TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

VenusNoire_ Archive

View 0 posts and 327 comments by VenusNoire_ on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

I already explained this.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 08:24 PM
7

Why would I change to appeal to men’s opinions? Their perspectives are diverse, so what exactly are you talking about. I have my own personality and values, I don’t feel the need to do that.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 06:13 AM
2

Q: do you change thing you do based on opinion from men? or would you? ever? Not sure what you’re imagining here. Ideally you find your niche and focus on the men who naturally gravitate towards you, so probably not. This question is so vague. Q: do you or have you ever try find out where men are and go there to try to meet them? When targeting certain demographics, sure I guess. I don’t think this requires much effort or thinking. Ideally, they still come to you… you don’t really have to seek o…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 03:35 AM
4

This is always a strange question because companionship and affection will always be personalized. It’s dependent on the other person, their personality, and emotional needs. It’s easier to speak in generalities, but I always wonder what the men who ask women “what do you bring to the table?” even think they’re getting out of intimate relationships with women to begin with. Sometimes it seems like a lot of feminine forms of labor are either invisible or undervalued and yet are still expected as …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 08:18 PM
–

What does “observable, documented reality” mean to you?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 10:43 PM
–

Assortative mating. They’re usually dating in their range of attractiveness. If you’re disagreeing with observable, documented reality, you may be talking about your subjective aesthetic opinion.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 10:40 PM
4

Attraction and desire is complex and changes over time. What type of partner you desire to build a relationship or life with ages with you more often than not. It’s like observable reality. Mate selection is predominantly assortative.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/26 02:10 PM
1

No because I’m big on acts of service and curating experiences. There would be a dramatic imbalance in labor. I’d just think he didn’t like me very much. It’s a very low effort way to engage in intimate relationships, imo.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/26 04:30 PM
0

Because it is one of the main pillars of the blackpill. I don’t really know what you want me to say, lol. I used to engage with blackpill content, that’s where I get my information from, beloved. “Why are you lumping in lookism with genetic determinism?” What a silly question. I really wonder why they’re together.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 03:24 PM
5

It’s yellow-pill, iirc. Not blackpill at all, imo, since it has nothing to do with genetic determinism or lookism.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 12:54 AM
1

It does, lmao.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 12:49 AM
9

This can’t be a serious question, the answer is obvious. “Would women still get married if marital rape was normalized and legally mandated”??????? As a woman, what protections do you even have in that circumstance? Why is the male spouse even entitled to free erotic labor in this way? For what reason is this even happening in the hypothetical? Thinking about how it would be enforced is also disturbing. What is he going to do? Report you?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 06:49 PM
–

I love how a 5 is considered ugly in this scale—it’s average, lol. Just use the normal objective rating system. It still won’t fully explain why someone is or isn’t successful romantically or sexually, though. Looks are only one aspect of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/26 04:57 AM
–

He might not think he deserves her and chooses someone easier.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/26 01:26 AM
–

He’s actually just describing disillusionment, disappointment, and idealization. His entire post is: men project fantasies onto women, women fail to live up to those fantasies, and therefore women are fundamentally unloveable once “understood”.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 02:18 PM
–

How do you maturely love what you do not understand?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 06:54 AM
–

“men and women are never going to yearn for each other ever again.” Still happens, btw. What are these assumptions? This post is so funny to me because…the things you think are dying or non-existent are still occurring every day…are we serious right now? I’m more romantic and effective at seducing someone BECAUSE I know more about them, lol…what is this post, lmfao? I’m in tears, are you sure you know what you’re talking about?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/26 06:41 AM
6

No, explicitly say what you mean.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:18 PM
8

Openly grateful for what?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:11 PM
2

Ok? What does this have to do with what I said?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:10 PM
6

Most women already acknowledge the reality that some lonely, resentful men may become unstable and sexual rejection can lead to anger and violence. Awareness of this reality is already deeply embedded in female socialization and risk assessment, so what kind of “acknowledgement” are you really talking about?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 07:03 PM
4

So, basically, you said: “No one is saying women owe men sex…but women must acknowledge that withholding desire may produce social consequences.”
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 06:46 PM
15

I think the underlying fantasy people have is that if they get others to acknowledge their exclusion/struggles as unfair, then it will increase their dating outcomes/desirability. The issue is that most people do not arrive at attraction via moral reasoning. A person can recognize that loneliness and romantic exclusion causes suffering without being then obligated to date people they don’t find desirable. It’s why I pause when some variation of the questions “What are women going to do for xyz m…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 06:34 PM
24

Love and dating is not a meritocracy and it is not meant to be non-discriminatory or fair. You can’t, like, debate your way into convincing people to be with you. I feel like most well adjusted people understand and accept this.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 05:51 PM
6

“Left leaning” “democrat” lol. What a shock it would be if liberal or moderate women had liberal/moderate views.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 02:48 PM
21

Sex work is highly stigmatized. Majority of it consists of survival sex workers and so people are aware of the fact that these women would very likely not engage with you at all if there were no direct financial incentive to do so. To many people, it feels coercive despite sex workers consenting to performing erotic labor in a paid context. Working under capitalism is typically coercive and, in a way, can be exploitative, but this specific industry is where civilians become very aware of it. Not…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 01:43 PM
6

You: “I don’t care if women want to have sex with me or not.” Also you: <image>
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 01:19 PM
5

Notice how real women still remain the template of desire in all his examples. Human intimacy and connection will not be replaced by bots, AI girlfriends, or artificial wombs. The robot fantasy is parasitic on existing attraction to women, not evidence that women are becoming irrelevant. What are these Lars and The Real Girl-esque scenarios, lmao?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 12:56 PM
18

The argument has such an odd flavor to it. It’s like the most unrealistic revenge fantasy. It reminds me of this, lol: <image> Feminine labor is already accessible, cheap, and devalued anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 09:50 AM
3

What he described is not implausible or unrealistic. It just depends on the person. I’m confused…women have mentioned paying on dates with their partners on here.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/26 10:22 PM
21

When exactly is the right time? When you receive signals that they are open to engaging with you specifically, or in social environments where flirting (clubs, bars, etc) is expected. What I find strange is certain men being insistent on approaching women who show no indication of being interested in them. Women say they don’t want to be cold approached because they do not want to be forced to engage in a conversation with a man they do not know and whose intention (to date) is not in alignment …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/26 02:20 PM
1

Your mod logic is applied unevenly. Their claims were not rigorously substantiated in the exchange either but no one sees you removing the entire thread. The discussion ended, I’m not using mod mail.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/26 12:21 PM
1

Rejection of a premise isn’t “contentless rhetoric”…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/26 11:41 PM
–

Ironic considering you developed an entirely flawed interpretation of female sexuality. I’m not reading the rest of your paragraph. I think your logic speaks for itself. “There is no discernible difference between an asexual woman and the average, heterosexual-identified one.” Remarkably incorrect. You literally do not know what you’re talking about. “Debating” women about their own sexuality and whether or not it is valid to you is retarded. You guys always assume I know less than I do. It’s so…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/26 01:56 AM
–

If you’re smart enough, you can figure out what that means, can’t you? What did I mean?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/26 01:38 AM
–

You don’t understand sexuality, seduction, or eroticism and it shows. People like feeling desired by people they desire. This is not evidence of absence of attraction. You seem inexperienced. Tone policing in this context is bold given what you’re implying. Your argument is already epistemically aggressive and weirdly invasive. “the fantasy is dependent on what the man is.” For some reason this doesn’t read to you as conceding my point. That is externally directed attraction.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/26 01:30 AM
–

The archetype itself disproves your own point. The entire fantasy is dependent on who the idealized male is. Your opinions are reductive to the point of absurdity. I can’t imagine being this dense.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/26 01:12 AM
–

I’m going to assume you’re being disingenuous now. That is a genuinely ignorant thing to say.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/26 12:33 AM
–

You are on Reddit.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/26 12:32 AM
8

Through your flawed perception. Why you guys insist on acting as the epistemic authorities of female sexuality is beyond me. It is so delusional.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 11:28 PM
–

You’re always insistent on arguing from a thinly veiled blackpilled framework. I am not interested in entertaining it. You’re allergic to nuance.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 11:25 PM
19

