TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

WowYouMustBeJoking Archive

View 0 posts and 2,414 comments by WowYouMustBeJoking 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)
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 2,414 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
–

I'm just saying that that clarification is not necessary because it doesn't change anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/24 07:59 PM
1

Of course, not all men do anything. There are some variations. But I'm pretty sure most men would prefer variety if given the opportunity. For example, building a life with one good partner who would also bring a third girl every now and then or at least wouldn't mind him seeing others every now and then would be ideal compared to just building life with that one partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/24 07:57 PM
–

A lot of them are not the same women, true. But "the same time in their life" is not helping your case here. That's not an excuse. It's not making it better if she was just like that in the past, it's only making it worse.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/24 06:59 PM
1

Umm, that's where caring about society starts. Why would a nerd care about society that doesn't want him to procreate? Not even procreate, just live life and enjoy one of the important experiences that others enjoy. If they are left out of something, of course they would resent people who weren't left out. That's not shocking.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/24 06:56 PM
–

Don't listen. They don't even understand that when they say compatible, status is included there. For them it just so happens that they are incompatible with homeless.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/24 10:42 PM
1

Spoken as someone who didn't grow up in a country that went through WW2. Yes, you always had a choice to resist rape and just die unraped instead. Of course, nobody will ask you. Sure, some were both raped and killed, that doesn't change anything. Point is, those who were raped and not killed, could resist and get killed instead. They chose to not get killed.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/24 07:12 PM
1

That's the point. One can get drunk and have loud music without going to a club. Going to a club is largely about interacting with strangers. And interacting with strangers is largely about potentially hooking up ( or fight if it's a guy-guy interaction, but that's a whole different fun topic). So no, it doesn't often have zero influence, it has influence all the time and you are forgetting that that influence can be subconscious.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/24 07:58 PM
1

Against the point that potential of hooking up has zero influence on decision to go to clubs and people just go to socialize/talk. Basically, against OP and pro- whoever's comment you replied to.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/24 07:30 PM
1

Q.E.D. Like, you're really bad at logic if you don't see it.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/24 07:17 PM
1

Are you a goldfish? Did you forget what OP is about and what the original comment was? Did you forget that it all started with pointing out that if you want to talk you don't go to loud places in the first place?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/24 07:51 PM
–

Were you trying to convince someone? You said you don't understand victim mentality, it was explained to you. Do you still not understand it? Or do you just feel the need to talk back because you're having a bad day?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/24 06:06 PM
1

Exactly. AND not OR. So new people are a requirement to go.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/24 06:05 PM
–

Ok? How does that help your original point about victims of af/bb? It doesn't. The only alternative is being unhappy with a woman or unhappy because you have no woman. Victim, no matter how you look at it.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/24 05:41 PM
–

What's so difficult to grasp? You say you go there to talk in quieter areas and drink and dance with friends. This makes no sense because you might as well not go to a club and do all of that at home. And spend much less. No, the only reason to go to a club is other people, not friends, but new people.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/24 05:39 PM
–

Not enough of those low count women to reliably meet them. Also, women can't be as unlucky in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/24 05:01 PM
–

Exactly not to be asking that every minute of a conversation in the club, just stay in a place that is quiet. Or pick one - are you there for loud music or to talk to people.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/24 04:32 PM
1

Yes. If it matters whether the adult is male or female then it also matters if a child is. The original comment doesn't contradict the OP and doesn't add anything actually unless the sex of a child is specified. OP was about gender-to-gender violence, not gender-to-age (that doesn't even make sense), and children have genders.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/24 04:31 PM
2

male children or female children?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/24 06:16 AM
1

The intent of asking this question is to attempt to isolate how much age alone affects relationship desirability for younger women. That's not how it works, though? If you want to see the effect of one factor alone, that factor should be the only variable and all other factors should be fixed and the same.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/24 06:10 AM
1

Incorrect. Value IS defined by who wants to buy. Ferrari doesn't create high demand. Ferrari is made to meet demand of rich people. Demand creates supply, not vice versa. RMV and SMV are not synonymous, they describe 2 different markets. Those markets overlap, but they are different.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/24 05:04 AM
1

No, why would I do that? I simply report what I observe + simple definitions. Ignoring reality would be ignoring the normal distribution.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/24 05:01 AM
1

They are opposite to pieces of paper. I'm not the one who claimed this first.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/24 05:00 AM
1

Exactly, and do you understand what orthogonal means? That's precisely why I can ignore fun and focus only on the orthogonal dimension. They said personality is what pulls, not fun. So if that's what pulls, fuckboys have very rich personalities.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/24 04:58 AM
–

So then don't bring up spaces where people can talk cause that's where there's no loud music ?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/24 04:57 AM
1

It is, both by observation with my eyes and by dictionary definitions. The overwhelming majority of people who attract enough partners to not only have partners but also to cheat on them are not ugly.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/24 09:56 PM
1

So how about you just don't go to a loud place to look for the least loud space in it?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/24 09:37 PM
1

This makes no sense. You go to a loud place to find a quieter area to talk? You could drink, talk, dance etc without going there and paying the entry fee (not always) and paying for overpriced drinks. If you do that, you better also get laid. The reason people go to places like that is to meet new people. If one is content with the company they already have (and they have a place to hang which might not be the case for younger people), then they can just stay in and party/do whatever it is you d…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/24 09:35 PM
1

What do you mean by a large body frame? Like your skeleton is significantly bigger than that of all other women of your height? Is that even a real thing?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/24 09:21 PM
1

Absolutely. A negligible fraction of them does. Just not all the time and all over the place.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/24 09:16 PM
6

Right, but women wouldn't be attracted to them if they had personalities of a piece of paper. They fuck women/anything, therefore, they must have very intricate personalities.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/24 09:11 PM
-3

Not how it works. Personality is personality. It's the word that has a meaning and it means the same thing regardless of who's using it. Fukbois don't have the personality of a piece of paper, it's not flat/2dimensional. It is very complex and multifaceted, right? That's why women are interested in them. Everyone who gets women has a great personality and everyone who doesn't have personality of a piece of paper and are boring.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/24 09:10 PM
–

That's not how it works. Especially And if capitalism was really that bad, it would not be the most popular system used. Using your logic, feudalism is amazing if you happen to think about it in 1200s or something. Capitalism can be both bad and most popular, those things aren't mutually exclusive. As long as it's good to people with power, they would maintain it and it will be popular, even if most of population isn't treated fairly and doesn't get paid their fair share. Oh, the revenue increas…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/24 08:58 PM
-2

^ This. All those fuckboys and party boys have great personalities and are very complex individuals, that's why they pull.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/24 08:26 PM
6

^ This. All those fuckboys have great personalities, that's why they are getting laid.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/24 08:24 PM
1

Yes they do, a negligible fraction of them. No, not just hot people. Hot people are just as rare as ugly people, they are on opposite ends of the bell curve. Most people who cheat are neither hot nor ugly. Most ugly people can't cheat even if they want to.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/24 08:14 PM
1

No, not wrong. Literally copied and pasted the definition. Yes they do, and those who can get less of it are ugly, those who can get more - are not. People who cheat are rarely in the bottom percentile of the gaussian distribution. No one said ugly people can't have sex or cheat, I said that it's a negligible portion. They do NOT cheat all the time and all over the place as you claimed. Big difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/24 07:56 PM
1

Oh yeah? And what does the definition say? It necessarily implies/requires even having somebody to evaluate. Specifically " unpleasant or repulsive, especially in appearance." (Oxford languages). REPULSIVE. That is the opposite of attractive. If he de-facto attracts more than many, then he's not ugly by definition. It is indeed about using normal English definitions. I never talked about anything else.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/24 07:34 PM
2

Not quite. It's defined by potential buyers. Out of 8 billion people how many value a Ferrari? Most of them won't buy it, but enough people are ready to pay enough for it to be that expensive. It's about what that man could potentially get if he wanted to (assuming he just didn't) or did get if he wanted it. Most men are not promiscuous not because they don't want to be. If man A is wanted by 3/4 immoral women (what does morality even have to do with anything?) and a man B isn't, then man A is m…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/24 07:30 PM
1

No, definitely not all the time or all over the place. And IF they do what they do, they only do it BECAUSE market decides. Imagine, all men are fat, then that's who women would have sex with. Then fat is no longer ugly.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/24 05:37 PM
1

Again, just because you don't like someone, it doesn't mean they are ugly. Market decides if they are ugly. If they can attract a reasonable amount of people relative to others, then they are not ugly.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/24 05:19 PM
0

Also working is not the same thing as working as much or to the same effect. Also, I didn't imply anything, I simply pointed out where the disparity in time is coming from. Women do more childcare while men do more paid work during the same time.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/24 05:18 PM
1

Incorrect. See above. Most people who cheat are not ugly. Ugly = can't attract partners to cheat on, let alone with.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/24 04:13 AM
-1

No, this is not wrong, I never said they don't cheat at all. Surely, it happens. Negligibly small fraction of them maybe does cheat. But yes, most ugly people have no options - that's why and because they are ugly. People who do have enough options to have both a partner and someone to cheat on them with are not ugly. Even if YOU don't find them attractive. Everything is explained above already, no new point was brought up.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/24 04:03 AM
0

I don't have to tell myself anything, I don't participate in what we're talking about. I'm simply operating definitions and logic, while you still can't turn off your emotions.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/24 03:42 AM
1

It immediately conjures thoughts of violent outcomes and an overwhelming desire to avoid that outcome. Yeah, I'm talking about normal people, not psychotic.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/24 03:40 AM
1

Yes I did and I replied to a specific part of it where you are wrong. There are threats: “I’m gonna fucking kill you if you don’t do this” Yes, this counts. That would not be convincing. But, (if we learn a bit about nuance, and also reading comprehension if your comments are any indication) there are also implied threats. This means our actions can be threatening and suggest the likelihood of a negative outcome without us saying the words “I’m going to hold you down and rape you!” NO, that woul…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/24 03:40 AM
0

Yeah, I saw your comment. That's why I specified. No, implication doesn't count. See IASIP boat dialogue, that's just plain ridiculous. If there's implication, you can always act dumb and as if there is no implication. Only if they specifically state the intent you have a threat. Implication is too useless of a term to use for any definition. If somebody is asking you for money on the street, there's always implication that they can harm you. Yet, you're not afraid of a beggar and are afraid of …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/24 03:38 AM
-2

Umm yes, that is precisely what I've been talking about - getting a person to change no to yes without any threats. You know, convincing.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/24 03:17 AM
-5

Again, that's not convincing. Convincing is changing the opinion, not just the answer. Yeah yeah, whatever, you can use predatory and all other buzz words, that doesn't change the fact that if there's a direct threat, then it's not convincing. And if they did change their answer from no to yes without being threatened with harm unless they do so, then the rest are just post-factum excuses - akin to buyer's regret.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/24 02:59 AM
-1

Yeah, Idk about us'all, I'm talking for myself only. And my view is strictly logical, nothing delusional about it. Ugly people can have sex, too, yes, but not as much as non-ugly people obviously. What do you think defines if a person is ugly or not? You literally just count how much sex each man could get and take the bottom percentile. A charge of a particle is defined by how many protons/electrons it can attract.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/24 02:54 AM
1

No they don't. How could they if they were unattractive? They wouldn't attract anybody to cheat with, that's like.. definition of the word attractive? I mean sure, if you consider men having sex with women cheating at all then, I suppose, prostitution would count, but I highly doubt that many men cheat like that. I think, relatively speaking, a negligible minority of men ever visited prostitutes. Oh, I guess there are some "geniuses" that count him chatting with women (even with prostitutes to a…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/24 12:07 AM
2

Huh? I put zero emotions here and I've been nothing but logical. I explained everything step by step, you are the one basing everything on emotions and trying to insult me instead of logically supporting your argument. So far you produced nothing but it's wrong and because you're wrong and accused me of calling women villains and being deluded. Anything I forgot?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/24 12:03 AM
1

? Why would it go the same way? Men and women are opposite sexes, almost nothing goes the same way when it comes to sex. But sure, why not. If he loves her he would also bring a 3rd girl.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/24 12:02 AM
2

I’m not bias I just read a lot. Men don’t do as much childcare as women. This was true in 1960 and it’s true today. Modern men are better than their grandfathers sure but women still shoulder most of that burden. That's because men work more. It's not like they spend the time not doing childcare on themselves. They do childcare their own way - by earning money for that child. See this for example (but there's more evidence): https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/03/14/chapter-4-how-moth…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/24 11:57 PM
1

But the study was done on childless men and women so maybe it’s skewed Most definitely. That's because for women it's very easy to have children, so childless women who want to have kids are a lower % compared to similar among men. Bigger portion of women who wanted to have children (compared to men) did have children.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/24 11:51 PM
1

Objections would depend on which 50-50 are you talking about - first date or deep into marriage/LTR. But either way, in the former scenario it will mostly come down to "I have nothing to do with this, if you make less as a single mom, I'm not the one who made you one" or in the latter scenario "Do those concrete things actually apply to you or not?" Because a man should not be expected to pay for this given woman who is not a mom, for example, just because women who are moms sacrifice some of th…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/24 11:49 PM
-4

That's not convincing, that's threatening/forcing. I'm talking about convincing.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/24 11:45 PM
2

It would be and that's why homosexual men rarely complain about getting sex. I don't think I ever heard even one complaint. That's because homosexual men do like sex and do like men. Which is why my original point stands. And no, just because your opinion is wrong and you can't accept it, mine isn't deluded. It's just right and you just can't accept it. It's okay, you can understand it if you turn off your emotions for a bit and think about the topic logically.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/24 11:44 PM
1

Low value men can barely get even one woman, let alone one and another one to cheat on the first one with. So even if they cheat, it's not all the time and more like an exception. Men who cheat are not low value. They are medium value at worst, probably closer to high.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/24 11:40 PM
1

Doesn't have to be. In fact, if she loves him and wants him to be happy and knows his nature, she would only support him in living his dream. Actually, if she doesn't bring a 3rd girl or is okay with him stepping out, THEN you could question if this is some transaction and those things break the deal for her.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/24 11:37 PM
2

However, to say this while engaging in extra marital sex, is ridiculous. Why? You didn't explain why. He wants to have his cake and eat it. Yes, so? That's the point, high value men will be able to do it because they are high value. He expects a woman to keep her value and dedicate it to one man, remain faithful while he can go out and do what he wants because he pays the bills. Yes, so? It's a dumb idealistic concept. No. Idealistic yes, but nothing dumb about it. I don't want to spin plates. Y…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/24 11:32 PM
2

Why would you put words in my mouth? Nowhere did I try to say that anyone's a villain. I meant to say exactly what I said, there's no hidden layer anywhere. I simply pointed out a rather obvious thing related to what was said in the OP and then confirmed it in the next comment because you were trying to take it somewhere else. When somebody cares about hungry and they have food, they share food, not their perspective on how to get food.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/24 10:57 PM
-3

or you have to convince them. Lolwhat? That's the whole point of convincing. If you convinced someone - they now want it.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/24 10:41 PM
2

Women like what? Women that are trying to distribute sex between men more equally? Cool, where does one signs up for the appointment? Cause nobody really needs the perspective, they need those women to give sex, not their perspective. Namely because their perspective was followed, trp was born. As it turns out their perspective didn't work and couldn't describe or predict much, so another model was needed.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/24 10:15 PM
1

Huh? No, are you having troubles comprehending what you read? I literally said the opposite. I do understand, you don't. You aren't using the words correctly, you don't understand what they mean. LOL what a horrible analogy that does the opposite of what you want it to do. It used animals instead of people, but the relationships are the same as they would be between the people, that's what makes the allegory work. Similarly here, instead of actual market the sexual market model is used, yet, the…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/24 10:12 PM
0

True, if women liked sex and men, instead of making communities to shame men who can't get laid, they would make communities to help men get laid. Since they have infinite sex, they would still have it if they shared it.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/24 04:13 AM
1

Yes, for you it was without understanding. For me it was about definitions with full understanding and it's very confusing how come you still can't grasp them. Oh I am talking about what the painting is about. Just like in a painting, depending on when it was drawn, there are certain symbols and their meaning in that age is well known, in terms there are certain words and their meaning is known as well. No, I already understand the value, you are the one who doesn't. Even gave you chance to expl…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/24 04:10 AM
1

Wym back? It was ALWAYS about definitions. And I'm not trying to define it, I am relaying the definition. All definitions are used correctly and their relations are correct, I was very careful about this. I do understand, you don't seem to still understand what the word value means. Almost just like you couldn't understand what the word man means before. Or how else do you think the word value relates to other words that it suddenly doesn't mean value anymore? Words mean what they mean. Open a b…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/24 12:54 AM
0

If somebody says something I think they shouldn't be saying, then they are lying. Only people that say things confirming my view are not lying. | ^ that's you.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/24 11:52 PM
1

Right, which is the evidence that you aren't using the word "value" correctly. It's right there in the definition. Value is relative and requires something/someone to be valued/be useful by/for something/someone. There's no value in vacuum. Yeah, the thing is you are the one who doesn't understand this. Or you are trying to say something else (most likely irrelevant) which has nothing to do with value.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/24 11:48 PM
1

That's not how any of this works. Value is defined as value to others. There's no value in vacuum. Value is defined through others. That is literally in a dictionary, literally posted the definition earlier. Open the book or google the definition yourself. It's right there. You are wrong. But the worst part is that you don't care about the truth, which you could easily verify right now. "the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something."your support…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 09:41 PM
1

No it doesn't come from them. It's measured/defined by them. We literally went over this earlier today. The price is defined by the market. If a man is not valued he's not a HVM. If he's HVM then he is valued. How are you so bad at this?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 09:23 PM
1

Yes I am. I literally copypasted the definition above, nothing I'm saying contradicts that definition. I am literally just explaining what the definition is. Just because you allegedly did something (which could just be another one of your lies), doesn't mean that you know how things are called and what they mean. You would need to have a certain degree of awareness and analytic mind for that. I'm not trying to sell anything. Why would I do that? Who would pay me? You're making no sense. Again, …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 08:44 PM
1

No, I'm not trying anything. I'm relaying the definition and telling you what it means. I'm not making definitions up, they are there for you to see. Of course I know, I have enough brain to open a dictionary. Do you? If you opened it, you would know, too.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 08:21 PM
1

Exactly. HVM means HVM, just like I explained above. So I am right and you are wrong. Women don't give that value, as I also explained above, women wanting that man proves that value. If he's HVM, women want him. What's so unclear still? It's very simple. That's the only way to measure if he's valued as a man. If a man is not valued as a man, he's not HVM. No, you are the one who failed to grasp some real simple logic.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 07:26 PM
1

No, I didn't get caught because I didn't lie. You had a chance to catch me, but still no link. So you can stop now, liar. Nobody cares about your lies. And I don't keep trying. I am saying that it doesn't even matter because it doesn't. I literally referred you to the logical fallacy to read about earlier so you could educate yourself and know how it works. So yep, it's a well established fact that it doesn't matter who says the argument. The argument matters. So all in all, nothing changed. 1) …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 07:16 PM
1

What sandbags? So no link? You got caught, indeed. I said what I said and even explained what I meant in case you misinterpreted it. So no, no lying on my end. But again, most importantly, it doesn't even matter if I lied or not. The statement is still factually correct: a man not valued as a man is not a valuable man and you are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 07:08 PM
1

Again, educate yourself. It doesn't matter. Source serves as a place to find more information about something. Source has nothing to do with whether information is correct or not in the end, it simply shows you that stuff didn't come out of nowhere. You have no idea what you are talking about. Even top scientists retract their papers all the time when they find a mistake in their calculations or experimental methods. In the end, it's all about the validity of the argument, not about who said it.…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 06:59 PM
1

Yes, we did. And I said that it's irrelevant who the guy is. If you misinterpret my words it's on you, not on me. Especially now that I literally said exactly what I meant so no excuse that you forgot somehow. Indeed you are caught lying. Claiming stuff I didn't say. Link or gtfo. Very simple. And once again, it doesn't matter who I am and what I said. What mattes is that the definition of a high value man is still the same and a man not valued as a man is not a high value man. It doesn't matter…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 06:49 PM
1

As I said, out of touch with reality. This is literally being being studied and written about. With numbers. Numbers aren't negligible.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 06:43 PM
1

No I didn't. I said it's irrelevant who that was to the definition. If I claimed that, where is the link showing that I said " I don't know that is"? If that's what you mean by familiar, of course. If you mean familiar with his work, then yeah I'm not very familiar. I didn't get caught, you got caught lying about me claiming something. Just got caught again right now. Claiming again, still no link. If I said it - it's easy to prove. What ignorance? The opposite of ignorance, I quantified for you…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 06:41 PM
1

