also decry any talk of "the friendzone" as sexual entitlement. It's pretty clearly a feminist thing, not a woman thing. And I say that as a full-on feminist. I just happen to disagree with many feminists on this issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 06:02 AM
1

Would a basilyst have made the point better?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 02:51 AM
2

I've been in a relationship for 5 years and I can't remember where I've tried to emotionally manipulate them. The best example I can think of is when I try to tell her to drive more carefully, because it sometimes scares me the way she drives. I think that's clearly a much broader definition of "emotional manipulation" than what we were talking about, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 02:39 AM
2

Perhaps we should head those hard lessons off at the pass, by advising that RP ideology is incorrect, especially considering the "lessons learned" for one person amount to emotional manipulation by a prospective dating partner to the other?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 02:30 AM
6

...right, and RP ideology teaches that relationships with emotional manipulation have a higher rate of success than relationships without.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 02:21 AM
5

Right, and RP ideology teaches applying it in relationships. Herp muh derp.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 02:09 AM
1

If I knew this graphic was made by the authors of the study, I'd accept that, but I don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 02:02 AM
6

A tool box that includes "psychological manipulation of prospective spouses". Don't misrepresent your toolbox by showing the hammers and screwdrivers but keeping the speculum well-hidden.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 02:01 AM
2

The same reason you'd need the study if I presented you a graphic of "false rape accusations" or "the wage gap". Unless this graphic is straight from the study, which I can't know without seeing the study, it's not the work of the authors, and thus could be misrepresenting the data.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 01:38 AM
1

This graphic is referencing the same UBC study which is behind a paywall. Sort of hard for me to look into your sources when I can't access them without paying money.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 01:22 AM
7

Where does the "periodically treat her poorly as a form of conditioning" fit in? I love how your list conveniently excludes all of the distasteful parts of RP ideology.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 01:09 AM
1

I think it's Rihanna and thus that I and most people genuinely shouldn't give a shit. She sings, she's not a philosopher.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 01:07 AM
1

The best bet would be to end childhood sexual segregation. No "Boys X" or "Girls Y", no separate gym classes or sex ed classes, and no segregated sports until high school. Part of the reason we have this disconnect is because people are trained from birth to view the other gender as a separate social group.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 01:06 AM
6

So glad I'm not the only one who notices this. It's so obvious that this is term is a really bad vehicle for communication.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 01:02 AM
12

Seriously, this has got to be one of my bigger gripes with feminism. Feminists: "Men need to express their feelings more openly and stop repressing themselves!" Men: stop going stoic about relationships, and for the first time in history actually normalize complaining about loneliness to one another Feminists: "OMFG NOT LIKE THAT!"
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 01:00 AM
3

Yeah, this is one of the areas where I genuinely split from feminists. As someone who studies language and communication, I can't get behind the idea of using a term to characterize something which, taken literally, means the exact opposite. In my opinion the "scare quotes make it okay" crowd are responsible in part for pushing a lot of confused young men into misogyny because of their simple unwillingness to change a practice of speech, which seems utterly hypocritical considering the people th…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 12:58 AM
2

Right, those are the numbers that were provided, I used them. If you're going to claim they're too narrowly selected to form an overall judgment on the issue, I'll agree. But I'm not the one who linked these statistics.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 12:55 AM
2

From your second link: But it’s not as big a deal as it might seem for gender equality, because – don’t forget – unmarried men earn more at every level of education. When I looked at these numbers for Atlanta 25-34 year-olds, for example, I found that 46% of the women with BAs who married men without BAs still had a husband who earned more than them. That is, marrying down the education ladder didn’t stop them from marrying up the income ladder. 46% is pretty darn close to half, which is an equa…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/18 12:47 AM
1

Provide data or it doesn't exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 05:01 PM
3

The data doesn't reflect anything because there is no data.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 04:55 PM
3

It is in the fucking vows, dude. It's not an opinion. The vows do not state a duty to fuck. They do state a duty to forsake all others. That's fact, not conjecture. What you want to argue about what you consider normative is absolutely fucking irrelevant, because what is normative and expected is spelled out in the default fucking vows. Keep your vows or you're a shitbag. Just because people like me would stay loyal to their spouse even if they never had sex with us again for the rest of our liv…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 04:38 PM
2

You don't have to be anything, except what you agree to be. Don't make shitty agreements if you don't like them. For most people, people like the idea that their spouse won't run away with someone else or go fuck random people if they, say, got into a car accident and were unable to have sex, or they had any of the multitude of problems that can and will cause just about every person to be unable to have sex at some point in their life. At the very least you could not misrepresent what I'm sayin…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 04:30 PM
1

How is it hard to grasp. You're not allowed to fuck other people. That doesnn't necessarily mean you're allowed to fuck that person. If you want to, change the marriage vows to make them include sex. I didn't write the standard marriage vows, and won't be using them. Seems like you could benefit from not doing so as well. It's not just some mumbo jumbo words you recite to get the ceremony over with, you know. You're making a vow. If you value your word at all, you need to be careful about what y…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 04:18 PM
3

Yes. It's in the vows. "Forsaking all others". "Love, honor, and cherish". That's sexual fidelity and kindness. Nowhere in those vows is sex, unless you take an extremely liberal implication for "love". All that means is that it's your obligation to make this facet of yourself known. Just like it's my obligation to make my expectation of continuous love in the face of relentless personal insecurity.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 04:09 PM
6

If it's a dealbreaker for you, then it's your obligation to ask and decide whether or not to enter into a relationship. They're not obligated to tell you. If not knowing is a dealbreaker, then you should consider not dating them.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 03:27 PM
2

Do you believe that spouses are entitled to expect financial support from each other even if they do not want to support each other? How do you reconcile this with "men are not entitled to sex"? If they have delineated that expectation ahead of time. I reconcile it with "men are not entitled to sex" by applying the same logic to both. Women are not entitled to shit. Men are not entitled to shit. The only thing you can expect from a relationship is the basics, plus what you set forth in clearly d…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 03:03 PM
2

I'm just gonna stop here, and focus the conversation on the other thread, as we appear to be rehashing the same arguments in two places.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 02:46 PM
2

How can sexual fidelity be normative to a relationship, but sex is not? Are spouses not entitled to expect sex from their spouses? How can one expect sexual fidelity when one cannot expect sex? This makes no sense at all. No, they aren't. "Normative" simply refers to the assumptions which are commonplace. Sex on demand is certainly not nearly as universal as sexual fidelity and kindness to a relationship. It's nothing to do with what you want, or what who deserves or is entitled to. It's simply …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 02:41 PM
1

If that's the agreement you've made with your wife, then yes, she deserves it. If not, she doesn't. It's really simple. If you're saying a spouse or SO who has not agreed to a relationship where sex can be expected on demand should feel pressured into having sex when they don't want to, you're dead wrong for it. In 100% of cases women should be "as divorce raped as she would do to the husband she hates". Because in most cases this would be not at all, as most divorces are, while emotionally pain…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 02:30 PM
4

Financial support is a hard yes. Kindness and sexual fidelity are normative to relationships; I wouldn't say you're entitled to them, but if you want a relationship without these things, you should definitely make that known at the beginning. Anything you make clear at the onset of a relationship is okay, provided it's ethical in general. If that strays from what you know someone expects as a matter of course from a relationship, it's your obligation to make them aware. If I want a relationship …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 02:24 PM
6

No, they don't deserve to know it. You can make it known that knowing her sexual history is important to you, and she can then choose to either address that emotional need, or not. You then choose whether or not to enter a relationship based thereupon. At no time do you "deserve" to know, and at no point is she obligated to tell you.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 02:15 PM
0

"I don't hate humans, I just hate things which are usually born with two arms and two legs."
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 02:10 PM
5

No matter how long you know someone, you can never know everything about them. The more time you spend with them, the more they learn about you, the more likely they are to find something you don't like. And there's always a chance that thing might be a dealbreaker. Which is why the only sensible way to approach the prospect of a lifelong relationship is by beginning on a foundation of mutual openness and understanding. Don't get me wrong, you can have secrets from one another, you just can't ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 07:04 AM
3

Everyone has preferences. If someone enjoys being a provider for their partner, then that's their choice.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 06:38 AM
26

Until people in general can determine what is and is not flirting with better accuracy than a coin toss, any judgments thereof will be simple extensions of personal bias.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 06:32 AM
10

Women don't date up or down any more or less often than men. People just see what they want to see.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 06:28 AM
3

Yeah. I've slept with a lot of people myself. When I was single, I was actually pretty interested by the idea of a woman with more experience than me. Now, I'm happily monogamous, so it doesn't really apply. But my partner has been with quite a few people, and I don't care. I genuinely don't get the fuss, and I can only remember caring about that as a sexually naive kid.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 04:22 AM
3

He made the kid too. Sorry you underestimate the real demands of raising a child, and how widely they can vary depending on what kind of children you get. Wanna know how many right-wing aligned guys I know who fathered autistic kids? Four. How many left their partners after the birth of that child? Four. You guys have completely unrealistic expectations of marriage and fatherhood. If cheating is on the table, in any way shape or form, then you need to make that clear before you take the "forsaki…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 04:03 AM
8

It's the same as what I said in the mail order bride thread. If it's consensual and fully understood by the person doing it, making porn is fully ethical. But some of the industry that has sprung up around it preys on the vulnerabilities of women and the emotional weaknesses of men to make a quick buck. And absolutely this emotion is reflected in women, but it's more constant and muted, due to the normalization and frequency of men being endangered in our society. Toxic gender norms have fomente…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 03:58 AM
5

Right, because a wife not being able to sex her husband when their autistic child screams and shits all over the walls whenever not in her direct care is really just her fault and she should get over it.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 03:39 AM
2

If you liked Ninja Scroll, I highly recommend Basilisk.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 03:19 AM
2

Which would be borne out by...drum roll...statistics!
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 03:13 AM
2

Drug crime is not violent crime and therefore not violence.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 02:55 AM
3

The very opening of the first link, just so everyone here who doesn't want to read these knows you're blatantly full of shit: This paper studies the effects of introducing legal street prostitution zones on both registered and perceived crime. We exploit a unique setting in the Netherlands where legal street prostitution zones were opened in nine cities under different regulation systems. We provide evidence that the opening of these zones was not in response to changes in crime. Our difference-…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 02:43 AM
2

Completely False
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 02:05 AM
6

Prostitution is perfectly ethical if willing and fully understood by both parties. The main problem when dealing with the mail-order bride thing is that it's an industry which preys both on women who have limited alternatives, and on the western men who have been misled into thinking that marriage and courtship is so simple that one can simply buy a LTR. If it's a willing agreement I don't see the problem, however the possibility for deceit and abuse is so massive I couldn't see why anyone would…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 01:48 AM
3

These are things which should be spelled out in your marriage or relationship agreement. For most people, the idea that one partner would be entitled to extramarital sex in the case of, for instance, sex-preventing medical trauma, is certainly not an implied and understood part of normal relationships and marriage. If that's something you have, you need to make it known before someone agrees to a possibly lifelong LTR with you. Just because you're married to someone doesn't mean you're entitled …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 01:38 AM
3

Not a woman, but if I were seeking a man, I wouldn't care. Seems really puritanical and irrationally traditionalist to care. Are they clean? Will they treat me well? Am I going to regret having sex with someone like them? These are all far more important questions.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 01:29 AM
3

Yeah, I would think this is pretty obvious, except that RedPillers will reject it out of hand because it paints their ideology as something other than 100% credible science. Implying that they may think the way they do because of personal bias is just beyond the pall to them, they'd never stoop to such low behavior as that which is exhibited by the opposition.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 01:24 AM
5

Man, I must be really lucky to have been able to go through my life and have the majority of men I met fall into that 1%!
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 01:21 AM
4

I also love that this comment is typed on reddit, as though reddit isn't social media.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 01:18 AM
2

As a guy who has fantasized about his wedding since an early age, I just want to remind you that we do exist, although I recognize we're a small minority.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 01:17 AM
5

Nobody has a right to sex except when all people involved are fully willing. Full stop. If you suggest otherwise, you are a rape apologist, and I expect you to accept that label.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 01:12 AM
12

TRP: "Women initiate divorce too often!" Also TRP: "Women need to stop being so picky about who they marry!"
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 01:10 AM
5

"Alpha" is the stupid person's idea of what leadership looks like.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 12:59 AM
2

I somehow don't think she meant to imply "Physically average" but rather "Not mentally deviant". You know, as opposed to most people on this sub.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 12:58 AM
1

Self-delusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 12:56 AM
1

I think handwringing over terminology is and always has been a way to distract from the actual argument with semantics. It doesn't matter what term we choose, it's not going to be any less misrepresented by people whose agenda is discrediting anything progressives and feminists say.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 12:48 AM
2

Seriously, the quality of argument here is always this low. I'm beginning to think it's not even worth it to try to "debate" here.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 12:45 AM
1

Red pill is based on social stratification. Blue pill is based on social anarchism. A cursory glance through history will readily show how one has been a force for oppression and injustice, and the other has sought to rectify that oppression and injustice.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/18 12:41 AM
1

If you're extrapolating a level of coldness from my comments, then that's coming from you. From the very start I've been nothing but warm. You're simply seeing what you want to see.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 01:25 PM
1

The hallmarks of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) are grandiosity, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration. People with this condition are frequently described as arrogant, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding. They may also concentrate on grandiose fantasies (e.g. their own success, beauty, brilliance) and may be convinced that they deserve special treatment. These characteristics typically begin in early adulthood and must be consistently evident in multiple …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 12:10 PM
1

Nothing I've said in this conversation is meant as a personal attack on you. You've just taken it all very, very personally. It's difficult to engage with most of what you're writing because I know anything I say will be interpreted by you as an attack. You're lashing out at me really hard, and painting me as the aggressor you have in your mind. But that's not me. It's taken a few very sparsely-worded replies for you to go from assuming I'm just some person to thinking "Why would I do anything b…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 12:05 PM
1

I just feel like you need to do some real introspection. I don't even think I'm qualified to deal with someone who can say both that humans are not individuals and are incapable of self awareness, but who also claims not to have any internal misanthropy casting bias on their ideology. There's such a blatant hypocrisy there that if you can type it and it makes sense to you, I wouldn't know where to even begin trying to unravel it. All I can say is that I hope you're young, and grow.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 07:45 AM
1

So humans aren't individuals? And you think such a judgment is not at all based in personal bias?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 07:09 AM
1

The fact that humans are individuals. My partner is not with me for utility, she just likes me.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 05:56 AM
1

A woman will be with me primarily because she sees potential utility I thought you didn't make blanket assumptions?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 04:19 AM
9

"I oversimplify things I don't understand" You are aware that "designated leaders of social movements" are largely a product of historical hindsight, and aren't really recognized as such at the time, right? MLK was no more revered as the leader of Civil Rights during his time than Gloria Steinem or Hillary Clinton were during their time. This is just empty othering. Yeah, if you're not a part of a movement, you do have to fight your anti-intellectual tendency to lump them all together and ignore…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 04:16 AM
1

The problem with this is women don't want men who don't adhere to these norms. Feminists do. Feminism says that women should be free to demand that their mates be rich and powerful No, some feminists did, and as is par for the course with antifeminists, anything one of us says is absolute law for everyone. Which mysteriously doesn't apply to them when people show overlap between antifeminism and other forms of naturalistic bigotry... Feminism teaches people to not care about the social status of…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 04:11 AM
1

10 with high n-count, how is that even a question? Triple digits, sexy.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 03:09 AM
2

Do you do it? No. Is it ethical? Yes. flash your penis in front of a camera (no face) No. kiss another man No. sell your used boxers No. I'm in a monogamous LTR and would consider most of this stuff cheating (in my relationship). But it's entirely ethical.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 03:07 AM
2

Understand that I'm going to have insecurities about things, and be okay with constantly answering simple questions ad nauseum. That's the thing my partner does for me which really makes me feel warm. It's been five years but I still ask her if she really loves me, and if she thinks I'm annoying or high-maintenance. Her telling me without hesitation that I'm not, and not getting aggravated with having to reassure me, makes me feel like I can relax, and that I don't need to hide smaller things fr…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 03:05 AM
2

If you like Gintama, check out Golden Kamuy, it's fucking hilarious.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 02:17 AM
1

Yeah my partner is super into One Piece, although she's about 100 Episodes behind now since I don't watch it. I'd love to watch it with her, minus the whole "I'd have to watch a few hundred episodes just to be caught up" thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 02:07 AM
2

NGE is good. Have you checked out Serial Experiments Lain? It's got a similar feeling of mindfuck to it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 01:29 AM
2

What's your favorite anime?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 01:06 AM
2

I'm also assuming that you exist, because that seems apparent. If that's the level of "Assumption" you're talking about, I think we can safely say that you've watered down any effective meaning to the point where you can use it as any kind of rhetorical cudgel you like. You also killed an elephant in this conversation. Kiddo.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 01:03 AM
4

Yeah, I'll give you one guess which side of this debate treats the forum like their own personal therapy sessions, and which side tends to view this as a place to vent and yell at the opposition. Take a stroll through the front page if you think I'm just being biased.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 01:02 AM
1

Yes. Which they quite clearly are, when they elevate it to such a position of importance that it dominates all other interests one might have with a member of the opposite sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 12:55 AM
12

The idea that you can discuss philosophical ethics without personally attacking someone is absurd. If I'm telling you that an action is a shitty thing to do, and makes someone a shitty person, the difference between that being a personal attack and not is simply whether or not the person I'm talking to actually does that. For instance, imagine someone comes here and argues "I don't feel bad about cheating, because egoism". It's impossible to really argue that without making the personal attack "…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 12:54 AM
2

You forgot the regular posts from people who don't understand how to formulate words into coherent sentences and paragraphs.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 12:47 AM
2

That's what a redpiller in this thread said. I'm not assuming that. They said it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 12:43 AM
2

What assumption did I make about others' lives, here?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 12:24 AM
1

I'm sure you know me and my reality so well as to be 100% correct in saying my contentment is hollow. Couldn't be that you're extrapolating your general misanthropy and distrust of all genuine happiness onto other people, and are quite plainly making assumptions about shit you don't know about.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 12:16 AM
2

I'm probably the most content person on this subreddit. It's you RPers constantly whinging about women. Notice none of that angst ever comes from the other side...
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 12:12 AM
1

"I know you are but what am I".
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 12:09 AM
2

I'm sure that's how this works, that RPers are out there banging women using fake names. Meanwhile "Muh paternity uncertainty". Crabs in a bucket, kick kick kick.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 12:07 AM
2

Right, Child Support isn't a thing...
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 12:05 AM
2

Do...do you know how babies are made?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 12:03 AM
2

TRP: goes on Tinder looking for love finds shallow people shockedpikachu.jpg
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/18 12:02 AM
4

People can shout something at the top of their lungs, but if movies and media whisper to the contrary, that whisper is still louder. Show me a movie or TV show where a woman genuinely pursues a man, without any games or bullshit. I can't even think of one. Is it any wonder people learn this stuff?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 11:55 PM
1

I think you're applying causation where there's correlation. Our social norms and our employment norms are sort of egg and chicken, so to speak. That women seek personality traits favored by the labor market is simply because those traits are socially desirable in general. Furthermore, there's an increasing reversal of this trend, wherein people in general romanticize those without the social skills desired by the employment world. The presence of people like myself who generally reject the empl…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 11:49 PM
6

TRP: "Men are constantly getting defrauded through paternity!" Also TRP: "It doesn't matter that he burned all chances at an actual relationship, he got random pussy so he wins. Also, I'm the one not putting pussy on a pedestal...no really..."
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 11:41 PM
4

Seriously, has anyone here ever tried "wearing a nice face" for more than a month? It just doesn't work in the long-term. You're not going to deceive your way into a lifelong marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 11:36 PM
1

If you have to ask whether or not something should be a red flag, it already is a red flag for you. Ask yourself why this statement made you feel so upset and what other aspects of her personality feed this feeling. Then decide whether or not to ignore or follow that feeling. Personally, I'm with you, if a woman says "I like danger" or something like that, I would get really paranoid about possible incompatibility too, because as someone who's been in the shit before, danger is not something I e…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 11:31 PM
1

It can. There is no such thing as "karma". Sometimes bad people lead fabulous lives, sometimes good people lead horrible lives, sometimes good people have good lives, and sometimes bad people get what's coming to them. But in the end, there's only us, and our collective actions determine how well that goes. It's up to us to make sure people who lead bad lives get punished, and that people who lead good lives avoid punishment. You could just as easily jump ship to leading a bad life and trying to…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 11:26 PM
2

Seems more to me like you make blanket assumptions until you deal with someone on an individual basis. What with all the talk of NPCs and women being cheats.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 12:35 PM
4

I'm not saying you deserve to suffer. I'm pointing out that you have a mentality which inherently devalues other people and elevates yourself in a complementary fashion. If you learn to respect other people and to not devalue people you don't know, many of the statements you made above will seem very presumptuous. For real, you said apathy is a crime. Think about how little sense that makes.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 07:27 AM
1

No, you just didn't seem to pick up the context of the argument already happening.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 07:22 AM
7

I just think that you're being self-superior and narcissistic. It's possible to be both hurt and to do that. Plenty of people think their pain is the worst, and that it gives them special insight. In the end, it's all just self-aggrandizement. I mean, look at the way you characterize other people. You're straight up denigrating, well, humans and human experience. How are you going to say that's not misanthropic? I used to sleep with a knife. Couldn't sleep without one until I was 20. Anywhere I …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 07:10 AM
0

The point is you don't get to just ignore that we're in a forum with antagonistic sides that have already been drawn. It we were perfect strangers who had absolutely no knowledge of one another, and we were having a discussion about promiscuity, and you out of the blue got emotional about it, then yeah that might be indicative of some insecurity. But if I'm walking up to someone who I know has a shitty ideology then my pointed and aggressive tone isn't necessarily indicative of any insecurity ab…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 06:54 AM
7

Have you considered that you might have an unrealistically negative view of humanity, and that the vast majority of people aren't going to cheat or trick you, and aren't lying whores or "NPCs"?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 06:51 AM
3

You know you can decide all this stuff in your marriage contract, alimony is something you can opt out of with consent from both parties.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 05:09 AM
1

I love how these are the only terms you can think in. Enjoy the bucket, crab.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 04:47 AM
3

So?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 04:44 AM
0

...because non-marital rape is not a picnic either, and some people actually consider marriage more than something to do to secure a mate? Seriously what the fuck even are these questions...
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 04:42 AM
3

Are you just going to ignore the fact that there is a context of two sides, one of which has made a platform out of misogyny? Like, if the guy who just punched me in the face then sits down to try to have a polite discussion with me, he's still the guy who just punched me in the face. Saying "Oh well you responded emotionally so you must be insecure" would be be disingenuous. You can say this is about a private behavior all you want while on a public forum with one side of this debate devoted to…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 04:39 AM
2

...what?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 04:24 AM
1

Are you saying that any time someone provokes anything other than formal logic politely presented that it's somehow indicative of insecurity?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 04:21 AM
4

"I know you are but what am I" is not a really solid counterargument. But then, I don't expect much.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 04:15 AM
11

Has anyone else noticed how 9/10 RedPill "points" are just them seeing other people saying something, then telling you how that really means something entirely different than what was actually said? I mean, is it possible to argue in good faith when your entire position is a ridiculous straw man caricature of anything not your own? The lack of self-awareness is astounding.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 04:11 AM
1

History professor. Or revolutionary leader. One of the two, depending.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/18 01:20 AM
3