You didn’t study sexuality well. What you label as “autogynephilia” exists in human sexuality in general regardless of gender. It’s not exclusive to women, it’s a normal facet of sexuality. Men who insist women aren’t really heterosexual because they do not exhibit male desire patterns are erotically unintelligent. I highly doubt the argument would exist if they were actually intensely desired by any woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 11:12 PM
1

It’s not that simple like I said in the comment you just replied to.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 12:39 PM
0

Baseline social realities are coming to you as tragic epiphanies. Your replies are unnecessarily melodramatic.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 06:06 AM
0

Why send this?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 05:41 AM
1

Groundbreaking. Attractiveness hierarchies still exist in subcultures. Objective markers of beauty are still valued in niches, wow! Broad attractiveness patterns existing doesn’t mean everyone wants the exact same type of person. It’s observable to even the average normie.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 05:39 AM
–

The third secret option. Why is it purely sexual relationship vs platonic, but exclusive relationship, lol? They’re both undesirable choices.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 04:26 AM
1

They’re snap judgments made about your looks. The “archetypes” you’re referring to has to do with the personality traits that have been culturally associated with certain physical characteristics during a certain period of time. What are you talking about? It’s practically physiognomy. It’s why certain actors get casted in certain roles and not others. This isn’t even “the most important thing for attraction” lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 02:28 AM
7

It’s not what you want to be most (because believability is a major factor), it’s based on your bone structure and physical characteristics. You’re really just talking about branding.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/26 01:58 AM
–

Most people date in their attractiveness range. Their standards may not be too high, the person who is complaining about it just doesn’t meet the desirability threshold for that particular person. Like attracts like.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 08:58 PM
–

I literally said they’re average and low salience…not ugly.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/26 01:10 AM
–

Most men are average and are low salience. Not ugly, per se, just not noteworthy. I guess it’s also worth acknowledging that people nowadays think being “mid” (average) = ugly, at least on the internet, so…interpret that how you’d like.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/26 01:01 AM
2

What are you talking about. This is so dumb.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/26 12:51 AM
1

Are you new to relationships?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 09:56 PM
3

Water. This is the general expectation, lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 09:49 PM
15

This isn’t even gendered. I’m starting to question how much of this complaint about women not loving men for who they are is an excuse to do less. Not saying you’re consciously doing this, but complaints about not being loved unconditionally or whatever starts to become selfish. It can get to a point where people end up genuinely feeling justified in testing whether someone “truly loves them for them” and wanting the other person to “prove” it in certain ways. Idk.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 04:21 AM
1

Unserious incel logic.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 06:03 PM
3

There’s no other reason to reply, otherwise, is there?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 01:35 PM
3

Does my observation and conclusion bother you?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 01:34 PM
4

Female desire and attraction is a mystery to them. They often just project male desire onto women and get upset when they don’t see it mirrored. Reading the responses has solidified to me that they do not know what they’re talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 12:45 PM
–

Wondering why you keep asking about this scenario given your post history.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 02:54 AM
–

What do you think coercion means and why do you not think it applies here? Right after you say ‘coerced’ look at what the next seven words in your sentence say.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 02:18 AM
8

Women who are also, in some way, neurodivergent. Women who find their mannerisms and behaviors generally charming or attractive. The only thing I can say about my own experience is that the relationships have been very impactful and important to me. It really also depends on the man with autism. Some manifestations of ASD can be irritating.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/26 10:30 PM
3

I don’t think approaching a man you like because you have a higher chance of getting a yes is a good enough reason to approach. Even if he did not reject you, it doesn’t necessarily mean he is that into you. You could just be convenient and available. I don’t have an issue with women initiating, but he has to show signs of being actually affected by your presence and actually be really into you. My opinion on this is largely influenced by being very aware that men will often date one woman and h…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 05:31 PM
2

“I'm interested in likelyhood specifically because I want to know what proportion of people you think you could be attracted to if they had the right personality.” You might not get what you’re seeking then. It’s not about personality, it’s about essence. If you had asked, would you have sex with the gender bent version of your partner, I’d say yes, because my specific attraction and desire for him can transcend gender, but that’s not what you’re asking. This is an odd question, imo. I don’t thi…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 04:03 PM
3

You’re wrong. Do you not think about how stupid and presumptuous it is to argue with women who are attracted to men that they aren’t really attracted to men? You do not hold epistemic authority over female desire and sexuality in conversations with women who directly experience heterosexual attraction. lol why do I have to say this to begin with? Literally nuts.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/26 10:51 PM
3

It’s almost like what was being studied is a normal aspect of human sexuality, not exclusive to women. You can’t use it to claim women aren’t attracted to men because it’s stupid and strangely misogynistic. What you’re labeling as “autogynephilia” is really baseline self-awareness, aesthetic pleasure, and embodied identity. Applying your logic consistently would mean men imagining themselves in sex is “autoandrophilia”, male ego/arousal is “self-directed”, and visualizing one’s own desirability …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/26 10:38 PM
4

Don’t think he cares when he believes this: “Female heterosexuality is a precarious construction and not a mandate of nature. The fact that such desparate fields have found that women are not neurologically wired to desire men is enough to discard the traditional heterosexual narrative. Desire for men, as has been traditionally thought to exist, might only be possible for other men, as the existance of gay identity has already shown.”
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/26 10:11 PM
2

“Autogynephilia is defined as a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as female. Autogynephilia explains the desire for sex reassignment of some male-to-female (MTF) transsexuals.” Please do ask him why he is using it for women’s sexual orientation/sexuality, I’m sure you’ll have a laugh at the absurdity.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/26 09:28 PM
6

The implication here is that I’m an object or product. Don’t some men complain about women “letting themselves go” anyway? It seems like no matter what you choose to do, someone is going to be bothered by it in either direction. I’m still wearing the clothing and makeup that I want regardless of relationship status. It’s personal preference based on my own aesthetic and relational standards. Why wouldn’t I wear more sexy clothing in this context when I have more of an excuse to anyway? Men who p…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/26 06:49 PM
0

Ok lol. It’s your dating strategy.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/26 10:44 PM
3

Not always. If you insist on believing that, it’s up to you but it doesn’t really reflect reality. A woman can also say the same thing and question why a man would think a walk in the park is a sufficient date. It all depends on multiple factors. “I like you” does not automatically translate to “I accept anything from you.” This is not a difficult concept, tbh.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/26 10:42 PM
1

This has more to do with temperament, dating style/strategies, and capacity than it does with whether someone is into another person and how much. A walk in the park is not acceptable to everyone regardless of if she actually likes you a lot. It is what it is. Different people have different standards. I don’t know why this has to be debated so much.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/26 06:59 PM
2

I prefer male company over female company, but my friendships lean a bit romantic/ambiguous in general. Whose individual presence I value more is dependent on context and the actual relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/26 01:47 PM
1

Yes, since you replied.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/26 04:06 AM
3

Your replies are always so odd.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/26 03:10 AM
1

I clarified what I meant. Are you upset about something personally or…?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 09:33 PM
1

What’s your goal here, genuinely?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 09:30 PM
5

lol curious as to who will disagree and what their long-term retention looks like.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 06:14 PM
2

Why are you taking it literally when I clearly meant “I’m attracted to cis male bodies”? Are you intentionally trying to annoy me? Are you serious rn? Is clarification actually necessary here, because it seems like others understood…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 10:50 AM
2

Do you not understand what I mean? Like are you doing it on purpose or something?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 10:31 AM
2

So the key words here are “unprotected services”. I’m not criticizing you for seeking out full service sex workers in general. I’m going to assume you deliberately replied that way.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 03:16 AM
0

All these pills are so corny. Also lol at openly admitting to seeing escorts who offer unprotected services. So kewl…not strange at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 02:38 AM
7

Interesting.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/26 08:17 PM
12

Google is your friend. What are you doing here, lol?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/26 08:08 PM
6

? They both do.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/26 07:56 PM
48

No, I prefer male anatomy. Some people find it weird to hear, for some reason. Idk why…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/26 03:57 PM
3

You cannot really predict how you’ll grieve a loss like that until you experience it. If you love someone deeply, though, the physical and psychological pain would likely be significant.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/26 08:31 PM
4

If he doesn’t escalate too soon. Men that really like you tend to stick around without sex anyway, in my experience….Why are you asking this?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/26 01:08 AM
2

I’ve already written erotica for a man. I doubt I’d care about it, honestly. I don’t really pay attention to this genre unless I feel like I have to. Not sure why this is downvoted. I’m not making a fuss over what would likely be run of the mill femdom stories written for men…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 10:34 PM
3