Again, no. It's not my definition. I copipasted a definition earlier. All those things in the term HVM are well known dictionary words. No, I haven't lied a single time so there was nothing to be caught with. You on the other hand claimed I said something then when given 3 chances to post a link, didn't because there's nothing to post. Because I didn't say what you said I said. So yep. You are a liar, not me.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 06:28 PM
1

Oh! Oh! I know! You should try it with all women commit paternity fraud because all paternity fraud is committed by women.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 06:22 PM
2

Ahaha and are you saying all women have the same reasoning? Then watch the same women choosing rape over death almost every single time in case of war and the enemy army taking their town. Like, we had wars. We know stories by survivors of WW2. We know that rationally women won't choose a bear when it actually comes to it. So yeah, that's irrational.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 06:21 PM
1

I don't try to define it. I relay the definition. It's not my definition. It's THE definition. Yes, HVM is HVM. Gotta be valued as a man to be that. If not valued as a man, then not a HVM. Simple as that.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 06:18 PM
1

No. Yes, which is why they need to be reigned in. And no one is talking about direct price control. You could, for example, apply different tax rates depending on how many properties they own and whether they are occupied. Oh ok, so you are out of touch with reality, I see. No, not a small %. Even mainstream media publish that it's a huge chunk. Middle class income no longer gives you the middle class life, that's the whole point. Cost of living raised, salaries not so much. Tax break will mean …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 06:16 PM
1

No, it's not a buzzword it's a term being used for more than a hundred years. No, I'm not failing, I literally defined it multiple times above. Even that guy probably defined it but you'd need an above room-temperature IQ to check. Imagine, there's probably more than 1 video somewhere. Whether or not it's used to sell rp is irrelevant. Again, it doesn't matter who says something when we're talking about definitions and facts, the only thing that matters is what's been said. If a man is not value…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 06:12 PM
1

No, I'm not trying to use "logic". I'm using logic. You should try it sometime. Reality is indeed what it is and HVM is HVM. It needs to be valued to be HV and it needs to be valued as a man (not employee, not provider etc) to be HVM. As such, a man not valued as a man is not a high value man. You are still wrong, I am still right. This is reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 05:17 PM
1

No, I'm not completely wrong. I'm simply following definitions and logic. The value of a man is not defined by a man himself, it's defined by those who value or don't value him. Markets change, things that are valued tomorrow could be completely different from what is valued today and the value of a man would change even if he still sees himself the same. No, you are the one in the wrong. LVM won't get how to be HV, but can easily get what it means to be HV. One simply needs to know definitions …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 05:06 PM
1

Yes I did. No I didn't try. I did. You are the one who keeps failing to grasp simple logic. Man is a biological sex. Of course value as a man is in the context of sexual relationships. In what other aspects is biological sex relevant? No, it's not about relating to people. It's about definitions. You still fail to grasp what words mean? A man not valued as a man is not a high value man. How man values himself is irrelevant. It's irrelevant how much you think your car is worth when you are trying…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 04:56 PM
1

No, that's not what USSR tried to do at all. They can't increase rent if you had a baby (as in got an extra tenant). They can and will increase rent if you get more income. If you happen to have a baby around the same time, they can wait and increase it as soon as it's legal. Oh yeah, the last thing you want is to regulate it? Complete denial of reality huh? People in real world right now can't afford housing, don't get meaningful raises, get screwed by salary compression etc, while rich are get…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 04:52 PM
1

No, I don't keep repeating "in context". You keep misunderstanding simple logic. No, I'm not wrong, I explained everything step by step, you still didn't find a single logical mistake, because there is none. No, a man is not valued by how much he values himself. A fat homeless incel could value himself a lot, but it doesn't matter because if no woman wants him, then he's not valued as a man. You are clearly wrong and it's easy to test your hypothesis like in the previous sentence. It's simply no…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 04:47 PM
1

But these men are still the same men who want both casual sex and commitment at some point. How can you logically divide women into two categories while maintain that you're part of both categories yourself? Umm? Easy? Men and women are different and it's not like the same rules are supposed to apply? After all, it's men who divide women in categories and women who divide men in categories and the criteria could be different. Also, even if the same rules were supposed to apply, that'd be fine, y…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 04:39 PM
3

Not gonna work until greed is somehow regulated/punished. As soon as those years without tax are announced, watch landlords increase rent and take all that money.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 04:26 PM
1

Are you drunk or something? I literally just told you what I said and what I meant. What but? Where did I add it? HVM is HVM. Therefore, if he's not valued as a man, he's not HVM. I am correct still and you are wrong. The end. I have plenty of value as a man, but no I don't need it to understand. You need a brain to understand.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 04:30 AM
1

Again, do you not read? I literally just told you what I did. Literally in the previous comment. I explained what it means. I don't wish for it to mean anything, I don't care what it means, I only care that it's described correctly. HVM is HVM indeed. That's exactly what I've been saying all along. Hence, a man not valued as a man is not high value. I am just as right as I was at the beginning of this.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 04:27 AM
1

No, I explained what it means. How can you not process to sentences? There's nothing that I want it to mean. I don't care what it means one way or another. I care about truth and logic. Which is why I'm basing it all on what words mean not on emotions and feelings.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 04:21 AM
1

This is, in fact, logic and very basic logic at that. No buzzwords, nothing pseudo or fake. Yes, it can explain what it means. I explained what it means multiple times already. If you can't understand what it means, then just say that and ask for clarifications.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 04:17 AM
1

Why do you have such problem with logic? What happens when there is no buyer or seller? Then there is no value, that's what happens. There is no value in vacuum. For things to have value they have to be valued by someone. It's literally in the definition. And value of things depends on demand. Another example, a snowboard is a snowboard, but it's value in a desert is very different from that in the snowy mountains. Their worth can be determined by offers made by whoever wants to buy it or the la…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 03:51 AM
1

No, men don't decide when sex happens by virtue of being on the supply side of it. A seller doesn't decide when a sale happens. The only way men can help here is by pretty much forcing women. We probably don't want to go there.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 03:28 AM
1

Are you seriously that dumb? When a company sells something, the price will depend on the region more often than not. See video games, for an easy to check example. Yes, a HVM is HVM. A man that is not valued as a man is not a high value man. Anyone can understand what HVM is, not anyone can become one. Huge difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 03:25 AM
1

What doesn't work in reverse? The way it works is not reverse, it's the direct way and it how it works. The term reverse was used to say that the causation is reverse relative to what you described. Yes of course it did. In that market. There are different markets and different buyers. A value of the same car is different on different continents. And the value is dynamic, not static. Your value in the college market could go down as it does when one gets older and becomes "creepy". At the same t…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 02:21 AM
2

As I said, this applies to pretty much anyone unhappy about anything. Nobody is entitled to anything. In that case the term loses all meaning together with your argument. Also, men being considerate to other men wouldn't fix this would it? It's women who decided who gets sex. You wouldn't like the only way it could be fixed by men...
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 02:15 AM
1

No, I didn't. AGain, post a link where I did or go away with your lies. I didnt' get caught frauding because I'm not frauding. You did get caught lying though and you keep lying. Indeed liars try to talk their way out of their traps, but you can't talk your way out of this one, because it's very simple : link or gtfo.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 01:46 AM
1

? Are you seriously not reading? Or do you not get that the causation is reverse here? I explicitly pointed out at some point above and you still didn't get it? Being wanted by women comes from a value as a man, not the other way around. Women want high value men. Which is why if man is not wanted by women (as a man, i.e. for sex) and not valued as a man, then he's not high value. That being said, it's worth pointing out, that being wanted by women additionally increases value due to preselectio…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 01:44 AM
1

What? I never said "and you weren't". I said for a fact if a bunch of sorority girls want you then you are high value in the market at that point of time. That is factual truth, what is your problem with it? Are you gonna conflate man with genderless aspects again? I am talking about about value as a man, not as an employee or husband or provider or human etc. That's not bullshit and it is logical, which is why it's not bullshit. Perhaps, you misunderstand how it works and call it bullshit becau…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 01:18 AM
6

Most guys aren't manospherians and do care actually. You don't need to be manospherian to care. But more importantly, I never said body counts, so why bring those up? I just said lie or mislead. That includes but isn't limited to counts.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 01:11 AM
7

Non sequitur. These things are unrelated logically. You can absolutely plan/want certain future basing it on the past. Not to mention, that they are different types of women and those men don't complain about high counts of women they seek for casual sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 01:05 AM
2

Absolutely, as long as women admit that women who lie to or mislead men are pieces of shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 01:02 AM
1

No, I didn't. I literally gave you a way to prove that I did. And you can't. Because you lied and got caught red-handed. I never said I didn't know who he was. I said it's irrelevant who he is to the definition. And no, I don't know what the video showed because as I said I didn't open the link.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 12:59 AM
1

And I kept saying that the value is the measure of his worth to someone. It's basically a measure of the supply/demand ratio in the market. Literally, the definition is "the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something." Never did I say "uhhhhh" etc. Not sure why you keep lying. But it does look like you're just a habitual liar and don't even notice. How can I not answer? I answered it multiple times before. Or you can google the definition yourself…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 12:58 AM
7

Sure why not. The advice is bad anyway. Women are advised to not talk about their past, so why wouldn't you advise men to not talk about their intentions?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 12:54 AM
9

That's not a problem though, that's a symptom of the problem. And the problem is that some men have way way more. And 2. is a silly argument. Then no one is entitled to anything. If you are not economically attractive, be happy with making 76 cents for a dollar somebody else makes. Blame yourself for not being born a certain way.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 12:51 AM
3

It's relative and there's a way to estimate it. Too few as in nonnegligibly smaller than the number of encounters other men and/or women get. For example, we remember that women wouldn't be happy to make 76 % of what men make. 76% is too little compared to another group, right? What percentage do you think they would be okay with making? Let's establish what you think is nonnegligible first. When does the difference becomes negligible? 10%? 1%?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 12:48 AM
4

Down with a small percentage of men if those men are honest. It's like, many men are down for women who sucked 37 dicks in the past if you are just honest, but women aren't really honest about their past if they have something to hide.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 12:39 AM
11

That seems like a counter productive advice that doesn't have man's best interest in mind so men probably shouldn't follow it.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 12:37 AM
1

No I didn't. If I did, you can easily prove it by posting a link to the comment where I did. Since you still didn't do it, the conclusion is simple - there is no such comment and you lied.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 12:17 AM
1

Which is why I'm not asking you to disprove something. I'm asking you to prove a positive claim - that X CAN be Y. So no, that's not what I sound like. But again, not surprised you don't understand basic logic. So, to sum up: A man not valued as a man is not a high value man, you have no arguments against it. The statement holds, you were wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 12:16 AM
1

No, I'm not trying to pretend anything. It is dictionary. Open a dictionary and see what it says. I haven't lied or failed. You did lie though and when challenged to prove your words which you could easily do, you failed and didn't prove them. You are a liar, yes. If you can't say anything about the statement then yes, you are wrong and lost and it's the end. Present logical proof that a man not valued as a man can be a high value man. If you can't, then the statement holds and you are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 12:08 AM
1

Yes, I did. Scroll up. Just like rollo what? Again, I never said I didn't know who it was, I said that some random guy is irrelevant which he is. You keep bringing it up but you were already told to post the link and you didn't post it. So not sure why you're still lying that I claimed I didnt' know who he was. You had a chance to prove it and failed.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 12:05 AM
1

I can and already did above.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/24 12:00 AM
1

No, I am not. I am literally relaying the definitions. Yes I can define them and already did at the very beginning. No , I did not lie. You did lie saying that I said I didn't know though. As proven by you not posting the link. You could easily do it if I ever claimed I didn't know who it was. But you can't because I didn't claim it and you keep lying. I did not try to dismiss anything. I am literally saying the same thing all this time. No, I wouldn't know. You would though, as show above. Once…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/24 11:59 PM
1

I'm not trying to dismiss anything. YOu are the one who is trying to attack me and dismiss the argument based on who you claim I am. But that's not how logic works and I referred you to the exact terms. Google it and educate yourself. How is claiming academia fraud? What? Huh? Consider the source is not always logical. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Educate yourself and learn the difference between source and appeal to authority. It doesn't matter who says it: if a man is no…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/24 11:54 PM
1

No, I have no strawmen, I'm talking about simple definitions, there is no room for me to invent anything. Exactly. HVM means HVM. HV means high value. M means man. If a man is not valued as a man, then he's not a high value man. No, I never claimed not to know him. You had a chance to prove that I did and post the link in the previous comment. You didn't. Your lies were exposed, you can stop trying that lie now.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/24 11:50 PM
1

Ok, so no link = your lying is proven. And no, there's no "wow is me LVM", wtf does it even mean? Once again, if man is not valued as a man, he's not a high value man. Also, LVM and MVM and even woman can actually say and understand stand what HVM is. It's as easy as reading some books and knowing what the term means. You don't need to be a firefighter to understand what a firefighter is. Not being able to relate is a whole different question and is irrelevant to the topic at hand, since no one …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/24 11:42 PM
1

No, nothing has anything to do with who says it. This is literally logic and debates 101. Trying to dismiss an argument based on who said it is a textbook logical fallacy. It's a classic example of Red herring (more precisely, ad hominem) fallacy. Again, the term doesn't come from a guy who wasn't born hundreds of years ago when the term was already being used.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/24 11:37 PM
1

Yes, as opposed to no chance of happening to LVM. It would be, however, I wasn't exposed as anything, you just keep building strawmen and fighting them. I haven't lied a single time so far either. Never have I ever said that I didn't know about them. Go ahead, post a link to the message where I said "I do not know who they are". If it's not posted in the next comment, then you are the one who's lying. I don't keep digging, I keep reiterating a true statement: If a man is not valued as a man, the…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/24 11:32 PM
1

What? That has nothing to do with anything I just said. I already explained everything step by step, what is so difficult to understand? Who he is doesn't matter and as far as the term goes, he is a random guy. A man who is not valued as a man is not a high value man. It doesn't matter who says anything about it, it doesn't matter who they are and it doesn't matter if they agree with it. The statement is true.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/24 11:09 PM
1

No, that's not why I'm here. I already explained why I'm here earlier. Another lie from you, yes. I already said the truth, you are claiming something different from the truth. That is indeed a lie by definition. No, it doesn't make HVM. It happens to HVM. And if a man can't get any women, then he's not a HVM. How are you STILL not getting it? How do you still say I claim that makes HVM, when it's not at all what i'm saying and I explained it multiple times already? No, I didn't, but you wouldn'…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/24 11:07 PM
1

Yes, in this context he is a random guy. The definition is what it is regardless of him. As I said before, it doesn't matter who says something, the only thing that matters is whether that something is true or false. Incorrect, no lies. Everything I said is factually true. Incorrect again, still didn't fail. You are the one who fails to understand how logic works though. Really sad.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/24 10:49 PM
1

No, I'm not. You are the one trying to conflate things since the start. Back then it was man and human, now it's 3% of population and 97%, and that's 1 country only. No one cares what they promote, again. They are their own ecosystem. Most people in academia never interact with them. You have no idea what you're talking about and are projecting your wet dreams. Caught indeed. You.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/24 10:47 PM
1

No, because I'm talking about not valued by someone in particular. I'm talking about the entire group of people. If you don't value a car, then it's your opinion. If most people don't value a car - that is a reflection of its value. If a supplier can't be selling them consistently to not lose money (let alone make profit), then the car is not as valuable as they presented. A man is not high value because every single woman wants him, no. IF he is high value, then enough women will want him that …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/24 10:24 PM
1

Yes I have an idea and I just quantified it for you above. It has no influence on what we are talking about whatsoever. Sexual market is not a term only used in greek life, neither is high value man. I am not trying to deflect, I literally demonstrated you with numbers how a mainstream term is mainstream and not defined by 3% of the US population. What lies? Again, I have no reason to lie and haven't lied yet.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/24 10:19 PM
1

Huh? I'm not supposed to be, I am. And I am familiar with what they are, and as I said, they are a drop in the see, you can check numbers above, based on your 9 mil estimate. Caught again with what? Are you drunk or something? There's only thing that I'm talking about - if something is not valued then it's not high value.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/24 10:09 PM
1

Huh? How is that a lie, when did I say otherwise? Just because you're struggling with reading doesn't mean that there's any lie. Again, if something is not valued, then it's not high value. Simple. No wonder you can't grasp it, though, now that we see that you see no difference between don't listen to someone's take on a thing that has a definition and don't listen at all. Sad,
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/24 10:08 PM
1

OK? 9 millions is a drop in the sea, the world is, what, 8 billion people now? No, you are the one who's wrong again. You keep projecting and thinking everyone is like you. Even in the US alone 9 mil out of 333.3 mil is just a few percent. Most countries in the world don't even have fraternities. So yep, indeed you are wrong again.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/24 10:53 PM
1

No, not in this case. I'm not talking about not listening to them at all. I'm talking about not listening to them when it comes to definition/logic. In this case I'm not listening to them and it doesn't matter if they agree or disagree, the statement holds true: if a man is not valued as a man, then he's not a high value man.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/24 10:51 PM
1

I have though. I am repeating the same thing because the truth didn't change, I showed the entire logical construct. And I'm asking every now and then what's so difficult to understand in case I need to explain anything further. No, incorrect. I don't believe anything. It's logical because it's logical and you need to start projecting. These are literal definitions I'm talking about. There's no room for beliefs. No, I don't listen to those people. What I'm saying is based on factual definitions,…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/24 09:32 PM
1

Huh? That is, again, some incoherent rumbling. What was unclear in what I said? And no, in real world almost no one knows about frats or what's happening there. Yet, in real world the concept of market still works, the definition of value still works, the definition of man still works. And a man who is not valued as a man is not a high value man.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/24 09:32 PM
1

I have no confirmation bias, you need to stop projecting. I am in a real world, I'm typing when I get a minute to get distracted from what I'm doing. It's the finals week, so there's plenty of time. I don't pretend. You need to stop projecting. Just because you pretend, doesn't mean others do.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/24 05:28 PM
1

Of course. Men and women are different, so they are valued for different things. Why is that even a question? I don't keep trying to do anything. I keep educating you about the same thing consistently. I can, but it's pointless. I already sent you a link proving that the term is more than a hundred years old and you're still in denial and say that it's invented by some guy. So why waste numbers on you? Especially since we're not talking about numbers, we are talking about the definition and logi…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/24 05:27 PM
1

No, it's not. Why would I lie? I have nothing to gain. The whole point of being online anonymously is so that I don't have to lie.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/24 04:46 PM
1

You are moving goalposts. This was a woman which we know nothing about, so cant' talk about her value. Of course value changes if one scenario is man and the other is woman. Men and women are valued for different things. Yes, there's correlation, what's so hard to understand here? Clearly high value will result in higher popularity. I'm not floundering and never have. I'm repeating the same thing again and again. Talking to you is like talking to a flatearther really. No, I'm not floundering, yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/24 04:45 PM
1

What? No, that's a whole different scenario. I'm addressing the one with woman who wants her ass eaten. There's definitely a correlation between popularity and high value, though, but they aren't equivalent. No, how did I fail, let alone again? I failed zero times so far, you keep trying to misinterpret my words and then claim they are wrong without any kind of logical explanation why. That's not how it works.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/24 04:35 PM
1

No, I'm not. The terms I'm using are old and I didn't read them online. You need to stop projecting.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/24 04:30 PM
1

Are you reading what I'm typing? I'm not trying to explain why. I'm saying that if that woman has many men who are willing to give her what she wants - then she's popular. That's a simple logical statement/definition. Also, moving goalposts. So yeah, indeed, this attempt of yours to put words in my mouth (once again) was a complete failure. Nice of you to post tldr at the bottom. The fact remains true - if a man is not valued for being a man, then he's not a high value man.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/24 04:29 PM
1

Seems like a fair trade, no? Of course not. She's not applying all 1700 of it. And why wouldn't she count what men spend on become attractive enough for her to go on a date with? Bet she has standards not only on his looks, so would need to add university tuition, car payments ... Where do you even stop? Most importantly though, nobody is asking her to wear that makeup on a date. Finally, the date isn't about him taking her somewhere. It's about them getting together to get to know each other. S…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/24 07:38 AM
1

I'm not acting like anything, I'm simply stating facts. Why would I act? If I couldn't determine, I simply wouldn't type, like I don't in many other threads.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/24 07:31 AM
1

Of course. There's logic on almost everything, especially since we aren't trying to describe reasoning behind desire. We are simply talking about the fact that if a man is not valued as man then he's not a valuable man.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/24 07:30 AM
1

No, the main point is that you don't understand how value is measured. The main point is that if something is not valued for what it is, then it's not valuable. If a man is not valued for being a man, then he's not valuable. Strategy and the rest are secondary. The term means what it means. Strategies and models based on it are a whole different thing. It is embarrassing that you can't understand simple logic still. Trying to insult me for what reason? Everyone who reads this including you knows…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/24 12:56 AM
1