Wow, data from 1995, convincing. It's almost as though sampling now-50+ year-old women is going to have a strong traditionalist bias shown among the statistics.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/18 04:41 PM
2

Wear what you want, leave your employment up to consensus of the employees and not the "superiors", watch real meritocracy pop out. If you think the people at a workplace to make a living for themselves will keep on some kid trying to get into the pants of new hires you're wrong. Dress codes are completely idiotic in all circumstances, especially employment.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/18 04:25 PM
1

Trust and comfort is a matter of vulnerability. Accepting that will make your life easier.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/18 04:18 PM
2

...with naive perceptions of what they want in a relationship, based on a misanthropy borne of social and romantic inexperience.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/18 01:03 AM
7

So I say... maybe, your perception of what you and other men want in a relationship is naive and based on a misanthropy borne of social and romantic inexperience And you link to MTGOW as though that disproves what I'm saying?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/18 12:42 AM
22

Or, maybe, your perception of what you and other men want in a relationship is naive and based on a misanthropy borne of social and romantic inexperience, combined with an egocentric universalization of your own understandings. There's a reason why most older people can't enjoy being with people 20+ years their junior. People crave mutual understanding, and it'll be hard to find that with someone who doesn't have similar experience. Try reading James Joyce's Ulysses sometime for an example of ju…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/18 12:31 AM
1

Porn? Whatever. I'd like to know what my partner wanks to, but it's not necessary and I wouldn't think any differently of them no matter what they showed me, short of unethical stuff.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/18 11:47 PM
2

How do you like that? I have no idea, as you have not made an iota of relatable sense this entire time. Calm down, take writing classes, learn to write, then write.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/18 10:48 PM
1

Unless there's some lasting damage from the sex, I see no reason why someone would beat themselves up over it. This is more a symptom exhibited by traditionalist women who still view their sex as something special. When you accept equality, and enjoy sex, it's to be expected that you'll bump uglies with someone not so pretty on the inside. You roll the dice, you take your chances. I've fucked plenty of losers. The only regret I had was inflating their egos. It's really not a big deal, and it see…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/18 10:47 PM
2

Or, get this... ...perhaps most of the world is entirely unaware of these minor social power dynamics, which only really function when you're aware of them and playing into them? It's hard to delve into anything in this post because your formatting is terrible and you don't seem to grasp rhetoric very well.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/18 10:40 PM
3

It's pretty much the only factor. If I'm utterly physically unattracted to a girl, then it might be hard for her personality to eclipse that, but I feel like if a girl checks enough personality boxes that I'll probably end up finding her physically attractive too.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/18 10:22 PM
3

Look, just because you as an individual can trace back some or all of your motivations to sex does not mean this is a universal trait.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/18 10:19 PM
2

Don't see why not.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/18 10:17 PM
2

Vague enough?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/18 01:32 PM
3

What terrifies me is how much time and effort you put into this topic.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/18 10:34 AM
2

Or, get this, you can just make your marriage contract stipulate whatever you want. You don't have to promise each other half your stuff if you divorce.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/18 10:33 AM
1

Anything is cheating if you've outlined that it is cheating. If you simply meander into a relationship with no defined terms, then your partner ends up defying your expectations, you have little to blame but yourself. That said, if your expectations and reactions are clearly outside their understanding, and possibly not what they would want, you have an obligation to tell them. E.g. if I expect my partner to let me sleep with other people if/when they're incapable of giving me sex, that's someth…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/18 10:12 AM
0

It's just people who can't rationalize their own anxiety.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/18 10:08 AM
16

"I know women better than they know themselves!"
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/18 01:16 AM
2

No, just as there are no alpha and beta men, just people who feel the need to ordinate and those who don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/18 01:11 AM
3

Yeah, give it a go, but if your back really isn't into it, just accept the reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/18 06:29 PM
2

I just meant to imply there seems to be a marked difference in the investment of the genders in heterosexual maintenance sex. If I were a woman and had to get penetrated as part of the sex, I might be more hesitant to be used as a sex object than I am as a guy.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/18 06:21 PM
3

Thing is, I don't mind the idea of my partner like, getting me hard, hopping on me, and using me for sex either. But if that was switched to her putting something into me I might be a bit more hesitant. Fortunately this has never really come up, as I'm fairly constantly ready to go, and she doesn't have any penchants for putting things into me. Most of this stuff is just individually based, and that's why it's so complex. On an individual level it becomes so, so much easier.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/18 06:02 PM
1

Right, was looking for discussion, got hog shit. Subreddit staying on brand.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/18 05:55 PM
2

No, there's "toxic femininity", and "toxic masculinity". Both are created and empowered by both genders. Women are just as strong a point of genesis of toxic masculinity in men as women, and men are just as strong a point of genesis of toxic femininity as women. That social control is and has been largely patriarchal is irrelevant to these dynamics, which play out on an individual level. Also, women can display toxic masculinity, and men toxic femininity. A great example of this is women appeali…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/18 05:33 PM
10

We've been together for five years and these "inevitable problems" you're talking about haven't come up. Generally speaking we're pretty healthy, sexually. Not everyone is you. Also, lemme ask again. Does your wife know that you'll cheat on her if she doesn't put out? Because keeping that kind of rule without mutual agreement is really, really unethical. If she doesn't know, you need to tell her and see how she takes that.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/18 05:13 PM
8

No, my future spouse knows what I've laid out in the terms of our relationship, which is that I don't expect her to pursue sex except when she wants sex, and that if I don't want sex, I won't have sex. Also there's no expectation of financial support in my relationship. EDIT: You never answered my question.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/18 05:09 PM
9

Does your wife know that you'll cheat on her if she doesn't put out?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/18 05:04 PM
13

I think you're making a shitload of assumptions about the way my relationship functions here, and that it paints a much clearer picture of your own prejudices than it does my reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/18 05:00 PM
10

Cool, as long as you're open and honest about that with prospective partners, that's fine. For you. But you need to be open and honest about that with prospective partners, because it's not the norm and shouldn't be regarded as such. If this is your idea of what marriage is, then fine. As someone who plans to marry, that kind of relationship is abhorrent to me, and I wouldn't consider that any kind of genuine affection, only mutual use. I'm not saying that to denigrate you, simply stating that y…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/18 04:55 PM
10

Right, let's flip this. So he feels like sex. He should just not do it anyway. Don't do it because his wife feels like she doesn't want to. Don't do it because he cares about her. Don't do it because he cares about his marriage. Don't do it because he just might find that what he had was a passing boner and wasn't some world-ending need for sex right at that moment. If sex on demand is something you need to have or else you feel like your relationship isn't worth continuing, then that's somethin…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/18 04:44 PM
13

"Many men prefer that" can be translated to "Many people who are inexperienced in romance think this is what's ideal".
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/18 03:37 PM
0

Why?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/18 03:19 PM
23

So are you saying that the people "starfishing" should just have sex and feign better enthusiasm, or are you saying that rather than "starfishing" they should just not have sex? Because if you're saying it's one person's obligation to feign extra-well to make their partner believe they're more into sex than they actually are, then I'm going to have to disagree. No singular person has a right to sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/18 02:58 PM
1

...yeah, I'm gonna say you're talking out your ass about shit you don't know about, at this point.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/18 11:03 PM
1

Like the sex I have with my partner. We just want to make each other happy.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/18 10:06 PM
0

Do you agree with Kant that sexual desire and objectification are inseparable, and a force that morality must reckon with? No, Kant was a creature of his time and was largely ignorant of feminist approaches to these topics. While incredibly wise, we have to recognize the limits of the great minds of the past in our study of their works. It's quite possible to experience sexual desire entirely based in non-objectification. Is objectification a male preference that women ubiquitously disparage? No…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/18 04:43 PM
1

Marital duties are determined by the martial agreement, which should address the needs and desires of all parties involved. The harshest penalty which should be levied for breaking that agreement is a withdrawal of marriage and support, in other words divorce without the prospect or ethical burden of alimony (which of course should only apply if stipulated in the agreement).
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/18 03:22 PM
8

Childfree is an awesome choice, I'm right there with you. To hell with having kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/18 07:49 PM
1

No, but their normalization will. People like to fuck. As Christian Hegemony falls away and people discover fewer and fewer reasons not to fuck, monogamy will become rarer. This will be greatly quickened by the increasing availability of social media and personal information. I mean, homes are now being equipped with door cameras that link to your phone. People's desire to evade monogamy is not going to go away as their ability to do so covertly wanes.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 10:35 PM
1

If you want to truly love and respect someone, you're never going to get there through RedPill ideology. It's something they'll expect you to forsake as naive and idealistic, with the "grown up" reality being that love is a farce and sex is what matters. Really, it's just that they've chosen what feels most comfortable to them; that isn't always the truth. Get to know some women and you'll find that NAWALT. Get to know some anime fans and you'll find that NAAFALT. Get to know some potheads and y…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 08:20 PM
1

Thousands of years of socio-cultural indoctrination of various kinds has led to several differing cultural incarnations of sexism. The key to unraveling them is to eliminate the both the visible and obfuscated forms of useless socio-cultural hierarchical arrangement.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 07:46 PM
2

Seriously, young people getting married is dumb. Everyone knows this but we all just laugh and say "Oh some people have to learn the hard way" while watching them ruin their developmental adult years. It's fucked up.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 07:35 PM
2

Don't forget the part where you shame single mothers for their "choices".
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 07:33 PM
1

Yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 07:32 PM
4

These men already have the capacity of being caring and attentive partners. Unless you've been in a years-long relationship with the promise of a possible future, the overwhelmingly large chance is that you do not know how to do this. It is a learned skill that takes time to develop. The problem is, you're right, but what you need to be focusing on making attractive is your propensity to learn and adapt alongside another human being. Being some rigid set of rules that grinds any opposition to du…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 07:23 PM
1

I don't see why this would ever be the case, but if it came down to that then porn would have to go. But I don't think it would ever be the case.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 07:18 PM
1

You know, some phrases, like "/thread", and "murdered by words", don't really work if you add them to the end of your own comments.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 04:51 AM
-1

He wasn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 04:26 AM
2

Absolutely, if you're a woman. The thing is, we're gender-segregated from birth into separate social spheres. The things we're pushed to do, the people we're pressured to play with, the bathrooms we use, it's all really prominent from early in life. This leaves us with a deep cross-gender divide, which we have to broach in adulthood by spending time with each other. I'm super-feminist and I'll completely agree that women have forms of privilege with regards to dating options. Those options come …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 03:12 AM
3

A lot of RP ideology is based in harping on appeals to tradition and naturalistic fallacies. When we're talking about people, we're talking about behaviors that are primarily learned. Granted, you can't always unlearn them, but sometimes just being aware of why you feel a certain way has a way of deflating it. Eventually coming to terms with yourself means deflating all the hyped-up notions you're taught about sex by society and media. There are very few old RP men, as there are few old incels. …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 02:49 AM
3

I think the problems you're making here are assuming that "all women", and also assuming that "no women". There are superficial women who recognize their superficiality, and superficial women who don't. There are non-superficial women who think they're superficial, and there are non-superficial women who know they're not superficial. And none of this is any different for men. Our natural tendencies as evolved primates are responsible for so very little of our behavior that the constant harping o…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 02:16 AM
1

It's almost like RP ideology is just new labels slapped on the same misogyny that's been prevalent for thousands of years!
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 01:54 AM
1

I feel like you think you're making a counterpoint, but you're not.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 01:29 AM
1

I'd wager the majority of poor women don't care either, as long as the person is willing to support themselves.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 01:20 AM
4

I love how RedPillers take this simple notion, which is nigh-universal to humans in dating, and extrapolate that women must just inherently want to fuck something different than they want as a life partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 01:18 AM
4

Seriously, I used to be friends with a guy who was so sexually successful that when we went out to random restaurants there was a decent chance he'd have slept with one of the waitstaff. Like around 70% of the women in our college friend circle ended up in his bed at one point. There was absolutely nothing remarkable about him, including height.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 01:14 AM
0

Speaking as someone who both is tall and used to prefer short girls when he was single, to within an inch. Granted, I got a lot of easy practice because I worked with a 4'8 girl for a few years and could always just compare.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 01:10 AM
7

He says, in a thread specifically about judging people and presuming uniformity of physical preferences. Plenty of women like shorter men. The problem is, stuff like RP ideology appeals to short men, as it gives them some excuse other than personality compatibility to point to when explaining their singleness. And nothing quite puts women off like RP/incel ideology.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/18 01:08 AM
4

Yeah but dude, think about the window you're observing this through. You're saying "older women", like that starts at 30. That's not even halfway through life, and if we don't take an average which includes early deaths then it's just over a third of the way through life. Everyone but young women are put off by men who pursue young women, and even they are only very seldom attracted to men above 30. I mean, ask yourself, realistically, how many men who are 40+ do you see with younger women? Furt…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/18 05:08 PM
6

Okay, hang on. You're telling me that the pool of men willing to go for a 35 year-old woman is significantly less attractive than the group of men who are chasing after younger women? Because that seems a bit, well, incorrect. Women typically are put off by men who hound after younger women, especially older men. Don't assume that just because you find young adults sexy that everyone else does.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/18 04:30 PM
2

Considering how many ugly overweight dudes I know with no social skills who got married and have happy lives, yeah. The trick is, don't be an asshole then claim that's "lack of social skills". It's plain as day when someone is being socially inept and when someone is being inconsiderate of the feelings of others.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/18 04:23 PM
1

Sure, it's only a matter of time before someone markets RP ideology to women in countries where this stuff isn't already reviled for what it really is.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/18 04:21 PM
1

Depends entirely on the girl, nothing is universal, and anything someone's going to try top pawn off on you as "casting a wide net" is ignorant of the reality of human diversity.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/18 04:05 PM
1

By speaking about it. I do.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/18 12:22 AM
1

You keep assuming I'm ignoring. Like, what do you want me to do? I asked that at the start. Be specific.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/18 12:11 AM
1

If my girlfriend lost the use of her genitals or somehow lost the ability to have sex, I probably would just wank it. It's still important to me, but there are more important things in life. Honestly it would be more important for me to make her feel comfortable living like that than anything else.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/18 12:00 AM
1

I just think you're particular about who you target with your "activism". That you're pushing me away from white folks and toward brown folks is no coincidence, in my opinion. And I agree, in a culture where men are frequently killing their lovers and former lovers, there likely is more going on that is objectionable; that's not something bound by any specific group, you know. I think you're doing that thing where people project who they are onto everybody and assume that their way of thinking i…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/18 11:57 PM
1

Well the premise is "worrying about the bigger statistical threat" and in terms of men who kill their lovers and former lovers in vengeance, in the US, white Christian men have that covered pretty well. The dull answer to OP's question is that the strategically best protest to go to is the one that's already being set up and advertised with a lot of people going to it, provided it matches your goals. You'll gain far more being one of a hundred protesters for a single cause than you do being one …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/18 11:46 PM
1

I mean that me standing on my street corner with a sign has a much larger effect when I'm protesting my local, state, or federal government. Me standing on a street corner with a sign protesting the policies of Saudi Arabia doesn't do nearly as much. The most effective way of making change in these countries, from my end, is to petition my own nation for change in their diplomatic policies, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/18 11:34 PM
1

Regardless of effect?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/18 09:45 PM
1

Except me apparently, who is cool with being a slut and being with sluts. Whatevs. Getting laid is fun.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/18 07:44 PM
6

Hey, I'm 100% feminist SJW and I agree with you. "Creep" is a disproportionately misandrist slur. Your comparison to "Thug" is right on the money.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/18 07:37 PM
0

What do you want me to do?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/18 07:36 PM
2

I love how many Redpillers are outright offended by this person insinuating that people who shame women for their sexual history should be shamed.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/18 09:52 AM
3

Yeah, this is true.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/18 12:47 AM
2

They don't, you've just been taught they do.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/18 05:20 PM
4

Any resistance whatsoever. Sometimes people play "Hard to Get". Well, congrats, you're hard to get alright, I'll be over here being an adult.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/18 05:19 PM
1

I don't believe in soulmates. I'm in love with someone. They weren't my physical ideal. Doesn't matter one lick.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/18 05:14 PM
1

No, the vast majority of the modern world understands that they could go out and get laid if they wanted to, but that it's more trouble than the rewards are worth. A small portion take "I can't walk out the door and meet an ideal lifemate with minimal effort" to mean that simply getting laid is impossible. The same people who shame women for being "promiscuous" also claim the inability to easily get laid. Isn't it more likely that they just reject the sex they could be having? Don't get me wrong…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/18 05:05 PM
1

Looks like "others" are having a pity party for themselves instead of actually putting significant effort into proving themselves wrong, because being right is more important to them than being happy, or even considerate of others.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/18 12:44 PM
2

Alpha is a position of hierarchy. Confidence is not.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/18 10:53 PM
1

Tinder isn't for dating, don't treat it like it is. Make it explicit that you want to find someone to fuck. You'll find someone.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/18 06:11 PM
1

Keep telling yourself that, while not actually trying beyond the minimal effort necessary to convince yourself "I Tried".
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/18 01:31 PM
1

On top of it, money doesn't care about why, it cares how much. Which we eliminated with the passage of the ACA. Now, health insurance companies have to care about why, just like any company dealing in the necessities. Also, that you can list off a bunch of things which are a result of accidents doesn't magically make them the majority of medical costs. That's still illness and old age, by far.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/18 12:44 PM
1

It's called Tinder. Drive to the nearest city, hop on Tinder, and get laid.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/18 12:43 PM
3

By your logic, discrimination would be ok in any case that does not involve someone's physical health or safety. Provided that a noticeable difference in cost or type of service along those divisions is proven, then yes. I'm in sort of a tricky predicament with this though, because while I agree that some people should be able to make such assessments when statistically proven, I also think that specifically insurance should be prohibited from charging anything but a flat rate for any given poli…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/18 04:02 AM
10

Car insurance primarily protects against liability for mistakes. Health insurance primarily protects against natural and unavoidable illnesses. If the majority of car insurance claims were no-fault occurrences on collision or comprehensive coverage policies, or if the majority of health insurance claims were from accidents and mistakes, you'd have an argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/18 03:39 AM
1

I think the fact that Redpills think it's harder now than it was before is pretty clear evidence that they're in a perpetual state of delusion about reality. Anyone reading this can get laid tonigh-checks time tomorrow. This was not true even twenty years ago. It's extremely easier to date now, and it will only get easier in the future. The dystopian future predicted by antifeminists has been a boogeyman since the sixties and has never come to pass.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/18 03:34 AM
5

You could always go childfree.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 07:46 PM
1

I would rather spend my 20s-early 30s having lots of meaningless sex and then focus on finding a serious partner. I can wrap my head around this. Part of me thinks I would have had the same thing, had I not already descended to the proverbial ninth circle of sex hell before I entered what I believe will be my final relationship. But I feel like my goal always was that permanent relationship. Sure, I'd fuck just to fuck, because it's fun. But never would I have said to myself, "I'm not going to f…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 06:16 PM
1

I’m probably not alone in this, but sex is my favorite thing to do, so I’d like to do it a lot while I’m still able to have sex with really attractive women (or at least the most attractive women I’ll have access to for free during my lifespan). Wouldn't you prefer to spend that time meeting the person you're going to spend your life with, and starting to build that life? After having met this person, I feel like I put myself through a lot of entirely unnecessary mental anguish trying to attract…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 05:43 PM
2

I don't see what the obsession with getting the "most attractive mate you can". For me, it's more about finding someone who I can enjoy life being with for decades on end. For reference, my current relationship is entering its fifth year. I don't have to be "Independently attractive" for her, because she's attracted to me for who, not what, I am. By the measure you're putting forth, it's expected for someone to abandon their SO if they suffer severe physical trauma that makes them less physicall…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 05:06 PM
1

The niceguy notices people attracted to Manson and not themselves because the niceguy has some serious issues with self-image, and yeah this does mean the niceguy loses out. But not by "not being attractive", by not seeking therapy for their issues.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 04:44 PM
1

I guess my counter to your CMV is, "Do you really think viewing women as a monolith is the only reason RP ideology is illogical?" I can think of a slew of other reasons. Not that the provided reason is wrong, it's just that it's like saying "What makes this shit sandwich taste bad is the moldy bread."
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 04:33 PM
1

He's also dead, and never got to touch any of these women.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 04:32 PM
-1

I have none, it's pure conjecture. But I feel like the overwhelming dearth of RedPill men above 40 kind of backs that conjecture.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 04:30 PM
7

My estimate is that many men-turned-women would fall victim to sexual predators and become single parents, not having grown up with the kind of defensive education women are taught. My estimate is that many women-turned-men would end up getting arrested or shot by police, having not grown up with the kind of defensive education men are taught.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 04:24 PM
1

Thing is, I don't see "restaurant management" as something that requires a high deal of aggression in most cases. The line isn't between some types of fields and others, the line is simply between large businesses with strong HR departments, and those without. The same behavior which my manager displayed at one fast food joint would have gotten him fired at somewhere like McDonald's, because their HR practices are just more thorough. For businesses without strong HR protections of employees, dea…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 04:21 PM
1

I think it's way too vague of a question to answer with any real effect. I like when my girlfriend pays attention to me. I don't feel like I'm not getting enough attention. I think perhaps the primary disconnect here is that many people use "Attention" as a synonym of "Sex", with regard to relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 04:14 PM
1

Yet they're in management. Kinda points to the idea that maybe women face a double-standard with regards to their aggression in the workplace.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 02:32 PM
2

I'm talking about everything from low-level management at minimum wage jobs, to contractors overseeing workers at a job site, to backstage work at a theatre. I've been in only one situation where such aggression wasn't explicitly encouraged by the highest-authority people in sight at any given moment, and that was when I was a QA tester for EA, as the company was gigantic and had an HR department so people were less likely to be confrontational about anything. But even when I was working for a l…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 02:08 PM
1

Pretty much all of RP/incel ideology is based on horrific misrepresentations of their own desires and drives. This entire obsession with getting physically attractive partners is just a mask for the fact that these people are too romantically and sexually inexperienced with other humans that they just project the basest of social indoctrination and call that their "self". In reality, you're all in a rat race for a sponge that looks like cheese. If you think hotness is going to make up for a bad …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 01:55 PM
2

Well young, attractive women are humans, so I'm going to go with "Yes, but no more than any other human".
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 01:50 PM
1

Meanwhile, every guy boss I've ever had with two exceptions was outright aggressive, and expected any women management in training to copy their aggression.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 01:49 PM
1

Not all hate rages, some seethes. But that's just my opinion, we're talking about words with whatever meaning we ascribe to them after all.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 04:35 AM
1

While I agree, I still think that only BP ideology is tenable for the long-term. It's not unnatural for people to move to extreme ideologies they end up later rejecting in the wake of emotional turmoil.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 04:26 AM
1

It's just an example of how you can hate in more subtle ways than the classic "want to kill them".
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 04:23 AM
1

Here's a way to look at incels. Modern society is overwhelmingly public, and the line between private and public is pretty thin nowadays. It's not uncommon for people to live in 24/7 kink relationships, and in many cases it's difficult for people to keep the nature of their sexuality secret from casual observers. Thus, I believe that inceldom is a form of sexual submission, gone underground. The old form of cuckoldry fetishism implied that the husband took the role of provider and emotional supp…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 04:21 AM
1

I try not to, but I can't really imagine this Redpill stuff persisting into anyone's old age. It just seems like a lot of younger guys who are into this ideology, and that eventually they drop off of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 04:11 AM
1