If he has the capacity to do so, then sure. If he has the temperament, romantic imagination and creativity, and capacity for generosity, then absolutely. Not everyone has that. I wouldn’t rely on being the exception. People have very different dating and relational philosophies.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 01:40 PM
1

Why would they start with the bigger, irreversible commitment? Thinking backwards in terms of risk, no?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/26 08:26 PM
–

I love when I encounter this implicit belief some men seem to have regarding women, attraction, and intimacy. They treat intimacy and sex like a service or good that they’re entitled to access from women. The mindset isn’t even exclusive to red pill thinking either—it’s just misogyny. Isn’t it so interesting?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/26 03:49 PM
1

The entire vow is explicitly about anticipating change. It’s a statement of intent and public declaration of commitment. I don’t know why you fixated on one line and stripped it of its context. Experience is the best teacher. You cannot theorize your way out of vulnerability. If independence and freedom are as important to you as it seems, long-term deep relationships are probably not a fit for you in general. Deep connections require a certain level of interdependence and are not very compatibl…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/26 03:05 PM
8

You guys need more experience. These posts sound immature, imo. Marriages and long-term relationships are not promises that nothing will change. They require tolerance for uncertainty. You can’t—or maybe the better word to use is shouldn’t—construct a global theory of relationships without ever having been in one. There are certain aspects of relationships that are not observable from the outside, so without experiencing it, it’s easy to reduce relationships to risk, failure rates, and external …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/26 01:49 PM
1

Are you good? My original comment wasn’t persuasive, it was descriptive.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/26 12:24 AM
-1

I’m sure you can figure out what I meant. Why are you trying to argue with me? I don’t care if you put low effort into your own dates.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/26 12:19 AM
1

You can do whatever you want. It’s your dating life. Why would I convince you to put more effort into your relationships at all. You either have the personality and values to do something or you don’t. Generosity, attentiveness, pleasure in hosting, and delight in impressing someone are temperamental traits, in most cases. You either have it or you don’t. Men aren’t going to adopt these traits just because they were persuaded by a Reddit argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/26 12:16 AM
1

They care about convenience and optimization. I don’t think they’re going to be convinced to do anything else other than the minimum they can get away with. Just filter them out through your profile, if you must stay on online platforms. I don’t find it appealing either, personally, but that’s largely because my personality and way of relating to people is incompatible with their dating style. They can be ignored.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/26 10:32 PM
5

Convinced you guys just say anything without looking things up beforehand. There are feminist critiques on conscription, lol. The entire format of the post is funny to me, lmao.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/26 03:18 AM
–

You seem offended. It’s actually making this funnier.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/26 04:39 PM
1

<image> No exaggeration. Hilarious.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/26 06:37 AM
11

lol this reads like something Elliot Rodger would say. No exaggeration.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/26 12:24 AM
–

I asked a specific question: “what does cautious behavior look like when someone is skilled at deception?”. Does your framework not have a concrete answer for that?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/26 11:27 PM
–

What?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/26 10:57 PM
–

What does cautiousness look like to you in this context? Because people can be skilled at deception and creating the illusion of genuine interest. Do you deny that?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/26 10:51 PM
–

Completely neutral commentary from black pill incel man, lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/26 09:54 PM
2

I wouldn’t necessarily say disclosing the amount of sexual partners you’ve had is “very important”. It’s generally a very juvenile, loaded, and invasive question to ask. We live in an erotophobic culture, it’s a bit strange to feel entitled to unnecessary past sexual details, imo. It seems more like an ego thing. Paternity fraud is also not prevalent at all, so I don’t even know why it’s mentioned so much on here.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/26 04:42 PM
1

This isn’t an accurate reflection of my perspective. I don’t care to explain what I meant or why I said something over a week later. I made the comparison for a reason, I don’t expect everyone to automatically get it. Paid companionship is sex work in this context but whatever. Have a nice day.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/26 12:49 AM
10

Is this a serious response? I can’t think of a more erotically unintelligent statement…Bizarre.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/26 08:31 AM
4

The high numbers appear in studies where paternity was already disputed. If you only test people who go to a cancer clinic, and find that 30% of them have cancer. Does that mean 30% of the overall population has cancer? I think you know the answer to this.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/26 11:24 PM
2

So your original claim of “The rate is also 18% as reported by the FBI. So it's actually a really really really high rate,” was false? Now it’s from a FBI interview you saw a few years back. Do you think this counts as spreading misinformation or false claims on the internet? It seems like you rely on the possibility that no one will seek to verify the things you say. The paper does not support the claim that 18% of babies overall involve misattributed paternity. When you read the section titled…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/26 11:09 PM
5

The FBI is responsible for investigating federal crimes, national security and counter terrorism, interstate criminal activity, and maintaining national crime databases. Paternity fraud rates do not fall under any of these categories. Paternity disputes aren’t crimes. It’s a civil matter, not criminal. Your desire to lie about this on the internet is so absurd. I understand your potential motivation for doing so, but it’s still surprising.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/26 10:40 PM
6

If you’re going to lie, at least make it sound plausible. Why would the Federal Bureau of Investigation track paternity fraud rates?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/26 10:31 PM
8

Women having hypergamous programming is an observable fact? Where do you get your information from?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/26 08:44 PM
2

No proof of primordial hardware.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/26 07:41 PM
17

“These are built in, evolutionary programs.” No? You’re misinformed.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/26 07:20 PM
2

I mean….its not what me or OP were talking about, so why mention it?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/26 04:35 PM
1

I hope you figure it out.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/26 07:06 PM
0

What does generally mean to you?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/26 07:04 PM
3

I wasn’t talking about 50–50….
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/26 06:29 PM
1

?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/26 03:24 AM
27

Women generally don’t hire male escorts. A man would need significant social capital and appeal towards women in order to get women to pay for his company. His value would have to be more than physical attractiveness. I find it weird when men fixate on the idea of women paying on dates in the name of “equality”. They’re usually downplaying or ignoring historical and cultural context behind why certain dating etiquette/norms exist in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/26 02:45 AM
1

…? Ok…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/26 02:55 PM
0

Oofy doofy, lol. What is this post, dude.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/26 02:37 AM
2

I don’t get what’s making it comparable to wanting a gay best friend to you. It’s really not the same. Idk what would make you think women would want a romantic relationship with a man that…cannot be attracted to women romantically…..You can be in a relationship and not have sex. Sex isn’t inherently a part of companionship, it’s optional.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/26 09:27 PM
2

Why would you think that equates to wanting a gay best friend? That doesn’t even really make any sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/26 09:11 PM
1

Men who actually like and want to spend their time with you will do so. You don’t even really have to have physical contact with them at all. It’s not like they’re a different species, lol. Men who seem to only care about sex can be avoided. Idk.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/26 08:45 PM
3

Can you explain why stating a preference on a profile is automatically considered evidence of (unearned) entitlement to you? Dating profiles are lists of desires, filters and compatibility markers. I don’t know why you’re equating stated desires to unearned entitlement. Let’s say, hypothetically, a man isn’t using ‘king treatment only’ as a defensive reaction to women seeking princess treatment (or soft-life/soft-girl era mindset whatever). Stripping it of the current social and cultural context…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/26 06:14 PM
2

How is this relevant? Literally zero context.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/26 04:29 PM
2

I was reading the comments and OP’s post. Not specifically talking about you being offended. I’m just noticing the leaps being made to pathologize and moralize a preference. You both treat it as ethically suspect, interestingly.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/26 04:12 PM
1

It’s probably just a filter? I don’t really get this mindset. Listing it on a profile wouldn’t say anything about whether they deserve it or not. Personally, I wouldn’t use that exact phrasing…but I don’t think it’s that big of a deal for random people on the internet to be offended by it.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/26 03:58 PM
–

I can’t tell if you’re intentionally being dense or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/26 02:22 PM
–

What do you think setting up a chore chart and keeping track of what needs to be fixed/done within the household is, Einstein?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/26 06:54 AM
5

The unfit will be filtered out. No one who needs a real connection to engage in physical intimacy cares if men who disagree with their way of engaging sexually is offputting to them. They’re unwanted.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/26 01:42 AM
4

It’s partly subjective, but he has little to nothing to offer. Practically useless to continue engaging with because he lacks traditional markers of status. I think you’re trying to over analyze a ten second interaction, though. She simply did not want to talk to you. That’s it. It’s not within your control.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/25 12:20 AM
–