Of course not, why would it be? Maybe back at the beginning of undergrad it was? Or high school? I don't think you realize how many years I spent in science. Math is ok for me, indeed. So all your logical mistakes are very cringy.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/24 12:52 AM
1

Marketplace is not defined as physical. The definition actually didn't fail. Again. You just don't understand it. Again. I can, math is not hard for me. We could for example count how many women want a given men, then find percentiles. Right, the same real world where a man is not HV if he's not valued as a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 09:15 PM
1

Epic fail indeed, if you fail to grasp the main point - the term was used for hundreds of years. Proof posted above.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 09:14 PM
1

There's one from 2012, too, for example. And that's just one with the memorable name, there were others before it. As for timeline, you don't understand how to use it, do you? I already sent you a link earlier, showing that the term was in the books hundreds of years ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 08:53 PM
1

Are you retarded? You think market is a physical place only? You don't understand the "market" that is studied in economics? What locations? You can quantify it, depending on what you use as a metric, high value would simply be a value in top X%. What you can say for sure though, is that a man is not high value if he's not valued as a man. The failing is indeed too much. How do you still not understand this?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 08:52 PM
1

Of course it is. You are the one not using them. In real world in the sexual market model. What rollo terms? What are you on about? Again, the sexual market analogy is an old analogy. For example, see the book Sexonomics. You are completely out of your depth and have no idea what you're talking about. You must be new to the whole thing. Once again, a man is not HV as a man if he's not valued as a man. It's very simple.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 08:29 PM
1

I've been insisting on what? I simply took one of the things you listed yourself. Actually, you are focusing on that one, I also mentioned others, say, threesomes.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 08:14 PM
1

Of course you can see that exchange, that's men and women interacting with each other for hookups, LTR, or marriage. Huh? You don't understand definitions and analogies? Where did I play myself, let alone again? Everything I'm saying is consistent, all definitions are textbooks and their analogies in the market analogy apply. Are you still in denial? Sexual market dictates man's value. HVM is wanted by women. If he's not wanted by women, then he's not HVM.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 08:13 PM
1

Men aren't market, sexual market is the market, though. There's supply and demand and all laws of market work. Without market there's no value anyway. Value is the attribute that somebody else assigns to something or someone. Something can not be of value if nobody values it. Yes, HV is not the sale price because there's no sale. There's an analog of the sale in the sexual marketplace analogy, however, and that analog is sex. A man is HV in the sexual market place. No, I haven't failed, you fail…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 07:41 PM
1

I did see the question and responded it. You still can't accept the answer for some reason. A value of anything on any market where the demand for it is possible comes from that demand. If there is no demand - there is no value.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 07:12 PM
1

No, I literally copied what you said and what I said you said is what you said. It's right here. That's a link to your first comment. You don't even understand what you are arguing with? Wow, now that is epic fail for reals.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 06:58 PM
1

No, you said "the only vale a man has is given to him by women" and I replied that "value as a man yes". And yes, that is true. Just like value of an apartment you mentioned earlier is given by the market. If there's no demand - there is no value in the market. It's a whole different question what makes that man wanted by women. THAT thing is what makes him desirable and makes panties wet. Again, making panties wet doesn't make him HV, being HV makes panties wet. Do you not understand the differ…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 06:44 PM
1

Why would you try to insult me? I never insulted you. Why are these men like me? I've never done what you're describing. Oh ok, so they know they have no prostate and that they won't enjoy it, but try it to see if it's at least bearable for one guy, but not for the other, when even though it wasn't bearable with one guy it could be bearable with the other. Still don't see how my original description wasn't correct. Even in your picture, if we replace enjoy with not suck too much.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 06:38 PM
1

Yes you are. You are still denying that a man is not high value if he's not valued as a man. Again, doesn't matter if he could or couldn't. In that one given clip out of context too, for all we know he defined it just fine before or after. The definition stands regardless of whether some guy could or couldn't define it. It's invariant to that. No, I did. You still fail to grasp simple logic, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 05:54 PM
1

It is embarrassing that you are still in denial yes. Not everyone, just whoever is not using them correctly. If they can't define it, then how are they relevant to the discussion anyway? I can define it, definitions do exist. According to these definitions, a man is not high value if he's not valued as a man period. Yes, indeed you fail to grasp simple stuff again. Why is this so difficult for you?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 05:06 PM
1

Do you seriously not read? I requoted my answer even. You didn't see it after me posting it twice? Epic fail indeed. No wonder you can't grasp simple logic. Once again: but I came here long time ago because the topics are interesting and because so many people don't use definitions correctly if they don't feel right, so calling them out on it is fun question answered. No, I never claimed that, you already said it before and I already called you out on it before and asked you to show where I said…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 04:54 PM
1

But a man doesn't want to release sexual energy. He wants to have threesomes and anal. In that case, watching apartments listings lets you release housing energy. Your analogy doesn't work.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 04:35 PM
1

Nope, you are the only trying insults. How do I have no answer? I literally answered the question in the previous comment. How can I not respond. Are you a bot or something and just generate answers without reading what I respond? It's right here "but I came here long time ago because the topics are interesting and because so many people don't use definitions correctly if they don't feel right, so calling them out on it is fun." You are the one who can't respond and deny a simple truth - a man i…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 04:34 PM
1

How am I speaking in circles? I'm not talking about making someone like it. I'm addressing your argument. You're saying women don't like anal because they don't have a prostate. Then why do they try it, do they try it before they know they have no prostate?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 04:31 PM
1

More like you are exposed for having no reading comprehension. How did I not answer? I literally answered in the first sentence, but I also pointed out that it's irrelevant. That's because it is irrelevant. Only the argument is relevant, not who and why says it. Once again, a man is not high value if he's not valued as a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 04:23 PM
2

Nobody said most, first of all. Second of all, they already knew they had no prostate before trying it. The fact that they don't enjoy it but try it with somebody else but not you is only making worse, not better. Or are you saying that women who try anal try it before they know they have no prostate?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 04:21 PM
2

How is watching porn replacing having anal and threesomes? In that case, for your analogy to be correct, the guy in the situation can watch people living in apartments or hotels, not has enough money to get those.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 04:20 PM
1

It's irrelevant how I'm here, but I came here long time ago because the topics are interesting and because so many people don't use definitions correctly if they don't feel right, so calling them out on it is fun. But again, it's irrelevant. What's relevant is that a man is not high value if he's not valued as a man. It doesn't matter who and why says it, it's true regardless of that. Exposed as what? You're making no sense. Nothing about me or you is relevant. The only thing that matters is the…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 04:19 PM
1

Huh? Didn't answer what? I am pretty sure I answered everything that had question marks. Formulate your questions better. What was the question I didn't answer? But yes indeed, you still lost, although, not sure how it's related to me allegedly not answering something. What it is related though is that a man not valued as a man is not a high value man still. You still have no arguments against it, therefore, indeed you still lost.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 03:34 PM
1

Nope. Not trying to deflect. Literally saying how it is. And no, didn't watch the clip because it's irrelevant what somebody says when I know what the words mean. I'm not the one who lost. You still failed to show how my definition is incorrect (which you can't because the definition is factual) or even to show one example of anything supporting your point. And now that you can't argue the topic at hand you are trying to double down on ad hominem. That's a textbook example of losing. Once again,…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 03:25 PM
1

What? You're making no sense again. This has nothing to do with what I said. The fact remains the fact - if man is not wanted as a man, then he's not high value. You are still in denial. The fact that you are trying to insult me instead of arguing the point simply means you acknowledge losing the debate but can't say it explicitly cause of fragile ego.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 03:07 PM
1

Incorrect once again. I know exactly what I'm saying and I know that what I'm saying is correct. It is indeed hilarious watching your scrambling and denial, however, nothing changes the fact that a man is not high value if no one wants him as a man. And you still keep lying, quoting things I never said or even meant. Not to mention, that it's some incoherent rambling and makes no sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 03:01 PM
1

Incorrect again. Everything I stated is a fact based on a dictionary and textbook knowledge. Also, I didn't lie about knowing what pill spaces say, I said it's irrelevant what some dude said when the term is not his. You on the other hand keep lying about what I said. Every other post you quote things I never said. No, I didn't. You do fail to understand though for some reason that a man is not high value if no one wants him as a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 02:51 PM
2

Just like not having a place to stay isn't? Many people are homeless. If you want your analogy to work, you need to maintain relationships between things. If you're saying that there is no threat to be homeless and is enough money - that means that the room your friend provides could easily be replaced. In which case why do you even ask for it if you have enough money and are not going to be homeless any time soon anyway? But since you do, yeah, you are asking for something you could get somewhe…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 02:48 PM
2

Oh ok, so women who say they are enjoying it are all lying? Kinda like all pilots and scientists are in on a lie that the earth isn't flat?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 02:46 PM
1

Incorrect. I'm stating facts. Actually, you are the one floundering, trying to conflate man and human as if they mean the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 02:45 PM
1

No, I didn't "claim" anything. I am relaying things how they are. Just stating facts, nothing more, nothing less. I didn't say it's based on that, I said it's measured by that. HUGE difference. Again, if you don't understand what I'm saying, ask, or in this case scroll up. Why put words in my mouth? That doesn't impress anyone and I know exactly what I'm saying or at least what I mean. Because you don’t know What M means. I do, you don't. I already said what it is multiple times. Last time in th…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 01:32 AM
1

Is not wanting to have anal sex Kinda yeah. Because she didn't try it with the current man yet. She's only assuming it will be bad because of the previous experience, therefore, yes, that's baggage. Previous experience affecting current relationship. For all we know, she will like it with this partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 01:27 AM
4

Why do you specify this? You are not going to be homeless anytime soon and have enough money to find a new place and deal with the situation. Are you only asking men who have other women lined up then? Because your analogy breaks here for most men. Most men don't have enough women lining up to give him blowjobs and have anal and threesomes and anal threesomes. So they can very much be "homeless" and rely entirely on this one girl. Which is why it's even more insulting if she let somebody else cr…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 01:23 AM
1

Again, you are the one who doesn't understand how it works. Intangibles, tangibles - everything contributes to a value. In the end, the value is measured by demand, though. The value of the apartment is measured by whether or not people want to buy it and how much they are ready to pay. The value of a man as a man is measured by whether women want to have sex with him. If no one wants to buy the apartment - it's not valuable. If there are two apartments in the same building and people are ready …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 12:57 AM
1

No, that's the thing you don't understand. Nothing is high value without the market for it. For something to be high value it needs to be valued by someone. HVM is HVM, yes. M = man. Again, you used quote marks incorrectly, I never said what you quoted. And again, I already explained. He's not high value because they want to fuck him. They want to fuck him because he is high value. Do you really not grasp the difference? If a man is high value, women want him for sex, not the other way around. I…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/24 12:22 AM
1

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying high value as a man. It's not even high value to a woman. It's that women want him for sex or he's not a high value man. A good parent could be high value to a woman. Lots of women appreciate their husbands for being good husbands and providers, for example, but won't have sex with them and dead bedrooms are a thing. Those men are not high value men even if they are high value to women as their other aspects. Exactly. HVM means HVM where M stands…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/24 10:40 PM
1

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the fact that they are given that advice doesn't explain why men are struggling with women who act as if they followed it. Because there are examples of men struggling with women who didn't follow advice they were given.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 09:06 PM
1

Incorrect. It is men's advice, it is mom's and grandmom's advice, it is advice of literally every religion ever and therefore pretty much every culture ever. They grow up hearing this, they grow up knowing that slut is used as an insult. Nope, you are the one who needs to think for a sec. Re-read the op. The statement structure is "Women were told not to do A, that's why there's pressure on women to not do A and that's why men are having hard time with women doing A". Where A = show interest. Th…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 07:22 PM
1

No, they were not told to do something. They were told NOT to do something. So they didn't need to do anything to follow. They literally just needed to NOT do anything new, but they did anyway. So OP's explanation doesn't work.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 07:13 PM
1

No no. They were told NOT to do something and did it anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 06:35 PM
1

Factually incorrect. I was right since the beginning and used dictionary definitions of words and textbook logic. That is the opposite of wrong. You on the other hand was wrong in everything you said, starting with trying to invent your own definition, saying that it was invented by some guy, ending with saying what I said even using quotation marks. That many comments later, I am still right and you are still wrong. And if women don't want a man, he is still not high value man, no matter how mu…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 06:27 PM
1

This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about being told that men value certain sexual history/past.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 06:22 PM
1

Once again, I am trying anything. I relaying definition as is. It's not MY definition and I'm not trying to make it. It's a known combination of known words that's been known and used for hundreds of years. Yes, it is used in RP, just like many other words are. It's not an RP term like, idk, shit-test for example. It's a regular term like dating or something that is just used in RP. I did not paint myself anywhere, I've been saying the exact same thing since the beginning and you still can't gra…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 06:16 PM
1

Sure, the minority of 4 billion is still plenty. Point is, they've been told not to do that since time immemorial, yet, in general they sleep around more than in the past.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 05:53 PM
1

No, that's your definition, not mine. The correct definition is not influenced by RP. The correct definition is influenced only by definitions of words high, value, and most importantly man. And the measure of that high value as a man is whether or not women want him for sex. No women want him? Not high value.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 05:15 PM
1

It's not an RP term, it's a regular term used in RP sub, which is where I am calling out people who aren't using this term correctly. I didn't fail at all, but you did fail to grasp basic textbook logic. Still. After being told where you're wrong multiple times. Hilarious.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 04:57 PM
1

Women in general, why would I talk about you or OP. OP said "women" in the title, not "I".
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 04:56 PM
1

Which does not contradict my original statement. Women were told something and didn't do it. So no reason to blame what women were told for something.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 03:16 PM
1

No, the term is not a RP term, it's a term from outside RP that is used in RP. It's not more RP term than, idk, chair or table. Or are you gonna send me a video how some pollo guy is sitting on a chair as proof that it's an RP term. Pathetic. I'm not lost. I know where I am and what I'm saying and why I'm saying it. I'm here to make fun of people on both sides in denial about definitions and logic. Once again, if a man is not wanted for sex, then he's not high value as a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 03:15 PM
1

It is, though. Because only a dumb woman will think that the fact that she is financially rewarded for something is somehow contradictory to the fact that the same thing is not valued for relationships. And I think most women are not dumb.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 02:54 PM
1

Again, I am not talking about pills. All this time I'm talking about one thing only - definition of high, value, and man. I'm not talking about definitions of pills. Indeed, fail. How can you fail to understand this? So simple.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 02:49 PM
1

Are you mentally challenged or something? Most of what you said is some incoherent rambling. Yes, in this conversation I care about definition of words that HVM consists of. Don't get distracted from the main point - no man is high value if women don't want him for sex. I should give it up but I still have hope for you. You did figure out how to type and use internet, so maybe not everything is lost and you can grasp some simple textbook logic. Human and man are different words, high value man a…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 02:42 PM
1

It's not defined properly, that's why things like the one I pointed out are possible.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 02:02 PM
1

Again, dgaf what rollo is. I'm talking about definitions of words. Whatever he or she said is irrelevant. Try again what? YOu did give an example of a high value parent, not a man. You did not demonstrate that that man was wanted for being a man not for what he does as a parent. I didn't refuse to look at the source, because it wasn't a source. That's just some random guy who used the words, maybe correctly, maybe not. I'm talking about correct definitions, not about the use of words by some guy…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 01:53 PM
1

Oh ok, so consent is what you say it is and legal consent is unjust and the law should be changed?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 01:49 PM
1

It is logical, you just don't understand what logic is and how it works as you demonstrated multiple times already. My advanced degrees and 10+ years of teaching at universities did, for one. No, it's not one of those things. Those things don't apply to online conversations. The fact that I'm way way more knowledgeable in how logic works says that, too, in itself. No, I didn't just happen. Where did I say that? I said that the way I participate in it is ONLY to call people out when they are illo…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 01:22 PM
1

No one is talking metaphysics. No they didn't consent because there was nothing to consent to in your example. No one asked them anything. They went ahead and jumped all by themselves. Also none of your examples apply. This is how it should be. Person A and B are both drunk and jump down holding hands. They survive but are damage badly, can't walk etc. When asked about it, person A blames person B and said they couldn't consent because they were drunk. However, similarly, person A couldn't conse…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 01:17 PM
1

Yes, that's all I do. The only topics I weigh in on are the ones that have to do with definitions and point out when people don't use, say, hypocrisy or double standard correctly, or won't acknowledge that men and women are different (often same threads as double standard as if different sexes shouldn't have different standards). Not sure what you're talking about with pills and swallowing and all. If I failed to teach you that says a lot about you, not much about me. So it's not me who failed, …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 01:11 PM
0

But when you have sex with someone that automatically means that someone is having sex with you. So if you are drunk or you are both drunk, can you rape? How can the other person be responsible if the other person is too drunk and therefore didn't consent to sex anyway? You don't have to be drunk to that level to not be able to legally give consent.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 12:49 PM
0

So if you are too intoxicated can you rape and be responsible for it? Or are you the one who was raped?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 12:37 PM
1

Legal is an interesting term here, since legally one can't consent if too intoxicated, so it appears that those policies are actually legal. You think that's unjust? Are you going to any events to protest this injustice or at least post publicly that you disagree with this?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 12:30 PM
1

Um what? Literally almost everybody does? This is not online talk, when I was growing up the Internet wasn't a thing like it is now. The online talk accounts only for the last decade or so. Obviously my grandma wouldn't use that term, but absolutely would know that purity is valued. Not to mention, that slut is one of the most common insults. In fact, it was always a meme back in my day that as a girl wearing revealing cloths and/or makeup is walking past old ladies they all whisper slut cough c…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 12:17 PM
3

Oh ok, so one can consent to sex when drunk and it's not rape if nobody forced them to drink. And the policies some universities have, for example, should be illegal?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 12:12 PM
2

Less than half recognised that if a man has been drinking or taking drugs, he is still responsible if he rapes someone (46% got this right) The right answer here is that in this scenario a man can't consent and is the one who got raped, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 06:54 AM
1

And I'm sorry you had to deal with poor treatment. No one safe from things going wrong. All I was saying is that you can't say that "women" act like this because they were told. There are billions of men, but you meet who you meet and that will shape your life :/ Hopefully, everything turns out fine for you in the end.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 03:15 AM
1

No clue what guy and what the guy did. He must have hurt you somehow since you won't shut about him. If it's still the same guy that is. All I care about is logic and definitions. I am not pretending, I have no need to do it. No, not everyone knows who he is and the term doesn't come from him as I've proven already. What is sad is not grasping the definition after 3 days of it being rubbed in your nose again and again. If a man is not wanted by women then he's not a high value man. Being wanted …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 02:38 AM
1

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. Are you trying to rant or something? We can do that. No, it's both. There doesn't need to be a contradiction, this is not a dilemma. It's not only one or the other. Again, she said she didn't show interest because was told not to. She was absolutely told about the body count. 100% heard about it as a child in school or from mom/grandma. 100%. And again, it's not about her, it's about "women" because she said "women". And yeah, women definitely heard. Otherwise, w…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 01:53 AM
1

Oh so now he popularized it. Thought you said he created it and said it many many times up until the proof you were wrong was rubbed in your nose. Idgaf who that is and what he did. I'm using words according to their definitions. A man is not a high value man if women don't want him.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 01:50 AM
1

Once again, he did not create the term. These words were known and combined before him. And once again, a man is not high value if he's not valued for being a man and not just a human/professional.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 01:28 AM
1

I'm saying the type of the advice I hear and I'm assuming women are on average as smart as men so they would listen to a man's take on what men want. Well, men never said OF girls wouldn't make money, right? They said that most men don't find that a desirable profession for their wife or gf. I see no contradiction, it was never about the monetary value.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 01:26 AM
1

High value man doesn't mean high value human and vice versa. You wrote examples of that yourself above - all those scientists dying virgins (unless women were after them but they rejected those women) are a good example. High value as human, low value as men. I can't walk away from your fail, it's too entertaining. So many days and you still can't grasp that man and human are not the same thing and are trying to come up with some weird definition that won't even distinguish between high value me…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 12:50 AM
7

Oh ok, now could you share a definition, then? So far sounds like you are making it up and most people don't agree with you because we definitely hear things being called rape that aren't rape according to you. So either you are right or you are wrong, please link the definition.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 12:22 AM
1

No, HVM doesn't automatically make you a good human and vice versa. You can be valued as a man due to being attractive and/or having money/power, but at the same time be a bad person. The term has meaning because it consists of 3 words and these 3 words have meaning. Don't care about the link, I read 3 words without the link and know their definitions without the link. He didn't create the term. Words high, value, and man, were knowns for centuries. They were definitely combined together a while…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 12:20 AM
1