My definition is broad. You can hate a little, you can hate a lot, and you can hate ways you're not so aware are driven by hate because hate is what you've been taught is normal. I.E. racial supremacy in the 1600's.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 04:08 AM
1

In a 5 year-old relationship with someone I met when I was sixteen. We're pretty dead set on spending the rest of life together and our life is magical. I'm an anti-natalist, and she doesn't want kids and can't have kids. We take care of cats, and plan on taking care of more cats if we can manage it.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 04:04 AM
1

Are you kidding? Look at Christian myth and the prevalence of Christianity as an imperialist force in world history. Absolutely, yes. But don't think that humans are so simple that we only hold one emotion in our hearts at a time. You can love and hate something at the same time, especially something as widely varied as a group of human beings, even of the same gender.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 04:01 AM
1

Thirty-five.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 03:58 AM
1

This is actually a great citation, thanks for showing me that. I don't think a few feminists in Sweden are really indicative of the overall feminist ideology, but I have to admit I was unaware of the positions being proffered by Johanna...whatever her last name is (comes out as Palmström for me). I'd be interested to see more information about her but I can't find anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 03:58 AM
3

I'm sure you did. ;)
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 12:59 AM
3

Surely you can get me a juicy quote or two from the actual meat of the study, even one to mention that narcissism is included in the "characteristics that reflected genetic quality ancestrally".
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/18 12:00 AM
3

Generally speaking when people ask for sources, it's not stuff behind a paywall. Can you cite to me specific quotations from that study (not the abstract or summary) which you feel evidences that women seek narcissistic traits during ovulation, as you claimed above?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 11:53 PM
10

Who?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 10:34 PM
1

It took me until I was 30 to find mine. It's tough, and I wish you all the luck.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 10:03 PM
2

From personal experience, absolutely. I'm incredibly happy with the prospect of never fucking anyone else but my partner for the rest of my life.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 10:00 PM
1

It's amazing how I have up on fun and pleasure then entered the happiest phase of my entire life by leaps and bounds. I should write a book. I wonder if you'll actually remember to contact me twenty years from now.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 09:45 PM
2

Oh hey, an article, talking about people the author knows, with no real statistics backing it. I'm glad The Atlantic is there doing hard research on how many people cheat, and why. I'm sure they did exhaustive scientific research, on that and Why Men Don't Like Funny Women. Gosh, they sure do a lot of legwork. Again, call me when you're 35, we'll see where you're at.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 09:40 PM
2

Cool and I'm sure you can find that study that shows that people who disagree with me are always wrong. It's somewhere in here. Just keep searching. Last chance, direct citations or I'm done with you.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 09:37 PM
1

Disempowering lawyers doesn't necessarily erode the rights of the accused. You're assuming that the accused has the right to keep their defense secret. I challenge you to find me this right codified in Canadian Law.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 09:33 PM
2

I can google them and they come up. That's not esoteric anymore. If we were 500 years in the past, you'd have a point. Today, you do not. You also have no citations, thus no evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 09:31 PM
1

Yeah, that's not going to go anywhere, because the right to keep one's defense a secret from the court until presented is nowhere enshrined in Canadian law, only in tradition. R. v Sithcombe doesn't say that the accused has any such right to secrecy, and it will be a hard stretch to imply that such secrecy is necessary to ensure that a person's constitutional right to make a full answer is respected. If the evidence is good and not intended to unfairly sway the jury, then the only reason to be r…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 09:29 PM
1

It's okay, we all have to grow up sometime. Call me when you hit 35, we'll see how your positions have held up.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 09:24 PM
1

It's not like segregation happens for long periods of time. How many girls did you have out with when you were a child? How many boys? How many parents wouldn't let boys and girls hang out together? Is this because of their toxic femininity or is it because Patriarchy instilled them with misogyny? Both. Conceptions of masculinity and femininity, both toxic and nontoxic, are the result of a social system in which men are afforded more social agency than women, and thus a degree of control over th…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 09:22 PM
2

Newton's Laws aren't esoteric as fuck. Meta-studies on female arousal are indeed pretty esoteric. It's okay though because I have this study that says that people who disagree with me are wrong. I'm not gonna link it, you can search for it if you want. There's only so much internet, you'll find it eventually.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 09:08 PM
1

Again, only if the judge allows it. This is no different from a pre-emptive objection on grounds of relevance to all personal information of the accuser. That's just not currently allowed, procedurally.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 08:55 PM
1

It means that 50 year old men have a large market generally, period. We've already agreed that past a certain point Could it be that men at 50+ usually don't have the misogynistic baggage you RP kids are carrying around? Understanding and adapting to the circumstances of the world is personal growth and maturity. I'm sure every hitman thinks the same. Is this supposed to be an insult? If you don't recognize obsessions as unhealthy for you, then you're in need of some talk with a psychologist. Ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 08:53 PM
1

Where does gender segregation exist where it shouldn't and why would that prevent rape? Throughout all aspects of childhood. Sports are segregated, interests are segregated, affluent parents even deliberately send their kids to gender-segregated schools. The children produced by this are often entirely unaware of the realities of other people. There's a reason why there was such a prevalence of rape among high school athletes for so long. When you segregate social circles, naturally the people i…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 08:48 PM
1

What, does that make you think that the peaking 18 year-old girls are fucking the peaking 50 year-old men? Protip: not unless you're paying them. And RP is going to be your strategy until you find that you can't make another strategy because you've burned your entire chance at personal growth and maturity being sex-obsessed and misogynistic. All that's left after that is bitter old age, like so many older misogynists.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 08:38 PM
2

The fact that only naive women fall for that stuff says that. There's a reason you don't see older RP men who are unmarried. Your entire position is so obviously untenable in the long term, unless you plan on being Hugh fucking Hefner.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 08:23 PM
1

Restating that in the face of a presented counterargument doesn't exactly do much legwork for your argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 08:22 PM
-1

I'm sure that's why you're obsessed with this, you're just concerned for the survival of the species. Where you at on Climate Change, eh?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 08:21 PM
6

Yeah, if you're not going to cite the studies, you don't get to cite the studies. So you have no evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 08:21 PM
0

Sure, and eventually you'll be 40. Have fun getting those college hotties when you're the creepy old perv.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 08:19 PM
7

Seriously, how do people ask this stuff with a serious mindset? I feel like half the RPers on this sub must just be trolling us with obviously BS "inquiries" just to see how many answers they can fish.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 08:10 PM
6

Because during the genesis of modern human history, people generally didn't know how to fight very well. Confrontations were largely determined by numbers and strength. This is no longer the case, and has not been for some time. But tradition is a tough thing to get rid of.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 08:08 PM
1

Man you breeders and your obsession with genetics.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 08:03 PM
1

The only losing game is the game you think you have. Enjoy loneliness and eventually being reviled by every woman who knows you.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 08:02 PM
7

I'm all for making people do their own legwork about exoteric topics and subjects, but if you're really telling me "Oh just go read though meta-studies on female arousal, I can't be bothered to link them", then I'm going to believe you're appealing to fake science and citing studies that don't exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 08:01 PM
1

I'm caught up on it because you've been spouting a dozen complete falsities as fact in just about every comment you make, and if you can take the time to link a video, the surely you can take the time to link something that actually evidences anything you're saying. And of course, as soon as I tell you your notion of what the patriarchy is might be wrong, you accuse me of being purposely disingenuous so I can hide my real intention to just blame men for everything. As for how to decrease rapes, …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:59 PM
1

Had this law been in place the accusers would have been able to lie to counteract this revelation. No, the accused would have been able to present this evidence to a judge, who would have been able to rule on its pertinence and validity before admitting it. The only way this becomes problematic is if you have serious paranoid about the integrity of the judge, in which case this isn't going to screw you any more than you're already screwed, if you have a judge willing to scrap the process and end…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:51 PM
2

Yah
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:49 PM
0

Yeah, except that you're a psychological wreck, and you're likely to lose your SO if they ever actually gain any outside perspective. Have fun with your mid-life crisis in about twenty years.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:48 PM
5

So, no.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:46 PM
2

You're right, it's just unaddressed trust issues and misogyny.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:45 PM
1

Surely you have some citation for such a bold claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:44 PM
1

Right, estrogen levels drop. Not exactly indicative of some sexual wall.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:44 PM
4

Keep telling yourself that, of course reinforced with the "women have a secret conspiracy to cheat all the time" rhetoric, so that even if you can't observe them running after alfalfa mails, you can rest assured that they are.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:39 PM
1

No more than the existence of an objection on the basis of relevance. The judge already has the power to declare evidence inadmissible on any number of grounds. Shifting the burden to a pro-active duty to admit evidence simply protects accusers from having to go through having embarrassing but ultimately irrelevant "evidence" presented in order to emotionally sway the jury. Like thong panties, for instance.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:38 PM
1

It was just an example of how treating all men as rapists is an acceptable line of thought. It's a song. Feminists think society is a patriarchy that actively pushes for rape culture. So, put two and two together. When you stop conflating Patriarchy with Men then you'll figure out what the disconnect is. Yet men are "delusional, paranoid and weird" for even having the fear. Seems like you have a problem with it So fearing is ignoring now? And another baseless accusation... points up I have more …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:33 PM
1

Yes and maybe. Long-term prosperity of societies has far less to do with the prevalence of this or that social more or norm than it does to do with the realities of resource availability, and the presence of aggressors. If nobody fucked with them and they didn't have bad luck with resources, likely they'd prosper. This has little to do with their homosexuality.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:30 PM
4

RP harms its own cause by making men who want to have sex exhibit personality traits that only a tiny subset of women actually find attractive, and getting them to cope with that restriction of their sexual possibilities by devaluing anyone outside of that small subsection of women as lesser, or somehow more prone to infidelity.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:28 PM
1

Yeah, excepting that those arguments had absolutely nothing to do with due process, or assumption of legal innocence, because they had nothing to do with the actual legal system. You're talking about college campus trials to determine college campus punishments. You may as well complain that you didn't get a lawyer to mitigate your mom's grounding when you were a kid. I'm all for ending college rape tribunals, but let's not pretend they're an affront to actual legal justice, or a suspension ther…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:25 PM
1

So if someone pleads guilty at a preliminary hearing, and their case is processed, they've been denied due process? If someone agrees to arbitration of legal disputes, are they being denied due process? Do you even know what a Bench Trial is?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:22 PM
-7

This is nothing but paranoid delusion. Your only provided link is a song. No, feminists for the overwhelming part think that society is responsible for much of rape, and that we should all consider changing our actions to create a society which does not produce so many rapists. Of course, someone trying to find an enemy in feminism could easily misrepresent this as "Feminists hold all men responsible for rape on an individual level". This seems the case here. If it were ignoring I'd have no prob…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:19 PM
0

Which surely you can cite for me.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:15 PM
1

That is neither a removal of due process or the assumption of innocence. You can get due process without a trial by normally-selected jury.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:15 PM
2

Pope_Lucious.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:04 PM
-2

Kafka never made up wild stories about feminist conspiracies to remove due process and the assumption of innocence.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:03 PM
-4

See? "Implication of guilt for all men". You're just taking your weird, paranoid delusions and stating them like fact. What's interesting is how your paranoid delusions revolve around being accused of rape. Maybe you should take a look at that.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 07:00 PM
2

And this comment has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 06:57 PM
1

If it's a scientific fact, you can cite reputable sources talking about it, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 06:52 PM
2

Virgins are garbage in bed, why would I want them specifically for being virgins?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 06:49 PM
1

Virgin women are the least likely to do that. I have seen this cited like gospel here but I have seen zero evidence of it. From what I've seen in my own experience, every marriage of two virgins I have ever seen has failed. Hell, every marriage of people under the age of 22 that I have seen, has failed. You got any source on this claim that relationships with virgin women are less likely to end?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 06:46 PM
1

Some nice guys finish last, some assholes finish last, some assholes finish at the top, some nice guys finish at the top. There's no such thing as karma, social balances are manufactured, and Santa Claus isn't real. Any trends you see are more reflective of your psyche than any reality, because humans simply lack anywhere near a broad enough perspective to make any such generalizations.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 06:42 PM
0

"Gosh my boy won't stop looking at women like actual human beings, he must be having trouble adapting." ಠ_ಠ
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 06:39 PM
-3

It's almost like people initially looked at MeToo with derision, and that derision colored the entire way they see the movement and ideology...like every non-traditional ideology conservatives are faced with.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 06:34 PM
1

The "Not All X Are Like That" argument is universally valid, the fact that anyone actually denigrates the use of it just shows how deeply anti-intellectualism runs in some of these circles.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 06:31 PM
2

It’s selfish to not do the most you can to improve things for the people in your life Seems more selfish to insist on constant improvement with no regard to your actual place relative to the world. If someone is meeting all their needs, why keep insisting on pushing for more? Sure, there are bills to pay, but if the bills are getting paid, what's the fuss? And you didn't answer my other question. What happens if something ends your career? Do you expect your relationship to be dependent on you m…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 06:19 PM
2

What if something happens to you that kills your chances of career advancement? Will you accept that she should leave you, as despite not having changed as a person, you're no longer "successful"? Also, doesn't it sort of seem strange to you that by "succeed", you're actually referencing a very specific kind of socio-economic success? What's wrong with someone who succeeds at making themselves happy?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 05:28 PM
1

Serial killers sure, but that's an awfully small rendition of the original goalposts of "Bad Romantic Partners".
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 05:25 PM
1

By my logic, very few liked it, and most were too inexperienced to know that such treatment was not necessary for them to endure in order to keep the affections of a spouse. I feel like most of these women likely did not have many experiences to draw from when determining what they should expect out of a relationship. Keep in mind, this also coincided with a period in which women were expected to save sex for after making a life-long commitment.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 05:08 PM
3

There's a difference between a projection of expectations and a manufactured social role.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 05:05 PM
3

We basically break the equation, but like every facet of reality that breaks RP equations, they simply ignore us or assume that we're lying or deceiving ourselves. Like all cults, RedPillers ignore and reject as deception anything which would cause them to have to alter their worldview.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 05:04 PM
4

While we're at it, it's not a good heuristic to expect Red Pillers to not suck dicks constantly, all night long, every night. I mean, a large portion of the populace gets the urge to suck dick all night long, every night. So it's expecting that there's some group of people who just don't want to suck dick all night long, every night, is kind of like playing with fire. You should just expect that if a Red Piller tells you that they don't want to suck dick all night long, every night, that they're…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 05:02 PM
1

Historically speaking, that's not true, and limiting women's romantic agency did indeed keep them in relationships with murderers, rapists, and other such villainous people, with much greater frequency than today. Keep in mind, spousal rape was only made illegal in the US about 50 years ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 04:58 PM
4

Then you and your family are emotionally shallow and the love you have will always be a love for a fulfilled role and a set of criteria, not an actual human. Sorry.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 04:52 PM
1

No, simply that anybody makes generally better long-term decisions about a topic when they have more experience or education on that topic, and that the shaming of women for romantic/sexual experience only increases the likelihood of women making poor long-term romantic/sexual choices due to lack thereof.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 04:51 PM
3

Then it isn't a common trend, either. shrug
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 04:49 PM
7

Sounds like there's a common thread here...maybe you're not a very good SO, and it takes a while for women to realize that? Or maybe you're predisposed to looking for unfaithful women? I mean, were your parents faithful?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 04:44 PM
4

Seriously, this is all so ridiculously shallow. What if he got cancer? What if he was in an accident and got his genitals mutilated? What if what if what if? The answer is, "I fucking love them, I'd stay with them." I don't see how this is a complicated issue for anyone. As long as they are the person I love and don't do anything to significantly prove otherwise, then I'm staying with them. I didn't fall in love with her job or her money, I fell in love with her.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 04:41 PM
3

Again, people with little perspective make bad choices. What can seem like a decent enough person to a teenage girl may set off a hundred warning flags to a more experienced woman. Thus, the shaming of women for seeking sexual experience has the bonus effect of preventing them from gaining the perspective necessary to predict negative character traits, or in many cases to simply identify them as actually negative despite their social conditioning. Sometimes it takes actually taking a swim to rea…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 04:37 PM
2

No, I'd say that women, like all humans, have varying priorities and cares, that are about as related to their gender as the moon under which they were born.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 04:33 PM
2

People with little perspective on a topic make bad long-term decisions about that topic. Romance is no different. When women are shamed for being romantically experienced, they're going to avoid romantic experience, but they're still going to try to find long-term partners. This is like trying to find a partner for couples dance, while never actually experimenting with couples dance. How do you know what to look for?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 04:30 PM
1

Personally, I think most people would be happiest with that. Genuine preference for monogamy, without deference to social pressure, is very rare.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 02:21 PM
2

Seriously, seven billion people on the planet, and we're still making the "X people like X people" arguments.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 01:07 PM
1

Certainly has nothing to do with the idea that sexually and/or romantically experienced women are seen as less desirable by the population, for sure...
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 01:02 PM
7

I'm going to make an analogy to something quite easy to relate to: video games. Imagine you have two video gamers. One plays the newest games all the time, for maybe a few hours, and then puts them down. No time to beat the game, much less 100% it, there are too many new games to try. This gamer has to wade through a lot of crap games, but generally speaking they play a lot of good games, too. However anything that takes any significant amount of time is out. MMORPGs, don't bother. And they're n…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 05:30 AM
1

It wouldn't, I'm just not into that. It might be more of an issue for someone who wants kids. If someone's into open relationships, nothing wrong with that.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 04:26 AM
1

I'm unsure how those specifics counter anything I asserted. If testosterone naturally leads to such a devaluation, then we'd see it in our much more testosterone-driven cousins, but we don't. Even in species known to commit infanticide to increase the proliferation of their offspring, such as chimpanzees, we don't see any reluctance to mate with more promiscuous females. As to the caveman situation, you're assuming that developing humans held a lot of paternal responsibility, when in an evolutio…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 03:53 AM
0

No, because of two things. One, there's no evolutionary reason to believe that a less experienced partner will be less likely to go have someone else's baby. You're putting the cart before the horse, because you have to show some way that it actually functions as a tool of reducing the chances of raising another man's offspring before you can claim it's an evolutionary tool. Two, if it were such an evolutionary tool intrinsic to testosterone, we'd see it in other evolutionary ancestors close to …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 03:27 AM
1

What makes you believe it is not social conditioning which is the driver, supplemented by testosterone? That seems to make much more sense, as seldom do complex social ideas like devaluing sexually active women come from something as base as a hormone.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 03:10 AM
1

You're assuming there is an increased likelihood that a woman who has been promiscuous, but not necessarily adulterous, before making an agreement to monogamy would be less likely to keep the agreement. It seems more likely to me that their previous "promiscuity" is not a useful metric for determining the reliability of a person's vow of monogamy, especially in a historical sense, given the prevalence of rape and the relative novelty of emancipation.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 03:06 AM
1

"So many men buy into this tying of the sexual satisfaction to their mental state." What makes you think that this is somehow intrinsic to testosterone, and not a result of social conditioning?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 02:54 AM
2

For real, did you real my comment and conclude that I am trying to end testosterone?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 02:42 AM
13

There's no such thing as unconditional love.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 02:25 AM
1

Hell, he's probably looking to just fuck her and leave anyway. I can't really continue arguing because nothing you're saying is grounded in any kind of evidence, you're just positing personal bias over and over like it's some kind of divine truth. I'm a guy with a large amount of sexual experience, and I'm blissfully happy with my monogamous long-term partner. All I can do is say you really need to consider that maybe people are not this weird, misanthropic caricature you seem to have of them in…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 02:22 AM
1

I just think love only actually exists in a small fraction of the cases where people claim to be in love, and that in trying times it becomes blatantly apparent who has real love and who does not. Media, going as far back as print novels, normalized the idea that every person should fall in love. Nearly every movie tries to shoehorn romance into the plot somehow. I mean, ask yourself, is Pacific Rim made better by adding a romance subplot? Everyone thinks they're in love with anyone they spend a…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 01:50 AM
6

It's not the only thing he needed, but testosterone is a hell of a drug, and social pressure only makes it worse. I know so many guys who think they'll legitimately go crazy if they don't get laid every so often. So many men buy into this tying of the sexual satisfaction to their mental state. It's not healthy and we should discourage it, but to say that the man "only cares about sex" is an oversimplification in the extreme.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 01:44 AM
0

Because you don't want to reward promiscuity. This assumes promiscuity is bad, which you've yet to evidence. If she's that type of girl before marriage, then she will probably be that type of girl after marriage. You have no evidence to support this. People change. People also try things, and figure out they don't like them. Also, some people just try and try and try and can't find romantic success. You have no compelling proof that someone who has had more sexual partners is any more likely to …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 01:39 AM
1

I didn't say there was, and in fact if you check out my other comments I explicitly say it's okay to seek someone with a similar sexual resume as you. What isn't okay is devaluing people with a different sexual resume than you, assuming they're lesser, lower class, or more likely to cheat, as so many people in this thread have insinuated.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 01:30 AM
2

Sure, but you aren't positing "equality and all that", you're saying women are hornier than men.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/18 01:28 AM
5

I'm going to go with... Some people are horny as fuck and some people are not; this has as much to do with their gender as it does the phase of the moon when they were born.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 10:46 PM
3

I dunno how you can read the second bullet point and conclude that this is not sexist. "Women have slut walks"? Really?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 10:44 PM
0

People can use whatever criteria they wish to attain the partner or partners they wish to have. As someone who thinks that such considerations are fairly shallow and unimportant, I wouldn't consider someone like that to be attractive to me in an emotional sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 10:43 PM
2

Submissive women. Right now the entire concept of D/s is just so off-putting to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 10:41 PM
1

Can't tell if serious, sub too putrid.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 10:39 PM
4

So the answer to my question is "No"?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 09:36 PM
6

Can you find the phrase "rape is not a traumatic event" anywhere in my comments?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 09:22 PM
2

Yes, but not my opinion of their ability to form a monogamous long-term relationship. I'd definitely think they were more likely to enjoy freaky shit in bed, but I wouldn't just assume that either. I wouldn't think it made her any less of a woman, or lower class, or anything negative, really. If anything I'd think, "Well if she's the type of woman who can't handle monogamy, because when presented with a bunch of horny dudes she gets crazy slutty, then she likely knows that, and at least won't be…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 09:06 PM
0

There is absolutely no biological reason for it. It is entirely learned from centuries on centuries of traditionalism and religious sexual repression, based in maintaining the control of sexuality by the affluent and powerful. By establishing a system of social shaming for promiscuous women, men who would otherwise be left were able to keep spouses in relationships they'd rather have left. Keep in mind that the illegality of spousal rape is only a few decades old in the US, and for centuries wom…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 09:01 PM
1

Depends entirely on the girl people involved. I went from meeting a girl to in a monogamous relationship in an hour once. That monogamous relationship lasted three weeks, then we broke up, because we didn't see a future together. In another case a girl and I beat around the bush about it for a year, and never even ended up dating, just being sexually monogamous with no explicit obligation to be so. In my current and longest relationship, she was leaving a marriage, and was celibate for a good wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 08:50 PM
1

Are you always this defensive when people ask you questions about your childhood influences?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 08:45 PM
1

Could you elaborate what process you're talking about?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 08:43 PM
1

When is the youngest you can remember calling a girl a slut, either to her face or to others?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 08:41 PM
1

Yeah. In my case, no, I've never moved to a monogamous relationship with someone who was fucking someone else and myself at the same time before "becoming monogamous". If they're not compelled to focus on me alone from the start then likely I'm not really going to be interested in a monogamous relationship with them, nor them with me. That said, there's nothing wrong with fucking around for fun without being monogamous or committed.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 08:39 PM
0