Wow, you’re so funny.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/25 05:12 PM
4

You typically do get something in return…their time, attention, companionship and whatever else they have of value to bring to “the table”. Outside of the general reality that men typically benefit from m/f relationships more than women do and women typically perform more relational, emotional, sexual, domestic labor in relationships with men, it’s really dependent on the individual woman. It’s entirely optional to date women who want you to spend money on them. The majority of women are probabl…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/25 07:39 PM
5

Sons learning domestic or social skills to function autonomously ≠ conditioning daughters for future sexualized/relational labor. Training minors to fulfill a partner’s future needs is grooming. Teaching children general life skills is not. It’s very simple, isn’t it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/25 04:59 AM
6

Use your brain.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/25 04:51 AM
1

What are you talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/25 04:04 AM
6

Can children consent to being molded for a future romantic role? Can they consent to performing gendered labor for an imaginary adult partner?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/25 03:45 AM
13

I was raised the way he described. Speaking from personal experience, you’re being deliberately disingenuous and don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s literally child grooming.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/25 03:37 AM
11

“wifely and maternal duty in their daughters while they’re young and have time” is what you’re specifically defending. Not simply domestic skills for herself but for the benefit of a future adult man. I don’t know why you’re playing stupid as to what wifely and maternal duties would mean in this context. You’re defending something indefensible.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/25 03:31 AM
17

adult women making choices in a sexualized environment ≠ minors being taught domestic labor for male benefit. Are you ok?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/25 03:22 AM
9

It’s explicitly about minors.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/25 03:20 AM
11

No, it isn’t. You sound ignorant. We’re literally talking about female children, what is wrong with you?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/25 03:11 AM
13

“People need to start instilling wifely and maternal duty in their daughters while they’re young and have time.” No, this is not fair to the child and is technically grooming. Do not suggest this. Women develop relational skills over time with effort. I don’t know why you’d think otherwise.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/25 03:04 AM
2

What made you decide to ask this question again 3.5 months later?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/25 01:14 AM
17

Most younger women aren’t equipped to date men decades older than them. I’d partially care about their decisions because they’re not fully aware of what they’re doing and lack experience or knowledge to properly navigate the relationship. It’s kind of stupid to get into relationships with men significantly older than you when you aren’t even adept at interacting with men your own age.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/25 12:56 AM
1

To you. I wasn’t wrong, you just don’t get it.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/25 08:32 AM
3

The friendzone interpretation is itself proof of low erotic intelligence. I’m not interested in male-centric arousal logic being projected onto female erotic psychology. It doesn’t challenge anything I said.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/25 12:17 AM
2

If sexual exclusivity is what separates romance from friendship, then a loveless marriage is still ‘romantic’ and a deeply loving but sexless relationship is not. Does that match what people actually experience? I never said sex was a major component of romance. Romance can be created without sex. Tension can be built without touching at all. Psychological seduction isn’t really about leading someone to into sex. Are you capable of imagining romance without sexual access and exclusivity or is th…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/25 09:06 PM
2

It can be an aspect of a romantic relationship, but that isn’t what distinguishes romantic relationships from platonic relationships, etc. If sex were the defining feature of romantic relationships then friends with benefits, escort-client relationships, casual hookups, and polysexual friendships would also count. Romance novels contain longing, yearning, emotional vulnerability, psychological seduction, relational tension, etc. Many contain sex, but many do not. If readers wanted sex alone, the…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/25 07:24 PM
4

It’s the romantic aspect, not necessarily the sexual attraction or sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/25 07:08 PM
5

I don’t really know what you’re talking about. Relationships are optional, you don’t have to engage in them if you don’t want to. If you only care about sex, hire a sex worker.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/25 06:52 PM
6

That’s really sad. I wonder what it says about their heterosexuality.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/25 06:39 PM
1

You’re trying to compare sexual pacing to a partner’s financial generosity, emotional warmth, and long term effort across exes. These aren’t equivalent categories. You can’t equate a single variable (time-to-sex) with an entire pattern of relational investment. People treat different partners differently because relationships are contextual.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/25 05:31 PM
3

I meant they’re inexperienced with deep feminine desire. The men in the examples have only experienced surface-level arousal. Only men who have narrow sexual experience insist that speed = attraction. I don’t disagree with you that they can be selfish, but it’s a symptom of their low relational and erotic intelligence.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/25 05:23 PM
3

It doesn’t automatically mean she isn’t attracted to you. Not sure if people are really giving potential partners an entire rundown of their dating history and divulging how they treated each partner. It seems like over sharing unnecessary information. It’s weird and tacky to me, but I’m not familiar with that and wouldn’t do it.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/25 04:50 PM
14

It doesn’t mean sex is the only thing she can offer, it means sex (or at least easy access to low effort sex, if I’m being more specific) is the only thing that the person she’s interacting with seems to value. This says nothing about the woman’s value or what she fully has to offer in relationships. It’s overly simplistic and generally incorrect to assume otherwise.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/25 04:13 PM
4

The men in your examples have low relational and erotic intelligence. That’s why they struggle. "If a woman doesn't fuck me as soon as possible, then she doesn't find me attractive and I'm wasting my time." I’m not convinced that someone who is familiar with deep desire would ever say this. They are inexperienced and unaware of just how inexperienced, ignorant, and entitled they are. It seems like something someone would believe if they were conditioned by low level porn logic and unfamiliar wit…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/25 03:46 PM
4

Sounds like a bad strategy.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/25 01:54 AM
0

Wanting a man that has ambition does not necessarily mean that he can’t be loved for who he is. If being ambitious is part of who he is, I don’t really see the issue here. If you love someone holistically, then obviously all of their traits will be taken into account. Personally, I wouldn’t call women seeking ambitious partners “gold-diggers”. I think it’s more accurate to say they care more about status as a concept than, like, extracting money from someone. Maybe I have a higher criteria for w…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/25 01:21 AM
–

I think you should just reread my entire thread. I cannot make you understand something I already explained over and over again. At some point, lack of comprehension has more to do with an individuals own limitations.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/25 12:58 AM
–

<image>
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/25 12:44 AM
3

Ok. Do you have a full explanation for this bold take?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 10:35 PM
1

You’re 5’6? I’m sorry you seem so dejected.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 07:03 PM
1

You’re above average in looks and still think you’re unloveable because you’re short? How tall are you?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 06:46 PM
2

Some women are attracted to shorter men…I’m sorry but your username is making me laugh.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 06:36 PM
0

<image> Why are you arguing against basic cognitive operations involved in any close relationship…You’re practically arguing that you cannot notice when your partner is tired or remember that they like 2% milk.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 04:26 PM
2

Your projection and leaps to unsubstantiated conclusions says something. What do you think it shows in a conversation about comprehension and entry-level human relational cognition?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 03:34 PM
2

It seems like defensive processing still overrides your ability to comprehend what I say. Making a cognitive claim about relational processing ≠ making a moral claim about gender. Your last sentence has nothing to do with what I said.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 08:39 AM
3

What do you think reading comprehension entails?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 03:33 AM
3

This is not a coherent sentence and you’re missing the point.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 03:24 AM
4

You’re not really engaging with what I said. You’re replying to a straw version of my position. Didn’t you just make a post about women’s emotional absolutism? You’re engaging in absolutist thinking here.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 02:55 AM
2

LOL
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 02:39 AM
7

I’ll rephrase what I’m basically saying: Don’t make your partner carry the whole burden of stating everything explicitly every time. Pay attention. Use what you know. Notice shifts. Apply pattern recognition. Use the relational context. Just to make sure, do you genuinely disagree with this? This is not a mind reading fantasy —it’s human relational cognition.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 02:25 AM
14

In school, are students expected to read the author’s mind when reading a text or are they expected to make inferences based on context?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 02:10 AM
4

Relationships require emotional labor…the complaint is about the emotional labor being asymmetrical, not that it has to be performed at all. All relationships require work to maintain. What are you disagreeing with me on? The basic requirements for functional and healthy adult relationships? Is it either you have to be a mind reader or you need constant explicit communication 24/7, in your mind? In my first comment I’m talking about paying attention. What are you arguing for exactly?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 01:52 AM
7

They’re your partner, you should be able to adapt. I never mentioned zero communication.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 01:17 AM
11