Irrelevant. Point is - there are multiple examples of being told something and not doing it, so can't blame others for telling her not to show interest. As you said, it's 2024, so why would she listen and not show interest if she didn't listen and slept around? No, I don't whether or not she does. I'm generalizing because she started generalizing. Re-read the title. She says "women", she doesn't speak about her experience only. I know that not all women sleep around, but more women sleep around …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/24 12:17 AM
1

Nope, you are the one who doesn't get it. You keep conflating man and human. They are different words and mean different things. Not every human is a man. Not every high value man is a high value human and not every high value human who is a man is a high value man. I do understand what V means or what M means, you don't seem to, because you keep clinging to example that demonstrates value as a parent, but has nothing to do with value as M. What exactly is so difficult to understand here? This i…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 11:51 PM
8

Ok, and if a man doesn't penetrate for sexual pleasure or doesn't do it forcibly (for example, by implying consequences or by having power over woman (see statutory rape)), then it's not rape? Also, women can't rape women, female teachers can't rape students, forcing to give handjobs/footjobs or to lick him or his genitalia possibly to completion isn't rape since no penetration?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 11:45 PM
1

No, I'm understanding very well. Countless times in my life I've been told that it's better to not show much interest towards a man you like She didn't show interest because she was told not to, then she claims this applies to women in general. And so I'm asking, how come being told not to sleep around, for instance, doesn't lead to not sleeping around, but not showing interest is explained by what women were told (supposedly)? I mean the advice I heard given by men to women.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 11:43 PM
1

That's taken care of in my "model" ,just count that as some portion of what I call "businesses". Just like with businesses, if you don't have enough "customers" you don't need all of the infrastructure we have now.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 11:40 PM
17

Oh ok, so rape is only when someone is physically forced to do something, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 11:33 PM
1

But that's assuming that you have, say, 10 business that can't do their thing because there's only enough employees for 5. Wouldn't in the long run those businesses just merge/fold into 5 and everything will be ok?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 11:32 PM
0

Well, bad for the lack of better term I could think of on the spot. Point is, women are told many things and don't do most of them, so how can she say that this one thing is because of somebody told women something? That doesn't add up. Besides, many men do say that women should approach and pay and be equal for decades now. Actually, that's the message I heard, I haven't heard advice to play hard to get and never given one. Again, not that there is no bias and maybe I'm just not in the places w…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 11:31 PM
1

No, you showed me what factually showed high value as a parent, not as a man. As I already pointed out, the same things could be done by a woman. That wouldn't make her a high value man. It's just high value parent, nothing more, nothing less. Those who don't know definitions of words indeed can't get. You have no excuse though, I already pointed out what definitions of words are, specifically, the word man. What HVM philosophy, what guy? I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm literally j…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 11:28 PM
1

No, once again, the only thing that factually shows high value as a man, not human, is being desired by the opposite sex for sex. That is, indeed, demonstration of value. A man who is not wanted by women can not be called a high value man. Why would he be a HVM if no woman wants him? He can still be a high value parent or human, he is just not a high value man. That is literally HVM by definition of those 3 words.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 08:49 PM
1

Yes, I can. Can you? Value as a parent brings value to a man, however, if there's no evidence of women wanting to have sex with said man, then there's no evidence of him being HVM. He can be a high value parent but not a high value man and vice versa. Not every high value parent is a high value man.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 08:35 PM
1

No, you might be clueless though if you can't distinguish between a man and a parent. In your description there was nothing that shows value as a man. Everything he has done could be done by a woman or a trained monkey. Epic fail indeed if you don't see it.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 08:27 PM
1

Exactly. HVM means HVM. High value man. It has to be high value as opposed to low value and it has to be value as a man as opposed to value as a human or anything else. If it were anything else, indeed, it would say something else. For example, a man you described above only demonstrated value as a parent, not as a man, therefore he is not necessarily a HVM.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 07:55 PM
1

Do you understand what distinguish means? At this point I am convinced you need to open a dictionary, you will learn a lot. Everyone gets to distinguish 2 different things. Distinguishing here simply means telling 2 different things apart. And of course I get to do it, everybody does. No, you didn't show me a HVM. You showed me a high value parent who also happens to be a man. Not enough info to know if it's HVM or LVM because we don't know if women want sex with him. Exactly, the term is HVM. S…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 07:25 PM
1

Again, I'm not making excuses. I'm distinguishing different words. Different words have different meanings. Exactly. High value man means high value man. Not woman, not employee etc. You showed me a high value parent, not a high value man. He is a high value man if women want him, otherwise, not enough info to tell. And yes, parent and man are different terms and mean different things. Not every high value parent is a high value man or a man at all and not every high value man is a high value pa…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 07:17 PM
5

Nah, this can't be correct. Women were also told that high partner count is bad, yet it's increasing. They were told that sex work is bad, yet only fans is booming. You can't blame this one on being told to (not) do something. There are multiple examples of women doing the opposite of what they are told, so we can conclude that being told something doesn't predict outcome.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 07:07 PM
1

How would that play out? Wouldn't economy just downscale? As in, not enough jobs means there are fewer customers, too, so some companies just go out of business, while other can feel their jobs?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 07:03 PM
1

Are you sure the future will be be bigger and better when most men check out? Especially, since most men moving us to that future (i.e. scientists and other nerds) are not gonna get any if they have no shot at marriage. I am not sure this will work as well as you think in the long run.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 07:01 PM
1

No I literally didn't and you need to stop putting words in my mouth. This is like 5th time. I'll repeat again, if no one wants to higher an employee, he's not a valued employee. If women don't want to have sex with a man, he's not a high value man. Value of an employee doesn't come from employers wanting to hire him, instead, they want to hire him because he's valuable (the value will come from skills etc). Similarly, high value men aren't high value because women want them, instead, women want…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 06:58 PM
1

No, I'm not trying to shove anything. I'm simply making sure that the definitions are followed. High Value man means: high value man. Not “in the market”. High value man. Period. Exactly. And a key word is man, not a robot, not a genderless blob. Man. And of course in a market, otherwise there's no meaning to a term "value" or "valuable". Something has value if it's valued by someone. That's literally how it works. If no one wants to pay for a car, it's not a high value car. If employers don't t…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 06:42 PM
13

If Florida is a sunshine state, how come it was raining when I visited?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 06:33 PM
–

As a multi-millionaire born in a rich family I hate this "omg jobs don't pay enough, I can't afford housing" or "the raises are less than inflation" etc. You get the vibe. Let me explain to you why economy is good and and being poor is a good thing (for you, I wouldn't know).
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 06:31 PM
1

Read the words carefully. I didn't deny anything that I said. I did deny what you said I said because what you said I said was not what I said. If you don't understand something, clarify. No one is pretending. These are the definitions. I didn't assign anything, I explained what value in the market is. I'm not the one assigning it and you also seem to misunderstand that causal relationship. It's not the value, it's the proof that there is value. If there is no demand from women, then it's not a …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 06:23 PM
1

What? That's not what I said and it doesn't even make sense? How can someone's value to be of value? What? How is that what I'm saying let alone you are quoting me? Quotation marks are not appropriate here. I never said what you quoted. That IS what makes it H V as M. Again, you are focusing on H and forgetting about M. So no, it's not bullshit. It's literally just definitions of words. How are you still struggling with definitions?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 04:19 AM
1

No, that's not his only value, that' the main indicator of his value. If he's not desired by women he's not a high value men. More importantly So once again a man is only a man to you if he’s desired by women. That’s his only value. Is not what I said at all, so stop using your "so once again ... to you". If you don't understand what I meant, ask and clarify. To fix your claim, I'm saying that a man is only a high value man if he’s desired by women. If he's not desired by women, he can still be …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 03:17 AM
1

Incorrect. I understand it very well and I'm not pretending. I'm literally relaying what words mean, not inventing anything. Exactly, it's 3 words. What does the 3rd one mean, in your opinion. You are operating on the first 2 and are ignoring the 3rd one. I'm taking all 3 into account, that's the difference. You are talking about high-value genderless blob, I'm talking about HVM.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 02:57 AM
1

And once again, man is one of two sexes, that's what makes it man and not chair or robot. That's what defines man and separates man from employee or student or scientist, who could be either man or woman. Man is not a sexless term. Man is one of two sexes of human species. High value man absolutely means that the opposite sex wants to have sex with him. If they don't - he's not a high value man. H Indeed, those who don't get the difference, don't get the difference. No clue what programs you're …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 01:28 AM
1

No, not where they "get" it. That's what shows their value. No, it's not bullshit, it's literally how you know if man is considered to be high value by women. If no woman wants him, he's not a high value man. He can be a high value AC generator inventor but not a HVM. What's so difficult to understand? You can't say that something is high-value in the market, when nobody wants to buy it. No, not caring what others think has nothing to do with one's value as a man. Some of them do, some of them d…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/24 12:22 AM
1

Incorrect, because you don't account for the "man" part. How is a man high value if no woman wants sex with him? He's not. I am, I am not trying to derive anything, I take words and their definitions for what they are. And acknowledge that different words mean different things. Whether or not it's a buzzword is irrelevant. It's a word and words have definitions. And once again, ~10 comments later you still "Once again: you are trying to dismiss that these three words HVM mean exactly what the th…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/24 09:16 PM
1

Again you are trying to conflate value as a human and value as a man. Why? Tesla had higher value as a member of society, that doesn't mean he's HVM, because it was irrelevant that he was a man if he was a virgin. Again, he could be a robot or a woman, it wouldn't change a thing. To quote you: "Once again: you are trying to dismiss that these three words HVM mean exactly what the three words mean." No, the dumber you sound, you are repeatedly being told that man and his profession are different …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/24 08:10 PM
1

No, he doesn't have no value. He has value that is lower than what can be called high value. Seriously, where did they teach you that "and so literally what you're saying" and "ok so" are good arguments for anything? No, that's what I'm saying or mean. If you don't understand then ask, don't try to put words in my mouth. Again, I said can't get sex, not choose not to get sex. And if they actually couldn't get sex, there's still no contradiction. In fact, it just illustrates my point. Tesla was a…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/24 08:00 PM
1

No, how is that what I'm saying, especially "literally"? Is "literally" another word you need to look up a definition for? Looks like the answer yes. Do open a dictionary every now and again. No, I never said useless. I just said that he is not a HVM, maybe he's MMV or LMV depending on what options he has with women. But of course he's not a HVM if women don't want to sleep with him and would rather sleep with somebody else. Clearly, that somebody else is higher value to those women as a man. Ho…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/24 07:53 PM
1

Exactly. I am not trying to dismiss it, you are. The third word there is "man". Man is one of two sexes our species has. Our species has two sexes because that's how it reproduces. A man is a member of species who can have sex with a woman (an opposite sex of a species) to potentially have offspring. A high value "man" is a man whom women want to have sex with. It's really simple. Otherwise the word man wouldn't be relevant in the term.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/24 07:31 PM
1

Again, you are conflating HV man and HV employee, etc. They are separate things. A combination of all of them could mean high RMV as opposed to SMV and make one a high value human or something. But HVM is about SMV and being attractive to women. You can have a high paying job and do charity on the weekends and have pretty everything in order, but if women don't want to have sex with you, you are not HVM. And vice versa. As long as they want you, you are HVM, even if other things aren't great.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/24 07:23 PM
1

You absolutely do need to define every term otherwise what do they mean? In your case clearly thinking that they are "self explanatory" leads to you using them incorrectly. What? What does prison have to do with anything? We are talking about regular dating, men and women. There are no coed prisons, so how could a man be objectified by a woman in prison? He couldn't, so the scenario is irrelevant. No, I literally showed you how this concepts works in many ways not only sexual. You simply don't u…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/24 07:06 PM
1

Again, define objectification and explain how it wouldn't include literally everything that can be in demand for anything. The concept is not trash, in fact, objectification would make it even stronger - someone is valued so highly that they are objectified for it. Value and objectification are orthogonal axes and don't exclude one another. You can be be a combination of both or neither. And it's not just sexual. You are a high value employee and they want to hire you for your job skills. You ar…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/24 06:17 PM
1

Is an item you can buy financially objectified then? You are misusing the term to the point that it has no meaning. And yes it is high value. It's literally the definition of high value - having a high price in the market (in this case, sexual "market") compared to others.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/24 06:04 PM
1

It's not the same thing. A big difference is that women settle - those men are not getting their best (see the good ol' classic "got married to a whore that fucks like a prude" story), whereas women would get man's best. Where are stories by women that they found out that their bf who settled for them would do some sexual acts with other women but won't do it with them? Even if they exist, the number must be negligible if we almost never hear them.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/24 05:59 PM
2

LOL it's 2024 and some people are still under impression that men like only woman/type of woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/24 05:52 PM
1

What's embarrassing is that you are still failing to grasp this simple concept after so many comments. And no that's not what I'm saying. It's not objectification, it's literal definitions. If a car is wanted as a car, then it's a high value car. Not a high value vegetable or house. If a man is wanted by women for sex, then it's a high value man, not a high value employee or father.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/24 05:47 PM
1

How would you expect to see any of my actual behavior in a reddit profile anyway? Clearly it's for commenting, not posting about my life. Anyway, so did you find anything? And if not, why would you accuse me of something and say my history is public as in something there supports the accusation?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/24 05:38 PM
–

This sub rarely stops giving
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/24 05:37 PM
1

Whether it's important to you or not is up to you. That's just a value as a man. If you value being a good employee more, then you can look at your salary instead of listening to women. It's not more or less important than anything else. What I personally don't like is when people are in denial about definitions of terms. I'm not arguing that it's important, I'm arguing that it needs to be acknowledged, that's all.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/24 05:36 PM
1

Yeah I mean you’re just totally missing my argument> at this point. You think dicks are gross, I get it. And if you want to insist that “whore” isn’t a term used to demean women specifically, then…that’s your prerogative I guess. Weird take. No I'm not, I keep showing how it's all very simple. ANd yes, it isn't a term used to demeam women, it's a term used to demean people who sleep with multiple women. Women just find it offensive more than men. Let’s go back to the main topic of discussion. Ad…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/24 05:29 PM
1

Right and where does my comment history imply that me or my friends don't respect woman's autonomy? Again, you are reaching and the fact that you even had to go to the comment history is proof enough that you're out of your depth and can't argue the topic and hand and instead try to find something to attack the opponent personally. I challenge you to find a comment where I say that myself or my friends don't respect woman's autonomy. Link it.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/24 05:24 PM
–

For reals, it's basic logic and knowledge. Talking in this sub without knowing about preselection? Comparing different types of women as if there was no way to actually compare? Embarrassing indeed.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/24 09:29 PM
1

That's exactly the point. High value man. Students, employees, etc can be of both sex. Man is man, it's the sex that fucks the opposite sex. That's why high value man has to do with how successful he is with the opposite sex. He can be shit student and crap employee but be a high value man. And vice versa. What's so hard to understand?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/24 09:25 PM
1

It does not follow that “whore” is not a gendered insult. It was created to refer to certain women. 99% of the time it’s still used against women. I’m sure you know that. Sure why not. That still has nothing to do with "identity". She's called like that not because she is a woman and the goal of the insult is not to imply that she is a woman, but to imply that she is the kind who would sleep with many men, possibly in exchange for money or services. I was trying to find an example that would res…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/24 09:23 PM
1

Because usually you go to school to become smart and get a career. I suppose, if understanding logic is not required for what you do, then it's all good. What? Of course you can split into categories because there are different markets. Employment market and sexual markets are different markets and employers and potential sexual partners look for different things. No it's not, it depends on the context for a given case. In general, yes most likely that man will be lower value because men that se…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/24 09:18 PM
1

Calling a woman a “whore” has nothing to do with her identity as a woman? Bold claim, and it contradicts the other points you’re making. Of course not. Not all women are whores and not all whores are women. It doesn't contradict anything. The insults that offend are the exact insults that speak to societal views. If we didn’t have a history of devaluing people on the basis of race, the n-word would not be offensive. If society didn’t attach value to men for their sexual experience, being called …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/24 09:13 PM
1

Insults directed at someone for their group identity, including racist and sexist epithets, are offensive precisely because they are intended to say something damaging about a person’s value as a human. It’s saying you are lesser than because you are black; you are lesser than because you are a woman. Correct, but this case is not about identity. Sleeping with many men is not identity. So how would an insult look if it's directed at someone value as X but not as a human? I could call a man a who…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/24 07:16 PM
1

Right, I said get a refund because simple logic makes no sense to you. Again, you are conflating value as a man (wanted by women) and value as an employee (smart, logical). They are two different things. No, I don't see how it's all falling apart. It's actually holding together very well and your example does not contradict anything. Married guy can be less valuable than a partyboi, why not? Or more valuable. It depends on a few factors, but in the end it all comes down to one question - do wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/24 07:08 PM
1

Decides who? The market. On what basis? I'm sure there exist plenty of men who would prefer 1 virgin over 100 whores. Not how it works. "There exist" is not sufficient. There exist plenty of men who will pay $100 for a bag of chips for convenience, yet the market value is $5. Gotta look at the entire market. We are talking about the market value, not about how valuable someone can be to one (or few) given buyer. What doesn't happen in real life? A man who only attracts promiscuous women or a man…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/24 06:43 PM
1

Winning in what? You keep conflating value as a man and value as an employee. They are not the same thing. Value as a man - women want to sleep with you, value as an employee - companies want to pay you more money. In the end, there is a number showing who's more valuable.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/24 06:36 PM
1

Again, what you have thought is irrelevant here. I can think that I'm valuable, but if sorority girls want to have fun with you and not with me, that's the market saying that you are more valuable than me as a man. The fact that I'm doing my homework and have a higher GPA than you doesn't change that. No, it doesn't matter what other dudes think about it either. It's the market value that is important. If market pays a lot - you are valuable, if not - you are not. Simple. If you are trying to se…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/24 06:22 PM
1

Yes, it was showing that you were more valuable as a man. Why are you comparing value as a man and value as an employee? They are two different things. If he ended up being alone, that's an indicator that he lost value. While he wasn't alone and was sleeping with those many women, he was more valuable, yes. Value can change with time, why is that a surprise to you? We see it all the time in all markets. And again, talking about value as a man, not as a human, person, husband, employee, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/24 06:09 PM
1

Good question and just like men, not all women are equal in value. But the conversion coefficients wouldn't be in the 100s, so yes 100 whores > 1 virgin. For other cases, would need to convert values. The answer will depend on whether we are talking about RMV or SMV as a man or rather value as a husband vs value as a man. Also, what you are describing wouldn't happen in real life, that's not how it works. Preselection is a thing and a man attracts proportional amounts of whores and virgins usual…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/24 06:03 PM
1

Again, don't care about pills and books and whatnot. There's supply and demand, therefore the market analogy and terms apply. Value is analogous to price. If the market is paying high price, then the good is valuable. If it doesn't, then it's not. EVEN THOUGH, some people could still want the item and would even be ready to pay more than the market price. So yes, having many women proves one is a valuable man. You can still hope to find a "buyer" who is looking just for you, though, which is wha…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/24 06:01 PM
1

Maybe I'm not reading those threads. I haven't seen it in this thread, for example. Could you please post a link to a comment in this thread where somebody is saying that? Maybe I missed it. Why involve my mother or sister there? As in, you yourself should understand that in this case you are not asking for an unbiased opinion. And again, I could feel bad for them, but if they were used cum rags, then oh well. Truth hurts sometimes. Maybe it would be a lesson for me to raise my daughter so that …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/24 05:56 PM
1

Many more paintings aren't in those museums or on the walls though. Only the ones that people want to see are. And that's the point. No, we are not saying that. And they don't make the most money per burger. If we were to argue which burger is most valuable, though, we would go with the most expensive one because clearly enough people want it more than other burgers and are ready to pay. That doesn't answer my question. Please, give a more concrete answer. A quality or a list of qualities would …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/24 05:51 PM
1

I haven't seen men saying they are unworthy of basic respect and never said that myself. A few example of that that you have seen might as well be a very small minority unless you have evidence that those people speak for all/most men. Therefore, why even think about it so much? Also, that's a whole different conversation because no one is worthy of respect by default. Respect is earned.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/24 04:38 PM
1

It's sad that the logic doesn't make sense to you, but it's ok, you're not alone, there are many people who don't understand logic. Not everybody is supposed to be in STEM. I will be happy to explain and help you understand. No, your value is not related to those things. Those things just describe your value. They show how much the market will "pay" for you. A painting is only expensive because somebody is willing to pay millions for it whereas another one is cheap because nobody will pay. You s…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/24 04:36 PM
1