You are aware that our closest evolutionary relative is the Bonobo, right? If you're going to tell me viewing women as less responsible and more flighty due to sexual experience is natural, you have a hell of an uphill battle. I find the collective unwillingness of red pillers to be honest about the pressures and conversations they had during childhood to be very indicative of, dare I say it...unresolved issues?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 08:30 PM
1

Define "Dating", people use that word in a lot of ways. Some people mean "in a relationship" and others mean "meeting someone".
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 08:24 PM
1

If you're not with your husband because you love him and want a monogamous relationship with him, yes. If the only reason you're with your husband is for your kids, then you have no impetus not to cheat. Again, this goes counter to the idea that low-n-count women are more likely to cheat.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 08:21 PM
1

I think if you genuinely believe this you're not looking hard enough at your own childhood. I was taught that growing up by just about every man around me, through their constant implications thereto, to the point where it was being reinforced by other prepubescent boys, before they could have had any real experience or statistics on which to found that.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 08:17 PM
1

No, I'm actually pretty poor. She makes significantly more than I do, and I put significantly more effort into keeping the house. And no, I slept with a bunch of people too. I see no reason to feel insecure about it. She chose me and I chose her despite all our experiences, precisely because after all that experience we found that we prefer each other to anything else. I know next to nobody who entered an LTR with a low-n-count person and kept that relationship active for more than ten years. Co…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 07:50 PM
1

Porn, duh.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 07:45 PM
1

The fact that she used the term "beta" means she ascribes to useless social hierarchies and is thus disqualified from any consideration.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 07:37 PM
1

No, I'm a man. And we started our relationship five years ago. Yes, she's got a fairly high n-count as well. It's everything we've ever wanted. And if they've been brought up on the sub plenty of times you can link me, eh?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 07:34 PM
2

And studies show that the bigger the number of sexual partners of the woman the more likely she is to divorce and be unhappy. You have these studies? And keep in mind you're talking to someone who is in a blissful monogamous relationship, but has a high n-count. I am a living exception to your position that you can't go from 100 to 1. It's weird to me that you haven't seemed to consider that the apparent attractiveness of novelty you see could be reflective of a lack of experience. Also it's wei…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 07:26 PM
1

What evidence do you have that women who have had more partners or wider sexual experience are more likely to cheat in a long-term relationship?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 07:19 PM
2

But you don't get to choose whether or not he's violent.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 07:17 PM
1

You have this?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 07:15 PM
2

And I'm sure you have some evidence of this other than an appeal top tradition and/or anecdotes. Because citing nebulous, undefined and unproven issues as somehow worse than your own defined and self-admitted issues would take some serious psychological groundbreaking. Have you considered that maybe you're just a narcissist, seeing the beauty in their own issues?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 07:12 PM
2

"women with high n-counts have unresolved issues"... Seems like this is kinda a useless metric, and that some people just have issues, and others do not.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 07:08 PM
1

I'm a strict monogamous who doesn't engage in any form of casual sex and has a low n-count and I demand the same of any potential partner I'm totally cool with this. The problem I have is that people seem to make the assessment that a woman with lots of sexual experience, or wild sexual experiences, is somehow a bad long-term fit for anyone. That just seems silly to me. I'm a high n-count dude and I couldn't imagine really taking seriously the affections of someone who didn't have a high n-count…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 07:00 PM
6

Seriously, all this reeks of insecurity based on misogynistic misconceptions of what women want. These folks need to stop taking their ideas of women from fucking hentai and get into the real world. A woman doesn't suddenly become a mindless cock-zombie just because she experiments with group sex or public sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 06:56 PM
3

What do all the hoes do, just crawl off to corners and die? See all those grannies out there? Many if not most of them are were once the same kind of women you're denigrating.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 06:54 PM
1

If it walks like a trust issue, talks like a trust issue, and smells like a trust issue, you probably have some pretty deep trust issues.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 06:50 PM
9

This is the most unrealistic shit. Nobody goes from zero relationship to full-blown-monogamy in a single question. If I'm talking to a girl and it's clear I'm interested in her, and she shows interest in me, then if she doesn't naturally slide into monogamy then I can expect that she won't want a monogamous relationship. You don't just flip a switch and become someone's SO. This reads like what a kindergartner expects out of dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 06:44 PM
3

Right, because it's the girls getting promise rings for their fathers that are the ones with totally healthy psyches. No daddy issues there. But women going out and enjoying sex? Must be somehow mentally fucked, amirite? This is pretty fucking ridiculous and this entire subreddit is kinda gross.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 06:39 PM
3

We are just now coming out of the puritan days of shaming women for having lots of sex Look at this thread and tell me again you really believe this. People here are literally making the argument that having lots of sex is indicative of mental issues. Other comments include insinuations that promiscuous women are more likely to cheat. If you think the period of shaming women for being promiscuous is over, then you need to reflect a little more on what exactly you're arguing here.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 06:35 PM
2

So, why should he reject her?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 06:32 PM
9

"Hey rape survivors, you're permanently and irreparably broken! :D"
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 06:29 PM
4

Meanwhile, "women with high n-counts have unresolved issues"...
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 06:27 PM
0

But why should a guy accept her? If other factors would make her attractive to you, then it's not a question of "Why should a guy accept her?" so much as "Why should a guy reject her?" Everyone here seems to be constantly positing some correlation between promiscuity, specifically in women, and bad personality traits. But nobody is providing any evidence short of a few really misogynistic anecdotes.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 06:23 PM
0

I like how you asked this question, and you have six separate replies, all from red pillers, and all making mischaracterizations of the positions of blue pillers. It's none of those three. I was taught to care about a woman's sexual past. Later in life I realized how stupid that is.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 06:21 PM
5

Do you really think people with more sexual experience are more likely to cheat in a lifelong relationship than people with less sexual experience? Because I have to say I feel exactly the opposite. Most LTR cheaters I've seen are people who entered into relationships with fairly little experience, and who later in their life are overcome with the desire for something different.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 06:15 PM
1

Except the men who do. Don't speak for all of us.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/18 06:12 PM
2

If they audit you and find significant bank transfers, the IRS will not ask and will collect those taxes. That's how they get mob bosses; they can get off the actual crime but not the tax they one off the money they make on the crime. Legally speaking you can and are supposed to pay taxes on your drug dealing money. It's fucked up but the true state of the US government.
/r/MensRights26/11/18 05:21 PM
3

A lot of prostitutes are being targeted with this. And erotic models are considered sex workers.
/r/MensRights26/11/18 04:37 PM
3

The IRS dopesn't care, but the IRS isn't claiming any intellectually honest assessment of the movement. If we're going to be honest with ourselves we have to admit that this is a bunch of people lashing out at sex workers, during a period of traditionalist conservative resurgence.
/r/MensRights26/11/18 04:28 PM
-2

I think it's pretty clearly misogynistic and meant to attack and denigrate along incel lines. The reason I believe this is because nobody in that movement is targeting video game streamers, or any other kind of internet video revenue generation except the sex-based forms. I think that the commonly-implied notion that people in ethically-neutral but illegal professions should pay taxes is silly, and that if we want to make the argument that someone like a prostitute or drug dealer should pay taxe…
/r/MensRights26/11/18 02:24 PM
6

SMV = Bullshit RMV = Bullshit This entire concept = Bullshit
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/18 12:42 PM
3

There isn't an increase in women seeking divorces. The divorce rate peaked in the 80's and has been declining since. It reflects that many women before that period felt more pressure to remain in faulty relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/18 01:19 PM
1

If someone really likes you then this won't put them off.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/18 07:08 AM
1

Who do you want?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/18 09:44 AM
1

Or, conversely, no.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/18 09:53 AM
2

Yeah, I'm new here, and as a BluePill guy I feel like this subreddit is just a bunch of purples and reds "debating" while the bluepill folks all just watch in abject horror and occasionally throw popcorn. I barely see anyone who actually identifies as BP posting other than me.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/18 09:27 AM
2

No. In general nice (i.e. considerate) people are less likely to objectify love interests, which leads to a higher rate of meaningful relationships and a greater chance at lasting romantic happiness. Conversely inconsiderate people, even if in long-term relationships, are seldom made happy by their relationships, and don't as frequently prioritize the happiness of their partner, leading to higher romantic turnover. I'm a nice guy and I feel like I won gold because I found the one for me. To her,…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/18 02:51 AM
2

What makes that successful?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/18 05:32 AM
1

I think I'm finally understanding what you're getting at. The idea is that even if two people consent to something, if that something can be seen as harmful by a third party, that it is unethical. As someone who lived through southern conservatism, I cannot agree. The right to harm oneself is natural, because harm to oneself can only be defined by oneself. If someone wants to take opiates, and I'm not of the mindset that this is overly harmful to them, then your assessment of the danger of opiat…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 10:19 PM
2

Any relationship established or maintained through deception is unethical. That's not to say these relationships necessarily do that, but I find the general consensus that few such relationships are couched in an honest understanding of the circumstances.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 10:07 PM
2

I need you to clarify this comment, I don't understand what you mean.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 12:58 PM
11

Deception by Omission. If they don't make the partner(s) aware that they're placeholders, it's wrong. If they make the partner(s) aware and the partner(s) continue the relationship to their own obvious detriment, it's wrong. If the partner(s) are aware of and not harmed by the arrangement, it is ethical.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 12:42 PM
1

There's also a significant number of people in the heterosexual community who are sexually aroused by the concept of procreation and somewhat fetishize copulation as part of their normal sexual lives.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 12:33 PM
1

Yeah, and a lot of people have a problem of undervaluing themselves, and overvaluing the wrong things in their partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 12:29 PM
1

I'll let my girlfriend of five years know that we're miserable and our bedroom is dead.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 12:14 PM
1

That's right, I put the same answer for both in both threads, exactly.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 06:12 AM
1

Still not getting your point.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 04:30 AM
1

Yeah dude you stopped making sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 04:16 AM
1

And neither of those are common belief structures. So what's your point?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 04:13 AM
1

RP and incel are both couched the idea of social hierarchies based on sex, wherein people who have less sex are not as good as people who have more sex. Both rely on the idea of humanity being naturally hypergamist and being constantly willing to "trade up", along the same lines established in the previous point. Both rely on the assumption that there are sexual winners and losers, and that anyone who claims anything else is simply denying an inevitable and harsh reality. Is this not the case?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 04:04 AM
1

No, bluepill is contrary to redpill ideology. That would be like saying Christianity and Atheism are the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 03:44 AM
1

That's like saying the christian concepts of sinful and the sinless are fundamentally different. They are, but they're still both couched in the same belief structure.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 03:42 AM
2

So, yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 03:37 AM
14

You always project this hard?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 03:28 AM
1

To me alcohol makes people annoying and dangerous, and turns what was a party into an ordeal of dealing with various drunk folks and their needs. Weed makes people more likely to talk openly and without the constant need to prey on each other socially, in my experience. Sure drunk people talk more, but half of it is mean-spirited banter saying very little. I find stoner parties much more interesting and less likely to devolve into violence.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 03:27 AM
1

Can I get an example? You being a personal injury defense attorney, I'm not just going to take your word regarding your clients' culpability without some kind of evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 03:22 AM
1

In my opinion they're both based on the same premises, one is simply an acceptance of the position of "loser" while the other is an acceptance of the idea of struggle necessary to stay "on top".
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 03:19 AM
1

Welcome to how I feel when the alcohol arrives. Which is usually before the party starts.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 01:06 AM
1

I see far too many accidents with catastrophic injuries caused by use of marijuana for me to be entirely comfortable with it. Do you actually see this, or is it just assumed that anyone who has THC in their system at the time of an accident caused the accident because of the THC?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 01:05 AM
3

I use marijuana daily, to treat anxiety, depression, and more recently glaucoma. I've done pretty much every drug under the sun except heroin, GHB, and some of the various alphabet soups and more rare drugs like scopolamine. One day I plan to try heroin non-intravenously. My personal philosophy is not to take the word of society with regard to drugs, because the misinformation has been so thick that only person experience is reliable. People told me I'd become addicted to crack; I tried it and w…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 01:02 AM
1

Death. Because I want to live as long as possible with the woman I love.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 12:50 AM
12

Death. Because I want to live as long as possible with the woman I love.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 12:47 AM
1

It's a factor. And by that I mean like a factor in an equation. If a person is normally emotionally distant, then even the strongest attachment and desire will only maximize that small amount. Conversely the most emotionally available person will become distant if put into a romantic situation with someone who doesn't inspire them romantically. If one factor is 0, the product is 0.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 12:46 AM
17

Yes and no. If I know I have HIV, I'm deceiving you by not telling you before unprotected sex. This is true because conditions are met. I have the knowledge. You want the knowledge. I know that you want the knowledge. The knowledge will affect your decision-making. I personally benefit from the choices you will make without that knowledge. If all that is happening, then yes, I'm committing an ethical crime of deception. It's not about lying. Superman is real. There, I lied. Does it matter? No, b…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 12:40 AM
3

One is against men, and the other is against women. That's about the only difference. Both should be decried as irrational sexism.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/18 12:35 AM
1

I don't think you can provide to me any kind of consensus among psychologists that social hierarchies among humans have their basis in some kind of objective reality, and would not form without some objective mold around which to congregate. I also don't think you'll find me any consensus among zoologists that the traits we see displayed in pack behavior are indicative of dominance patterns. In fact the idea of alpha and beta males in the animal kingdom was pretty soundly railed against as psued…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/18 10:29 PM
1

Straight to the personal attacks.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/18 09:50 PM
1

You're ascribing humanity to chimps where there is none. Let me paint how this goes for you. Each other male chimp is trying to get into the position of physical dominance. Through play they ascertain who is the superior fighter, and generally few challenges happen. This also happens because there is an abundance of sex. This leads to a genetic variety in offspring. When any chimp begins to attack infants, it's usually not their own. And if this happens in front of males of the tribe, they'll re…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/18 09:41 PM
1

So, physically deposed.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/18 09:28 PM
1

Deposed how?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/18 08:54 PM
1

Yeah dude, if you're going to argue against me, you have to argue against me, not some straw man leftist. I'm a social anarchist. How the hell would I not decry people trying to climb imaginary social hierarchies in any given situation? Anyone who deceives someone into helping them under the pretense of romance is being unethical. I mean, if your interest in a woman is in how useful she is to your social agenda, then I genuinely pity her. That's not love, and how can you blame women for being pu…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/18 08:09 PM
1

Hierarchies in animals are usually physical in nature, not social. An animal becomes a leader of a pack because they are stronger than the rest; the sex then follows. This is highly reflective of the idea that sex in the animal kingdom is either impersonal (as with crustaceans) or rape (as with mammals). Once you get past the idea that the male will rape, but rather engage in mutually consensual sex, all of a sudden the idea of physical hierarchies becomes pretty silly when applied to humans.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/18 08:03 PM
1

Incels are arguing for mandatory sex programs and forced government pairing, but you think BP is the statism of dating?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/18 07:59 PM
2

I was taught everything I needed to know, over and over. The problem is that it was mixed in with so much fuckery I didn't know to take it seriously. And even if it wasn't, I was an impetuous kid. I wasn't going to listen to the good advice when there was so much bad advice right there which looked so much cooler.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/18 12:44 PM
2

More attractive than most of the women being posted IMO.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/18 12:42 PM
2

I think the very idea of having a "perfect 10/10 body" without taking into account the mind which will be piloting that body is pretty silly. My girlfriend has the perfect 10/10 body because that body does the right things. How it looks is secondary to how it performs. It takes a small amount of relationship experience with "attractive" women to realize that their "attractiveness" has no relevance to how happy you'll be with them.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/18 12:40 PM
3

Single me internal monologue: "Hey, this is what I've been waiting for since I can remember! Hi there! You want to pick this flower?" Taken me internal monologue: "Oh jeez I hope this woman isn't serious, I do so hate having to shoot people down when I want to support their courage."
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/18 12:27 PM
2

God damn I'm so much better at using quotation marks than you. Must make me some kind of alpha. You're obviously a lesser human than me on the totem pole, because quotation marks. That makes sense, right, to draw an objective observation of the quality or rightful social standing of a human by stacking up a few subjectively-judged qualities, in lieu of a more complete knowledge of who they are? It's just more masturbatory nonsense. Many people need to inflate their egos because their self-valuat…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/18 12:23 PM
1

And this happens with a sense of uniformity strong enough to extrapolate general trends? If the division you speak of is unique to each individual, or even highly varied across the entire group, then any extrapolation of general trends would be reflective only of personal bias, not reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/18 05:28 AM
1

So do jackalopes exist because I'm talking about them too? If I create a rigorous system for ordination of humans according to how well they write according to me, does that have some kind of real world bearing? Again, creating social hierarchies doesn't somehow justify them as existing facets of reality, any more than me talking about the Chupacabra makes it real. Thinking that men who have more sexual partners are somehow more successful in some general or universal sense is entirely unfounded…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/18 04:39 AM
2

It's not worth beating yourself up over it because you aren't having sex, though. That's the one part I find pretty universal.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/18 12:19 AM
3

You're right, but that's not unique to sex. I have the same problem trying to convince people to drive safely. They go "Yeah yeah, sure thing", and continue to drive like lunatics. I literally went permanently blind in my left eye from a car wreck that could have easily been avoided if either of us had just been a little more patient. But for the vast majority of people, no matter how much I speak having been to this point of experience will convince them. They'll have to learn the hard way. And…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 11:56 PM
1

Well with regards to love, the chemical effect is generated, not a matter of normalcy. When the woman I love walks through the door, I get a rush of Oxytocin which is not normally present. When an attractive woman walks through the door, your testosterone levels don't change, you're just reacting to the testosterone levels already present. One is your body using chemistry to try to make you want something, another is your body reacting to pleasant external stimulation. This difference is crucial…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 11:43 PM
5

If you don't get sex, you don't die. Plenty of people lead quite fulfilling lives without sex. The idea of someone putting themselves through stress because they aren't getting sex from people who likely aren't permanent relationship prospects is kind of self-defeating. So what if some person who is pretty much a blip in your life doesn't have sex with you? I see a whole lot of people worried about missing out on sex with people whose names they don't even know.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 11:31 PM
3

No, my own personal purpose in life is love. Is your own personal purpose in life to fuck? Because to me that would be a pretty shallow existence. Fucking is nice and all, but I couldn't imagine dedicating my whole life to getting poon. I guess I just feel that's a narrow horizon.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 10:59 PM
3

If you're expecting me to quote a movie, that's the problem. For me it's love, and making the one I love happy. Have you figured this out for yourself, or do you just accept what you've been made to know about what's important to you?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 09:00 PM
0

It just seems like more made-up social stratification, why should I pay it any attention at all? What's the purpose in trying to create more hierarchies by which to laud some and denigrate others, especially ones so abstract as this?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 08:59 PM
0

Nobody can beat me at Soul Calibur, it's something I came to accept after years of searching. So what you're saying is that I can just make up bullshit reasons to self-elevate over other people? Like, "I'm more meticulous than other people" or "I have more money than other people", and that's supposed to somehow correlate to an overall assessment of that person's worth, value, or position? Just seems like more pointless ego inflation, crabs in a bucket trying to make sure someone is beneath them…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 08:48 PM
3

The hormones that cause the feeling of hunger don't damage you: actual malnutrition does. One can make an argument for the physical pain caused by hunger, but there is no physical pain associated with lack of sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 08:45 PM
1

So am I an alpha male because you can't beat me in Soul Calibur?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 08:33 PM
6

Can you believe that sex just isn't important? That maybe, what you're feeling is a result of an abundance of a specific neurochemical in your brain?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 07:47 PM
10

I had harem stuff in my lifetime. Like multiple women willing to have sex with me at the same time. And yes, I'm talking traditionally attractive women. As part of my past in having a hyper-sexualized lifestyle, I pretty much delved as deeply as I could into what I would call predatory and toxic masculinity. I'm genuinely just saying all this to give proper context and weight to my next statement. I've never been happier in my life than I am right now with my girlfriend. If you'd have told me te…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 07:23 PM
1

What a person wants is framed by their experience. If you ask a child if they want three $1 bills or a $5 bill they'll usually take the three $1 bills. Until they learn better. I think most men would find that what they want is a stable relationship with one person who knows who they are and how to truly make them happy.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 07:10 PM
2

How?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 07:08 PM
-1

It's really hard to even begin to address a post so utterly drenched in, well, all this fuckery. Like, have you considered that there just are no alpha and beta men, and that this entire thing is another social hierarchy created by people who rely on dominating said social hierarchies as psychological support for an otherwise empty existence?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 06:54 PM
1

A higher quality woman? What, do you buy Grade A?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 06:51 PM
1

As far as I can tell MGTOW doesn't inherently reject this ideology.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 06:09 PM
2

Because if Cinderellas are a thing then all they have to do is make money and be economically successful, then be guaranteed to receive what they think they want (woman). It's half delusion and half desire. Like Incels with celibacy, they'll claim that hypergamy is not what they want, but few people want anything more than ideological corroboration.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 10:00 AM
1

It's almost like the act of using otherwise-unrelated things and concepts in order to climb the social ladder is an inherent facet of class stratification, and that as long as society is stratified so, we will see people subverting every institution and idea to traverse the hierarchy, of which marriage is merely one of the more emotionally provocative.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 09:22 AM
11

I'd prefer to be what I am, which is someone who rejects all that bullshit.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 09:14 AM
1

I should write a book titled "You Really Shouldn't Say That Out Loud: A Guide to Public Relations for Republicans".
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 09:13 AM
1

34 year-old man, blue pill. No amount of financial destitution could make me leave the woman I love. Currently she makes over twice what I do per hour, and works more hours. If I had to start working 50 hour weeks to support us, so be it. We'd probably lose the house she just bought but that's fine. There's no amount of time which answers your question. In my opinion if there is, what you have isn't love, but a relationship of convenience.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/18 09:06 AM
1

No, the corresponding right wouldn't be to deny the father parenthood, as the father wouldn't have the right to deny the mother parenthood either. I don't know where you got that from. The corresponding right would be if a woman wanted to remand the custody of a child she bears to the father, without any chance of the father seeking child support in the future. This is I'm sure something proponents of financial nonobligation would support.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/18 09:05 AM
1

both parents already have access to legal paternal surrender. This only works if all present parents agree. If either parent plans to raise the child alone they can at any moment sue for child support and back child support. What people want is an option to avoid this, so that a prospective parent who chooses to be a single parent cannot indebt the other prospective parent to their decision.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/18 09:02 AM
1

It's not that men have no responsibility to children created from sex in which they participate. It's that people have no responsibility to children created from sex in which they participate. A person is not owed nor due parentage. What one receives from their parents is done out of gratitude and love, not debt. They may take on a responsibility to you out of their love, but they have no duty to do so.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/18 08:52 AM
2

And if you didn't have some kind of personal anecdote stating otherwise you'd be okay with generalizing an entire population of billions of people? Your personal experience is not some glimpse into the overarching truths of the world.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/18 05:19 PM
4

Right, so racism, a dash of misogyny, and a staggering susceptibility to compositional fallacies. It was a bit more complicated than I thought, but only a bit.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/18 02:53 PM
5

Aesthetically pleasing is not a do-or-die criterion for everyone, is what I'm saying. For some people, it's a necessary trait; a person must be exceedingly attractive to warrant being given a chance, romantically. But for others it's not so important a thing, and a person's actions, personality, affability, etc., are more important. Thus it would take quite some time to determine if a person really was compatible.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/18 02:51 PM
9