The core issue is lack of attunement and low relational intelligence. They don’t need to spell it out for you all the time. Partners should be able to anticipate needs and read between the lines.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 12:56 AM
6

At the end of the day it is a skill issue. It’s probably best to focus on your partners instead of worrying about what women over thirty write on Reddit. “And more importantly, I am of the opinion that a women's orgasm and sexual satisfaction is her own responsibility. The guy she is with is just a sidekick or a support.” You’re not a good lover if you think this. This is such an odd mindset to me. Why would you have sex with someone if you don’t really care if they experience pleasure and enjoy…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/25 12:43 AM
2

….read the replies. I don’t know why you thought it was a good idea to respond with this when I’ve already had entire conversations about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 11:19 AM
0

Do you think it looks like you’re projecting by calling my responses unhinged rants when your replies look like this?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 04:20 AM
0

You couldn’t have written a more unserious, bad faith reply, could you? And on top of that you’ve just admitted that is what is meant in online discussions. Thanks.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 03:47 AM
4

It seems like you latched onto the last part of my original comment and you’re trying to argue with the stripped down, dumbest possible interpretation of it. I was talking about behavioral reality, not individual preference. Regardless of what some men claim online, socioeconomic status does influence dating dynamics.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 02:36 AM
2

Reread the sentence before the question. There you will (hopefully) find the answer.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 02:05 AM
0

It’s intellectually unserious to equate a sneaker collection (hobby) with a career/degree (something that represents identity, effort, values, socioeconomic position, stability, ambition, life trajectory). Subjective importance doesn’t erase categorical differences. A stamp collection and a child are not the same because someone “values them equally.” “When men say they don’t care about career or degrees, they mean they don’t judge women based on how prestigious those are.” This isn’t typically …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 02:02 AM
1

Okay..
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 01:49 AM
6

My point was about basic relational etiquette and the social meaning behind dismissing something someone values. I never said that men must care about a woman’s degree more than anything else or that they should rank career over kindness. The sneaker analogy wasn’t the best. You’re trying to equate a structural life factor with a pastime. Disregarding a major pillar of someone’s adult life is not comparable to a sneaker collection. “A guy could be proud of his sneaker collection, you going to fa…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/25 12:12 AM
4

The longer I think about it, the less it makes sense to me. I cannot think of any realistic context where it is appropriate to tell a potential romantic interest that you don’t really care about their career, degrees, or interests. Partners are literally supposed to be supportive and interested in your life and what you value, otherwise…why are they there? Internet people aren’t real. The implication that men on the internet are constantly in situations where their potential romantic interests a…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/25 10:28 PM
1

If they had assets and wealth to protect, I’d assume it would make more sense to look into the laws in their jurisdiction, get an attorney, get a prenup and or postnuptial and understand what cannot be taken in a divorce and what can.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/25 10:24 PM
2

I don’t think they really care about divorce laws lol. A lot of it seems performative and they typically fixate and fear monger over sensationalized celebrity/social media news stories. None of this is serious.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/25 08:11 PM
0

What skill? lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/25 07:43 PM
2

They shouldn’t do it then. They’re probably not attractive enough for the strategy. It’s not understandable. Don’t approach people who don’t seem interested in you and hope that they might give you the time of day.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/25 07:36 PM
1

You seem upset that I find your behavior funny 😆.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/25 07:30 PM
1

You’re malding on Reddit. Replying to comments unrelated to you a day later..
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/25 07:16 PM
1

Are you being intentionally dense?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/25 06:10 PM
0

I’m not under the impression that you know how evolutionary science actually works. You’re replying to me with folk stories and just so theories and claiming it’s universal, lol….
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/25 05:41 PM
2

Why are you assuming I know nothing about evolutionary psychology and mate selection when you’re painting men as a monolith with one singular instinct? You’re not making scientific claims, you’re pretending that a personal confession is a universal principle when it isn’t.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/25 05:15 PM
5

Is it exhausting to pretend to be interested in someone as a person just to gain access to sex? You’re not describing truth, it’s just your own subjective belief. People oftentimes use education as a proxy for shared values and intelligence. To imply that men as a whole do not factor these things in or care if a woman is intelligent is a bit odd, imo.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/25 04:28 PM
29

In contexts where people are pursuing connection and seeking to date, it is generally seen as rude to dismiss the other persons achievements that they’re likely proud of. Honestly, I have only seen men (on the internet) say dismissively that they don’t care about a woman’s accomplishments or degree(s). Saying that men don’t factor in a woman’s degree or career is like saying they don’t take socioeconomic status into account or it doesn’t influence their behaviors in dating women. I’m not so sure…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/25 04:10 PM
4

I mean…the only reason for me to think about approaching is if I find them attractive AND there are iois. It’s less about a fear of rejection when they clearly show signs of attraction and more about…simply not feeling like it or caring. I have to think about whether or not I actually want to entertain them and usually I don’t think it’s worth the effort. There’s no major loss, you can always find another person to engage with when you feel like it. I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. You don…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/25 03:37 PM
2

You: “You're free to think that. You can also check my recent post history and you'll find the answers you're looking for if you are too proud to ask instead of demand. I've been arguing with multiple sexists on here all day and I'm certain we've covered what you're driving at and more.” Also you, yesterday: “It's not rape to lead someone on lol. GTFO with that shit. The courts would specifically keep their noses out of that kind of situation unless the woman could show that she was seriously ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 10:36 PM
1

Women fearing men in the woods is misandry, but men deceiving women for sex is not a big deal. Your comment history is interesting.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 10:16 PM
0

Or you could just not engage with my comments if you refuse to answer my questions. Why are you insistent on being weird, LMAO? You weren’t really saying much of anything though…there was no discourse 🤣🤣🤣🤣 wtf.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 08:25 PM
1

That was mostly a joke. This is a separate post. And you have already shown me that you’re more interested in deflecting, performing dominance on Reddit, and insisting on getting me to say “please” over actually engaging with my questions.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 08:23 PM
1

Are you following me now? 💀 This is like comparing hurricanes to muggers. A hurricane kills more people, but you don’t fear hurricanes the same way you would fear a person who may choose to hurt you. I really think you guys are deliberately missing why women may choose a bear in the hypothetical scenario. It’s literally not about risk percentages.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 08:02 PM
0

Your insistence on “what if it’s a polar bear or a hungry bear” is missing the point because it anthropomorphizes and morally equates the bear to a man, when the hypothetical is about human threat perception and agency, not animal behavior. Bears don’t plan, strategize, or have intent; their danger is instinctual, predictable, and situational. Men can choose to harm, making their presence qualitatively different as a threat. I do not understand what is difficult to grasp here. This is retarded. …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 07:10 PM
1

Do you get enjoyment out of making female strangers uncomfortable during conversations centered around fear of male violence? What’s the meme about again…?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 06:11 PM
2

Sorry?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 06:04 PM
0

Reread my replies. Women don’t assume the bear is moral or safe. “If the man could have bad intentions, the bear could be a polar bear! 🤓☝️” Women aren’t thinking, “Maybe it’s a gentle, emotionally well-regulated polar bear with great conflict-resolution skills.” This is a stupid assumption. The meme isn’t even about fear of death, it’s about fear of male violence against women. It’s not quantum mechanics or rocket science.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 06:04 PM
3

They care more about not being seen as dangerous than about understanding why women feel unsafe.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 05:54 PM
2

Oh, so it’s a frequent response women give you…Are you actually going to engage with the question regarding the meme or not?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 05:52 PM
2

You’re telling on yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 05:50 PM
2

….Are you anthropomorphizing the bear in the scenario to make it equal to a man? What are you doing?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 05:42 PM
2

Uh huh. Answer the question: what do you think women’s fear is when encountering a strange man alone in the woods?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 05:38 PM
1

Why would I trust an animal with predictable instincts more than a strange man with unknown intentions in the hypothetical scenario where I am isolated in the woods? Bears are dangerous but not intentionally malicious or cruel. The potential threat is not the same.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 03:20 PM
5

Women in the woods don’t assume all men are predators……they assume any unknown man could be a predator, because they cannot reliably determine intent. That’s not prejudice. It’s rational risk management under high-stakes uncertainty. Do you think men face the same stakes if they misjudge a stranger alone in the woods? If not, why should women be morally expected to assume a man is not a threat?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 02:45 PM
4