What you thought doesn't really mean anything here. Perhaps, you didn't define "man" correctly. Your value as a human is not reflected by that, true. But man is a sex of a sexually dimorphic species. Roughly speaking, man = a participant in procreation that is not a woman/doesn't get pregnant. In that sense, what you can pull is the indicator of your value. What else do you think describes one's value as a man? No, simping etc don't mean value because you pretty much directly bought sexual acces…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/24 04:28 PM
0

Value as a man, yes. A charge of an object is defined by how much of the opposite charge it can attract. Its weight, density and other properties are also relevant if you want to fully describe it, but have nothing to do with a charge. If a nucleus can't attract 10 electrons, then it has low charge of however many electrons it can hold.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/24 04:18 PM
1

The points you made were irrelevant to what I initially said then. I'm simply continuing to explain that it's not about value as a person because for some reason you still don't understand that.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/24 04:14 PM
1

Again, no. Not as a person. As a potential wife/as a woman. Like, she can be doing charity all the time, literally curing cancer and helping everyone in need. Men will acknowledge she is a high-value person, still would be disgusted if she sucked 10 dicks.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/24 05:21 AM
1

When women are sexually open, they call them whores What? Are you new to this whole discussion? Whores is only about the number of men they sleep with. If they are sexually open with their husband, nobody will call them whores.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/24 09:18 PM
1

Why? You can't see the difference between value as a human and value as a potential wife? Now THAT is hilarious.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/24 09:15 PM
1

I don't understand what's so difficult to grasp here. No one is talking about their worth as people. Only as potential wives. Same as women are turned off by men who touched other dicks. Also, what a straight man thinks about gay man is irrelevant because he's not trying to date him. What's relevant is what a woman thinks about him, a woman is turned off.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/24 09:15 PM
1

I see. But yeah, I'll note again that the value you are talking about is just an RMV, not a value as a person. And it's not women's value, it's both men's and women's. Think about it, society disparages men sleeping with men all the time. I heard many women say that bisexual men are a turn off for them, too.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/24 02:25 AM
2

Yes, I’ve seen several instances where it’s the same person doing both things. Doubt it's representative of all or even most men, but sure there could be some men like that. I misread your second point the first time around. So it’s only sleeping with men that degrades a woman’s value? What’s the logic behind that? Well, not necessarily men now that it's 2024. People with dicks. The logic is that men are disgusted by a thought that she touched (and maybe pleased) other dicks. I also heard, that …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/24 01:31 AM
3

See redpillers say this and then go ahead and treat women like they’re worthless humans for having an n count above 2. You can’t talk out of both sides of your mouth. Who does that? Are you sure you are talking about the same people doing both things? Cause you know, it could be different people. That is a constant topic on this sub and elsewhere. Men who claim to have dozens of sex partners who disparage women with the same n count. I don't see the contradiction. Those men claim to have dozens …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/24 12:51 AM
5

No one is talking about value as a human. Besides, I haven't really seen men who sleep with many women saying that women who sleep with many women are lower value, so it' snot about exact same behavior either. No hypocrisy here, men who sleep with many men are judged by society too.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/24 11:52 PM
0

Right, so not enough consequences or not undesirable enough.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/24 11:18 PM
1

First of all, you can force, whether you should or not is a different question. Secondly, if you don't want to force, you can strongly encourage. Long-term monogamy used to be beneficial, not participating used to come with different undesirable consequences. Maybe bring some of that back. p.s. Regarding can't force, thing just didn't get bad enough. But if people face the choice between dialing some rights down or going extinct/losing everything we built and going back to stone age, I bet the c…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/24 10:57 PM
1

Yes there is, I am one of those. Again, you keep assuming. Sounds like you are arguing just to argue, even when you have no case or evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/24 09:33 PM
2

Well, but I mean, he has to assume something to answer the question, right? And it's already ruled out that she's unattractive or boring etc. So what other options are there? But yes, of course he needs to define masculine.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/24 04:15 PM
2

That = what exactly? I'm saying he assumed she's masculine if despite those qualities she can't find anyone. Not that having those qualities makes her masculine - I don't see how he assumed this, but it seems like this is what the post is implying.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/24 03:38 PM
–

History. Like historical trends. Also just thinking, I don’t need to listen to other people to think of something that makes sense. Let's see them. Post your evidence. What would a phd in math/ physics have to do with social studies? Psychology Degree, I’m telling you what I’ve learned myself and having done it myself. Studies can be done with bias and to be manipulated. It happens all the time. Social studies? I'm talking about stats. Stats are pure math, social studies is a pseudoscience just …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/24 03:18 PM
2

You didn't understand him at all. He didn't sum up all those qualities and call them masculine. He said that if despite having those qualities she's still single, then most likely she's masculine. He never said that having those qualities means she's masculine. She can have those qualities and be feminine, as the women she is competing with and losing to.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/24 03:06 PM
–

So as I said, your friends or men you personally know to be precise. No, that doesn't overwrite actual published studies. Umm, yes I do. Who are you exactly to be teaching me statistics? Do you have a PhD in math/physics? If not, you are not qualified to be teaching me and I'm pretty sure I understand it better than you do. No, stats don't tell the whole story, but they sure tell more than personal anecdotes. Also, there's literally no reason to manipulate these results, they don't support any a…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/24 03:03 PM
–

Because that's the only thing you can base your claims on. Or are you just straight up pulling it out of your ass? Beliefs don't matter, results matter. And the stats are very clear - men spend more time working than women. And yes it does mean that what you said is in general not true. What you say exists, but you can't say "a lot of men" like that. It implies majority or at least a non-negligible number, but what you are describing is true for a very small minority. If you said "some men", tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/24 02:48 PM
–

That's simply not true and there are studies showing that men who do less childrearing spend more time working. You are describing some anecdotal cases that you heard from your friends. Of course, you wouldn't hear people who have nothing to complain about.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/24 02:34 PM
–

I think there might be a weird stalemate where women want 50/50 labour division but men don't want kids enough to do that. If there's enough men that are up for 50/50 and enough women that don't want kids, everyone should be able to find a match, but I'm not sure that's the case Almost as if supply-demand is a thing and that's what men have to deal with to even get with a woman to begin with. Anyway, you need to zoom out and not just look at one aspect. Look at the entire 24 hours of the day. It…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/24 02:32 PM
1

Or maybe you are, assuming things about me and my circle when you know nothing about who I am and who I choose to associate with.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/24 02:27 PM
3

I'm not saying anything about healthy relationship, I'm pointing out that you used the term equitable incorrectly. What you described could be equitable. Equitable = proportional to benefit, not to income. The way you used the term implied that equitable is proportional to income, which is incorrect. That is all. Whether or not equitable relationships are healthy or relationships need to be non-equitable to be healthy is a whole different conversation. And I'm not arguing against your approach t…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/24 02:26 PM
3

Pulling your weight is equitable though. You don't seem to understand what equitable means. 50/50 is not equitable if we're talking about having different weights, but it is equitable if weights are equal. Going back to going out and splitting bill example, if people ordered different things that cost different amounts, then splitting 50/50 wouldn't be equitable, but if the costs were equal, then 50/50 is equitable. It depends on costs/how much they benefit from something, not on income. If part…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/24 06:50 PM
2

Whether or not you want equality is up to you. But saying that 50/50 is not equitable is moronic. Sure, you can agree to pay unequally as long as all parties are in. But default and equal split would be equal.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/24 06:29 PM
2

Again, if you are about emotions and not about equality, math, and logic, then maybe. If you look at it logically and if you want equality - then the math is simple. If you are against equality - then sure, exploit the higher earner and make him pay more. There is no agreements in math and I'm not trying to reach one. I'm just pointing out that you are wrong and need to keep numbers out of your mouth.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/24 06:10 PM
2

No, not financially. Mathematically it's the same problem. You have a bill that needs to be paid, how will you split it. If you are for logic and equality, of course. If you're about inequality and special treatment, then I see how it could be different.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/24 05:58 PM
–

It's not unreasonable just shallow. It's also reasonable only up to a certain income. It's not very intelligent of a woman to keep wanting that as her income increases. She just reduces her dating pool for no good reason. Like, at some point if he makes as much as you - you will have enough, let's call that number X. Still requiring for him to earn more than you when your combined income could be X even if he earns less is unreasonable.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/24 05:55 PM
5

True. Women are intimidated by fat, short, and/or poor men.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/24 05:46 PM
1

That's ridiculous. If you go out with friends and everybody orders the same thing, do you split the bill equally or proportionally to income? How is pulling your weight not equitable?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/24 05:44 PM
1

What? That's the first time I commented on this. And there is no reason to loop indeed. You are just plain wrong. If increasing the count is wrong - then reducing the balance on their card is wrong. Bankruptcy is a very special case.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/24 03:26 PM
1

No, it has everything to do with supply of sex. That's why woman - lock, man - key in this analogy. Because it's a woman who limits whether or not the door will open. The q-tip is not an analogy here, it's a very primitive attempt to make one based on nothing but the fact that one thing penetrates the other - oogaa booga q tip goes in.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/24 03:24 PM
1

Lock-key analogy works because of supply-demand ratio and women being gatekeepers of sex. How would q-tip analogy work? It doesn't seem to apply at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/24 02:09 AM
1

Lock-key analogy works because of supply-demand ratio and women de-facto being gatekeepers of sex. How does your clean ear/dirty q-tip thing is an analogy? It's not analogous to men and women at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/24 02:08 AM
1

No, not bankrupt. As long as she lets men spend more on her than she spends on him - the argument applies. And most women who want wealthy men do let them spend, so...
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/24 02:03 AM
1

huh? They want to be promiscuous with women, not other men. How are they not different? It's not like they judge women for sleeping with women, and it' not like they don't judge other men for sleeping with men.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/24 02:02 AM
1

How is their attractiveness relevant? It's about the number of dicks she touched. That is the only factor that matters here.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/24 01:58 AM
1

Why would age difference be so important for conversation? If anything, wouldn't college major/interests/career etc matter more? For example, who would a biology professor have a better conversation with: a much younger woman who is into biology (student or early career) or a lawyer of the same age as him?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/24 11:49 PM
2

How is age more important that, say, college major/education/career? Wouldn't a biology professor have more to talk about with a 20 year old biology student than with a lawyer of his age? So maybe it's not really about conversation topics.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/24 11:43 PM
2

That will only matter if those angry and unhappy young men make it everyone else's problem. They did in the past, which is how we got monogamy.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/24 08:33 PM
1

Why is this so difficult to answer what I'm asking? I'm asking how would you expect the differences to compare. How high or high low would the score be? Abuse could account for this if the numbers show that. I would expect that if all or even most of that frequency is due to rape/abuse, then the dissatisfaction would be higher by as much or even higher. Actually, I would expect the score to cap pretty much. Again, if the sex frequency is X% higher but dissatisfaction is less than X% (and again, …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/24 08:22 PM
1

Wth how come I can see it then? Ok, let me try to screenshot the table. https://preview.redd.it/uf6hrgmhqgvc1.png?width=598&format=png&auto=webp&s=5d77e7dc05f689ce174bb5b1b781807191cc2cda
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/24 04:29 PM
1

What are you on about? My second link is a pdf with tables, all numbers are there. I see that pdf without being logged in and in the incognito mode, there's no paywall.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/24 04:17 PM
1

Huh? Yes it was accurate, I know what I mean when I'm saying something. When I explain what I meant, this is 100% accurate. Well we both know that you're lying but i can't force you to admit it. You obviouslt know your argument's weak when you can't even dace up to what you've said. What? Are you okay? Why would we both know something when it's not true. I'm the only one who knows if I'm lying or not. You are just projecting for some reason. But it's not surprising anymore tbh, as we figured out…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/24 03:40 PM
–

This has nothing to do with marriage, this is just a definition of the word high-value. Did you mean to leave your comment somewhere else?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/24 03:11 PM
1

You just said you were confused and didn't understand what i said.You didn't explain anything. What you said just before - all of that was addressed. I thought you said you knew how to scroll up. Yes, you ecplained that you actualky meant, "don't listen to what they say, listen to what they say". Hilarious how you managed to misuse such a simple statement. No, that's not what I said, not sure why you use quotation marks. Do you not understand what I said still? After I extensively explained it t…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/24 03:10 PM
1

This has nothing to do with my comment and you still didn't respond to my question.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/24 02:46 PM
1

You are the one struggling, I already explained how it applies, but even if it didn't I can use those numbers to demonstrate what those numbers would show. o, you said "don't listen to what they say". Not "in a weird hypothetical where we have ro choose between two statements, here's the one i'd choose". Stop lyong. I can scroll up. Yes I said that because that's the original proverb, then later I explained what I meant because for some reason it wasn't obvious to you. Please, go ahead and scrol…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/24 02:45 PM
1

The contradiction is that you consider not beong explicitly mentioned, enough to prove there is no rape or threats, but you do not consider not being explicitly mentioned to be proof that preference is not the reason. You could come to any conclusion if you're willing to accept it wkthout evidence. What? There's no contradiction. Or rephrase it, not sure I understand the second thing. Preference is implicilty shown through numbers, clearly, women would prefer something else if the frequency jump…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/24 10:27 PM
1

do you think 100% of men stop when a woman says she doesn't feel like having sex? That's a whole different issue. I'm sure 100% I associate with would stop. Again, she's the one who chose him to begin with. And if anything, most men who wouldn't stop, wouldn't say no to cumming into one of the other orifices. what percent of men do you think stop without further coercion? I think, close to 100%. bro getting an abortion is a consequence it is not "avoiding consequences" it is enduring and paying …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/24 10:08 PM
2

First of all, quite a lot of men like going down on their partner. Lol what does that have to do with anything? He's asking about sucking dick, not about going down on a partner. You can see how sucking dick and licking vagina are two different things, right? I think your other 2 points are the correct answer, though. It's the reaction of the partner that turns you on.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/24 04:38 PM
–

How do you still not get it? The first guy is either wealthy or hot or a combination of 2. Otherwise he wouldn't have that high body count.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/24 03:37 PM
1

Can you not read more than two words at once? There was a context to it. It's an obvious possible explanation, therefore it would be mention if it was the factor. It wasn't. Because it's not a factor. No contradiction here, what's so hard to understand? Abuse and rape are not synonyms. No, I'm not, I'm reading the peer-review paper and you keep dodging the question about numbers. If you are actually being intellectually honest, you understand that what you are saying can in principle be proven w…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/24 03:32 PM
1

No, you discuss emotions. There is no gun in the picture here, there's only some implied threat of violence, that's feelings and emotions, not facts. Either way, it's very easy to settle this. I asked you this question 2 times already, you keep dodging it. I'll ask it again or you can reread it here here with more detail: How much higher do you expect the dissatisfaction score to be if the sex frequency is X% higher? Or X times higher. Use either convention just explain what you mean when you gi…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/24 09:30 PM
1

Again, it's a peer-reviewed study, obvious possible reasons have to be mentioned. The Jupiter's gravity isn't mentioned because it has nothing to do with the subject. Or does it? Should it be mentioned? Also, since you and somebody else insist that sex and rape are different things and nonconsensual sex shouldn't count, wouldn't surveyed women not count it, too, and only report consensual sex? Lol, you mean to scores that you spent about six comments saying you didn't believe? What changed? It's…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/24 09:20 PM
1

I literally did in 2 separate comments. If you can't read that's on you. Which is the key difference. It's all about consent, not about anything else. She says she didn't consent and has no proof of that, he had her messages as proof that she changed her mind about consent much later, after the deed was done. So it's nowhere near the michigan case. Not even close. Good thing he didn't have to go to jail over this like some others. He did lost his reputation, however, as well as got bullied onlin…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/24 12:47 AM
1

In which case women can decide by allowing them to get inside her or not. No abortion right necessary. Clearly, you are not being intellectually honest making this argument. Obviously, many pregnancies happen despite anyone's decisions and we are comparing men's and women's rights to avoid consequences after they learned that the woman is pregnant.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/24 12:36 AM
1

You know how science works, right? They do the best they can, if you have better sample, you can bring that and we discuss that. In the meantime we have what we have. It's definitely enough to see the trend even not in a lot of detail and some finer features could be lost. Think of a low-resolution image. No, there's more we can do than speculate. First, we can realize that rape would be explicitly mentioned as it's such an obvious possible explanation, that no peer review would allow this to be…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/24 12:32 AM
1

And neither should you. You either discuss facts or emotions, not both. No one said show that they have more sex that their partners enjoy. It was to show that they have more sex. And it was shown.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/24 12:25 AM
1

Logic doesn't mean what you think it means. Denying facts isn't logic. You didn't answer the question. If you are considering this logically, then some numbers would indicate that a hypothesis is right and some would indicate that it's wrong. What numbers would you expect to see if sex was due to rape (range, not a set of specific numbers), so that the numbers outside of that range would suggest that sex was largely consensual?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/24 12:23 AM
1

That the sample size is small. If you find any sample size calculator, you will see that even 60 can represent a large population easily. Sure, the size could be bigger, but there are probably more studies done too, I just linked one. And again, the bit where you say it's all because they are forced. In that case I would expect near zero satisfaction and arousability and only a few % more gained in frequency. But what I see is that frequency almost doubles, while losses in all those others thing…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 06:17 PM
1

I posted the article that proves that abusers have more sex which was the point that was asked to be proven.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 06:15 PM
1

It has nothing to do with me and everything to do with numbers. I want to deal with facts, not emotions. If you understand how statistics work, then you also understand that if all those differences were due to rape/abuse, then the numbers would show it. As in, if the difference in sexual frequency is N% and the difference in satisfaction or arousal, for example, is X%, then probably X>N. As in, if women are really forced, then whatever extra % of frequency the abusers get would cost way more in…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 06:14 PM
1

I am replying to your comments. I never replied more than once per comment. If it's more than one, it's on you. Feel free to concede that the evidence was provided and this conversation can stop.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 06:01 PM
1

Oh I see, you don't understand what samples are. It's ok. There's time to learn. Where exactly are you in your probability theory? If you want to talk numbers, why don't you compare results? The difference in intimacy etc is about 10-15%, the difference in intercourse frequency is about 60%.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 06:00 PM
1

No, that's not the reason. That's you hamstering and thinking you know everything and if something is different from what you believe, then you need to justify it. I'm sorry your bubble got broken and you're out of your echo chamber where some care about facts and not feelings.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 05:56 PM
1

Do you understand how averages work? Do you understand how more women from the abused group would avoid it relative to nonabused, but how even more of them could report higher frequency AND those 2 subgroups don't even need to overlap?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 05:52 PM
1

Do you? Because I posted the link literally providing that evidence. They do have more sex. It's right there in the last sentence.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 05:51 PM
1

You absolutely can mention if you were raped. Again, the study is peer-reviewed presumably. Stuff like that would not slide and it wouldn't be published if you could just explain it by rape. The study also doesn't say that the result doesn't depend on the phase of the moon. That's because it doesn't need to say that if it doesn't. You mention relevant things, you don't mention irrelevant things.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 05:48 PM
1

Didn't you say it? What did you say then? You didn't answer the question, so unless you do, I got it right? You did always know that wifebeaters have more sex? Then what are we arguing about? I thought you didn't and showed you the proof that they did have more of it. Where did you see that they were raped in the study? No, this study is about consensual sex. It clearly states who has more sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 05:41 PM
1

It can be, if it is, that will be mentioned in a study.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 05:38 PM
1

You literally didn't. You just declared his life ruined. I literally did, and repeated myself again in the following comment. Go back and reread. So many that you can't name them (ten bucks you come back with the first google search result of "rape conviction overturned.") I can name them or you can google them yourself. Why would I name them if I'm not going into their particular cases in detail. You can google them yourself if you are still claiming no one's life is ruined. A university invest…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 05:37 PM
1

By controlling supply, for example, by having an exclusive right to print more. Is your google broken? Nope, you are incorrect, and I literally explained exactly where. No amount of denial will change that. You don't substantiate any of your miscarriage of logic and just keep being in denial. In general, women control supply of sex, men don't control supply of sex. Sex with women and sex with women are valued very differently. That's not news. The whole sperm is cheap thing is old and well-accep…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 05:30 PM
1

That's the habit you pick up teaching undergrads. Don't worry, I'll be happy to repeat until you understand.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 05:26 PM
1

Nothing anyone says can be verified in that case. And I never said what they say is unreliable. I said if you are going to even consider their words, you have to prefer their words about what they did over their words about how the felt. What is so difficult to grasp here? In principle, you could ask their partners to count the number of times they had sex. You can't in principle know what they felt. lollololol what did you say and what did you mean then if you didn't mean that? Are you now sayi…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 05:25 PM
1

Yes he did and I listed how above. And there are other examples besides him where things went even worse and men spent time in prison, lost jobs, etc. Denying that he did does not make it false. University after conducting an investigation. She accused him of rape, the rape did not take place.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 05:20 PM
1