Got any reason to believe that, other than plain old-fashioned racism?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/18 10:57 AM
5

I think the fact that these three things are what was chosen as relevant criteria to men is pretty indicative of the backwardness with which many men view masculinity in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/18 10:55 AM
2

Yeah. But that's only because I know how much I love the woman I'm with. If she lost respect for me I'd still probably love her. Honestly I don't think there's much she could do to make me not love her. If anything she'd have to change who she is so fundamentally that I'd consider her a different person, and still love who she was. Lately I don't feel very respected. But I think that's more me than her.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/18 10:54 AM
4

...are you really implying that darker-skinned women have higher sex drives?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/18 10:51 AM
4

A portion of all people decide whether or not a person is a viable romantic prospect based on physical appearance alone, gender is not relevant to this. Another portion of all people do not hinge this decision on physical appearance. Again, gender is not relevant to this. The idea that every woman is a certain way and that a woman acting in any specific way is universally significant of something is just incorrect. Maybe that girl looked away because she didn't want to seem like she was staring …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/18 10:50 AM
1

Ending the Drug War looks like insanity?
/r/MensRights03/12/17 11:28 PM
0

Feminist are winning the culture war because the MRM is allowing itself to be co-opted by the traditionalist wing. Traditionalist wings don't often win culture wars. We should have been more progressive than progressive, instead we became another mask for conservatism to project under.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 09:56 AM
1

And if a feminist comes to you and says... I have also interacted with enough MRAs over the years and read enough of their stuff for me to become somewhat familiar with the various disingenuous linguistic games that they like to play, the smokescreens they like to hide behind, the greasy bafflegab they like to conjure up and so forth. Again, that's not an assumption formed in a vacuum, it's what I go through. You would just take that as a stunning indictment of MRAs, over your own personal exper…
/r/MensRights01/12/17 12:24 PM
1

So you're assuming your side is all good faith and theirs is zero good faith?
/r/MensRights01/12/17 11:21 AM
0

Yeah, because they're referring to two separate things.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 11:16 AM
0

Because "traditional Gender Roles" and "patriarchy" refer to two separate things?
/r/MensRights30/11/17 08:42 PM
-1

So feminists advocate feminism in order to obscure it?
/r/MensRights30/11/17 01:39 PM
1

Feminists do not believe that there is such a thing as a fixed meaning to a word Well, that is the truth, there are no fixed meanings to words. Lexicography adheres to usage, not the other way around. As I said, for the purposes of an argument you're bound to the ideas implied by the speaker of the argument, whether or not you agree with the terms in which they are presented. If, for instance, I tell you that by "wakableegarph" I mean "human", then say "wakableegarphs are mammals", you won't be …
/r/MensRights30/11/17 12:32 PM
-1

Accept that it's the truth? Patriarchy is a power structure and most folks in any given structure are not in power. Just because patriarchy has caused problems doesn't mean all men are to blame for this. It seems like whenever feminists actually say something folks here might agree with you all go out of your way to try to make sure you mischaracterize the point, to the point where the top voted reply on this thread is literally arguing that you should just apply a completely different definitio…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 09:17 AM
4

When arguing with someone, it's never intellectually honest to tell them that the words they're using mean something else than what they're implying. It in no way attacks the point which they're implying. Engaging in semantic deflection is pure sophistry and we shouldn't advocate that.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 09:13 AM
6

Do you think this woman should face justice for levying false accusations at Roy Moore?
/r/MensRights28/11/17 11:46 AM
0

Yeah dude, this is some straight ahistorical bullshit. I don't think you know the slightest thing about what you're talking about. Go be in a marriage where your spouse can rape you without legal penalty, and in which you have no option to get out. Then tell me about how women were so privileged for the past few hundred years. That men have obsessed over women and tried to make them spots of comfort in their servitude and second-class treatment doesn't somehow mean you would want that spot. If y…
/r/MensRights25/11/17 05:41 AM
0

So centuries of patriarchal social control had nothing to do with this? I'm all for taking blame where blame is due, but something tells me OP isn't going to settle for shared blame, I think they're looking for one-sided blame.
/r/MensRights24/11/17 07:41 PM
0

I'll answer your question with a question. What is it you're looking for them to take blame for?
/r/MensRights24/11/17 11:56 AM
0

No, but their hypocrisy on that matter doesn't have any truth-value regarding this matter.
/r/MensRights26/10/17 08:02 AM
-2

Replace Italians with Germans and see the problem.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 10:05 PM
-6

Jesus fucking Christ guys, you're really upvoting what's essentially ethno-nationalist propaganda?
/r/MensRights17/10/17 05:20 PM
1

I don't see what the problem in the article is, it's pretty sound advice for anyone. Don't trust someone's labels, trust their actions.
/r/MensRights14/10/17 08:57 AM
1

Line-by-line editing =/= Comment Line-by-line editing = Direct input
/r/MensRights10/10/17 03:17 PM
1

It's almost like none of that undermines the fact that he's willing to work with them, and seeks to be a vehicle for their ideas. Don't pretend he was going to them like a reporter giving the subjects a chance to make a statement. He literally sent the article to known white nationalists for line-by-line editing advice. You say you read the article, but here: Over the next three days, Yiannopoulos passed the article back to Yarvin and the white nationalist Saucier, the latter of whom gave line-b…
/r/MensRights10/10/17 02:06 PM
1

You telling me you read that whole article and wrote that response in 6-7 minutes?
/r/MensRights10/10/17 01:48 PM
1

Here's a starting point for you. But you won't read it, for some reason or another.
/r/MensRights10/10/17 01:32 PM
0

If doesn't matter, he still literally solicited a mod from Stormfront to help him write his material. That's a fact. No amount of him being gay or Jewish can make that not a fact.
/r/MensRights10/10/17 01:22 PM
3

It would really, really be nice if folks involved in these gender issues debates would actually research the other side and characterize them honestly before criticizing them. Instead what we have is two groups of people shouting at straw men and wondering why nothing's getting through.
/r/MensRights10/10/17 10:54 AM
3

Teenager makes claims of lifelong adherence to current political ideology, news at ten.
/r/MensRights10/10/17 10:50 AM
-5

No, the guy literally hit up the people behind Stormfront to spitball them for ideas on his writeup of what the alt-right is. He's actually pushing Nazi talking points, given to him straight from Nazis. But god knows the anti-SJW crowd won't believe it's a Nazi unless they're actively burning Jews alive.
/r/MensRights10/10/17 10:47 AM
0

Yeah surely all those passwords referencing Nazi events and dates of importance to antisemites is just a big joke that he carries to an extremely personal level.
/r/MensRights10/10/17 10:46 AM
2

Uh, yes, the boy scouts do. You might not, but you aren't the entirety of the Boy Scouts. Perhaps instead of denying the problem to someone who literally experienced it, you can say, "Man that's fucked up, maybe we should do something about that"?
/r/MensRights02/10/17 10:14 PM
2

You know what might be killing the Boy Scouts? Excessively restrictive membership. I got kicked out as a kid for confiding in another kid that I didn't believe in God. Apparently being gay is a big deal and they just got over that. And what's your solution for boys who would rather do the things done in the Girl Scouts? Seems like you're being really offended at something really inauspicious.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 08:32 AM
1

I would not take this advice if I were you.
/r/MensRights23/09/17 09:01 AM
2

Not everyone is working out to change the appearance of a part of their body.
/r/MensRights12/09/17 04:42 PM
6

Not everyone is there to build, some of us are just there for toning.
/r/MensRights12/09/17 12:27 PM
1

I fail to see how the empathy is relevant.
/r/MensRights11/08/17 03:25 AM
4

Well yeah. The only other option is that the father of a child be ethically allowed to coerce a woman to carry a child to term. I mean, that's pretty much a hard fork in the road, there's no getting around that.
/r/MensRights10/08/17 08:51 AM
1

If you guys are going to pin stuff, then you can really pin stuff. You could for instance make a megathread about some of the issues that get half the submissions on the front page (recently the Google Memo Firing is a good example). Personally I think that's a huge can of worms which I haven't faulted you guys for not wanting to open so far. But my point is, by not pinning any threads, you give yourself a good alibi in case any calls for megathreading or other heavy moderation like we see in ot…
/r/MensRights09/08/17 10:30 PM
2

You guys shouldn't pin your own discussion threads, it destroys any alibi of "hands-off-ness" that you guys may have when rebuking calls for megathreads and other such mod controls. Just my two cents.
/r/MensRights08/08/17 10:40 AM
3

Yeah, it would really make me happy to be able to go get the mail, or maybe ever go to the store, wearing my pink butterfly pajama pants, without fear of being beaten. Unfortunately for me, conservatives exist.
/r/MensRights05/08/17 10:06 AM
5

There are actually pro-circumcision protesters? TIL
/r/MensRights05/08/17 10:02 AM
5

The reasons she cited for rejecting my essay is that it relied to highly on unreliable sources and that apparently internet resources outside the mainstream media were not allowed to be used, despite this several of my classmates who used feminist blogs had their essay accepted. You're going to have to post the essay for us to know one way or another whether or not this criticism has merit.
/r/MensRights25/07/17 06:06 AM
1

I wasn't aware that ISIS were the ones setting up camps for gay men in Chechnya.
/r/MensRights18/07/17 06:29 AM
1

Lent support and "is the governmental body actually doing the killings" are two separate ballparks dude. The Vatican lent support to Nazi Germany, but they weren't Nazi Germany.
/r/MensRights18/07/17 05:45 AM
3

The left is literally the only group giving a shit about this. Even MRAs aren't universally on board with the idea of treating gay men's rights as part of the MRM platform.
/r/MensRights18/07/17 04:07 AM
1

Because Boko Haram isn't an official government body acting within the jurisdiction of one of our geopolitical peers.
/r/MensRights18/07/17 04:05 AM
1

The projection is strong with this one.
/r/MensRights11/07/17 08:03 PM
7

No, it takes me a long time to get off and I sometimes wonder if that's to do with being circumcised.
/r/MensRights10/07/17 03:58 AM
2

And are you insinuating that people like myself, who were subjugated to all kinds of harassment, legal barriers and violence against them throughout the first half of the 20th century do not receive prejudice? No, I'm saying the prejudice you receive might be different from the prejudice received by someone who has a physical tell. Irish folks were subject to some heavy discrimination, and someone might still hold some bias against someone if they were found to be Irish. But the person wouldn't …
/r/MensRights20/06/17 07:22 AM
6

Sorry I just don't agree. Everything you described is tradition, not manhood. I don't need machismo to have balls or be a man.
/r/MensRights20/06/17 07:03 AM
3

It doesn't define who I am It influences how you're treated, and thus who you have become. My little brother, for instance, was very negatively impacted by being called "nigger" and "halfbreed" growing up. It's not the end-all of development but to say it's irrelevant is also incorrect. Race is more complicated than skin tone, but sometimes the boundaries of racial treatment are not. This is why there's a difference between a black person and a PoC, and why PoC is a useful term; folks who do not…
/r/MensRights20/06/17 06:56 AM
1

I would say it's incorrect, but not unethical, to assert that such an action would be unethical. I could see a good argument being made that refusing to discuss LPS is the incorrect approach. I personally wish they would allow the debate there. But it's not that big a deal that they don't, it's not like we can't just hop over to this sub and have the same discussions.
/r/MensRights18/06/17 10:06 AM
1

Absolutely, as long as the mods here are okay with it. None of any of this would be wrong. You might not like the mods there disallowing discussions, and those mods might not like you over here having these discussions, but it's not wrong of any of you to have those, because it's not wrong for moderators to allow or disallow any kind of ethically neutral content on their forum.
/r/MensRights18/06/17 09:34 AM
1

so, tell me, you think it is okay to not let users debate of LPS or ways to implement it ,when the subreddit is for men's issues and their liberation? Yeah. People can do what they want with their subs and dedicate them to what they want. If they want to dedicate the sub to cold things then have nothing but pictures of the sun then that's their prerogative. You aren't being forced to take them seriously as a forum for men's issues, if them not discussing LPS is enough to cause you to make that d…
/r/MensRights18/06/17 09:28 AM
1

While I agree with you, I also think a moderator has the final say in what is and isn't appropriate for the forum. If any of the mods do want to debate the validity of the concept it's not like they don't have places to go.
/r/MensRights18/06/17 09:22 AM
1

I don't agree with that particular rule, but it's not like you didn't know it before you posted. If you want to make the argument that anyone should be able to post whatever they want on any forum at any time, then that's a different argument from the LPS argument. If you're not making that claim then I'd think you agree it's acceptable for mods to curate their forums how they see fit.
/r/MensRights18/06/17 09:08 AM
0

I have no idea. In the same breath they'll claim unironically to not be misogynistic.
/r/MensRights15/06/17 08:19 AM
1

Great minds think alike.
/r/MensRights15/06/17 08:15 AM
-1

"Don't take risks, fun sucks."
/r/MensRights15/06/17 08:14 AM
3

I'm in a committed relationship with a feminist. But then I'm one of those magical feminist MRAs. I've effectively turned her into a lefty MRA. A lot more feminists are open to men's issues than people think, it's just the antifeminism which puts them off.
/r/MensRights15/06/17 08:13 AM
13

"Okay listen to this. What if people who commit violent acts...now hear me out, what if people who commit violent acts, are more likely to commit violent acts in the future, than people who haven't committed violent acts at all." "Mother of God, you might just be on to something."
/r/MensRights15/06/17 08:11 AM
1

Right, because nice education should be reserved for people who plan to use that for financial turnover. Education is just a means to more economic power, after all. There's no way someone would actually value education itself, get a nice education, and then devote their lives to giving and improving education.
/r/MensRights11/06/17 08:38 AM
15

Nobody cares about manspreading.
/r/MensRights11/06/17 08:28 AM
1

When I think about it I think shit like "get that man away from the playground before he rapes someone." "if the men were uneducated, they'd simply hump everything in sight without regard to consequences" I dunno what else to say...
/r/MensRights05/06/17 12:35 PM
1

By biotruths I mean hogwash like "Women are biologically predisposed to housework" or "Men can't stop themselves from thinking about and/or seeking sex". What about men? What about men? The rights of men play no part in this. If you want to argue that a person should not be fiscally liable for a child without their express agreement, I totally agree with that. But that has absolutely nothing to do with a woman's right to abortion. I agree that men are unfairly oppressed by child support laws, bu…
/r/MensRights05/06/17 12:23 PM
1

When there isn't a powerful political party trying to drag us back to a system wherein women's bodily autonomy is regularly disregarded, then that won't be true. As it stands antifeminists either accept that the death of feminism would cause a recurrence of the oppression of women but that their issues are just more important, or must assert that they genuinely believe that women will not be oppressed nor have their rights abridged if there is no body politic trying to maintain them. I've found …
/r/MensRights05/06/17 11:08 AM
1

Misogyny is negative prejudice against women. This guy is literally saying "Women have this thought defect", and lists the characteristics of a shitty person. This is decidedly negative prejudice against women, and therefore misogyny. If a feminist were asserting that all men think a certain way, and that way is decidedly negative, would it not be misandrist?
/r/MensRights05/06/17 11:03 AM
1

Seems like being a cretin runs in the family.
/r/MensRights05/06/17 11:00 AM
1

You have issues. I think perhaps some paranoid. Were you victimized by women?
/r/MensRights05/06/17 09:56 AM
1

Right, the conservatives pushing antifeminist legislation don't count as being an effect of the MRM but liberal politicians promoting profeminist legislation are totally just extensions of the feminist apparatus. That's rational. The false equivalence fallacy is not meant to be a smokescreen for outright hypocrisy.
/r/MensRights05/06/17 02:04 AM
1

Plentiful dicks syndrome. I'm going to guess you just made that shit up.
/r/MensRights04/06/17 10:47 PM
0

Right and I suppose you would tell me that the MRM is entirely about men's rights and that no MRAs are misled to believe that traditionalism and misogyny are incarnations of Men's Rights. For a movement with as many fuck-ups as the MRM, you guys sure don't seem to give feminism any leeway for its fuck-ups.
/r/MensRights04/06/17 10:46 PM
0

Patriarchy...is a byproduct of hypergamy... I'll be over here laughing at you.
/r/MensRights04/06/17 12:11 PM
1

Not what it claims to stand for, but what it actually stands for. You don't get to decide what other people think feminism stands for, and if you say "I'm against everything feminism stands for", regardless of your intentions, you give power to movements which oppose the core tenet of "Men and women should for the most part be treated equally by society". Just like I, when I say I'm feminist, give power to the shitty parts of feminism. Understanding your own ideology is great and dandy, but ther…
/r/MensRights03/06/17 09:54 PM
1

Reply to deleted comment: I don't disagree, but it's not feminism making them into misandrists, if anything it's a selective application of feminist ideology which causes the misandry to appear in stark relief. Conservative folks are no less misandrist, it's just accompanied by a level of misogyny which makes it seem less hypocritical. But none of that changes the fact that as soon as feminists lose power or influence that conservatives are waiting right there to implement misogynistic laws and …
/r/MensRights03/06/17 09:49 PM
1

I think you mean "Third Wave", and considering they're trying to pass a law in Arkansas that would force women to give birth to children if the biological father doesn't approve of an abortion, I think you're wrong.
/r/MensRights03/06/17 09:40 PM
1

I've conversed with Straughan many times, I find her verbose but unconvincing. To me she seems not to understand the idea of social power structures at all, and seems to assess the world from a "Comfort = Goodness" perspective. Now, you may live in a place where feminism is no longer necessary, but I still have to actively combat misogyny in my community and legislation. In Arkansas for instance they tried to pass a bill which would prohibit women from seeking abortions without the consent of th…
/r/MensRights03/06/17 09:27 PM
-1

Because hypergamy needs a coverup, explanation, or anything of the sort? You sound like an incel whining about other folks getting laid too much. What business is it of yours who fucks who unless it's you?
/r/MensRights03/06/17 09:17 PM
1

Watch this. I'm going to take one of the other users who replied to this comment, and I'm going to go through post history. I chose this user so you'd know I wasn't cherry-picking; I'm literally grabbing one of the other replying users. Won't take but two pages in, I can almost guarantee. Found it. Women often get ideas in their heads that they just "feel" you are also party to. My fiancee does this shit all the time. She just sort of "decides" that I know what's going through her head and can u…
/r/MensRights03/06/17 09:13 PM
1

That's funny because as a leftist who supports men's rights I pretty much exist in contradiction to this statement. Maybe oversimplified political understandings and soundbites are not the best basis for a political platform?
/r/MensRights03/06/17 09:06 PM
0

Also, I'd like to know where the overlap you speak of is. I don't see it but hey, I'm not a feminist and I think all feminists should spend a few years in a North Korean concentration camp. My face when
/r/MensRights03/06/17 09:04 PM
0

Something about "Before feminism misogyny was a way of life", and "People didn't begin to decry misogyny until feminism". Believe me, if we had managed to pull away from misogynistic social norms without feminism, then you'd have a fair point. But that didn't happen.
/r/MensRights03/06/17 09:02 PM
-4

I love how you all genuinely believe that patriarchy theory is asserting that "only men are evil and inherently flawed, and women inherently good and perfect". All patriarchy is, is a hierarchy, on the basis of gender, with men on top. That's it. A social hierarchy where men get to make more decisions. That's all patriarchy is. That's it. It says nothing about anyone being evil or good. Just that there's a social hierarchy, and that men are at the top. I do not understand how one can possibly go…
/r/MensRights03/06/17 09:59 AM
7

Hey, another feminist MRA! I thought I was the only one. I feel less like an island now.
/r/MensRights03/06/17 09:54 AM
-1

I think we can all agree that for a large portion of women his actions will determine more of his attractiveness than his body?
/r/MensRights03/06/17 09:54 AM
1

Yeah, something tells me a system of mechanical law is precisely what we do not need. We want judges able to make decisions that reflect the reality of the facts presented, not bound to some system of requirements that exist without consideration of the nuances. Just look at all the kids getting put on sex offender lists because they texted their SO's naked pictures of themselves, look at the damage being done by mandatory minimum sentences, and consider if you really want machines instead of pe…
/r/MensRights03/06/17 09:51 AM
-4

Well, this movement does have heavy overlap with antifeminism, much to my dismay. I'd like it if this meme was true, but in general MRAs have shown no less predisposition to be misogynistic than feminists have to be misandrist.
/r/MensRights03/06/17 09:47 AM
0

I fail to see what this has to do with Men's Rights. This is becoming a pro-Republican pro-Trump sub.
/r/MensRights03/06/17 09:44 AM
1

Social power involves being given decisions which affect human beings, be it oneself or others. Men are given disproportionately more choices regarding their lives and the lives of others than women are. All power comes with expectations and responsibilities accordingly, so men may feel the burden of extra expectations and responsibilities, but for the most part these burdens are voluntary. The notable exceptions, e.g. male-only drafting and increased sentencing, while pertinent, are not enough …
/r/MensRights01/06/17 12:48 PM
2

The problem is that I haven't yet dealt with an MRA on this sub who actually comes at patriarchy theory honestly. It's always some ridiculous caricature of the idea that is of course indefensible. And it's weird, because MRAs IRL don't have this problem. It just seems like the users of this sub have collectively circlejerked themselves into a misrepresentation of patriarchy theory so ridiculous that it's easily dismissed. From what I gather, MRAs here think the patriarchy is some vast conspiracy…
/r/MensRights01/06/17 10:58 AM
1

...the criterion that men have disproportionately more social power than women.
/r/MensRights01/06/17 10:52 AM
1

Patriarchy is not the system itself, a system can be patriarchal. Just about any system wherein people exert power over each other has the possibility to manifest any sort of interpersonal hierarchy.
/r/MensRights01/06/17 09:06 AM
0

It's beyond me how anyone thinks Republicanism is about governing, but when someone says they're Republican I don't just assume that their goal is anti-government.
/r/MensRights01/06/17 08:51 AM
1

Is a system in which men have disproportionate social power. No unseen forces there.
/r/MensRights01/06/17 08:24 AM
2

Yeah, but if someone says they are Christian, that doesn't mean they necessarily believe that homosexuality is an abomination. If you met someone who, when they heard someone identify as Christian, assumed they were against homosexuality, it'd be pretty clear that the person was bringing their own baggage to the table, and not using an agreeable definition of "christian". In the same, invariably when I bring up patriarchy the definition pushed by MRAs on this subreddit tends to be more a reflect…
/r/MensRights01/06/17 08:14 AM
1

Neither are we?
/r/MensRights01/06/17 08:02 AM
2

Usually, and I'm not saying always, but usually, when someone says "X exists", we actually ask someone what they mean by X before we assume they mean our popular rendition of X. Patriarchy as I define it, a system of disproportionate social control by men over women, still exists to this day. Rape culture as I define it, a system which exhorts sexually predatory behavior, and which characterizes male sex as something taken and female sex as something relinquished, is still in place.
/r/MensRights31/05/17 11:31 PM
1

"Once you accept that I'm right and you're wrong on basic shit, the rest of my ideology will start to make sense." Sure, and once you understand the existence of God I'm sure Christianity isn't a tough sell, but first you have to indicate to me how a legal system where women were not allowed basic human rights, and were treated as legally akin to property of fathers or husbands, is not a system of patriarchal control. I've conversed with Straughan before, she's not convincing despite that she wr…
/r/MensRights31/05/17 11:22 PM
1

Rape is also human nature. Not that I think patriarchy is human nature, but something being human nature doesn't exactly offer a stunning defense of why we should continue doing it.
/r/MensRights31/05/17 11:18 PM
2