Do you think women owe men the presumption of safety even in dangerous, isolated contexts where consequences of misjudgment are life-altering? Why do people lock their doors even though not all people are burglars? Why do people avoid certain alleys even though not all strangers are dangerous? I think you know the answer. Risk-management ≠ prejudice. But it seems like you need it to be so that you can argue morality, not safety.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 02:34 PM
9

How are they able to tell the difference between a dangerous man and a non-dangerous man in the hypothetical scenario where they are alone in the woods? I think you know the answer to this.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 02:06 PM
4

Probability arguments seem to be the only thing men who pretend not to understand why some women would choose a bear in this hypothetical scenario can lean on. The zoology lecture misses the point since the meme was about felt safety, not wildlife management. What do you think women’s fear is when encountering a strange man alone in the woods? The original hypothetical never mentioned a trail—it mentioned the woods. I think you know that and deliberately altered the setting. In deep woods, both …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 01:06 PM
2

what do you think women’s fear is when encountering a strange man alone in the woods? The refusal to answer the question is telling.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 12:13 PM
-2

I think some men are deliberately choosing not to understand why some women would hypothetically choose to encounter a bear in the woods rather than a man. I’m not convinced they don’t get it.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/25 12:08 PM
3

Elaborate?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/25 11:25 PM
10

You’re not being honest.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/25 08:01 AM
15

It is a blackpill frame—I don’t know why you’re pretending it isn’t. The premise is flawed and you’re asking a loaded question. It’s not a dodge if I don’t answer it. Your question assumes women have a collective responsibility to educate men about sexual desirability, that women’s individual preferences can be generalized into some universal rule, and that male self development is contingent on women’s validation rather than internal motivation. None of those premises are true. Women cannot and…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/25 07:58 AM
13

“Women need to warn men earlier that they’re losers so men don’t waste effort trying not to be losers.” This is really about your blackpilled worldview.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/25 07:21 AM
9

I compared you to a moth being drawn to a flame. You seem to consistently miss the point of the things I say. I cannot take you seriously.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/25 06:26 AM
17

Are you asking me if women are morally or socially obligated to disclose their sexual preferences or thresholds to help men?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/25 06:18 AM
11

“Finally, if a woman would only have sex with a man if he gives her companionship in return, then that means she's not really attracted to him anyway. So she's already lying to him by omitting her lack of attraction. So his own disonesty is retroactively justified by hers.” This is what he said. You are defending flawed logic. I’m not arguing in bad faith. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. Rhetorical argument = bad faith ??? Oh, you’re the moth guy, LMAO. It all makes sense now.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/25 05:48 AM
8

Did I hit a nerve? It doesn’t seem like you’re engaging rationally…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/25 05:36 AM
13

This is a highly emotional reaction to me analyzing OP’s logic and ethical consequences. Pointing out a logical inconsistency is not forcing agreement. Instead of addressing OP’s flawed argument or the ethical point, you’re attacking my rhetorical style in an attempt to derail….
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/25 05:34 AM
18

So basically: “Even if my position implies rape, my argument still stands.” LOL. We’re not beating the incel stereotypes here, are we?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/25 05:06 AM
24

You’re trying to justify obtaining sexual access under false pretenses. Arguing that women having standards is deception and therefore men should permitted to deceive them is an odd take. Do you realize you are admitting that men, according to you, do not want women who would consent to having sex with them? Consent under deceptive premises is not consent. I’m not going to pretend like this isn’t unethical. You cannot move the argument forward without admitting something you probably don’t want …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/25 04:22 AM
51

I have to admire the mental gymnastics here. “By being honest about only wanting sex a man is dramatically reduces his chances of getting is.” So you’d rather deceive someone who is less likely to say yes to you if you were honest about your intentions? Interesting. It’s not like there aren’t women who would be fine with simply having sex outside of a relationship. It seems like you’re choosing NOT to engage with them. I think you should ask yourself why that is.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/25 04:03 AM
3

No, in the traditional sense he is the more intelligent one. We’re both intelligent but in different areas. We’re intellectual counterparts. I love his brain, his cognitive style, his discipline and analytical intelligence. I think it’s intensely attractive, I couldn’t imagine being with a man who is “dumber”, I think I’d probably be bored and irritated at the lack of stimulation.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/25 02:32 AM
2

I don’t really get your point. Why mention your low effort dating app profile working for you because you leaned into a height advantage and used one adjective? I wouldn’t call that marketing. Were you trying to disagree with me on the idea that people who distinguish themselves are more likely to get engagement?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/25 10:40 PM
1

I don’t see how it would be a fair swap unless you’re an average woman. I don’t use dating apps, but I don’t think the average male is likely to market himself well on the apps…It probably contributes to lack of engagement. They probably don’t do well due to the fact that dating apps are very looks centered and they blend into the mass market due to little to no differentiation. I can’t imagine swapping because it just doesn’t make sense to me... I don’t really struggle with differentiation or a…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/25 09:36 PM
3

Like a moth to a flame. Don’t worry—you don’t have to also argue that you’re not a moth. Here’s the point of my comment: OP’s premise is disconnected from real life. My comment was rhetorical. Understanding rhetorical comments requires social intuition, self-awareness, ability to decode tone, and understanding subtext. Unfortunately, I’m not seeing that right now… OP’s entire post is based on a fantastical, ideologically skewed projection of online discourse onto real life. Do you think it’s int…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/25 05:32 PM
5

Water is wet. Why are you replying to me with this?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/25 11:17 PM
3

Maybe you need a snickers bar. You’re not you when you’re hungry.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/25 10:43 PM
1

I don’t know why you even replied to my comment, at this point. Are you bored? What is the point lol?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/25 10:40 PM
1

And what do we say about hit dogs?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/25 10:38 PM
45

Lol earlier this month a man made a post about how most women aren’t their boyfriends type. Now we get this. I’m very amused.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/25 10:00 PM
36

Do you guys interact with real people in real life? What are we talking about here, LMAO? These takes are so chronically online.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/25 08:47 PM
–

“The One” doesn’t actually have much to do with perfection, realistically speaking. It’s the singular, formative, non-transferable attachment of a person’s lifetime. You don’t exactly get to choose who you psychologically imprint on or if it even happens to you at all. It is a once in a lifetime neurobiological reality for some. It isn’t a fairytale.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/25 10:47 PM
–

This is genuinely one of the most immature and self absorbed takes on relationships I’ve seen. Oh, It’s his erotic fantasy, judging by his comment history.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/25 05:06 AM
7

“you're paying a premium for something some other guy will get at a discount.” So women are commodities to you which is your argument for doing as little as possible in relationships with them….
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/25 02:02 AM
1

Physical attractiveness and magnetism. People project their desires and core needs onto others. It’s the foundation of why one is drawn to another. Not sure how else to answer this question. I’m not under the impression that men actually find me approachable, so it’s not about approachability — it’s about emotional resonance.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/25 06:50 PM
3

I know. We’re not disagreeing with each other here. At the end of the day, they choose to be with those women.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/25 10:49 PM
8

I’d agree that most men probably aren’t dating their ideal dream woman, but I’d say they choose partners based on social ease, lifestyle compatibility, and who wouldn’t threaten their ego/self-concept rather than simply saying “men settle for what they can get”. It’s probably more about comfort and convenience. Your dream woman may not, in all actuality, be psychologically comforting or convenient to date. Is it settling? Sure, but they choose to be with people they deem good enough to be with. …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/25 10:46 PM
3

The nerd. In each scenario. For the last question: no, I don’t want the nba player.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/25 01:04 AM
4

Money, status, or the illusion of stability and maturity. But usually money. Ever heard of women saying they “want to be able to look up to a man/learn something from a man” or that they’re seeking someone more “established”? lol…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/25 02:18 AM
2

This seems more reflective of your own experience and perception rather than objective reality. It’s hard to take seriously because there are many other ways to make people feel loved outside of sex or physical contact. In my opinion, this seems more like a skill issue and an inadequate understanding of male psychology (and maybe human nature in general).
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/25 11:16 AM
6

What data backs up your claim that men carry majority of the load in relationships with women?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/25 08:15 PM
4

Why would you think one couldn’t be? How would it be incompatible to you? It depends on the branch of feminist thought. It seems like your idea of a feminist is a woman that has liberal feminist/neoliberal ideas of equality.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/25 03:08 AM
1

Your comment history is interesting. You could give a counter-argument if you’d like, I don’t mind.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/25 06:28 PM
3