In currency exchange you trade money for money. It doesn't matter. If any trade is happening of anything for anything, then monopoly is in principle possible. As long as somebody controls supply. Both parties are supplying. Incorrect and really demonstrates how you don't understand what supply in this context means. Both parties are always supplying when exchange is happening. In case of a sale, one party supplies money, for example. Yet, there is still demand and supply. In this case, you forge…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 05:17 PM
3

? That is not low value, that is high value. The proof of it is that multiple women are loyal to him. If it was low value he wouldn't even get one.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 05:13 PM
6

Value is determined by supply and demand. All those things you listed do not matter. What market pays matters. I find some expensive cars ugly, yet they are expensive no matter what I think because enough people are willing to pay those high prices. Men with multiple women are high value because multiple women want them no matter what you and other women think about it. If women are willing to share a man - that man is high value.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 05:12 PM
1

Yes, he did have his life ruined. See above. Punished for falsely accusing him of rape which cost him his reputation.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 04:43 PM
1

In order for a transaction to happen bot parties must consent, if they do not - that's a scam. Yet, there's still monopoly when talking about sales. Similarly, there's monopoly in sex. Consent has nothing to do with supply. Sure, both parties must consent and generally men consent far more often then women => men represent demand and women control supply. Simple, really.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 04:42 PM
3

Yes it is, how is it not? It's a man who managed to have multiple women who are loyal to him. That's a pinnacle of high value. Most men will never experience this. This is the level of celebrities and kings.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 04:34 PM
8

You are mistaking high value for high quality for you. A man that has multiple women is not high quality in your opinion. That's fine. He is high value by definition, though. The market has spoken and gave him multiple women.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 04:32 PM
1

Huh? No, we're not personally obsessed with anything. We are forced into that marriage just the same or who do you think they are marrying? I just acknowledge the fact - marriage is about teaming up with somebody to go through life together and - if that's what a couple wants - having and raising children. It was never about attraction. In many places it is still arranged.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 04:02 PM
1

I am more interest in facts, not in emotions. The fact is, abusive men have more sex. Nowhere does it say in the study that it's rape. You are the one who don't seem being honest and want to make stuff up. Why assume rape? Why not just look at the results. Of course, if rape was involved that would be mentioned in a peer-reviewed study? Like, reviewers wouldn't let it get published if everything could just be explained by rape. Have you ever published a scientific paper? Maybe during your time i…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 04:00 PM
1

Actions can be, in principle, verified. Feelings can't be. If you have to choose to be believe reported actions or reported feelings, you should choose the former. Yes, you were wrong about them not having more sex. They do have more sex than non-abusive husbands as demonstrated in the study I linked.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 03:57 PM
1

Sure, and if the gun was held, that would be mentioned in a study. However, it wasn't because the sex was consensual. And again. Sex is sex. The claim under test was that wife beaters have more sex. And yes they do. Which is in perfect agreement with other studies showing that women prefer dark triad traits - we're talking abusive men who they aren't even married to and can just walk away from. They give those men more sex than your typical good men.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 03:44 PM
3

What? You must have posted it under a wrong comment. This has nothing to do with the comment you are replying to.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 03:42 PM
2

They can not have sex then. Or report that it wasn't consensual when they were surveyed. They did neither of those things. It's scary that you fail to see that your projections are clouding the results of actual peer-reviewed study.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 03:41 PM
1

Did you not read it after that? It clearly says that they had it anyway and nowhere does it even attempt to suggest that it wasn't consensual.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 03:39 PM
1

Which are most men as we know from, for example, dating app data. So yes, de-facto they control access to sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 03:38 PM
1

Yes they do, how do they not? They can have sex tonight if they want to, men can't. Ergo women control supply, since demand from men is higher than from women. It's simple math, really. Also they don't have to be a single or small group. I literally copied definition. Nowhere does it say that. No, I haven't. You have failed to read the definition and talking about your fantasies about what monopoly should be in your opinion. That's not how it's defined.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 03:37 PM
1

He was famous period. Media would cover him, wouldn't cover me, for example. Yes I can and already did. He was completely destroyed by media even after cleared of allegations, lost friends, and got his reputation ruined. The best part, he got no justice. The girl was never punished and was allowed to graduate.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 03:35 PM
–

They already did. There are numbers from dating apps showing how different those answers are. They are not. Or let's say, if those women have 100 options, those 20 answers will be overlap quite considerably, they would be the same mostly.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 03:33 PM
1

Oh I see, you just don't know the definition. It's okay, I'll google it for you. But next time just say you don't know it, that would save time for everybody. noun 1.the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. Women control supply of sex. They have monopoly on sex. What is so difficult to grasp?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/24 02:52 PM
1

No, you are not explaining. It you are saying that things are not other things. That's not new and has nothing to with whether the analogy works or nor. Analogy is about interactions between things, not about things. If that statement is meaningless to you that is simply the confirmation of what I said. You don't know how analogies work. You are not qualified to be talking about them. Almost legal interaction requires two consenting adults, yet some of them are controlled by somebody. Women do d…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/24 01:19 AM
–

No, he was famous before that happened. For example, in older sitcoms he was mentioned. Not to mention that he was a producer of some very famous movies. His name wasn't unknown. It wasn't a random international student. Yes, I can. I didn't because I didn't need to as that wasn't the question. The question was "whose life" not "how". He was completely destroyed by media even after cleared of allegations, lost friends, and got bad reputation. The best part, he got no justice. The girl was never …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/24 01:15 AM
1

Then the schools probably wouldn't promote those, would they?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/24 01:01 AM
1

It's not my point, it's someone else's. And the study proves that wife beaters have more sex, which is what was questioned.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/24 01:01 AM
1

this is part of the problem why would you have children if you don't want to spend time with them? get a vasectomy? Did you like, forget what we were talking about? I already explained to you how it's not about not wanting to spend time with them. Men just have to work and they work way more than women on average, so they have less time to spend with kids. It's not like they want to work and make somebody else disproportionally richer. Men work because they have to. And they spend time with chil…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/24 01:00 AM
-1

No, they have stronger tendency to avoid, no one is saying they are being raped. Stop projecting your fantasies and read what is written. Stronger tendency to avoid can, for example, mean that they are pestered more. What matters is that even if they avoid more, they also have it more. Real life example of squeaky wheel getting greased is what it is. No one is raping anyone, keep your fantasies for your CNC fanfics. This is a published study, if women were raped, that would be mentioned.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/24 12:51 AM
1

What does success rate have to do with anything here? This is not about people trying and failing or not failing. This literally counting how many times they have it. The absolute value, not the success rate.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/24 12:41 AM
1

Yes it does. It clearly says that they have more sex and no it doesn't say they are forced. l2r issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/24 12:39 AM
1

My source doesn't say anything about where you posted it.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/24 12:38 AM
0

Sure, you don't need to diet then. Where is the contradiction or a problem or why do you bring it up? You are just 1 data point. Most people usually want to have families. Actually, family doesn't necessarily mean children anymore. There are child-free families. Just like any other family, it's still not about attraction. It's not about surviving, it's about striving and building together. About having a partner and being ready to handle anything. One or both of you can lose income at some point…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/24 12:38 AM
1

No, they are exactly the same. Literally two of the same word: sex, sex. Same three letters. No, that's not how logic and debates work. You asked for a thing with the parameters you specified, you got that very thing. NOW you are trying to move goalposts. But again, this is a peer-reviewed study. Clearly, since consent is so important (if it is), then it would be mentioned if sex was not consensual. Especially since if that was the case, that would clearly explain the data. It's just that it was…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/24 12:34 AM
2

Things are not other things. If you dont' understand how analogies work, do research on that. It's too early for you to be arguing about pretty much anything. It clearly is working because the relationships between those who control access to something and those who want that something are preserved, which is the point of the analogy. The subjects themselves need not be analogous. You really need to read about analogies before you can even begin to understand when they are working and when they …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/24 12:30 AM
2

No, listen to what can be verified, not to what can not be verified. Actions can be verified if needed, feelings can't be. That's pretty much the idea of the original saying as well. Why is this so hard to grasp? I am expecting you to acknowledge that wife beaters have more sex BEFORE you start trying to rationalize it away. A simple "I guess I was wrong" would be enough.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/24 12:26 AM
–

Huh? Clearly no one will try to memorize his name since he's only famous for having his life ruined, that's why they won't remember if they hear it. And yes I can articulate how it was ruined, what made you think I can't? I wasn't asked to so I didn't, instead I just mention the mattress girl. Whoever remembers that story, remembers how it was ruined. Whoever doesn't, can easily google. Yes I did demonstrate the point. I recalled the case where someone's life was ruined. I do and you just commit…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/24 12:24 AM
0

No analogy is perfect. This analogy is what you started and it works well enough. Yes some food feels good, while other food feels bad but results in getting other things that feel good. You can force to eat that food and you wont' feel good about it, but you will feel good about benefits that come with it. Same with attraction. You can not force yourself, but can enjoy having a good family and children raised in a two-parent home. Marriage was never about attraction, you know that, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 04:11 PM
0

Sex is sex. And you said sex. Second of all, nowhere does it say that it wasn't consensual. Consent doesn't need to be enthusiastic to still be consent. It can be, for example, bought or negotiated. The study is about violence, not about rape, there is no reason to assume that sex was not consensual. If consent is that important, I'm sure it would be mentioned in a peer-reviewed paper. Not that it matters, since, again, you asked about sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 04:09 PM
3

You must have posted it under a wrong comment.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 04:02 PM
4

All we have to go on is what they say. You just quoted what they say. That's what "reported" means. THat is true. Then wathc what they say about what they do, not what they say about what they feel. Do you understand the point of the original saying anyway? Then you should understand this one either. There's a difference. Obviously if the threat of violence is there, she won't say no as often. But to assume that that is due to arousal, would be as idiotic as assuming shopkeepers feel more genero…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 04:01 PM
1

Monopolies are not a single person either. Also women are not cars etc. Thing don't have to be other things for analogies to work. If things were only what they are, then that wouldn't be an analogy and would just be fact. But you already can't grasp the fact that they control access to sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 03:54 PM
–

You don't even know the guy's name and you're claiming his life was ruined? Huh? Yes I do. No one will immediately recall the story if I use that though, but everyone old enough will remember the mattress girl. Also, even if I didn't know the name, that would have nothing to do with whether or not his life was ruined. What you tried to do there is a logical fallacy and doesn't impress anyone. Either argue in good faith or don't argue at all. And they're so common that the only one you can think …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 03:52 PM
1

Did I say enough or not enough anywhere? When given choice, she prefers to go on vacation alone to spending time with him. 50 weeks of a year she isn't given a choice and presumably has to go to work.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 03:49 PM
1

What does that have to do with the original question? You were so sure there will be no study answer the question, weren't you. And even when you were shown that it exists, you won't acknowledge it STILL and admit that you were wrong. No, you will try to rationalize and spin as if the topic was different all along.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 03:48 PM
1

their ability to land It seems that they don't understand that they aren't landing anyone. They are just being picked at that particular moment of time.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 03:43 PM
1

but it's not a good and enjoyable life. It's a tradeoff and depends on what you value. People who eat healthy are usually more fit and enjoy access to more and higher quality sex, for example. Plus whatever biases and benefits come with better looks. Not to mention have better health (which is the original point of eating healthy anyway).
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 03:42 PM
1

Watch what they do not what they say. And if anything, compare p-values. What you quoted is p=0.022, that is 22 times higher than p=0.001. Despite these findings, abused women reported a higher frequency of sexual intercourse with their spouses (p 0.001) than women in nonviolent marriages. So to conclude, they have more sex with abusive partners. And most importantly, I did answer your question didn't I? It does show that wife beaters have more sex. And you STILL won't admit you were wrong and a…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 03:32 PM
1

Women own access to sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 03:31 PM
–

Whose life is being ruined? Mattress girl anyone? Every man who was accused had their life pretty much ruined. They lose jobs, friends, get kicked out of school before they are even convicted. That was known and discussed here even before metoo was a thing. Was mattress girl before metoo? I think she was.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 03:27 PM
2

This is predicated on the assumption that men will accept any sex or relationship offered to them, which is false. And the fact that monopolies control prices is predicated on the assumption that buyers will accept any deal, which is false. Yet, they still control prices and if you want the thing that they control, you have to take their deal. It's not like there is another source.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 03:19 PM
3

Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sex discrimination in education, including scholarships and financial assistance. How does this work? Do people just not report all those "women in science" programs and scholarships to the title IX office? I remember there were lots of opportunities exclusive to women. I never really looked into it, because when I pointed it out/asked once, I got in trouble and and this female professor reported me to higher-ups and I was called in for an unple…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 03:17 PM
5

No, because she is not spending her time on him and would rather spend it on vacations without him.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 03:06 PM
1

Correlation means both things have common cause.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 03:04 PM
13

I can https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12295448/#:~:text=Despite%20these%20findings%2C%20abused%20women,than%20women%20in%20nonviolent%20marriages
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 02:56 PM
1

yeah i said that last time Ok, as long as you acknowledge that they don't work as much time, therefore, based on this alone it shouldn't be expected that men spend the same time with children as them. you're gonna have to specify moms or married women when you say this because this sounds clownish to say about regular women No, I don't. I posted links, everything that is needed is specified there. if you're talking about the general population: "Men work an average of 40.5 hours per week, while …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/24 02:52 PM
2

Lie by omission. You know it's something they could care about, but won't tell them or at least won't make sure they don't care about it before not telling them. Or he might not want to know if you were promiscuous and only cae about max size. Or he might not care about either and care that you don't wear yellow underwear. All relationships are different and people have different standards. This one is not the rarest.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/24 01:10 AM
1

"46 percent of families have two full-time working parents." this is the biggest group of parents. 11% also have a female breadwinner That's irrelevant because you were talking about spending different amounts of time, not about status. Apparently, full time doesn't mean 40 hours. As I shown you in one of the links before, women spend 20 hours a week working on average, men spend 40. That difference is proportional to the difference in time spent doing childcare. Also, in the very same sources, …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/24 01:07 AM
2

Good strategy. Everybody knows that all good relationships are built on lies by omission.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/24 12:26 AM
1

That "in their life" bit is a big exaggeration because it makes it seem that you imply that this is how many partners they sleep with before they die. That's not what the lifetime number means. How do you think it would be measured? It would be pointless to ask it from people who could have more partners in the future and they age range they surveyed was 25-49 yo. No, lifetime number simply means their current number at moment of asking. It's how many partners they've slept with so far in their …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/24 12:23 AM
1

Think about it, if it wasn't wouldn't be men raping other men 50/50 between penetrating them and being penetrated by them? Ok not 50 50 but still, not 100 to 0.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/24 03:04 AM
1

i was literally responding to you saying they do. "Men only spend less hours because they can. The way they see it- they work more so she doesn't have to and can spend more time with kids." What? You're saying they want to spend less time, I'm saying I don't think they want to spend less time and they'd rather spend more, but someone has to work more. So yes, I don't think they want to. How is your response above addressing anything that I said? sorry, i was using "40 hours" as a colloquial way …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/24 02:41 AM
1

No it isn't. That's just a convenient way for you to define it to fit your bias. Now, being forced to go to court is indeed a false equivalency and has nothing to do with what we're discussing. This is about the freedom of movement which is different from bodily autonomy. And yes, according to current law you can lose some human rights if you break the law, but bet you think law must be followed, so you're not ready to have this conversation. In that case, forcing you to keep the child is not li…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/24 01:27 AM
1

Why does it have to be about the majority? Nobody said majority, he said you will be forced choose between jail and working. Was what he said incorrect because only minority are even involved in the conversation about child support? No, that's non sequitur, isn't it?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/24 01:09 AM
1

why would men *want* to spend less time w their kids? I don't think they want to, it's just that somebody has to and they choose to be the ones to sacrifice their time. As far as I know, men are far more likely to work overtime and far less likely to be on parental leave. in most marriages, men and women both work 40 hours a week Got a source for that? That's not what I found. Quick search gave me this. And according to this, on average men and women don't both work 40 hours a week on average. I…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/24 06:24 PM
1

Why do you try to use percentages? Very few means a low absolute value, not relative value. 1 million out of 10 million is only 10%, but it's still 1 million lives ruined. That's not very few even if percentage is low.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/24 12:33 AM
–

Excuse me? I'm not working just to work. I'm working to get paid for it/enjoy fruits of my labor. Are you saying that one should be happy to take a paycut and keep working the same amount for less money just because they were working anyway? How about your raise a child without child support/father since you were going to raise it anyway? Like what? Are you serious? Do I need to make up analogies or do you now see how asinine it is?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/24 12:30 AM
–

And then it's somewhat fair. Now if she could choose whether or not to give birth, but he couldn't choose whether or not to participate - that would not be. But what is your point? That she didn't have a say? That somebody didn't necessarily have a say and if that's the case - they shouldn't be considered as those who accepted consequences? Which is what I'm saying.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/24 09:16 PM
1

And women spend less hours working than men if they can help it. So? Men and women are different. Men only spend less hours because they can. The way they see it- they work more so she doesn't have to and can spend more time with kids. As if men love working. we are debating whether "they wouldn't be okay taking on 50% of just taking care of their own children" which data already shows they are not Incorrect, that is you moving goal posts. We are debating "but men only care about being 50/50 in …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/24 09:12 PM
–

Whose body am I using to earn money? What I mentioned above is basically forcing men to work against their will. They are forced to use their body to somebody else's benefit and have no say in the matter. It's not different from, say, forced labor in prisons (which also exists and is constitutional btw). How does it not affect my bodily autonomy if I'm forced to work for someone else's benefit?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/24 08:56 PM
–

You can literally force men to pay for children that are proven to not be theirs by DNA testing. How is bodily autonomy a right?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/24 08:18 PM
–

Lesson learned, if you aren't sure, have a drink before sex. That way you couldn't legally consent. Ah wait, no, even if a woman rapes a man and even if a man is underaged, he could still be forced to pay child support. How did he have a say, again?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/24 08:14 PM
1

Again, if you didn’t deal with people much there are people your age who also have similar experiences. A 40 year old introverts experience will pale in comparison to a 40 year old extrovert but there are other 40 year old introverts who have similar experiences. Again, what do those people have to do with anything? Men aren't looking for equal experiences. What you said is false. The age they are at and the gap is what’s important as I said earlier. It is 100% true. I asked you the question, yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/24 02:54 AM
1

It is how it works in terms of manipulation as well. Manipulation and convincing are also different things. If I hit you on accident, does the fact that it was an accident negate the fact that I hit you? Does the fact that it was accidental/intentional take it from me hitting you to me tapping you? Same thing with manipulation. There are methods to convince someone and there are methods to manipulate someone. Both can be done intentionally or unintentionally. Let’s use the unannounced silent tre…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/24 02:25 AM
1

Who said they are not doing it? I know zero men who aren't taking care of their own children. Your point? Men have no right to initiate abortion either. Neither they have an equivalent right of financial "abortion". And whenever that is brought up, everyone is super against it. Men have zero reproductive rights, so if anything making abortion illegal is a step towards 50/50 and equality.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/24 02:00 AM
2

Disagree. I'm sure most men would also be ok with 50% of homeless being women, 50% of suicides being women, 50% of work deaths being women, 50% of soldiers being women, women not getting preferential treatment in college admissions and being 50% of college students, women not getting hiring quotas etc. Then again, I don't really see women wanting 50/50 in anything really. At this point what rights do men have that women don't? What opportunities? Not only opportunities are equal, but women actua…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/24 12:50 AM
4

But you do understand how most women don't do that? And even in your case, it's only a fair rule if approximately 50% of your dates (and especially 50% of your first date) are initiated by you.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/24 12:46 AM
3

In the same vein, whoever asks for divorce pays (alimony and/or CS).
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/24 12:44 AM
1

It is how it works. Intent is different from outcome. If I’m profane with you and my intention wasn’t to offend you does it change the fact that I was profane? Intention is different from outcome, yes. But no, this is not how it works in terms of manipulation. Unless you are claiming that convincing doesn't exist and changing anyone's mind about anything is manipulation. In this case you're just delusional. Bike analogy doesn't work in this scenario, as convincing somebody doesn't necessarily me…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/24 04:16 PM
57

Yeah you don't need a long-winded explanation. De-facto, men almost always ask women out, so saying "whoever asks out - pays" is the same thing as saying "men pay". This alone is enough to be problematic.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/24 03:27 PM
1

Depends on what age they are graduating and all. But sure, if that's the result that's the result. What's the problem?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/24 10:12 PM
1

No, people give people incentives to act a certain way. No, there is always an incentive to exploit people if they can be exploited. People needing to have shelter is not an incentive to increase rent when most homes are bought up to be short-term rentals. Men needing sex is not an incentive to demand more of them. Besides, men always needed sex, that didn't change, so that alone is no reason for standards to increase. And most importantly, again, men are in a sellers market, not women. Men reac…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/24 05:36 PM
1