You won't talk about male suicide, the gender education gap, domestic violence towards men by women or women on men rape will you? Yeah, actually. This is why I don't like to engage with you, you already think you know my platform before it's said. If you want to sit in a corner arguing with your own misconceptions about what I think, I can go play video games while you do that.
/r/MensRights31/05/17 11:17 PM
2

PROTIP: If when you come to someone's argument, you start with "In other words", you might just be making a straw man.
/r/MensRights31/05/17 09:27 PM
-5

The idea is that many of men's issues are a result of patriarchy. That doesn't make them not men's issues, but it does make them feminist issues. That patriarchy is a system of male social control doesn't mean it doesn't harm men, or that it is the only such system of social control to which people are subject. I do not think there are any gender issues caused exclusively by one gender or another, and that includes patriarchy, which is a construction of both genders.
/r/MensRights31/05/17 07:25 AM
1

Liberal feminist here. We don't. We just don't approach men's issues with a conservative attitude toward social progress and justice.
/r/MensRights31/05/17 06:44 AM
1

I also think that's less of a "movement" than it is "a small handful of crazy assholes". I mean, the amount of feminists who support ending the incarceration of women is comparable to the amount of MRAs who support forcing women to attain a father's consent before having an abortion. In both cases, it's such a small minority that when someone tries to discredit the whole group or ideology by mentioning them, that it doesn't hold water.
/r/MensRights28/05/17 05:12 AM
1

Not at all what I said.
/r/MensRights27/05/17 01:39 PM
1

Feminist, reporting in. All this seems pretty "No duh" to me, and I've never met a feminist off the internet who didn't obviously feel the same way.
/r/MensRights27/05/17 08:46 AM
1

The problem is that we never really chose a two-party system, it's a natural outcome of a FPTP system. Until we change that we're doomed to two parties.
/r/MensRights17/05/17 07:59 AM
2

This isn't triage though, and abandoning one effort won't necessarily hasten another.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 02:53 AM
0

They've made several posts about that. I'm beginning to think you're just making this shit up.
/r/MensRights28/04/17 02:20 PM
0

On what post?
/r/MensRights28/04/17 02:24 AM
0

Yes... talk about your rape, but while doing so, be respectful not to be offensive to your rapists gender, because that's unacceptable. To anyone, not just one gender. To anyone. That you're discussing your rape is not carte blanche to be a dick to people. And yet.. I've never seen them say anything similar about women discussing their rapes. Is that something you see very often on menslib, women discussing their rapes and being offensive while doing so?
/r/MensRights27/04/17 04:13 PM
0

Dude I'm talking about their official policies. You aren't allowed to be purposely offensive to anyone. Women happen to be included in anyone.
/r/MensRights27/04/17 02:37 PM
2

This has jack to do with MR.
/r/MensRights27/04/17 08:25 AM
10

I actually think that a person could argue sexual assault if they had conclusive evidence that the person did indeed do that, but the problem is that few people save every condom they use for possible forensic analysis, and due to the 5th Amendment the only real source of evidence cannot be made to testify against themselves. Basically your only recourse is to try to catch them by stealthily recording some kind of private confession, which is unlikely. Honestly I'd like to see the avenue pursued…
/r/MensRights27/04/17 08:20 AM
1

From what I've heard, the "default no" is not assumed by all proponents of LPS. Furthermore this offers no protections for a woman who may wish to remand sole custody to the father; in such a case a woman would still be subject to future CS payments if the father were to press for them later. Remember, even with Safe Haven laws a mother cannot unilaterally discharge parental responsibility, if a father is present he too must legally sign over his custody or he can later seek CS restitution. What…
/r/MensRights27/04/17 01:52 AM
0

Where did they specifically state that?
/r/MensRights27/04/17 01:27 AM
0

I'm against LPS laws, because I'm a feminist. LPS is a stupid idea. And before you dismiss me, it's because it doesn't go far enough. It's an approach which fails because the people who are pushing it want less to secure the rights of men and more to balance women's right to abortion, which is a silly notion that cannot happen. All people have a right to opt-in parenthood. This means that when a child is born, no default parents should be assumed, as such an assumption robs an individual of thei…
/r/MensRights27/04/17 01:23 AM
3

Were you not around for Gamergate? Yes.
/r/MensRights27/04/17 01:11 AM
1

If your a reasonable feminist that treats MRAs with respect you will not get critized by the vast majority of the MRM. I treat people like they treat me, and I find myself treating a lot of MRAs like shit. Granted, the same goes for feminists, but I've found no significant disparity between the two. I feel like feminists would say the same thing and are similarly biased as to the number of folks who will leave a "reasonable other" without criticism and likely insult.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 03:36 PM
0

More like you're a lazy twit, I'm lazy too, and getting you angry enough to comment-stalk me is more fun than digging through old conversations.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 03:24 PM
0

When MensLib will only allow men to discuss their rape by women in a way that doesn't offend women... people... FTFY
/r/MensRights26/04/17 03:23 PM
0

I love how you think you're smart but also expect all evidence to be handed to you on a silver platter, or you reject the argument. Do your own research, lazy ass, or don't claim an informed perspective.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 02:58 PM
0

I think you're generalizing "conflict" to match the role of "men's rights conflicting with feminism and women's rights". I don't actually know of any conflict between feminists and MRAs where the rights of the people involved are in conflict, except in issues wherein folks have some blatantly backwards ideology like forced abortions and support for the male-only draft. My assertion is that there is no incongreuence within the actual rights, only the perspective and misconceptions folks have abou…
/r/MensRights26/04/17 01:05 PM
-1

What's cool about logic is that even if I don't bother backing up my claim the truth value of the conclusion does not change.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 12:52 PM
2

Women's Privileges =/= Women's Rights
/r/MensRights26/04/17 12:49 PM
1

Do you care about gender issues at all?
/r/MensRights26/04/17 08:03 AM
1

Would you call yourself an MRA?
/r/MensRights26/04/17 07:55 AM
1

Are you a feminist?
/r/MensRights26/04/17 07:38 AM
1

What you said and what I said can both be true.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 07:24 AM
1

Consider that nearly every feminist I've met online who claims to have engaged with MRAs says pretty much the exact same thing, that feminists bring facts, reason, and sources, and MRAs shut it down with emotional appeals, fallacies, and sophistry. I'm not saying either of those positions are right or wrong, but I think it should be noted that propensity to see one's own ideological group as more intellectually honest is not an uncommon thing, in fact it's nigh-ubiquitous among ideological group…
/r/MensRights26/04/17 07:21 AM
-2

I mean, it's not like I keep a file of saved comments under "Intellectual dishonesty on /r/MensRights" or anything. It's just something you'll have to keep an eye out for.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 07:15 AM
1

Simply put, both sides may be guilty of being dismissive of the other, but the core of Feminism is far less interested in having a critical discussion about that dismissal than the MRA side is. I think this is where the line gets drawn between online and real life. If I try to bring up reconciliation among MRAs or feminists online, it gets shat on by that group. Look at the general response members of this sub have had to menslib for instance, it's not just a probationary "Let's see what they do…
/r/MensRights26/04/17 05:23 AM
1

Being the "show me the evidence" crowd doesn't necessarily mean one is more open to real debate, not in a situation where each side can't even agree on common semantic ground. Just because one is speaking words in response doesn't mean they're providing intellectually honest discussion aimed at uncovering real truth. The vast majority of reddit discussion is pure sophistry.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 05:12 AM
1

No, but the posters here have as false of an image of most feminists as most feminists have of them.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 05:03 AM
1

If you saw that thread through his userpage, it may have never been approved. We used to get this problem on my old sub all the time, folks would think their post was removed when what was happening was we had an approval-based submission system, where the automod removes all submitted posts until the mods can manually approve them. However the posts still show up on their userpage and can be accessed that way even if removed.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 04:59 AM
1

they only fight for men's rights to the extent that they never come into conflict with women's rights or feminism. In a strict sense they never have to come into conflict. The rights of all can be respected, we don't have to choose in any situation.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 04:57 AM
1

I identify as feminist myself, and I actually agree with this. But it's not unique to feminism. I also identify as an MRA, and I have to say MRAs, especially this subreddit, have the same problem. Anyone who argues, or holds a viewpoint out of lockstep, is attacked by the more extreme elements of the movement until the movement feels inhospitable to anyone but the extremists. The antifeminists and anti-MRAs are poisoning their respective gender equality movements, and as a result nothing is happ…
/r/MensRights26/04/17 04:53 AM
3

I didn't know that TRP had anything to do with Men's Rights...
/r/MensRights26/04/17 04:47 AM
2

This has nothing to do with men's rights. /r/Antifeminism is a subreddit.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 04:40 AM
1

The only way this logic flies is if all physical preferences are condemned as aspects of bigotry. That's honestly a pretty strong argument, but I doubt it's what many folks who support the gist of that article are pushing.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 04:37 AM
2

I'm as SJW as it comes and I look at it this way. I dated a girl once, not trans or anything, and she was cute, sweet, and nice, but her genitals were just unattractive to me. I might be able to have sex and even enjoy the sex with her, but I could never go down on her, I'd be too weirded out. It just did not look right to me. Some people find penises similarly unattractive. I don't, personally, but then I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there who would have munched my ex's rug all night wi…
/r/MensRights26/04/17 04:32 AM
10

My argument for why folks should put the seat down in bathrooms unless you know mostly men use that bathroom. Women use the bathroom with the toilet seat down. Men use the bathroom with the toilet seat in both positions. Assuming an equal use of the bathroom between genders, more folks will need to use the toilet with the seat down than up. Ergo, the most good is served by putting the toilet seat down.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 04:23 AM
0

No, I'm still here.
/r/MensRights15/04/17 07:25 AM
0

MR was one of the reasons I made an account but keep telling yourself what you gotta buddy.
/r/MensRights14/04/17 09:11 PM
0

"Don't listen to X, they <INSERT STRAW MAN HERE>."
/r/MensRights14/04/17 09:32 AM
2

Considering that the progenitors of the drug laws are on the record saying that the laws were created to target African Americans and leftists, I think that's a pretty strong argument.
/r/MensRights14/04/17 05:07 AM
3

The problem is you gave some, any credit, for anything. It's like when my friend hates on Heidegger because he was a Nazi. You could say "Heidegger sure was good at eating pies." and he'd make a point to contradict you, because you're in some way lauding someone they don't like. Some people, for all their appeal to reason, are ruled by emotion. In fact I've found that those who strive to be the most cold and rational are often the ones most violently drowning their reason in their own feelings.
/r/MensRights14/04/17 05:05 AM
1

Considering that abortion is only legal via SCOTUS decision, I would love to hear your reasoning for this...
/r/MensRights14/04/17 05:01 AM
-3

Yeah, it's supposed to be about men's issues, but really this sub is just for antifeminism and mischaracterizations of feminism. Oh, and to promote Republicans and conservatism during election season, apparently.
/r/MensRights14/04/17 04:56 AM
1

Exactly. I think a lot of it comes down to refusal to work in each others' interests. I always bring up Paternal Surrender, where by working with feminists and MRAs we were able to come to a methodology which even extremists of both sides have trouble opposing. The problem is, both sides initially proffered their solutions, MRAs with Paternal Surrender and Feminists with reducing social differences between custodial and noncustodial parents, and then they refused to move any further, as it would…
/r/MensRights24/03/17 04:54 AM
1

But what about the toxic MRAs? And if you don't think they exist, then can you blame feminists for not thinking toxic feminists exist? I think the very idea that either side should have to shed their toxic parts before their non-toxic parts start working together is a death trap for any joint effort. You'll never get Feminism or the MRM to pass any litmus test applied by the other side. We just have to work together despite that. You don't make peace with your friends.
/r/MensRights24/03/17 03:25 AM
0

The need for the MRM exists independently of Feminism, though. Feminism may have expedited the genesis of the MRM, but as long as anti-male policies are in place, some men's movement is inevitable.
/r/MensRights24/03/17 03:13 AM
1

Well that's a great piece of logic to dismiss important men's rights views isn't it!? Emma Watson is not an important Men's Issue, you're being very abstract here. If you bring up some concrete, you'll have more luck. Third time I've replied to you from checking my inbox, gonna limit it to one thread now.
/r/MensRights24/03/17 02:54 AM
1

(from the feminist poster claiming that the MRA 'slings too much shit and abuse') The feminist MRA poster who said pretty clearly that both sides do, equally. Equally. Remember what I said about nuance in the other post? "You're a fucking asshat... ...fuck you" Yep even I get angry when folks start being assholes. But I'm also an MRA in equal measure, so it's also an MRA slinging shit at another MRA. "It's impossible that you could be wrong, especially about people you've never fucking met." "It…
/r/MensRights24/03/17 02:53 AM
0

Is the male-only draft an MRM issue? Was there a male-only draft before feminism? I rest my case.
/r/MensRights24/03/17 02:50 AM
1

It would help if they would respond to what I'm actually saying. Thing is, especially in these arguments, people tend to have argued certain similar points before, but slight nuances can change everything. But they will bring the same arguments they brought before, and that's what creates an echo chamber. People with actually nuanced views get beaten over the head with the same old logic, which in many if not most cases just doesn't actually apply. Like, when I say "I like Obama", and old boy sa…
/r/MensRights24/03/17 02:49 AM
2

That's the thing, I never have a problem with openly taking the label as long as I also openly take the label feminist. The label gets instant dismissal mainly because of the heavy overlap with antifeminists, which magnified through the lens of tribalism comes to be seen as nigh-congruence with antifeminists. Shatter that misconception from the start and it's easy peasy.
/r/MensRights24/03/17 02:44 AM
-2

Zero to do with Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights23/03/17 08:57 AM
1

No they didn't, that's out of sync with reality, you're a fucking liar.
/r/MensRights23/03/17 04:58 AM
1

No, they didn't do any of that straw man shit you're creating in an attempt to move the goalposts from "support men's issues" to "do every little thing I think is required for someone to say they're an MRA". I'm an MRA. I fucking love Obama. Tell me I'm not an MRA for that, I dare you. Tell me how false of a Scotsman I am, because I don't pass your ridiculous litmus test. And for the record, yeah, every single one of them is down with the idea of International Men's Day. Everybody else has not h…
/r/MensRights23/03/17 04:55 AM
2

Right, because when someone gives an account of things that are contrary to what you expect, they must be full of shit. It's impossible that you could be wrong, especially about people you've never fucking met. I've said nothing but the truth here, and you're a fucking asshat. That's also the truth. Fuck you. :D
/r/MensRights23/03/17 04:47 AM
0

Dude I've been riding the MRA train since before reddit was a thing. I'm not new to this, and I'm not unaware of the "I've tried" mentality that both sides seem to have. The feminists I know actually do care about men and men's issues. The the MRAs I know IRL are all pro-feminist. There are areas where we have disagreements, but for the most part we're in a consensus. Even with regards to the idea of Legal Paternal Surrender, I've managed to create an approach which not a single feminist I've sp…
/r/MensRights23/03/17 04:30 AM
0

I'm both a feminist and an MRA, and see both as the problem. That you strawmanned me into supporting one side on the basis of a label, without regards to anything else I've said (which clearly contradicts the straw man), shows how little what I say actually matters in the face of your false image. Maybe, just maybe, this is why you have trouble conversing with feminists on an even keel? All I had to say was "I am a feminist" and you automatically assumed I think MRAs are the bad guy. But somethi…
/r/MensRights23/03/17 12:06 AM
1

Yeah, I know a lot of feminists, and they don't seem to have a problem with me pushing men's issues. They're usually quite receptive, and have been much better allies than any MRA on this sub. But it's not just me, you see. It's every. Single. MRA. I. Know. IRL. They never have problems with feminists, and we always manage to talk pleasantly about gender issues and identity. The real common factor is this subreddit. Everyone who frequents here and isn't an open dissenter like myself seems to hav…
/r/MensRights23/03/17 12:02 AM
0

I'm a feminist, I'm on feminist forums all the time. They don't seem to have a problem with me because I'm actually there for Men's Rights, not antifeminism, and I don't conflate the two. The only "feminist" subreddit I've ever been banned from is SRS, and that was because I take exception to people forming echo chambers where dissent isn't welcome. I've had endless success and everyone I know has had endless success, but then I come to this sub and nobody's successful. Maybe it's time to consid…
/r/MensRights22/03/17 11:59 PM
2

You claim you view us both as bad as each other. No I don't. I claim that both sides sling shit equally. Not the same as an equivalence, which is what your straw man is asserting. In short, argue against what people actually say, not what you have pre-existing arguments against.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 11:57 PM
2

Warren Farrell was victimized by second wave feminism in the early 1980's. This is around the time I was born, over three decades ago. Something tells me that things are a bit different now. Also, The Red Pill being made didn't coincide nearly as closely with Elam's entrance into the MRM (which is a decade or so old IIRC) as it did with conservative news outlets picking up MRM stories. The way I see it, it's less a result of the MRM taking an aggressive tone than it is of the MRM aligning/being …
/r/MensRights22/03/17 08:45 PM
2

College feminists, working feminists, retired feminists, you name it. I've met very few of any group that will reject men's issues if it comes from someone they respect. As someone 33 and out of college, I thought that people in my classes were friends too. We went to local bars sometimes, talked, hung out, smoked pot even. But a few months of not being in a class with them and they found some reason to unfriend or unfollow me on FB. It just strikes me as strange that I and every MRA I know IRL …
/r/MensRights22/03/17 08:15 PM
-1

It doesn't sound like you were ever very close. Are these just folks from your classes? Because I've found that as long as I'm already a friend, I never get bashed over the head with shit. That said, I know people on my friends list and folks who I've known for years, who I might call a friend in a loose way, and they certainly would give me shit. Thing is, nobody responds well to someone they don't respect or care about challenging their ideology. It's the same with any ideology; I've converted…
/r/MensRights22/03/17 07:40 PM
3

Dude, I dunno what you're talking about. As soon as I actually dropped the pretext that I was not welcome in feminist spaces or that my ideas were contrary to feminism, as soon as I actually quit setting up the table with me opposite them, they stopped. I go into feminist-friendly spaces now and it's nothing, they welcome me. Many feminists have expressed gratitude to me for opening their eyes to men's issues in ways they weren't aware of. It wasn't hard to do this at all, and when people give m…
/r/MensRights22/03/17 07:11 PM
3

I entirely agree. As long as we continue trying to let the free market handle commodities with inelastic demand, we'll keep seeing people get screwed over in the name of profits. I may well go blind unless I leave the United States for a more advanced country. That shit sounds like I'm talking about a fucking third world country.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 06:57 PM
2

No, a good number of the racial riots and protests have been a result of the execution of an convicted criminal. White folks dropped firebombs on Tulsa after a black kid was convicted and then publicly executed by a lynch mob. I did not overlook that part, people just seem to assume that all lynch mobs were extralegal entities not operating with the blessing of the local courts.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 06:53 PM
1

For instance one out of the five was with a girl in my program that is just an absolute goldmine of SJW bullshit. Her most recent escapade was to unironically call out fascism while in the same breath promoting violence and suppression of free speech against people that don't agree with her. So I take it you're not friends with these people, outside of the girl you were seeing?
/r/MensRights22/03/17 06:47 PM
7

I wondered my entire life why my family on that side treated me differently, were short with me, etc. It was because my dad had been telling them I was the result of an affair, and spinning the "I have to pay child support for a kid that's not mine" line to them. Finally at 18 I got swabbed and he's been quiet about it since.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 03:04 PM
7

If my Republican governor hadn't turned down the Medicaid expansion, I would likely still have the use of my left eye, which is now permanently blind. It would have taken a simple retinal reattachment surgery, but no doctor will perform that surgery without proof of insurance (which I couldn't get from any private insurer in existence before the ACA) or cash up front (for fixing an injury which cost me my job). Millions of men will suffer unnecessary health issues if the ACA is repealed, and you…
/r/MensRights22/03/17 03:02 PM
0

When I meet a feminist that's capable of having a rational fact-based discussion about men's issues without resorting to ad hominems then I'll drop the shit. Many anti-MRA feminists I've talked to say the same thing about MRAs. Considering that I've found a wealth of people on both sides willing to do this, I get skeptical when people say they've tried. Everyone who I've actually watched try, and who isn't just someone on the internet saying they've tried, has succeeded. And that goes both for a…
/r/MensRights22/03/17 02:48 PM
1

Goddamnit, this law is really not so bad, except for the word "female" unnecessarily littered throughout it...
/r/MensRights22/03/17 01:10 PM
10

If you give one shit as to the biological parentage of your kids, get them tested before birth. The insecurity of either parent regarding this can be really damaging to a kid. Sincerely, a guy who got swabbed for his 18th birthday.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 01:06 PM
3

Yeah but that's not juicy. And since you said it, and it's actually feasible, you're most likely a shill.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 12:57 PM
2

I was so afraid of premature ejaculation that now I rarely get off during sex. I can count on one hand the number of women I've slept with who didn't cum, but I can't even remember how many times I've slept with a woman and not had an orgasm. And it's funny because nobody calls women secretly gay when they don't have orgasms during sex, nobody thinks the woman doesn't actually want them, or any of the other shit I've been told by women who were upset that I didn't cum during sex with them.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 12:48 PM
0

I can agree with that. Where I probably disagree with most here is that I see mud being slung at and by MRAs just about equally. When I see MRAs collectively drop the poo they're about to fling, then I'll start giving shit to others for flinging poo at us. Because let me tell you, expecting me to just believe you that you haven't always been as combative or short-tempered as you are now, and that you're right about them having earned the poop but they're wrong about you having earned the poop, t…
/r/MensRights22/03/17 12:35 PM
2

Have you missed the racial protests and riots of the past 100 years?
/r/MensRights22/03/17 12:30 PM
12

It's funny because I'm losing my vision and the only chance I had to get medical treatment was the ACA, which pretty much this entire sub opposes. I sure would like to see people on this sub give a shit about men when the problems aren't a result of women.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 12:28 PM
1

You are literally arguing in favor of judging a book by its cover.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 05:47 PM
1

She's not blaming the bartender because he's a man though, it is the bartender's responsibility not to sell drinks to people who look like they're unable to handle themselves. It's a frivolous lawsuit, yes, but it has nothing to do with gender, a woman bartender would have the same liability.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 11:55 AM
0

Do you know how old Lena Dunham was when her rape happened?
/r/MensRights15/03/17 10:47 AM
1

Same reason I bother with the MRM. Because even though many of its leaders are as bad as Paul Elam, even though Trump seems like a lauded hero around here, even though the constituency constantly tells me that you can't be an MRA and not be a small-government conservative....despite all that I still opened the book, took a look, and found some real truth. You're effectively refusing to walk into feminism with the same open mind which everyone here knows is required to see through all the bullshi…
/r/MensRights15/03/17 04:19 AM
0

How do you know it's bigotry if you just read the lie on the front? Again, you are literally arguing for judging a book by its cover.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 04:09 AM
0

Medicaid costs nothing to them.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 04:08 AM
0

You could all be eating the Queen's old snatch for all I care, it still doesn't make the British understanding of the political terms I was using in a specifically American definition relevant.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 04:06 AM
0

Right so I suppose all the anti-Obama protests following his inauguration were to protest that a white man wasn't elected? If that sounds fucking retarded, then maybe you should try rethinking your assumptions.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 03:55 AM
0

It's almost like I give a shit enough about the actual issue to go against Trump when he's against it, unlike the people "who care" then elect folks who defund DV shelters.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 03:53 AM
0