The economic system is structured to create and enforce dependency for women. It makes a male partner—or at least access to a male wage—a practical and oftentimes necessary economic strategy. The system systematically undervalues feminized forms of labor through the gender pay gap and the lack of support for care work. Within a heterosexual couple, it becomes a "rational" economic decision for the woman to take on more unpaid labor because her paid labor is worth less. This adaptation increases …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/25 02:04 PM
2

Even if you remove reproductive labor entirely, women still disproportionately take on other forms of unpaid and/or undervalued labor in relationships with men. I think people’s main response to OP being that women simply choose the wrong man or haven’t been in a “true” 50/50 relationship dynamic misses the point that this is an issue of structural exploitation and not simply choosing poorly. In all actuality, the 50/50 egalitarian relationship is mostly an illusion. You can’t really claim your …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/25 11:19 PM
1

Your replies are unnecessarily long winded. Why go on a tangent instead of answering the original question i asked? The question was about hypergamy itself and why it was associated with having a bad moral compass — I wasn’t asking for cultural commentary about modern women’s skewed perceptions. You’re responding with anecdotes and expecting that to override data on how people actually partner up, why? You can’t dismiss broad sociological trends as “selection bias” just because you want to focus…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/25 04:17 PM
2

You’re not engaging with my replies in good faith. Hypergamy is not interchangeable with the definition of prostitution. You’re collapsing all forms of dating up into a purely monetary exchange while ignoring other forms of status (education, reputation, social network, intelligence, ambition, artistic talent, cultural capital, etc.). You don’t think it’s intellectually sloppy to reduce all of these things to money? Defaulting to worst case scenarios and caricatures ignores counterexamples of wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/25 10:07 AM
2

Why assume it’s blatantly transactional? Are women who don’t happen to date or marry up offering non-transactional love and companionship? Hypergamy isn’t inherently transactional in a negative sense, either. It’s a descriptor of mate preference relative to social status. Do you genuinely believe it is impossible for people who date up to offer genuine affection, loyalty, and support? Why single out hypergamous relationships as uniquely transactional when every relationship involves some form of…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/25 03:32 AM
3

You’re not explaining your reasoning. It’s a neutral descriptor so how did you come to that conclusion?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/25 03:09 AM
2

I didn’t know tattoos = traditional woman. Don’t you think it’s more likely that men of higher SES are pairing with women of similar backgrounds to themselves? Assortative mating is more prevalent.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/25 03:04 AM
2

Do you think your narrative of women overestimating their value and men being undervalued conveniently sidesteps the reality that women often pair with men of equal or lower education/income? Sociological and demographic studies over the recent decades show declines in hypergamy and an increase in assortative mating.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/25 02:56 AM
4

That doesn’t really answer my question. What do you mean women can’t be successfully hypergamous due to their own moral compass? Also, why mention not being traditional? You don’t exactly need to be a trad-wife to social climb or date up..
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/25 02:10 AM
8

Since hypergamy is defined as the practice of a person marrying or dating someone of a higher social status than themselves, how is it automatically associated with having a shitty moral compass to you?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/25 01:45 AM
–

If OP acknowledged assortative mating (the dominant pattern currently) and declining hypergamy, his victim narrative would crumble. He’d have to admit that his lack of dating success is less about women chasing a top 30% and more about his position within his own strata. He doesn’t want to do that. Surprise surprise…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 02:45 PM
–

Where are you getting your numbers from? Your interpretation of the pew research data isn’t even accurate. You’re personally responsible for your dating outcomes.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 02:29 PM
–

What are you talking about?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 02:21 PM
–

This is an odd question. You shouldn’t attack anyone because of your lack of dating success. It’s a personal issue, why would you attack other people due to your own failures and lack of luck?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 02:16 PM
1

Women who date intentionally and women who have low n counts care, lol. You’re in competition with imaginary men over imaginary treatment you think you’re losing out on. It’s up to you if you’d like to push for sex early on when getting to know someone, but it seems rushed and insecure to do so in many cases. It’s not a confirmation that you’ll be treated better or worse than another man—there’s no way of knowing that. If you just need validation of your desirability and masculinity, then no one…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 02:11 PM
4

Seems kind of insecure, no?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 12:33 AM
4

It doesn’t seem realistic. If she has a low count, why would she sleep with anyone fast? She wouldn’t know someone well enough early on to do that. How would sleeping with a guy fast show seriousness, discernment, and discipline? They’re not even officially together, lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 12:30 AM
3

And you think these are objectively obvious signs of attraction? They don’t seem ambiguous and easy to misinterpret without other signals reinforcing them?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/25 07:30 PM
1

That’s a dodge. You have to give clear examples to make sure you aren’t misreading friendliness, situational eye contact, or politeness with attraction. People who frequently receive signals of attraction do not have difficulty speaking about them. Do you mind sharing what specific signs you’re referring to?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/25 07:01 PM
1

So go ahead and list them.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/25 06:53 PM
0

Please list the obvious signs of physical attraction the average man is receiving that is still leading them to getting rejected. I’m very intrigued by this because one day, people will say women do not find the average man—or even majority of men—attractive, and now, according to you, average looking men are receiving genuine iois and women are still turning them down.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/25 06:49 PM
5

You’re supposed to cold approach when you have received direct biological cues of attraction beforehand. Doing so would significantly lower your chances of experiencing humiliation and rejection. If you are approaching women that do not already show signs of interest and openness, it is your fault for expecting an unlikely outcome. You cannot manufacture or game your way into someone finding you attractive. If you do not meet a certain threshold of attractiveness, why would you choose a method b…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/25 06:36 PM
4

You’re not engaging with the heart of what I said. I never resorted to name calling, you just feel insulted and defensive…like I said. All your responses can be boiled down to deflections, tone-policing, and projection, lol. It’s obviously a leap to assume I think you’re an incel. I don’t even use the term as a go-to insult. You can’t really yell “LOGIC” and then say stuff like this lmfao, it looks silly. I already explained why I said what I said, if you cannot grasp it, it’s probably reflectiv…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/25 04:08 AM
2

Pivoting to “debate mode” and downplaying my critique doesn’t erase the content of what you actually wrote — the logic and framing of your posts still stands, whether you label it as a “debate” or not. Do you think it’s possible for a person to be level headed/calm and still express harmful or flawed logic? I wasn’t critiquing whether you have a girlfriend or not. I was critiquing how your posts signal attitudes that repel women in general. It seems like you feel personally attacked so you felt …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/25 03:14 AM
5

The framing of women in both of your posts suggests frustration, control issues, and a certain bitterness toward women, which aligns with the stereotype of someone unsuccessful in dating… My comment wasn’t about factual verification—it was about how your posts signal underlying attitudes that explain why women may be repelled by you. This post shows you operate on abusers logic when it comes to arguments in relationships. Its built on the premise that the responsibility for preventing violence f…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/25 02:53 AM
4

Why would I care about your messages and not the actual content of your posts?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/25 02:29 AM
10

I have to admit, it’s amusing to me that you wrote this post right after your other one where you complained about your lack of dating success. Very telling. I really love the implications here. Amazing.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/25 02:13 AM
2

lol probably plastic surgeons. Maybe face raters.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/25 01:46 AM
1

Yes, of course there’s truth in what I said. If the outcomes you want aren’t occurring, it’s reasonable to go back to the drawing board and assess what you can actually change, rather than attributing failure solely to external factors. Difficulty with dating isn’t purely about unfair dynamics— it’s oftentimes about personal positioning: attractiveness, value signaling, strategy, and differentiation. There was nothing objectively wrong with my comment, but some people would rather engage in the …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/25 01:11 AM
2

Cold approaching makes the most sense when you’re noticeably attractive and/or are receiving signs of attraction and interest via body language and other cues. It only works if people want what you’re “selling”. Since it’s mostly based on looks and vibes, I’m not sure why some guys are convinced they can “game” their way into attraction. It’s either there or it isn’t. Whenever someone brings up this strategy I think of Yad, lol: https://youtu.be/HTDorOBbFog?si=4Z9hivpTfBHzEF3p
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/25 11:49 PM
2

Reading the room in this case is determining if you even have the iois to approach in the first place. Cold approaching only really makes sense when it’s already been determined, without even having to speak, that there is attraction or interest. If someone doesn’t look open, why continue to attempt to strike up a conversation? The women that say they don’t want to be bothered very likely are displaying body language and cues that they don’t want to be bothered. There’s, like, this weird mindset…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/25 06:47 PM
-4