No, not an excuse. There is always an incentive to exploit. And again, no. Women don't react. Women set a new level of expectations, men react. Not the other way around. Men have to react go get anything, women don't. You keep getting confused with who is a buyer and who is a seller here.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/24 04:35 PM
1

Men and women are not the same. Having sex with men and having sex with women are not the same. The analogy doesn't work.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/24 03:51 PM
1

Women are not at fault for the above situation as they're simply reacting to male demand. Yeah this is where your argument breaks. This here is their choice. They don't have to reach to demand the way they do. Some things are demanded and aren't reacted to, btw. "They just react" is cope and landlord energy. Like, sure people will pay rent if you increase it because otherwise they'd be homeless. And yes, men will do what women demand because otherwise they remain sexless. Now there's reacting to…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/24 03:47 PM
-2

You're wife material. Go with your plan. Men indeed won't care as much. There's no such thing as N count, there's D count that they care about.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/24 02:53 PM
-1

Number higher than (age/2) - 9, for most guys the hard cap is at 9 though because that would make you mr double digits, for many, there's a soft cap at 5 because that rounds up to 10 (you would be closer to double digits than to 1).
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/24 02:51 PM
1

Sure, if it is. But that's up to how things develop after it was bought. But it doesn't need to take all that damage to be treated poorly. In the scenario you're describing the woman could lose value if she got kids with that man for example. But if he is just not treating her the best, yeah, she can still be valuable. Like, the situation is not valuable to her, but that's not here nor there. Has nothing to do with the topic. The value is tied to who she could get commitment from at the moment o…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/24 03:42 AM
0

Just like a price of a product ties to how much somebody is willing to pay for it. You can buy an expensive car and treat it like garbage, it doesn't mean it's not valuable anymore.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/24 08:37 PM
4

How is it hypocritical? He's not promiscuous with men and he never said he minded if she was promiscuous with women.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/24 05:14 PM
1

Right, but that is why you can't say that this is a man's world, which was the point. It belongs to relatively few rich men and women. It's their world. Most of us are just slaves with extra steps.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/24 08:46 PM
1

It is manipulation simply unintentionally. If I hit you with my bike by accident because I didn’t see you, does that change the fact that I hit you? I didn’t intend to hit you but I still did. Intention doesn’t always change the outcome. Not how it works. Unintentional manipulation is not manipulation. It's called to convince somebody. When you bring up some arguments that could be stronger than another person's due to your experience, for instance, and they agree with you, then you convinced th…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/24 03:02 AM
1

No one cares about opinions. Point is - that's what they would like, which is the evidence that no, they didn't evolve to be monogamous. No, genetics is not pseudoscience, it is an actual hard science. It has formulas and all. No, you don't get to tell me which schools to look at, but ironically one of the studies I'm referring to is indeed from University College London. And another one produced by a big collaboration including people from Cambridge, for example. And what do you have? Nothing, …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/24 05:08 PM
1

The number of articles doesn't matter, the most recent research shows that monogamy as we know it - en masse - is around 1000 years old. Genetic research - not even anthropology - shows very clearly that 1 man for 17 women reproduced in the past, and genetic diversity started increasing only around 10-5k years ago. Who's suggesting that ancestors were monogamous? Then what, 16 out of 17 men just chose to be child-free? You're delusional. Where are the articles suggesting that humans were monogam…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/24 03:33 PM
1

First marriage was recorded 4k years ago. The whole monogamous culture as we know it as around 1000 years old. It started growing maybe 5k years ago to the point where you can see it genetically - that more men contributed to the pool. Before that, it was the whole 1 man reproduced for 17 women etc. All of this is googleable. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/24 03:04 PM
-1

Exactly. And monogamy was present for a couple thousands of years. So yeah, my point holds. What's next? You're gonna tell us we evolved to be religious, too? These are social things and learned behaviors, they have nothing to do with evolution.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/24 02:46 PM
0

Not how evolution works. A couple thousand years wouldn't eliminate anything. We are just forced to be monogamous by society. It's a social construct.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/24 02:27 PM
1

If there is no intention, then there is no manipulation. Simple. Convincing is not manipulating. No, they don't automatically have more experience if they, for example, spent all that time studying. Older doesn't automatically mean more relevant experience, let alone capacity to manipulate. And again, just like age, that experience is irrelevant if it's not used to manipulate. Irrelevant. And as I said, depends on current circumstances. I'm very far from reckless, and I understand that if not de…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/24 02:19 PM
1

That's no different than invoking a woman or a race card. Then any difference whatsoever is automatic manipulation? It doesn't have to be age difference. Anyway, it can manifest but if it doesn't, then it's irrelevant. Also, it could work the other way, when a young person is pulling their youth card saying that the older person doesn't understand something because they are old. So they are manipulating too? All in all, it's symmetric and irrelevant then. How is that relevant? The answer depends…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/24 02:16 AM
1

No it's not, because even if there's power imbalance, it doesn't manifest in anything if the power differential is not used to manipulate her. No it's not like that because there is no competition and no attempt at manipulation. You are assuming that there is for some reason, but if there isn't then it's not like that and that's my point. Who said that manipulation tactics are employed at all? That's not what happens by default. A young woman can manipulate men that are older than her in many ca…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/24 12:43 AM
1

People party when they're in college. If a guy spent 10+ years studying and never once got into the "social scene" of college while he was there, what makes you think he can relate to a 19 year old college girl after he graduates? Again, you keep dodging the question. It doesn't matter what makes me think that. It's up to her to decide if he's relatable enough. We are talking about the case where they are together for whatever reason. A more realisitic scenario is "27 year old grad student dates…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/24 11:59 PM
3

No it's not. Your definition is stupid if you can't answer this. I'm simply showing you how it doesn't apply in general, because it's really about experience, not about the age. And although there is correlation between age and experience, we all know that correlation is not... A. So? Irrelevant. What if he didn't because he had no time. Or what if he did and it ended. Dating in grad school is not a ton of life experience. You said life experience, not dating experience. If you want to switch to…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/24 02:07 AM
5

How is that relevant? It doesn't matter if he had more time or less. What matters is whether or not he used her. If he didn't, then it doesn't matter that he had more time to learn manipulation. It also doesn't matter if didn't learn manipulation during that time. What? How is it like saying that? There is no race or competition. Relationships are cooperation, not competition.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/24 02:02 AM
3

What if 29 or even 39 yo didn't have much life experience? Think nerd who never dated and was doing grad school?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/24 12:41 AM
5

A man of her age can also use her as a sex toy, so why is age relevant?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/24 12:38 AM
5

Imagine ranking confidence higher than intelligence? Confident and dumb XD
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/24 09:31 PM
2

Wonder who lied to women that confidence is attractive. But in this case, it's pretty clear kindness>=intelligence>>confidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/24 09:30 PM
1

I've spent $200K on a car. You should have gotten a boat instead. You get the ladies nice and tipsy topside, so you can take 'em to a nice comfortable place below deck and, you know, they can't refuse, because of the implication.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/24 09:26 PM
1

Huh? This is literally truth. Why would men care if other men are sleeping with women? Or men, for that matter, but it is what it is - for some reason society shames men for sleeping with men.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/24 08:22 PM
1

I mean women even date and get obsessed with serial rapists, people who murder women, thugs, homeless people Why do you say "even"? It's not like they date everyone, even those people. No, those people get priority over many others. For example, it's well known that many of those people would even get love mail in prison. Now, do you think, say, Perelman who got the fields medal (and refused to receive it) for proving the Poincare conjecture (considered unsolvable for a while) and lived in seclu…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/24 10:46 AM
1

First of all, casual sex is bad regardless if you are a man or woman. If men are naturally supposed to be leaders, why not hold the men choosing to sleep with Carol accountable as well? Just a quick note here. It's not casual sex that is bad, it's taking many dicks that is bad. Imagine an unlucky woman whose husbands die a few months after marriage. She could get, say, 10 husbands in 10 years. None of this is casual sex, yet it's 10 dicks. On the other hand, if she slept with 20 women, that woul…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/24 10:36 AM
1

Sure, but there most be a logical reason to emit the statement "X is objectively worse than Y" and feeling disgust is not a valid reason for an ethical judgement.. I find sex between ugly people disgusting, that doesn't mean they are doing something wrong. Ethics has nothing to do with the topic and neither do terms such as "right" and "wrong". You can find it disgusting for ugly people to have sex with ugly people. It's only hypocritical if you then have sex with an ugly person yourself but don…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/24 12:52 AM
2

Only if the difference is relevant.. A $5 fork is different from a $5 knife but stealing one is as unethical as stealing the other. Go have sex with a man and with a woman and tell us how it was different. The difference is very much relevant, because having a dick inside and not having a dick inside are two very distinguishable things. Oh I am not in denial, I know people usually react like that... that doesn't mean they are right. They aren't right or wrong. That's just how they react. I broug…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/24 08:49 PM
1

It absolutely is relevant. They are different things so touching them is different. This is basic logic. And no, they are not just as promiscuous, since they were promiscuous with different sexes. This is not something new I came up with. Zoom out and look at society. Men don't hold female partners against women, actually they are turned on by bisexual women. Women are turned off by bisexual men. And it's only logical that different things would have different responses. You are just in denial o…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/24 02:30 PM
-1

What are you on about? Nobody said we were and what I said has nothing to do with being slaves to biology. I'm simply pointing out how the definition of double standards works. You are not comparing apples to apples unless you specify who your subjects are promiscuous with. Being promiscuous with men and with women are different things, only one of them involves touching dicks.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/03/24 02:18 PM
-3

Not how it works. There is no being promiscuous. There is being promiscuous with men and with women. Both men and women sleeping with many men are shamed. The standard is fair and the same for both if anything. But again, it doesn't have to be. Men and women are opposite sexes and are hardwired to want and do different things. You don't expect to have the same standards for hammers and nails, do you?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/24 11:23 PM
6

Is wanting a woman while being a man hypocritical? How can you demand someone have a trait that you yourself do not have? Easy. Traits I have have nothing to do with what I want.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/24 08:27 PM
-1

It's not double. It's different standard for different sexes. He's not trying to date a man so why would the standard be the same? A double standard would be if he says that one woman is bad because she's a whore, but another woman isn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/24 08:21 PM
2

No. It has nothing to do with definition of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be saying that people should be inexperienced, but being experience himself. In fact, that men should be inexperienced, but being an experienced man and actively working to be experienced. Wanting someone inexperienced is not hypocrisy. Even saying that women should be inexperienced while being an experienced man would not be hypocrisy, since he isn't an experienced woman in this scenario. You know, you can disagree with or n…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/24 08:20 PM
1

Data actually supports it pretty well. The studies were linked some years ago in this very sub. You will see that the distribution of number of sexual partners for men is very uneven, where most men have very low counts while a select few have it in the hundreds. Also, tons of studies asking men if they had casual sex. Also, studies about being active in the past year. Yeah no, the data is there, you just don't want to find it. What isn't there is data supporting that all men get roughly equal a…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/24 04:08 PM
1

Not how it works. Most men would barely see any of that casual sex. And they are still expected to marry those women later. So it makes more sense to discourage them, so at least you're not mr double-digits for your wife.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/24 03:01 PM
1

You don't get it. It's not about who is having that casual sex, it's about who they are having it with. People who have sex with multiple women are perceived as players/held in high regard. People who have sex with multiple men are perceived as derogatory terms. Think about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/24 02:56 PM
1

Ahaha pathetic. No balls to admit someone else is right Ahaha pathetic x2. Blocked because can't handle being wrong. I'm not thinking about it, reddit send me a notification when my comment is replied to.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/24 12:20 AM
1

Correct. That's why I'm not using my feelings and am using logic instead. I am not the one crying. You are the one bringing emotional language into this, trying to insult people, talking about suicide etc. Go back and reread the convo. You are the one crying. ​ I'm telling you with zero emotions again - if she touched the dick that's +1 to her count. The fact that it was porn does not serve as a redeeming circumstance and doesn't make it better. The dick was touched. If anything, it makes it wor…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/24 12:15 AM
1

This can be said about anything. Men in general do care about the count full stop. Even 1% of 4 billion is plenty, but we care about the ratio here not the absolute number, because what matters is if there's enough of those for every woman and there isn't. Oh right, good old I lost in logic so let me try to insult. This is not working, try it somewhere else.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/24 10:25 PM
1

And the circle closes. Again. Did she or did she not get +1 to her count? Yes she did. The rest doesn't matter. What matters is how many men she's been with and in that context it's the same. The rest are details which only make it WORSE, not better. So the same is the best deal you get. It's either the same or worse. I am not confused nor am I backpedaling. I've been consistent through the whole thing and stand by what I said. What is so hard for you to grasp? She is a sex worker who is getting…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/24 05:37 PM
1

It doesn't matter. If anything, it only makes it worse, not better. Because not only did she touch some dicks, but she also sold her body. At the same time, if she did solo content on camera, that is infinitely better than sleeping with some men off camera. Yeah, boo hoo. So what? They knew what they were signing up for. Are you ranting at this point or something? This has nothing to do with what I said. I just pointed out where you were wrong and corrected it, that's all. The rest is irrelevant…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/24 08:47 AM
1

It's exactly the same where it matters. Men don't care if it's a director telling this woman to suck a dick or she does it because it was her own idea. She sucked a dick, that's +1 to her count. Simple as that. Those are different people. People who would be fine with one, would be fine with the other or wouldn't be find with either. The only difference, if it's a pornstar, more people would actually see her doing stuff, so if some of those people know you, it could be embarrassing. No one is ta…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/24 06:21 AM
1

Did you try to reply to somebody else? Because this has nothing to do with what I said and the person who you meant to read this probably won't read this. Or is it some copypasta I didn't see before?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/24 06:13 AM
0

You didn't answer my question. Are they really touching other dicks and taking facials, yes or no? Because it doesn't matter if they really like it or not and if the emotions they try to display are real. No one cares if it's normal sex or not. All that matters is the d count. Romance films might not be real and the lines could be not what they actually think, but if they kissed for real and really touched their lips etc, then the kiss was real. I don't see what you can't grasp about this.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/24 06:10 AM
1

Wait, so they aren't actually being penetrated and/or actually sucking dicks?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/24 05:21 AM
1

That's exactly what it all comes down to. And if you are paying attention, you see that both genders are shamed for having sex with men. So it's not about having sex because sex is not just some thing you do. So it's also about who you do that thing with.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/24 05:14 AM
2

It’s pretty normal to shame women for doing exactly what every man here wishes he was doing. This is where you are wrong. They are shamed for sleeping with multiple men. Not every man here wishes he could sleep with multiple men.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/24 04:58 AM
3

Yes, always. Although more frequently it's a conversation about past in general and the count comes up there.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/24 09:56 PM
1

I mean I actually am going to say that stealing a sandwich and entering/(female equivalent to entering someone) body without there consent do not hold the same weight. Why not? I mean, those criteria you are going to use to explain this are all social construct. But need for food and sex are pre-social. I suppose as long as your need for sex does not supersedes someones else's need not to have be lied to, coerced or forced to have sex, I can accept that it's a need for some. It does. Person's ne…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/24 07:25 PM
1

How is consent relevant? You need what you need. If you need food and you don't have it, but another person does and doesn't consent to sharing, then suddenly food is also a need that requires someone's consent. The need of love is not to love, it's to be loved too. You can't feel belonging if the group doesn't accept you. And yes, technically you can have sex without consent. You just shouldn't. What's there to reconcile? A need is a need. Why pretend that it's not just because of how you feel …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/24 04:10 AM
1

LOL why is the friend relevant? And you're describing him and everything? Is this about you? Is everything ok? It doesn't matter who she sleeps when we're dating. If a woman sleeps with someone after we already know each other/start dating - we don't want her anymore.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/24 04:06 AM
2

Befriend a Chad. A lot of my friends are the stereotypical 6ft Chad meme. Growing up, they always had girls coming over. Because they were true bros, they would set up a 2 man or pass around a talented slut. If that's not your thing, they can set you up on a date. Either way, it pays dividends to see how women interact with hot men and have them as a friend. Ah, the M.A.C. system.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/24 03:59 AM
1

And? Find a woman who hasn’t had causal sex. We exist. Or find a woman who maybe had one to two hookups, like the majority of women. Hahha imagine marrying a woman who had hookups when you haven't
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/24 03:55 AM
0

Actually, wrong. Ancestors did get to fuck a dozen women, that's why we are alive. Remember, that 1 man reproduced for 17 women at some point the past?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/24 03:54 AM
1

That is correct^ If you want a woman who didn't sleep with many other men, you better not sleep with other men yourself. Or don't sleep with women if you want a woman who didn't sleep with women.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/24 03:48 AM
1

You're one lousy friend.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/24 03:46 AM
1

Love kids etc. And because I want someone who no one else can touch.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/24 03:46 AM
1

No, because there's no one woman a man truly wants. A man truly wants to have multiple women.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/24 03:44 AM
1

Thanks. Made (e)specially for this sub.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/24 03:42 AM
1

No, it's not the same thing. It also doesn't have to be the same thing for it to still be possible to be "deprived" of it and not have needs met. Again, shelter is also not the same thing as food or water. Technically elements won't necessarily kill you depending on where you live. Also, what we considered an appropriate shelter in the past is not considered that today. I don't think you would say that if a person is in a cave that they have a shelter need met. And if sex is not like these thing…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/24 03:37 AM
1

You won't die if you work 16 hour shifts, though, as proven by working conditions of the past. You won't die if you work as a child. You won't die without electricity etc. Also, the house was built by a human. It is literally some human's labor, i.e. that human used his body to provide that house.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/24 10:33 PM
1

You know that the hierarchy has more than 1 level right? And not every need is something you need to not die. Which by the way, shelter is not directly related to surviving. It increases the chances, sure, but you won't automatically die without it.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/24 10:30 PM
1

There were experiments literally about this, where they used a fake dating profile with an ugly woman. I'm talking really ugly.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/24 10:27 PM
1

Most men don't have money and status either, but they also don't get casual sex. That guy is far ahead of most men and only has better chances to get a relationship, not worse.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/24 10:15 PM
1

Right and I didn't compare men to women, I compared men to other men. I just highlighted that your original statement was wrong. Average blokes are doing worse than before compared to top men, not women.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/24 10:03 PM
5

That has nothing to do with the question at hand. Average women can and do get sex with men who rank higher than them.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/24 12:36 AM
5

The opposite is true. Feminism lead to the situation where women have no reason to sleep with an average bloke.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/24 12:20 AM
–

You can influence other women though by demonstrating how this approach works better as it gives you more control. I just don't know how efficient it will be. Yeah I agree. I was just replying to your question because it seemed that you were under impression that we'd need to convince men to stop chasing as if they choose always be chasing, but this is not how it works, that's all.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/24 04:18 PM
–

Again, you don't. You just chase them and it will happen. Now how do you convince women to chase? That's the real question. And yeah for the record, I'm not the person who started this. I don't think that we can change it. As in, we can, but why would we? Those who have the power to change it (women) have no reason to.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/24 04:02 PM
–

By turning it on them and chasing them so they don't have to chase or don't have time to chase. They chase because they have to, not because they want to.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/24 09:14 PM
–

That doesn't mean the system works to their benefit.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/24 09:12 PM
1

Sure, those are even more so. But denying that this is lust is delusional With ONS in a ONS-designated spaces (like bars, college parties, tinder hookups) - it's more of 'i want some sex, oh, this guy will do'. Then how come most guys won't do? And how come other guys that won't do have to wait and date to get what other guys just would do to get? You're in denial. The fact is - you could just not go for it, but you were horny and did. Therefore, the desire was somewhat burning, otherwise you co…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/24 04:39 PM
2

You are contradicting yourself within the first sentence already. You describe there how they are exceptional. Whether or not it's looks or skillset is irrelevant - all a part of "appearance" and attraction. Point is, women are tossing inhibitions out with him, but not with you? Then they had more desire for him than for you and OP holds.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/24 04:13 PM
–

This will never happen. Men will never want promiscuous women. And sex work will never be considered as a career. She's having sex for money, whether or not it's the person who she's having sex with who pays her. There's a term for that. And that profession is known to be one of the oldest as it is. So if it's still not legitimately seen as a career, why do you expect it will or should change?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/24 04:09 PM
2

To be fair No, a woman doesn't necessarily increase her body count in porn. Case in point, women who film with their partner or otherwise 1 man only or even solo. Being in porn doesn't equal being a slut. Being in porn AND being a slut is completely on that woman and makes it even worse.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/24 04:07 PM
3