And apparently no such thing as reading the other comments to tell if someone has already said that shit and been addressed.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 03:50 AM
2

I know they weren't allowed to do the training so we won't know who would and wouldn't have passed.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 03:12 PM
-1

You are literally arguing in defense of judging a book by its cover.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 03:10 PM
1

It's funny that the actual insult wasn't an ad hominem but this is.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 12:53 PM
1

Dude you're just dense. Horse, there is water, drink or be a bitch about it, I don't give a fuck.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 12:48 PM
1

Why does that matter when discussing the motivations of the individuals involved?
/r/MensRights14/03/17 12:47 PM
0

No, I didn't, I called you a conservative. As in, the American version. Your British definition has nothing to do with it. I was not referencing your official party affiliation. I was saying that you are espousing conservative ideology. Just because you want me to be talking about British conservatives even though I never once mentioned that I was talking about any kind of conservatives except the American kind, doesn't mean I was. Insisting I was is a signal of, well, that you're fucking dumb a…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 12:40 PM
1

Eh from what I saw the women's march was less about feminism than it was about anti-Trumpness. It seems like people are adding a lot of feminism onto that event where it isn't really there. But then I don't exactly blame people for seeing a women's march and thinking it's for feminism. That's the thing, people saw the women's protest and said "Must be about feminism". But it was a protest against the repeal of the ACA too, and against the gutting of the EPA. One thing I learned from Occupy is th…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 12:35 PM
1

Conservative. Let's make an example. I say "I like oranges." I'm talking about the fruit. You know I'm talking about the fruit. But still, because I said I like oranges, you paint my house various shades of orange while I'm gone. Is that an honest mistake, or are you being a fuckwit in that situation? Similarly, if I've been having a conversation where I'm talking about conservatives, and you know I mean the American understanding of conservative, but then you hold me to task according to the Br…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 12:22 PM
3

Nah I'd prefer to have people downvote me based on my tone, so that when people go try to stink up feminist spaces by taking the position of pariah from the onset, that they might at least have a sense of familiarity. Here's the way it works. Before the ACA, Medicaid was granted on the basis of eligibility. That means the state gets money, all the applications are filed, and they give it away going down the list from most to least needy, until it runs out. Guess who always happens to be the leas…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 12:18 PM
5

And I'm sure you think you're enlightening every liberal you tell that to. Dude, we know, and if you think this sounds smart, think again.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 12:10 PM
0

Do I need to give you examples from all 50 states or is just one state's pre-ACA Medicaid regulations enough? Men already make up a slight majority of the Coverage Gap, and that coverage gap doesn't take into account how many of that 49% of women can get on Medicaid through pregnancy, being a single parent (much more likely for mothers due to family courts), or simply living in states which give women preference in determining eligibility. Here's another source, more comprehensive. In every stat…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 12:09 PM
1

Motherfucker I read the bill, did you?
/r/MensRights14/03/17 11:48 AM
2

Yeah it's almost like when you take an entirely new definition of a word and apply it to what someone says that it creates a straw man...
/r/MensRights14/03/17 11:45 AM
7

What who had in mind is irrelevant to the fact that the ACA extended Medicaid to millions of people who did not have access to it before, and those millions are primarily men, as most poor women could get on Medicaid before the passage of the ACA. But keep tossing out generalities while I give you specific examples of how the ACA helps millions of men. I'm sure you actually read the bill to know what you're talking about, and aren't just regurgitating what other people with your labels have told…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 10:53 AM
6

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with men's rights. The willingness to take any possible excuse to file a civil lawsuit is not exclusive or even weighted toward one gender. Unless there's something specifically prejudiced about this, I don't see how someone's frivolous lawsuit has anything to do with men's rights.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 10:32 AM
1

So you're saying you don't vote for conservatives over there?
/r/MensRights14/03/17 10:28 AM
10

Right, because returning Medicaid to its pre-Obamacare state of denying men on the basis that they're men really helps out men.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 10:28 AM
3

This entire problem would be fixed if we simply stopped putting legal guardianship on parents by default. It should be something each parent has to opt into, rather than one or the other gender being able to opt out. Not only does this approach fix all the problems involving forced paternal responsibility, but it also allows women who would be comfortable with having a child and remanding custody to the father an easier time choosing to do that, as there would be no chance of them being held lia…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 08:29 AM
4

Yeah, this is dumb, on a dozen levels.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 08:13 AM
2

At least 350,000 women volunteered for military service for WWII, just in the US. They were universally given non-combat roles.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 08:10 AM
-14

Medicaid is free, and Trump's new plan reduces the availability of Medicaid primarily to men, who are the first cut when any such program is done by block-grants. But it would hurt the MRA narrative too much to accept that the ACA helped men by allowing equal access to Medicaid where before it was a system heavily favoring women.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 07:55 AM
1

Right, because it doesn't matter if Trump reduces funding for DV shelters and homeless support, all that matters is that it's unequal. You aren't helping homeless men by voting in folks who cut food stamps and shelter funding.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 07:53 AM
-5

Yeah but generally speaking people won't talk shit about a book they haven't read either.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 07:50 AM
-46

How many of these men will be in the 14 million who will lose insurance by 2018 under the Republican health care plan? Maybe more MRAs should be protesting Trump, if they really care about these homeless folks.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 05:31 AM
2

You know dude, being an asshole is an option in life, not a requirement.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 05:29 AM
-2

Yeah, because the validity of a concept is totally based on its name.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 05:22 AM
1

I'm talking about the reception of the message. I'd say you need clarity, but what do I know about the English language right?
/r/MensRights13/03/17 11:07 PM
1

Talking about the receptability of the message is a red herring and deceptive. I'm going to fault you on that one, this could have been directed at me or the author, there's no context.
/r/MensRights13/03/17 03:26 PM
0

I started an entirely separate conversation. Off topic =/= Red Herring You lack reading comprehension.
/r/MensRights13/03/17 06:07 AM
3

I dunno what you're talking about, I've been getting the "You can't be an MRA unless you're conservative" for about six years now. This sub's slide toward conservatism has little to do with Trump, and more to do with the willingness of many MRAs to tribalize and be more loyal to shitbags who wear the label MRA than good folks who might still be a little inundated with social myths and misconceptions about the goals of the MRM.
/r/MensRights09/03/17 04:06 AM
2

A Red Herring is when someone submits something under the guise of a counterargument which is actually meant to distract from the argument. A key part of that missing from my comment is the guise of a counterargument. In other words, me not giving a shit about what you're talking about and discussing something else isn't a red herring, it's me not giving a shit about what you're talking about, and discussing something else. Like this conversation.
/r/MensRights09/03/17 04:01 AM
0

I've literally been told that, several times. There's a significant chance someone will reply to this very comment telling me how you can't be an MRA and not be a small-government conservative.
/r/MensRights09/03/17 12:52 AM
2

It's almost as though marriage has historically been an institution whereby one person submits to the other and offers to them their economic and social progress as a method of joint security, and that such an arrangement is fundamentally unfair and unethical when influenced by social duress.
/r/MensRights09/03/17 12:51 AM
2

Dude this is an outrage sub and you're asking folks to not be outraged, you have about as good a chance at convincing SRS that they're wrong about something...
/r/MensRights09/03/17 12:49 AM
-5

Because transphobia and the MRM are just, you know, absolutely codependent.
/r/MensRights09/03/17 12:44 AM
0

MFW
/r/MensRights24/02/17 01:25 PM
1

I've been coming to this sub for six years, and about four years ago it got so bad that I started viewing this place as unfriendly territory. It's not recent, at all. There are seriously folks in this sub pushing the line that the MRM is fundamentally conservative and that you cannot be an MRA without being a small-government conservative. And every time they tell me this, since 2-3 years ago, they get upvotes for it. I think moderates and conservatives are as unaware of the slant here as libera…
/r/MensRights23/02/17 12:49 AM
2

Fucking this. "STOP SPEAKING IT MAKES ME FEEL LIKE YOU'RE TRYING TO CENSOR ME." Last I heard nobody was calling for bans, shadowbans, muting, any of that, was just some dude asking people to think critically, then getting told to STFU by folks concerned with censorship.
/r/MensRights23/02/17 12:46 AM
3

So much this. It's hard to dispel the link to conservatism within this movement. I mean, we have MRAs in here saying they think men should have a say in whether or not a woman can have an abortion, then conservative lawmakers passing bills to that effect under a pro-life banner. The MRM and the DNC both have this huge problem, where lots of people say they're too close to conservatism. That itself isn't a problem, but when that's compounded by a counter-strategy of crossing your arms, huffing an…
/r/MensRights23/02/17 12:42 AM
0

MFW
/r/MensRights22/02/17 04:01 PM
0

Dude, find me one example of someone on this sub saying you can't be an MRA and a conservative. I have been told time and time again that you cannot be an MRA and be a liberal. This is not something the detractors are putting on here. The anti-Clinton and pro-Trump election cycle postings were not put here by our detractors. Any illusion this movement had that the right-wing label was externally applied was neatly destroyed with this past election cycle. It's so bad that the left-leaning MRAs le…
/r/MensRights21/02/17 11:01 PM
-9

The only reason he felt comfortable enough to say that is because of privilege. I'd like you to take a black man to a country concert, have him tell some white woman to show him her tits, and see what happens. Wait, sorry, no, I don't want anyone to get beaten, so don't do that.
/r/MensRights21/02/17 10:53 PM
2

Could be the lewd remarks obviously meant in disrespect but nah sure it's because he was white, never would've happened to a black guy.
/r/MensRights21/02/17 10:51 PM
-2

Sucks when conservatives get held to the same standard as liberals, huh? Make one tiny mistake, say one thing that can be taken out of context and twisted, and you're gone. I wonder if this will be coupled by a further shift and now it'll be the Democrats who can get re-elected after soliciting prostitutes and Republicans who lose all hope of election for extramarital affairs.
/r/MensRights21/02/17 10:46 PM
-1

Six years ago I said that this movement would be dismissed as part of the insanity of the right if we didn't do something about the way right-wingers were taking over the positions of influence in the movement. It's coming to pass. The problem is it's not fake news. Most of the leftists were driven away from this movement by the right-wing slant. Hell, I've been told several times in this sub that you cannot be an MRA without being a small government conservative. It's a PR problem, you got that…
/r/MensRights21/02/17 10:42 PM
1

You did not read the other post where, like I said, I specifically address the objectivity issue.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 02:06 AM
0

Do you routinely address straw men when people toss them at you? And no, calling someone else out on a fallacy is not an ad hominem.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 02:05 AM
3

I think between this and the other post I made your answers have been given, I pretty specifically address the objectivity problem. What use is a theoretical framework for analyzing privilege and oppression if it is not grounded in a common understanding of civil rights? The question should be, why should be make a framework for analyzing oppression through specific understandings of civil rights when we can instead have an understanding that addresses individual perspectives and which people ca…
/r/MensRights19/02/17 05:00 AM
-1

I just know how I'd feel if my little brother came to me professing even moderate leanings in this environment, and it's be with much the same ire. It would feel like I'd failed as a sibling to bring them into an understanding of the world.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 03:31 AM
2

If the criteria are predominantly useless when applied to an individual then what purpose is there in identifying them collectively? The same way you can't tell a cake is sweet by taking flour and sticking it in your mouth. It's a compositional fallacy, and all the criteria can yield useful information about whether or not a person really is experiencing oppression, which I think most people can agree should be stopped if we can identify it. Oppression is simply a term for violation of rights, b…
/r/MensRights19/02/17 03:29 AM
1

Nowhere in the article does it say that men are any more responsible than women for the divorces.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 03:23 AM
2

The problem is not with intersectionality then but in the assessment of privilege. Intersectionality is just that idea which I mentioned above, what you're having a problem with seems to be modern feminist valuation of privilege, which I also have qualms with. But I think we can agree with the idea of intersectionality. I dunno how this has gotten lost, but privilege is supposed to be analyzed through every possible lens, and one of those lenses is personal priority. The idea some people have th…
/r/MensRights19/02/17 02:42 AM
0

Wrong. But I'll take more Straw Men, if you have them. You know how ridiculous it is when anti-MRAs try to characterize MRA arguments? You know that feeling when they make ridiculous hyperbole? That's the feeling you give me. Just think about that for a second, it's not an attack. You're doing what they do.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 02:30 AM
2

A theory of understanding privilege and oppression which posits that a person's social situation must be assessed using all available criteria which one can gather, and that the criteria are mostly useless with regards to the individual when assessed by themselves.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 02:21 PM
-3

Man this subreddit is beyond hope.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 08:31 AM
-1

Dude let me break this down for you. Your sister went off to college. There she learned lots of stuff and got to experience the world on her own. She met someone she cares about, who is likely passionate, and learned that she too is passionate about certain things. She became the person she is; she grew up. Because when you say things like this... But something changed when she went to university and started dating him, and it's changed my whole family. It seems like you just expected her to nev…
/r/MensRights18/02/17 08:26 AM
3

As probably the only intersectional feminist here, I can pretty confidently say that OP has no idea what they're talking about. If anyone actually wants the theory explained to them, I'm down. But something tells me that instead, the same people who bemoan feminists ignorantly sticking by their misrepresentations of MRA points will ignorantly stick by their misrepresentations of feminist points.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 08:18 AM
-14

Yeah I think Maher lost my viewership with this one. Ann Coulter was bad enough but at this point he's harming the cause by empowering shitbags.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 08:14 AM
1

This is what I try to tell people. You can march for whatever you want. But only certain issues will get lots of people to march with you.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 05:07 AM
1

Yeah, he was referencing consenting groupies when he was talking about his unsuccessful attempt to get with a married woman while also married.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 05:06 AM
3

Right, he implied consent in that statement. Sure.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 05:03 AM
3

I don't want a society which is so overworked that taking a few hours off to go to a protest is considered luxurious living.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 05:02 AM
2

Less income = less income tax.
/r/MensRights08/02/17 06:09 AM
6

Dude you guys should change that, seriously. As a former mod I had to read this comment a couple of times because I absolutely never would have taken a position as a mod of a big subreddit if one of the other mods could do something like this without some kind of consensus from at least a quorum of mods.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 07:28 AM
3

I like it when someone gets schooled so hard all they can do is reply like this.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 07:25 AM
6

Simple, some of the mods of this subreddit are more interested in antifeminism than men's rights, or worse yet conflate the two.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 07:23 AM
2

If the only effect of social and cultural organization is to marginalize deviations from the norm, then shouldn't we do away with that particular instance of organization? Unless you can show me that we're better served by ignoring the 1/1000 in this case, it seems like restrictive structure for no good reason.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 07:22 AM
5

If there are exceptions to a rule, it is by definition not a rule, just a guideline.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 07:19 AM
6

I was just about to post this, thank you. It's not like male suicide rates are a recent phenomenon, people giving a shit about male suicide rates enough to record them is what's new.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 07:18 AM
12

What the fuck, dude? If it wasn't for the CCTV would she have been so disrespectful? Because of the implication? Seriously this post is all kinds of fucked up. I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with this. Nobody owes you respect.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 07:13 AM
1

The big problems seem to be a support of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which is more of a waste of time than a detriment or boon for men, and the support of maternity leave with no mention of paternity leave. Other than that this is ideal.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 05:30 AM
1

What was the fact?
/r/MensRights31/01/17 05:24 AM
2

Regularity doesn't imply more or less than men. Muslim men are also beaten regularly.
/r/MensRights24/01/17 08:11 PM
6

I dunno, I wouldn't say that feminists were the ones standing in the way of eliminating the draft for the past 50 years or so. I find that all the complaints MRAs seem to have with feminists boil down to feminists hypocritically protecting social edifices that are established and maintained by conservatives. Liberals have been opposing the draft since there was a draft.
/r/MensRights24/01/17 08:10 PM
3

I'm trying to find more information on this but apparently there are no wikipedia pages for Donna Hylton or "Vigliarole". Weird.
/r/MensRights23/01/17 10:08 PM
3

So much this. I've gotten plenty of people to see reason in private where they wouldn't be able to in public on account of their egos. It's not pretty but people really are like that, myself included. None of us are above this pettiness, but we can do what's in our power to limit its effects.
/r/MensRights10/01/17 03:54 AM
3

I don't think it's all that rare, I think people who claim to have experience with feminists have experience with either feminists in a nonpersonal, sterile environment (like a class or at a protest), or on the internet. A whole lot of people do not react politely to unfamiliar folks coming up and presuming to challenge their beliefs, and that's not exactly a one-way street either. Every group, this group included, has people who will respond much better to contrary ideas when they come from a f…
/r/MensRights10/01/17 12:01 AM
5

I do it all the time and have met two feminists in my entire life who I couldn't bring to agreement with me on men's issues. I feel like as much as people here may say they do this, they don't, not in a conducive venue. I get people in here talking about in-class debates with people they don't know, interactions on the internet, and the like. But if you really want to engage and have effect, not just to try to evidence your negative judgment of feminists, they'll respond positively. But few peop…
/r/MensRights09/01/17 09:59 PM
1

Yeah, the ways in which men are shitty to women are generally not the same ways in which women are shitty to men. But that doesn't invalidate what I'm saying. You're saying that I should believe that you are the diamond in the rough, who has managed to interact with a plethora of women and, while never being a bad person, has been met with only negativity. Occam's Razor would tell me that if you smell shit everywhere you look, you should check your upper lip. What's more likely, that nigh-all wo…
/r/MensRights05/01/17 09:51 PM
-3

It's not bad to use a masculine pronoun to describe an aggressor, is what I'm saying. It's not bad to use a masculine pronoun for anything. That's the idea behind the universal masculine; when there's uncertainty about gender but gender is implied, it's acceptable to default to masculine pronouns. I always support when people use a different default, the way Vampire the Masquerade books used a universal feminine when discussing player characters. Example: "When your character begins, she should …
/r/MensRights05/01/17 08:58 PM
-7

I don't have a problem with this due to the fact that if the pronoun were "him" it would be considered okay. As a grammatician and egalitarian I feel we should be willing to entertain alternatives to the universal masculine whenever used. While I doubt that's what they were doing, I can't prove otherwise so I'll tentatively be okay with this.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 08:47 PM
1

I want you to imagine someone saying the same thing about all people. Would you assume the problem is with people, and not them? Why is it different when it's half of people?
/r/MensRights05/01/17 05:37 PM
1

You're saying the chances of a good woman existing are astronomical to the point of irrelevancy?
/r/MensRights05/01/17 10:03 AM
1

If 100% of the coins you have flipped came up heads, is it rational to assume coins always come up heads?
/r/MensRights05/01/17 05:01 AM
3

I always try to use this example when people try to defend gender segregation of DV shelters. "Imagine if I started a shelter for people who had been victims of home invasions in New Orleans, because people in that situation usually don't want to return to their homes. Now imagine if, because of statistical disparities in the perpetrators of home invasions in New Orleans, I stopped allowing black folks to enter. Nothing against black folks, it's just that chances are the people seeking shelter w…
/r/MensRights04/01/17 09:58 PM
1

I just give up.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 09:48 PM
4

All bigotry stems from people not understanding the fallacy of composition. There's no reason to hate a group on the basis of the ideology of some, unless it is an ideological group.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 07:54 PM
-1

Domestic violence isn't all violence, though. I've been robbed at gunpoint several times, never by a woman. The DV stats may show parity but the majority of violent crimes are armed robbery and assault. These skew overwhelmingly male, and it's hard to argue that's courts showing leniency to women.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 07:43 PM
3

I would love to take both of these courses.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 07:38 PM
-1

Do you not feel as though it's a little bit of both? I mean, this is just my personal experience, but I've met many more men prone to violence than women. I've seen much fewer barfights between women, and less women trying to become involved in violent crime. We can talk about why that is, but I think to say that the only thing causing male over-representation in crime statistics is the courts' willingness to consider men criminals is incorrect, and I doubt you think that.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 07:36 PM
1

My point is that there's no inherent hypocrisy in feeling that what happened to Ivanka Trump is part of legitimate criticism of a public figure, but what happened to her was unacceptable, because what happened in the cases is different. If you want to make the argument that they're not that dissimilar when you look at it in a certain way, that's fine, but that's your certain way of looking at it, and it doesn't imply that she feels the same way. I think it would take some serious intellectual di…
/r/MensRights26/12/16 02:05 AM
1

Is this not how every movement works? Paul Elam is the face of the MRM. Think about that.
/r/MensRights25/12/16 10:42 PM
1

You may have missed the point where when Valenti was talking about harassment, she was talking about people asking her to fuck, or something along those lines. Telling someone you think their political ideology is harmful, and telling someone you want to fuck them, that's two entirely different ballparks. But apparently nobody on this sub gets that sexual harassment isn't the same as other form of harassment.
/r/MensRights25/12/16 10:41 PM
0

The right of women to vote came at what expense to men?
/r/MensRights25/12/16 10:30 PM
1

Why does it have to be figures of public interest? I mean, you couldn't find a pro-gay-marriage Democrat public figure to save your life ten years ago, but almost all the actual Dems were pro-gay-marriage at the time. I think you are too intelligent a person to believe that what the leadership of any movement pushes is congruous with what the actual people believe. You know that public figures only push messages they consider safe within the context of their movement. Why then would you only acc…
/r/MensRights25/12/16 10:28 PM
1

Feminists and anti-MRAs, for example, might be a good two categories to go into that example.
/r/MensRights25/12/16 10:25 PM
2

I dunno how you want me to respond to that.
/r/MensRights25/12/16 04:11 AM
0

If all the fruit you ever pick hang low, then how do you know what's in the upper branches?
/r/MensRights25/12/16 04:04 AM
1

I guess I just don't see what the issue is.
/r/MensRights25/12/16 03:35 AM
2

The news.com.au article is pretty condemnative of this. It's hard to argue that they're supporting this from the tone of the article.
/r/MensRights25/12/16 02:47 AM
-3

I was unaware that the Twitter of a New York Times author counted as a "news website".
/r/MensRights25/12/16 01:19 AM
3

I don't understand why people consider patriarchy and misandry mutually exclusive.
/r/MensRights25/12/16 12:34 AM
4

And some feminists aren't interested in equality, they're interested in empowering women.
/r/MensRights25/12/16 12:30 AM
-4

I love how a few shitty people somehow qualify to represent all of feminism, but then you guys get upset when there's conflation between PUAs and MRAs. If you want people to treat you like you're intellectually honest, you have to actually, you know, do that. And that includes refraining from picking low hanging fruit.
/r/MensRights24/12/16 09:56 PM
2

I don't see the issue.
/r/MensRights24/12/16 09:53 PM
1

Or maybe they do. I mean, if I come into this sub thinking all MRAs are sexists, then likely I'll find reinforcement for that belief. You see what you're looking for. The same applies to feminists. I find it strange that just about every group some other group finds distasteful has opened up to me and in many cases adjusted themselves around my presented perspective, simply because I don't treat them like assholes without them giving me direct cause. I've turned racists, homophobes, anti-MRAs, a…
/r/MensRights24/12/16 09:50 PM
-3

r/politics is that way...
/r/MensRights24/12/16 10:52 AM
1

You know you don't have to be rude.
/r/MensRights24/12/16 04:01 AM
1

I'm not saying we don't judge people by their actions, merely that we actually wait for individuals to make those actions before condemning them for it. The ideology they actually have, not the ideology we think of. That doesn't mean "whatever they say".
/r/MensRights24/12/16 02:43 AM
1