I think men (or maybe people in general) make it harder than it needs to be. Some of these things can be explained by lack of attractiveness, low value (or placing yourself in spaces where what you offer isn’t communicated well or even desired), and poor strategies. Maybe competition is harsh because you’re in an oversaturated market and have low differentiation. I don’t know, I’m skeptical…like, there are women that are more proactive and put in significant effort in dating and relationships, y…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/25 05:37 PM
2

It might be because of how late his glow-up is and the TikTok looksmaxxer glow-up routine he listed, lol. It’s just surprising. You’d think he would’ve still gotten attention earlier if his glow up transformation was so simple. Gym, tanning, new haircut and skincare?? No structural changes to the face, lol. I’m not calling him a fraud or anything—it’s just that his routine is pretty basic, so it’s surprising that it led to a significant difference in attention. Idk.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/25 11:03 PM
6

If you insist.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/25 03:42 PM
4

The post and replies speak for themselves lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/25 03:13 PM
–

Yes. This is a non-issue. I don’t look down on full service sex workers. Your description of this hypothetical sex worker is definitely interesting and inaccurate, though. No one I know of considers it easy money.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/25 01:06 AM
11

<image> ….Was that…a serious response?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 09:20 AM
12

More should be in jail. Why defend men that are deliberately committing contempt of court and choosing to abandon their children? It’s an odd hill to die on. I’ll never understand this. “Instead of getting angry at men for not paying child support—” ? It’s not misplaced. The government shouldn’t bail you out for abandoning your own responsibilities and being a negligent and morally bankrupt individual.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 05:41 AM
6

“As well”? I don’t like ugly dogs or ugly men. When I answered OP’s original question I said they meet the baseline criteria for (aesthetic) attraction and that the (especially psychological) attraction increases over time. The analogy never really made sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 09:52 PM
4

Okay, but that’s not what I said. You’re aware of that, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 08:44 PM
5

<image> Interesting choice. Haters will say it’s fake.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 08:11 PM
3

Nice silent edit. It’s almost like I was considering a more holistic, longitudinal view of sexual desire within relationships. Studies on long-term relationships show that while novelty-driven sexual attraction often peaks early, desire tied to emotional intimacy, shared goals, and partnership can increase or sustain sexual interest over the years. So, no, it’s not BS. Thanks for the comment, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 08:06 PM
1

What does my second sentence say?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 07:48 PM
2

No, attraction increases over time. There’s baseline attraction initially and then it’s supposed to increase.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 07:05 PM
10

“Reducing today’s dating landscape to “natural selection” is both scientifically inaccurate and intellectually lazy.” My apologies for assuming you cared about scientific accuracy and intellectual rigor. Interesting post overall. No depth and no original thoughts.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 10:30 AM
7

? I’d rather use critical thinking skills. Where’s the source.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 10:08 AM
10

……..is this the okcupid data….i love how you just post a chart with no source whatsoever. Just take it at face value.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 10:04 AM
11

Too much RR? My first thought reading this. It’s like you ripped it directly from his channel…..
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 09:44 AM
0

Recent. My face. Did I enjoy it? No, I didn’t think much of it. I receive compliments often enough. I think after a while it doesn’t really register as that significant. It depends on the context. They’re typically just nice things to say/their own personal opinions so there isn’t much to think about when being on the receiving end. I don’t know, they’re just compliments.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 08:07 AM
5

I usually ignore posts like that because it reads as them coping with being/feeling unloved. It doesn’t have a lot to do with women’s capacity to love. I don’t even really think their definitions/philosophies on love are well thought out anyway. If you’re confident and content with the love you offer in relationships as a woman, there’s very little to take seriously when men on here type things like ‘women don’t love men’ or ‘only women, children, and puppies are loved unconditionally blasé blas…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 07:32 AM
2

He’d probably say he doesn’t want that because then he’d have to pay someone to perform desire and attraction. He’s trying to avoid women using him for his resources, so he wouldn’t really want a full service provider. He thinks a woman that immediately goes along with his escalation and sexual advances means that she must really like him and would want to be with him…lol. Something about her providing value before a date or whatever. Lmao this still sounds absurd even when coming back to this c…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 11:31 PM
2

Reread your post.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/25 11:24 PM
3

Mirin your black and white thinking. Nothing registers to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/25 09:17 PM
12

Blackpillers have always come across as strikingly naive to me… “Men should want sex first to avoid being exploited for resources.” Rethink this one. Someone immediately having sex with you wouldn’t really ensure you won’t be exploited for resources lol. Not sure why you’d think that, care to explain?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/25 09:01 PM
8

The flair told me everything I need to know. DNR.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/25 08:54 PM
0

This isn’t true but if you insist on believing this, go ahead. Non-physical desires/requirements still exist regardless of if she’s genuinely physically attracted to him. It seems dense to think otherwise, imo.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/25 02:46 PM
1

You weren’t misrepresented. What are you talking about?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/25 06:12 AM
1

If you didn’t care, why are you here, sneering? Your responses are emotionally loaded and sprinkled with thinly veiled contempt.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 07:28 PM
1

Your literary comparison fails. In Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov commits murder to test his theory about extraordinary people being above morality. He is driven by guilt, delusion, and a desire to separate himself from “common” people. Your comparison only has validity if I was fantasizing about being above moral consequence, believed myself to be entitled to special treatment without giving anything substantial back, or if I was broadcasting a superiority complex based in abstr…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 07:22 PM
6

I see you’ve decided to send me word salad…Tbh, I don’t really know what you’re talking about. You say you mean no offense and you’re just stating your opinion but your tone is a bit moralizing. What felt masculine about my original comment? The fact that I seemed assertive, critical of mediocrity, explicit about standards, and unwilling to beg or coax male improvement? None of these things are inherently masculine. Comparing me to a drill Sargent made me laugh, it reads as an absurd projection.…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/25 05:38 AM
4

No, I’m a zoomer. I was raised by my great-grandmother.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/25 02:38 AM
9

I’m overqualified for the market, high-maintenance (I don’t mean this superficially) and high investment. I can’t lower myself to accept mediocrity. Most men are underprepared, underqualified, and undisciplined in the areas that matter to me, and most men in my generation are emotionally illiterate, overstimulated, shallowly conditioned by porn and irony, and see vulnerability as weakness. There’s not much I can realistically do with that—you either meet me where I am or have to be willing and a…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/25 01:24 AM
–

Reread my last sentence—slowly. Sound each word out if you have to. What does it say? If you read ‘not because you’re gay’ and decided to accuse me of homophobia, you’re either incredibly dishonest or genuinely slow. I leave it up to you to decide which one it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/25 11:59 PM
–

If heterosexuality is only about sexual acts, then does a man who has sex with women but hates being around them still count as ‘oriented’ toward women—or is he just performing a role he doesn’t believe in? You may think you’re making a clever comeback, but you’re just exposing your inability to think beyond surface definitions. Engage with the philosophical core of my argument instead of replying with bad faith posturing, please and thank you.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/25 01:43 PM
–

That definition might be technically accurate, but it’s also very narrow. Sexual orientation isn’t just about who you sleep with—it’s about who you’re oriented toward. Emotionally. Intellectually. Spiritually. So if you only tolerate women for sex but find your true connection, admiration, and stimulation with other men, then what you’re describing sounds less like heterosexuality and more like heterosexual performance. You’re using women for physical access, while reserving depth and intimacy f…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/25 12:28 PM
–

Are you sure? You’re saying you prefer the company of men over women. If your main claim to heterosexuality is simply that you like to have sex with women and do not value them much outside of that, then it raises questions about your sexual orientation. Not because you’re gay or anything, but because you aren’t really heterosexual in any meaningful way.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/25 12:15 PM
–

Are you being serious rn 💀💀💀 it reads as a joke until I look at your flair
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/25 11:28 AM
2

Emotionally unavailable? Even the unicorn virgin doesn’t deserve an emotionally available partner according to the manosphere. lol we’re so doomed. “High value” virgin women wouldn’t want truecels for the same/similar reasons why any other woman wouldn’t want them. It doesn’t have so much to do with their virginity and lack of experience, but with the other traits that these men would tend to have. People that think in the ways described your post tend to lack the capacity to cultivate any relat…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 05:53 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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