That's what you'd call them. I think that for a very large portion of people the old definitions still apply, and I try to only hold people to what they say they espouse. I've seen too often what toteming and assuming negatives due to labels can do, from my experience with anti-MRA feminists (who I've met very seldom in real life). Lots of feminists recognize their privilege, and moreover many people recognize that privilege isn't a scale with one side always on the high end. The privileges and …
/r/MensRights23/12/16 08:33 PM
0

She's saying it's okay to criticize Ivanka Trump. Do you think by "harassment", she meant that those guys on the street walked up to her and disagreed about her politics?
/r/MensRights23/12/16 08:17 PM
2

Because they believe as I do, that feminism is simply a belief that the genders should be treated equally. The thing is, you can't take your own idea of someone else's ideology and bash them for that, it's not honest. If you think feminism is a promotion of women over men, that's okay, but when someone else says they're a feminist, that may not be what they mean. Holding them to your notion of feminism is no different than a liberal approaching a self-identified Republican and holding them to th…
/r/MensRights23/12/16 08:16 PM
1

I've met plenty of feminists who understand with and agree with the concepts of female privilege and toxic femininity. Most of the feminists I know do. But something tells me that nobody here will echo this sentiment. How is it that the majority of feminists I've met understand these concepts, but they're rare? I must be really, really lucky.
/r/MensRights23/12/16 08:07 PM
2

Oh hey, I didn't know this sub had become a Republican sub.
/r/MensRights23/12/16 08:04 PM
1

Are you for real? You have a better chance of him directing agencies to call male rape victims "losers".
/r/MensRights23/12/16 08:03 PM
-5

Because indirectly criticizing of a political figure and directly harassing someone in the street is the same thing?
/r/MensRights23/12/16 08:01 PM
3

The irony could make Magneto weep.
/r/MensRights14/12/16 09:12 PM
4

So, no.
/r/MensRights14/12/16 09:04 PM
2

You call it small, I call it the reason I was expelled from high school in 1999.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 07:23 PM
1

I'm just one of these people who sees all this and thinks "What does this have to do with a senator?"
/r/MensRights05/12/16 05:16 AM
0

I don't suppose you're aware of this, but just about every hospital in existence gets accused of over-prescribing opiates. It's true in many cases, but if one person came to me and said a hospital was over-prescribing opiates, I'd probably ignore it until there was more evidence too. I'm not going to launch a costly investigation of any hospital, VA or no, on the basis of one accusation of something that nearly every hospital is accused of. I don't feel like expecting her to thoroughly follow up…
/r/MensRights04/12/16 06:53 PM
0

Why, though? I don't see her as having done anything wrong. If my neighbor punches me in the face, I blame my neighbor, not my senator. Unless the senator had some decisive role in creating this situation, I just see this as you looking for an excuse to use the 125k subscribers here as a personal political army for your crusade against her.
/r/MensRights03/12/16 06:00 PM
1

I just fail to see how we're going to hold a senator accountable for what's happening at the VA. I get that shit rolls downhill and blame uphill, but it's a bit ridiculous to hold a senator responsible for the administration of a VA office.
/r/MensRights02/12/16 07:01 PM
1

As someone who got given a cotton swab for their 18th birthday, I cannot agree with this. Get a paternity test, just because you can. You don't want to bank on your opinion of the matter eighteen years from now, get the test now before it can psychologically impact the kid.
/r/MensRights02/12/16 06:58 PM
1

This guy is such a pretentious ass.
/r/MensRights17/11/16 08:24 PM
1

Wait, waitwait. If she slept with Pitt while he was still with Aniston, doesn't that speak worse about Pitt's character?
/r/MensRights17/11/16 08:22 PM
5

Likely he was banned for being an ass but is blaming it on his ideology because that is easier to swallow.
/r/MensRights17/11/16 08:16 PM
0

No, but you can assess likelihoods based on those qualities. I'm straight but I have been gay-bashed, for instance. But that doesn't negate that gay folks are more likely to be beaten for being gay than straight folks.
/r/MensRights08/11/16 05:18 AM
1

What's that got to do with anything?
/r/MensRights07/11/16 08:14 PM
0

I have never understood how privilege is a difficult to understand concept, so much so that both SJWs and anti-SJWs alike are baffled by it. It seems so very simple to me.
/r/MensRights07/11/16 08:13 PM
3

This has absolutely zero to do with Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights07/11/16 08:11 PM
2

Whenever a woman you don't know well tries to pick up your son, use that moment to have a little father/son talk about stranger danger.
/r/MensRights07/11/16 08:05 PM
1

Yeah, but she didn't say "Marriage, motherhood, and/or fatherhood". She was very explicit in this message that without a mother and a father the parentage is unhealthy.
/r/MensRights05/11/16 06:41 PM
-4

Today’s liberal women are destructive, antagonistic women, devoted to their own misery in undermining traditional institutions crucial for a healthy, dynamic society: marriage, motherhood, and fatherhood. Emphasis mine. They're clearly stating that homosexual couples cannot make healthy parents.
/r/MensRights05/11/16 07:58 AM
-4

Feminism is almost precisely as anti-male as the MRM is anti-female.
/r/MensRights05/11/16 06:56 AM
0

What is this tripe? Seriously, this article is simultaneously shitting on the idea of LGBT parenthood, non-traditional men and women, and just about every facet of social progressivism. I'm surprised it didn't remind me that interracial marriage is a step away from bestiality, and that the Jews are behind a worldwide banking conspiracy.
/r/MensRights05/11/16 06:51 AM
1

Pretty sure you'd have it worse being a guy in Ethiopia, just saying...
/r/MensRights04/11/16 07:05 PM
1

Keep high intellectual arguments like wage gap and job choices in mind, but also be prepared to answer baser approaches, like "If women and men are equal in the workplace then how do you explain the continued gender-based division of labor at workplaces, for example restaurants favoring female servers and male cooks?" Also, "Do you really think that hundreds to years of male-dominated workspaces turn equal in less than a century?" I personally am on the other side of this fence so if I was your …
/r/MensRights30/10/16 06:18 PM
20

Give her the grade she deserves, log all interactions, and if she tries to claim you retaliated, let her take it to court if she thinks she can win.
/r/MensRights24/10/16 07:47 PM
1

Well generally speaking, you should read something specific before you try to refute it, and refute that thing specifically. This doesn't go for feminism alone, but rather all topics. Select a work of feminist philosophy, read it, then if you have a refutation pose it. But attempting to refute an entire wing of philosophy is a bit broad, and will lack any serious credibility as a result (unless said criticism is a compilation of more direct criticisms). For instance you could easily criticize Kr…
/r/MensRights24/10/16 07:18 PM
1

Which is it, is electing Clinton going to end with war in the Middle East, or does she lack the backbone to do such a thing? I get a different story every day...
/r/MensRights22/10/16 09:53 PM
-2

What's with the anti-leftist slant of the submissions on this sub?
/r/MensRights22/10/16 09:52 PM
1

/r/conservative is that way...
/r/MensRights22/10/16 09:49 PM
1

I'd counter with an insult, but I prefer to remain in that "Never having actually talked about you" realm.
/r/MensRights22/10/16 09:39 PM
1

Show me that in the study. I dare you.
/r/MensRights22/10/16 09:38 PM
1

Me throwing out the study (which I didn't do) is not a part of the study. I will give you one last shot. Talk about the study itself, and not me. Or I'm done.
/r/MensRights22/10/16 09:36 PM
1

Imagine I'm trying to prove that a carrot is a fruit, using a study that shows the correlation between drinking while pregnant and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. And when you said "That's ridiculous", I counter... Sorry, I just think it is pretty weird you don't consider a scientific study, done by a professor of that field, to not be evidence. That is just willful ignorance. I'm not discounting the study or its findings. I'm saying that the study's findings are not what is being represented. I'm sayin…
/r/MensRights22/10/16 09:34 PM
1

Okay, what are the implications of the study that I am ignoring, and where are they pertinent to my argument that I am refusing to address?
/r/MensRights22/10/16 07:20 PM
33

Article from CNN on the worldnews sub. One thing I've come to understand is that anytime someone says the media is "largely silent", they're usually wrong.
/r/MensRights22/10/16 07:17 PM
1

Are you going to address that the study presented does not evidence that even a significant portion of modern gender norms come from physiology, or are you just going to sit there talking shit about me all day? Let me know.
/r/MensRights22/10/16 07:13 PM
1

No, I'm not arguing a 100% position. If you want evidence of this, check the other comments in this thread where I specifically say I'm not advocating a 100% constructivist opinion, comments made before I ever broached this subject with you. If you want to shadowbox a straw man all day that's fine by me, but I'll be over here if you actually ever take the time to argue against what I'm actually saying.
/r/MensRights22/10/16 06:20 PM
1

If you think you're "too intelligent", then find where I said "society is 100% constructed". And if you can't, and you're intelligent, tell me what fallacy it is that you just made.
/r/MensRights22/10/16 06:08 PM
1

You're right, attacking someone's position based on the speaker's intellectual credibility is totally not an ad hominem...
/r/MensRights22/10/16 05:59 PM
1

Yeah dude, I would love to reply, but until you cut out the condescension and hyperbole, then actually try to understand the point you're attacking, we aren't going anywhere.
/r/MensRights22/10/16 05:55 PM
1

What I find funny is that if I argued with feminists I'd get the same argument. "No one is arguing that gender roles are 0% a product of biology, because there are clearly social influences involved as well. However arguing that the biology is 100% of the cause is equally as foolish." Maybe you guys should just stop assuming the other group is full of idiots? And by "you guys" I mean feminists and MRAs.
/r/MensRights22/10/16 05:33 PM
1

There seems to be several different positions here, all of them essentially dismissing biological differences as a sexist "justification" for unequal outcomes. At least you seem to get that. I get really tired of being held accountable for every feminist's ideology, the same way feminists try to hold me accountable for the ideology of every MRA. The reality is that there will be some people out there who espouse absolute hogwash and call it feminism, the same way there are MRAs here who claim to…
/r/MensRights22/10/16 05:31 PM
1

The point is we're not talking about animals, we're not talking about a group of creatures that needs to act according to these gender roles or face starvation or death, we aren't dealing with even a tribal society where men might be sent off to war due to the mathematics of repopulation. We just are not dealing with the examples you're giving. We're dealing with humans. So yeah, maybe you can look back to tribal warfare and see the basic genesis point for the idea of male disposability. But how…
/r/MensRights22/10/16 05:23 PM
1

Feminists and SJWs do not argue that there is no difference in male and female behavior, nor that our brains are the same. That is not what is being said when someone says "Gender is a social construct". Nobody is trying to say that there is no such thing as sex, merely that what we know of gender has no (edit: I should say "no or very little") basis in physiology; in other words, when a man is seen as more disposable, or a woman is seen as less capable of protecting themselves, there is no pres…
/r/MensRights22/10/16 05:16 PM
0

You don't get to just throw out a scientific study and it's implications because you don't like the results. Which I didn't. I said the study does not evidence what people here want it to evidence. Just like they said in this video, the other side is ideologically driven. So, I would say with quite a bit of confidence that your questioning of this is from a point of ideology, not science, logic, or evidence based. And that's an ad hominem.
/r/MensRights22/10/16 05:12 PM
1

Except that this argument doesn't even begin to attack the idea that gender is a social construct. It notes that some basic differences in brain chemistry and the reactions thereof. This in no way evidences that the modern understanding of gender norms is a result of any of these physiological differences. The closest it came was when they were talking about infant object recognition, and even that is a grain of sand compared to the desert necessary to prove some kind of causal link between that…
/r/MensRights21/10/16 08:02 PM
0

It would help if you didn't start out with a misunderstanding of the position.
/r/MensRights21/10/16 07:58 PM
1

Relevant.
/r/MensRights19/10/16 06:28 PM
2

I work for a small business and get paid in cash, so I'm one of these missing millions. I'm fortunate that my girlfriend makes over twice what I do, because trying to make ends meet on $10/hour is just ridiculous, especially when you work somewhere where the boss uses any excuse they can find to close the business for the day.
/r/MensRights17/10/16 07:47 PM
0

Well dude, you're taking examples of her talking about old timey feminist ethicists, and how modern feminist ethics has come a long way from that, and then trying to make it seem like she's pushing the old timey feminist message. She's literally talking about how Wollstonecraft was too entrenched in the idea of femininity as a lesser form of being, and how Freud went to great lengths to justify his assumption that what was then associated with femininity was lesser. How is she citing them as aut…
/r/MensRights30/09/16 05:55 PM
0

Surely you can show me that line from the article, where she says that the eighteenth and nineteenth century ethicists she spent her first section discussing in historical context are in fact being quoted as authorities.
/r/MensRights30/09/16 05:24 PM
0

Fifth, and finally, it favors “male” ways of moral reasoning that emphasize rules, rights, universality, and impartiality over “female” ways of moral reasoning that emphasize relationships, responsibilities, particularity, and partiality (Jaggar, “Feminist Ethics,” 1992). She is using quotation marks and even citing to show she is talking about older feminist writings, but you're still holding her to these words? Thus, it is not surprising that “communal woman” gradually began to replace “autono…
/r/MensRights30/09/16 04:30 PM
1

I did read the linked article, that's why I asked you to cite it. As nice as these citations are, they aren't the author whose position you're claiming.
/r/MensRights30/09/16 03:26 PM
1

No FEMINISTS generally classify intellect /reason/logic/objectivity as a masculine trait. Surely if this is the case there should be no problem finding a citation for this, right?
/r/MensRights30/09/16 02:45 PM
3

You need some dramamine after doing those mental gymnastics?
/r/MensRights29/09/16 08:00 PM
5

I'm cool with this, rape shouldn't have a statute of limitations.
/r/MensRights29/09/16 07:59 PM
7

You know you could just not vote for either.
/r/MensRights29/09/16 07:24 PM
9

“So do you think this 14-year-old kid is scarred forever? He might have put the moves on her. It might have given him confidence, actually,” Trump added. This guy doesn't believe young boys can be raped or that it can be traumatic. I don't see how any MRA can in good conscience vote for him.
/r/MensRights29/09/16 06:34 PM
0

Of course they are linked, the question is how are they linked, and you are saying the opposite to the author. Okay dude I'm sorry but this sentence makes no syntactic sense and I was struggling with it. I interpreted it as you disagreeing that the author thinks there's a link.
/r/MensRights29/09/16 03:16 PM
1

you are saying the opposite to the author. Where does the author say that the two aren't linked? How in the hell would someone even go about elucidating that traditional ethics have no basis in cultural norms? Like, just assuming that there is no link there is ridiculous to begin with.
/r/MensRights29/09/16 03:07 PM
1

It's almost as thought culture and traditional ethics and intrinsically linked. It's also almost as though you're looking for a reason to call her sexist. If you read not one page into this and are already concluding that the author is sexist then something tells me you went in with that conclusion looking for evidence. The fact that you're trying so hard to dichotomize culture and traditional ethics, as it's the only way that statement can be misrepresented as sexist, shows that. If you just wa…
/r/MensRights29/09/16 02:58 PM
0

Dude just read it. Then read it again. I'm already tired of this. If you can't even read what she's actually saying and straw man it all right out the gate then I don't even know how to begin talking to you.
/r/MensRights29/09/16 02:46 PM
0

What she is doing is calling traditional ethics sexist because they focus on intellect. No, she's saying that when traditional ethics relegate positive qualities like intellect and rationality to the male sphere, that it is sexist both by denying that to women, and by denigrating the roles traditionally applied to feminism. Obviously this is bullshit: the fact that violence is viewed as a masculine trait doesn't mean that it is sexist for the justice system to take violence seriously. But it wou…
/r/MensRights29/09/16 01:59 PM
-7

Are you really trying to call the author sexist for pointing out that traditional gender roles exist?
/r/MensRights28/09/16 05:38 PM
1

Well, I posted and the thread has a few people saying an outright ban might increase instances of it being done illegally and less safely, but nobody there seems to be indicating that there should be some deference to a religious right to circumcise children.
/r/MensRights26/09/16 04:34 AM
1

That's fine. The cool thing about winning over feminist friends to MRM issues like I do is that if I were to run into any less rationally-inclined feminists who came in with a hot head, accusing me and trying to attack me, I wouldn't even have to defend myself. You don't change minds by assuming people are stupid and changing their mind is pointless.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 08:10 PM
1

I'm not necessarily calling for the heads of the NOW leadership on plates or anything, just that they change their policies.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 07:02 PM
-2

Depends on whether or not there is actual hunger there. I'm saying I'd like to know for sure, but it's not really possible.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 06:07 PM
-3

So, you see a bunch of people in families with fathers, and thus feel pressure to have a father in your life? I mean what you're talking about is kinda exactly what I'm referencing.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 05:59 PM
1

I'm sorry, but are you really suggesting that someone can't be an authority on their own positions, because they have a conflict of interests?
/r/MensRights25/09/16 05:54 PM
1

The only thing the internet has to do with my position is that it is quiet. I'm not using the tumblirina crazies as a stand-in for feminism. No, but you're using cold, emotionless, and often pre-emptively spiteful conversations with feminists in online forums who have never met you in place of real, face-to-face conversations and interactions. When was the last time you saw anyone convinced of anything by an internet argument? And you don't need 500k, just find some. If you don't find any femini…
/r/MensRights25/09/16 05:54 PM
1

Well I'm not one to sit around postulating about other peoples' ideologies, I tend to ask. So, I'm gonna go do that, and post a discussion thread asking how the people of the sub feel about a possible ban on childhood circumcisions.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 05:18 PM
1

More support it, likely. I'm not sure but that would be my wager. But I can usually at least get them to understand the ill effects on gender equality it's having, when I sit down with them and talk about it. People have this ridiculous idea that internet anonymity has made people more honest. But I don't think people evoking the worst parts of themselves because they feel they can't do so anywhere else really counts as an honest picture. You should try making friends with some feminists IRL, an…
/r/MensRights25/09/16 05:01 PM
1

You didn't answer the question. Do you talk to feminists primarily IRL or online?
/r/MensRights25/09/16 04:41 PM
1

If your premise is false It's not a premise. I doubt you'd accept that excuse and yet you can't force somebody to agree with you that Jews are sentient. If someone doesn't think Jewish folks are sentient then you absolutely positively must tackle that issue before you move on. You can't expect to just gloss that over but then otherwise convince them that Jews should not be harmed. You will flatly never convince someone that the Holocaust was intentionally harmful to people if they do not believe…
/r/MensRights25/09/16 04:39 PM
6

I'm fine with this. Just wait until we start turning it back on them, and finding egg donors. The outrage will be hypocritical and glorious.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 02:56 PM
-7

Have we considered that maybe these kids end up wanting to see their fathers because of immense social pressure telling them that living without a father is abnormal and wrong? That maybe this is a response to our own social expectations, and not something natural which would occur without those expectations?
/r/MensRights25/09/16 02:54 PM
9

Probably has something to due with the idea that male social roles are more restrictive and confining than modern female fender roles, which after the equality movements is fairly unrestricted in comparison. It's easier for a woman to live as a masculine woman than a man to live as a feminine man.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 02:50 PM
8

Not to be nitpicky, but that guy is like 40, 50 tops. Not exacly elderly. If we're going to hold feminists to talk for using inflated rape stats let's not try to overexaggerate our own stuff.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 02:49 PM
0

I haven't noticed much criticism from of them from other feminists for their actions. Where do you meet your feminists? Just skimming through some of that sub it looks some of them are at times dancing on egg shells over this. Honestly I feel that's better than drowning in egg the way this sub seems to. It's not so much a MRM subreddit as it is an antifeminist subreddit. You literally cannot divorce any MRM issue from feminism in this sub, the users will not let you.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 02:45 PM
1

can we at least agree about that? No, and it's irrelevant to the point. I was just using that as an example of a thought process. The line of reasoning is inconsequential to the topic. And because it's a core tenet as you said, then it's literally that alone that causes harm. The core tenet can cause harm indirectly. If my core tenet of my Church group is to feel the hungry in West Africa, and as a result of that a warlord ends up raiding a village for the food we bring, then that doesn't mean o…
/r/MensRights25/09/16 02:40 PM
0

I do, yes. Most of my feminist friends tend to agree that the leadership is bonkers and is trying to use feminism as a sail to float their political careers rather than have any actual progressive effect. But then that's most large ideological groups and their leadership. I feel like the second any cohesive leadership emerges from a movement, it becomes opposed to the reality of a movement, to be frank. Like leadership and populism are incompatible. I do think there is a bit of heavy censorship …
/r/MensRights25/09/16 03:25 AM
1

Many feminists do, yes. And yes, I do.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 02:58 AM
0

You chose those topics, not me. :)
/r/MensRights25/09/16 02:38 AM
-1

So you've gone full ad hominem? I'll take that as a win.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 01:59 AM
1

Literally does not matter whether anything is "Deductive" or "Inductive" relative to determining the veracity of your claim based on a new piece of information. Veracity means truth value. Inductive means an argument which does not prove, but suggests with evidence, that the postulation is true. Deductive means an argument which does prove the claim being made, using evidence. Inductive logic is used when one wishes to convince a person in lieu of deductive evidence. You keep talking about logic…
/r/MensRights25/09/16 12:50 AM
-1

No, I said that the whining of a few misandrists is not enough to deter me from supporting the MRM. I in no way insinuated that the whining of a few misandrists was referring to the problems which the MRM has with feminism and many individual feminists. Try not to straw man someone when you're accusing them of straw manning.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 12:44 AM
1

Bayes is inductive logic. It is literally an inductive logic system. Taking into account Bayesian probability factors can literally have no deductive value. Deductive. Understand it.
/r/MensRights24/09/16 11:39 PM
1

I'm not equating them. Not everyone saying two things in the same sentence is equating them. Did I say "These arguments are the same?" No. Jesus.
/r/MensRights24/09/16 11:37 PM
1

But men and women are objectively not equal. So, trying to make them equal can easily cause harm. You may think that and it's fine because you don't identify as feminist as far as I can tell. My point is that much like it is intellectually dishonest for a feminist to approach us with pre-emptive accusations of misogyny due to their assumptions about our ideology, it is intellectually dishonest of MRAs to approach feminists with pre-emptive accusations of misandry due to our assumptions about the…
/r/MensRights24/09/16 11:36 PM
1

The burden of proof is on the initial claimant. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm saying that proving Neptune isn't made of green cheese does not disprove and can have no deductive truth value on the claim "some planets are made of green cheese" on its own. In order for that argument to have some truth value, it would require you to address all other planets. I'm not saying that I've proved this to you. If you don't believe there is overlap between PUAs and MRAs then that is something I would have to…
/r/MensRights24/09/16 11:33 PM
1

Almost. If you'd said that "My argument is that some planets are made of green cheese, like Neptune and others", then it would be comparable to mine, as I did not insinuate that all MRAs are PUA-types, only some. And in that case if you proved that Neptune was not made of green cheese there would still be the quite prominent possibility that some of the other seven planets were. In short, attacking the example never works. It's always a fallacy.
/r/MensRights24/09/16 10:12 PM
2

I think it's a bit deeper than that, it's because ideologies can only really be judged by their core tenets. If someone says to me "The KKK isn't really about racism, it's about community", I'll go to the webpage of the KKK and show them where one of the primary tenets is espousing racial superiority of white folks. Similarly, if someone says "The MRM is just about reinventing misogyny" I'll bring them here and show them otherwise. So when someone says "Feminism is harmful" I know that the only …
/r/MensRights24/09/16 10:07 PM
0

Actually yeah it is. Watch, omit these words from the sentence and see if the argument loses meaning: "RooshV and other".
/r/MensRights24/09/16 10:01 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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