You got it all wrong. It's not about hot vs safe. It's simply about variety and seeing other women. His gf is also allowed to be sexy. Encouraged even. There's no "stuck being marriage material" for women like there is for men. She will get his sexual best if she's marriage material, however, she probably won't find him hot enough to let him have variety.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/24 03:54 PM
2

It's because the formula is wrong. This is not about hot vs safe. It's about variety without cheating. How else is he supposed to see other women, when odds are she doesn't find him hot enough to allow a relationship open on his end?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/24 03:53 PM
–

Anyone who enters the conversation without being open to change their opinion (and ideally knowing what would change their opinion) is intellectually dishonest. The concept is the same as in science - the theory must be falsifiable, i.e. we need to know what experiment would prove us wrong. Young people are usually quite dumb in that sense and argue to just repeat what they believe in instead of exchanging opinions to reach the truth, so no, they won't change their mind. But maybe they will, whe…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/24 03:47 PM
1

How? It is consensual. How come it's not trashy that most men are forced to tolerate being monogamous? How about you leave feelings out of it and we talk facts.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/24 03:17 PM
1

The delusion in this thread. "ONS are throw away men, we don't care about future with them". Duh, that's the point of OP. If there's no strong desire to have sex, you won't risk the future. "I was just horny, he would do/he was in the right place at the right time". Again, considering that only a small group of men is in that place and time ... You know that many men go out hoping to be in the right place and right time or to even create the right time, but somehow only a few get it. If that's n…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/24 03:15 PM
1

​ You have it all mixed up. Cheating is not high value. A one-sided open relationship is. There's no cheating if there is no lying, is there?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/24 08:36 PM
1

There is no flex and no implying anything. This is just to remind you about reality. What we do as a society depends largely on conditions we are in. What you were saying there is plain delusional.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/24 03:21 PM
1

I don't think you understand what the word always means.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/24 11:54 PM
–

Was it? The whole point of even having that institution is that it used to be more difficult to not have a family.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/24 11:18 PM
–

The only reasons they don't do that are that they don't absolutely have to and are afraid of actual violent opposition. If it comes to it and they need to choose between slavery and losing everything or forced marriages/pregnancies and dying out, they will chose the most efficient option before that majority of people will finish screaming "what about human rights". Right now yes, they can afford to choose between multiple available solutions, but if it comes down to only 1 correct solution, it …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/24 11:16 PM
1

Yet, they are still widely considered good people (as far as value to society) because hey are saving lives. The comparison is great, but if you don't like that they are highly paid, look at firefighters or teachers, for another example. Do you see what I mean? What they are doing is considered to be good even though they are getting paid for it. Bu they NEED to be paid, otherwise they will have to look for another job and won't have time to do what they do. Getting paid (or in our original cont…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/24 05:06 PM
1

AKA they are unpunished if they aren't rich enough compared to their victims, so what I said still holds and you are just trying to talk about more detail. That's not important. What is important, however, is that what you said applies to both male and female molesters. Again, as I said - this is not a sex issue, this is a class issue. Not men vs women, but wealth vs no wealth.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/24 04:57 PM
1

First of all, you’re not nice if you expect a reward for it, so automatically guys ranting “Nice Guys Finish” are assholes. That's incorrect. Expecting a reward for it (or not) is irrelevant. Whether you are nice is defined by what you do (and/or don't do). You may or may not expect a reward for it. Is what doctors/nurses do not nice simply because they are paid for it? And they expect to get paid for it too! The audacity. We are always said - and it's unrelated to dating - that you get what you…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/24 04:15 PM
1

Yeah no, couple of things to note: b) the person doing the inviting/planning should pay Well no, that person is already contributing by planning. Then logically, the person who is not doing inviting/planning should pay to also contribute something. in most relationship dynamics, men like pursuing and women enjoy being pursued. So if you’re the one pursuing and asking her out, pay. No, they don't like it. They just have to do it. Big difference. And yes, they also usually have to pay. But that's …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/24 03:49 PM
–

I'm afraid it's wrong. We do want sex, just not with most guys. If they wanted more sex, those guys they want would just get more sex. The rest would still get almost nothing. Unless, of course, all top people in reasonable vicinity are booked and she can't wait.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/24 09:46 PM
1

How does women having casual sex with the same group of men prevent men from having "a big enough pool of women to marry?" Casual sex isn't dating. Most women aren't marrying Chads. I feel like I said or implied the answer to this 3 times already. Because too many women do it at least once, so now your pool is tainted or too small if you exclude those women. What is unclear? Oh most women not marrying chads? Or how nice, so I can marry a woman who will likely make me wait but didn't marry chad w…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/24 09:34 PM
1

LOL why would you want to date a woman whose looks barrier you didn't pass? Especially since you can be pretty sure in this day and age, that somebody else did and got action without having to do much.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/24 03:05 PM
1

Trying to pressure women against sleeping with men we're sexually attracted to isn't going to make us want sex with men we're not attracted to more. It shouldn't. Nothing will make you want sex with men you're not attracted to more. The point is to prevent those men from sleeping with all women so that other men have a big enough pool of women to marry. Men's entitlement to sexual access to women is a male problem, not a female problem. It sounds like you are the entitled one, thinking that ever…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/24 04:20 PM
1

You are incorrect again. No one is saying you guarantee every man a woman. You can make the distribution more uniform by encouraging women to not sleep with the same men, that's all. Why do you think we move away from the tribal model where 1 men out of 17 reproduced and have the monogamous marriage instead? Do you think it just happened? lol Also it seems like you are in denial or live in the parallel universe or something. No, chad is not the only one, but yes, most men can't have casual sex c…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/24 04:34 PM
1

They do give their sexual best if they are willing to do stuff for men in their youth but not later, not to mention that usually they look sexier when they are younger. Everything I said is factual, read the sidebar. Also, incorrect, if you stop calling women that, then there's literally nothing discouraging them from having sex only with top men. It's not about having it both ways, it's about trying to have it one way.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/24 04:10 PM
2

LOL the denial and downvoting. People are just struggling to acknowledge reality and don't understand that if it comes to it, women will lose that power real quick.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/24 04:07 PM
1

You can have whatever personal preference you want. The truth is that many women would rather share a top man than have an average man all to themselves. Or at least, there are enough of those women for top men to always have options. The funny part is that judging by what we see, one can also state that for most women there exists a man whom they would share.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/24 03:50 PM
1

There is no reason to be high-quality because that's not what is rewarded by women. High quality means you are a husband material and will get to date her after she's done finding herself and will wait from 3 dates to multiple months for sex with a woman who used to sleep with strangers and is maybe visiting her FWB while making you wait.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/24 12:00 AM
0

​ It is time for matriarchy, or the end to human kind. Woman have the power. Chilling to think about, thoughts? If you think that when it really comes to it men will just roll over and accept it, you are delusional. Women have the power as long as men protect it.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/24 11:46 PM
1

Correct. So if someone needs not having kids in a partner and won't date a partner with kids, how is it not a standard for them? Just don't understand why you needed to that first sentence when it doesn't sound true.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/24 11:39 PM
1

Did you know that they get more opportunities than most men? Your options back then are much more numerous than my options ever were. So no, not a good argument. Also, even if it was a sound argument, what does it have to do with what you responded to? This doesn't contradict what I said in the previous comment. What I said there holds true regardless of opportunities ugly woman has.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/24 11:37 PM
1

That's not a counterpoint. That's what my point is based on, too. Straight men aren't anti women who fuck. They are anti marrying women who got fucked by multiple men, especially if those other men didn't get anything. They are anti women who gave their sexual and experimental best while they expect these other men to marry her when she's not like that anymore. And it's too bad for him if he wants to try something. Should have done it before he met her. etc etc. I can't believe I even started li…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/24 11:35 PM
–

There are also billions of men on earth who want those women, so your point is? Do you not understand how math and numbers work? No, men don't overlook you. You said it yourself, they do look at you when they are looking for marriage. If you don't want them to wait until after FWB, just allow them to have those while they are married/settled down. Problem solved. That would actually make you stand out and would make them feel appreciated and loved, because only top men get that treatment from wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/24 11:32 PM
1

Yes, but how is it relevant here? Maybe you meant to reply to another comment?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/24 11:29 PM
2

Why is sexual access supposed to be "fair?" Holy entitlement Batman. Pussy isn't equal opportunity nor public domain. Sexual access is de facto discriminatory. It's not fair that most men are straight and not gay. Should we encourage straight men to be willing to have sex with men so it's more "fair?" And - more to the point - I still don't see how that fixes anything. Don't y'all want us to have casual sex with you? All the complaints about "Chad this" and "Chad that" and "having to pay for wha…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/24 11:28 PM
1

yes if you agree to be open then it is obviously not cheating Right, so what are you arguing with? The comment I replied to said "ideally", that is why I'm focused on that word and an ideal scenario. you said "women want to be with best men they can get. Right, so what does one example of the opposite accomplish? Obviously, I didn't mean every single woman ever. Was that not obvious? Are you correcting everyone that you saw a rainy/cloudy day in Florida when they call it a sunshine state? yes, t…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/24 11:16 PM
2

you would have to agree to be open Exactly. And ideally she would agree for him to be open. i dont Ok so? That's not relevant. Sure, you'd probably also rather die alone than share a man if you were stranded on the island with more women and men. But we're talking generalities here. And if most women didn't want that, then all those top men wouldn't be able to amass their harems while so many men get nothing. And if that chef is famous, most likely he has options, too. It's not like celebrities …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/24 12:35 AM
1

What's the difference? Wouldn't the difference be that you would still date her in certain circumstances if it was preference. So then if they actually don't date single moms, that is their standard.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/24 12:27 AM
1

What do you not get exactly? It's not like there is an infinite number of women and you can also find one who didn't give anyone FWB to marry. No, odds are that most men who couldn't get FWB will be expected to marry women who gave FWB to other men.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/24 12:08 AM
2

The point is that if you were demonized enough, then maybe you wouldn't even go through with it even for chad, which would make it more fair for the rest. Mid dudes lived with casual sex for millennia, it's only a big deal now when other dudes are getting it and mid dudes are supposed to get their sloppy seconds. Inequality is a bigger issue than the amount they are getting. Making it equally likely for everyone is one solution, but not the only one. Making it equally unlikely would also work. A…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/24 12:05 AM
1

Oh right, because that's what stopping them from having sex with ugly dudes. Somehow not stopping them from being hoes without including ugly dudes, though. The less consequences there are, the less action ugly dudes will get. It's like women not going into STEM in most egalitarian countries where not only barriers are removed, but women are actually encouraged to go into those careers with quotas and affirmative action. Removing barriers in our case will simply leave ugly dudes in the dust beca…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/24 11:59 PM
1

They usually find out about the past much later, after they started dating them. Why wouldn't you expect them to act irrationally if they were forced to live a lie for a while? If a man decides to date a woman with a promiscuous past, he has no right to take issue with it. He decided to date her himself and could have decided not to. Huh? He can't change his mind later? Or can't acknowledge that it's a trade off and he is dating her despite the past? Those are some weird rules you are coming up …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/24 11:56 PM
1

Men do understand it and ideally would be her best option in which case all pieces fall in place and their ideal scenario is possible. No, I don't really see why as those are the same women who expect men to be thrilled about things those women want. They wouldn't want to be hypocritical and expect flowers and help with stuff and such but at the same time not allow men to have (or at least want) what they want, would they? That'd be weird.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/24 11:51 PM
1

Because it's not cheating when there is no lying, is it? Kinda like everyone around here agrees that open relationships/hall passes/threesomes aren't cheating. So of course, ideally he would sleep with other women without that being cheating. yeah its so unfortunate women want to be in healthy, reciprocal relationships with men No, women want to be with best men they can get. Either that OR if a man is attractive enough or of a high enough status suddenly him sleeping with others is healthy and …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/24 11:47 PM
1

100IQ is the average IQ, that's how it's defined. Moron would mean an IQ significantly below average, no?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/24 05:46 PM
1

Ideally he wouldn't because ideally there would be understanding that he wants sexual variety. Unfortunately for him, most women aren't attracted to him enough to share him. Only top men such as celebrities can pull it off because they are not easily replaceable.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/24 05:44 PM
1

Yes they can be. And their loyalty doesn't need to include sexual fidelity as it does for women. They can (will) want other women without growing unattracted to you. They just want variety, that's all. You are trying to project how it works for women on men. Men and women are not the same. Men want other women while being attracted to their partner. Also, why do men with even an ounce of power/fame, try and have sex with as many people they can even if they have a wife and/or family? As shown by…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/24 05:40 PM
2

Thanks for pointing it out. For some reason, people here have troubles understanding what double standard is. They keep bringing it up when talking about things when men and women simply have different standards because they are different, e.g. when talking about sexual past, fidelity/infidelity, or right now.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/24 03:56 PM
1

It's them saying they need gold without saying they need gold. We don't see women lined up to get ambitious teachers who strive to get a teacher of the year award or ambitious librarians or whatever else that doesn't sound high-paid.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/24 03:50 PM
1

That it does. But that is not what you originally said and doesn't contradict what you were arguing against. It was about good girls not waiting till marriage now, not about women in general not waiting. Not every woman waiting is a good girl. Besides, the table is about "the past year" so it doesn't account for the amount or regularity or what happened in the years before that. A girl who had sex 363 days ago is weighted equally to a girl who had sex with a new man every week or two. The table …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/02/24 03:09 PM
1

The table doesn't support the point, though. Not in the context of what you're responding to. Do you see that or no?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/24 04:45 PM
1

Dude, "good girls" weren't waiting for marriage in 1999. Your table doesn't support it though. It simply says that at most only 20% of girls were good girls back then.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/24 05:36 PM
1

But that's not what you did. You assumed I worked a low paying job and that I was contributing taxes while being content doing so. You wouldn't have gone on that whole tirade otherwise. Keep trying to rewrite the narrative though. That is literally what I did and posted the definition copied from there as well. I didn't assume you were doing it. I said IF you were doing that then you're contributing. That is not an assumption, again, open the dictionary for the definition. Whether or not you're …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/24 04:30 PM
1

Point is, this is a textbook case of confirmation bias. Cheaters that aren't caught are not a part of the statistic. And I don't think there's a way to know if the majority or minority got found out, unless there's some study where cheaters themselves are responding.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/24 03:59 PM
1

Castration is not harsh enough? OH billionaires. Like you are THAT close to seeing that it's rich who are the enemy and it's them being rich that lets them get away with it. You think a poor child molester is unpunished? LOL.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/24 03:45 PM
1

No one cares. Precisely my point. If she did all that, then she doesn't care about it for those guys, but now suddenly he needs to wait. There is no need for him to wonder. Everything is clear. The rest of the comment is irrelevant. Are you forgetting about the context? It is the first-level comment and already you're talking about some generalities and virginity and marriage. I was saying what I was saying in the context of her making him wait while not making others wait. I'm not talking about…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/24 03:43 PM
0

He wonders if that means the other guys had a stronger effect on her and he's just not attractive enough to have her take the risk of "being used for sex" (As in, it turns out the guy was just lying about feelings to get into her pants). He shouldn't. His instinct is correct. She wasn't born a day before she started hooking up with men. She was raised in a society, she absolutely knew she shouldn't jump to bed with strangers, she absolutely knew that virginity is valuable (or at least low men co…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/24 11:22 PM
1

You really went in on your assumptions then. Even going so far as to say that by not being rich, a person is actually doing less than they could to take from the system (as if money isn't fake). If I didn't know better, I'd say you were arguing against a strawmann. Again, not an assumption. Open a dictionary. Saying if someone who is doing X would mean he is Y, doesn't imply that I assume that you are doing X. I can tell you how I'm a net negative on this system. Would that help? Because I promi…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/24 11:12 PM
1

This is not assuming anything. This is saying that IF you're doing those things THEN you are contributing. I don't think I'm the one who has dementia, you definitely have some problems with reading comprehension. That. Or don't know what an assumption means. Now from here it's very simple. Tell us exactly how you're not contributing? Because I'm pretty sure I can point out how you are in fact contributing once you describe your situation. Wym what is contributing by proxy? Like what's so hard to…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/24 10:25 PM
1

There were stats and studies posted here multiple times. But it's pointless when people can't acknowledge reality. This sub is more than 10 years old all those things were posted a lot back in the beginning. But what's the point? You still see people denying that there's no wage gap, you still see people denying that men and women are different sexes and therefore have different standards, you still see people saying crap like that sexual past doesn't matter because they know some 304 who got ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/24 10:20 PM
1

This is not assuming anything. This is saying that IF you're doing those things THEN you are contributing. I don't think I'm the one who has dementia, you definitely have some problems with reading comprehension. That. Or don't know what an assumption means. Now from here it's very simple. Tell us exactly how you're not contributing? Because I'm pretty sure I can point out how you are in fact contributing once you describe your situation. Wym what is contributing by proxy? Like what's so hard to…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/24 09:51 PM
3

Because you only know about the cheaters who got caught. If cheaters aren't caught, you don't know if they are cheaters. And how do you know if the majority got found out?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/24 09:42 PM
1

“Men’s nature is degenerate it’s not our fault!!!” It's not degenerate. It's just that misandry is strong and tries to brainwash all of us into thinking it is. Forget religion and what anyone else told you, and explain logically why it's degenerate and women's nature isn't? You can't, can you? “We want it therefore it isn’t degenerate!!!!” Right, that must be why what women want is not degenerate. What's natural is not degenerate. That's how nature made people. “I apply a Twitter hot take to all…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/24 04:28 PM
1

LOL are you brain-damaged or something? I didn't assume those things, I said that IF you are those things, then you do contribute. So what are you then? Leeching of somebody else paying for you/inheritance (but then somehow not paying property tax and such?) It doesn't. Counterexample: people who do not live in modern society. Your thinking is so small that you believe everyone who's ever lived lives inside 20th and 21st century modern capitalist society lol. Like this is the most room temperatu…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/24 04:05 PM
1

“Men’s nature is degenerate it’s not our fault!!!” It's not degenerate. It's just that misandry is strong and tries to brainwash all of us into thinking it is. Forget religion and what anyone else told you, and explain logically why it's degenerate and women's nature isn't? You can't, can you? “We want it therefore it isn’t degenerate!!!!” Right, that must be why what women want is not degenerate. What's natural is not degenerate. That's how nature made people. “I apply a Twitter hot take to all…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/24 03:59 PM
1

Not 100% sure that's the case. I think it's the top 1% who needs 99% at the bottom, the rest of us don't rely on anyone being at the bottom. But for the sake of the argument, if that's the case, then "not contributing" by just paying the bills and doing some job is simply choosing to be at the bottom, but still contributing.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/24 03:50 PM
2

But personally, I just look at the average men I see in my everyday life. I'm sorry, but how did you get a degree to get a job in IT? Or are employed by an IT company, but in some role that doesn't deal with math or logic, like HR or something? What you said is a definition of confirmation bias. Especially considering that most men you will see will be somehow related to your job or hobbies, i.e. automatically their pay will be far above average if what you're making is "comfortable" in IT.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/24 03:46 PM
1

LOL what a horrible take. Teachers who are low paid just aren't teaching hard enough. People who can't afford housing probably just have bottom percentile jobs. Never mind that half of the US tenants can't really afford rent. No one in this sub is talking about their personal experience, what's being discussed is how it is for many if not most men. Also, you're absolutely delusional if this is how you define average. Average height or tall Average height is average. Tall is above average. If you…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/24 03:41 PM
3

No, I made zero assumptions. Everything I said is simple math and logic. If any of your money or labor benefits anyone else but you, then you are contributing to the society whether you like it or not. I literally don't care about you and don't need to know anything about you. What I said applies to every single person who ever lived, lives, and will live. That's simply a definition of the word "contribution". Sure, it is possible that you don't contribute IF somebody else is paying for every si…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 10:15 PM
2

What? Are you imagining things? I'm not butthurt about anything neither did I say anything about flushing the relationship. I have no idea who says those things, let alone BOTH of them at the same time. Could be different people, no? No, that's incorrect in general. That depends on which one you're not getting and whether or not your partner is reasonable and won't get butthurt that you get that act somewhere else, since they refuse to let you try it with them.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 10:10 PM
1

And women wanting what they want makes them sound as degenerates, too, right? Or not? Or maybe it's not degenerate to want what the nature makes you want when you're not forcing anyone to do anything or not hurting anyone? Or maybe what you define is degenerate is relative to who defines it, and there's nothing inherently wrong with being degenerate the way it is defined. Or maybe you don't even know what the term means and just use it in an attempt to insult men just because you can't accept wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 10:07 PM
2

Oh no, I believe the outcome is legit even if a few of those profiles are fake. I've seen how girls just walk up to guys IRL when the guy is attractive. What you described sounds plausible to me. I'm just joking there.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 06:31 PM
3

No, I did it well, but for some reason you apply analogy to input, but not to output, so you failed to understand it well. Doesn't matter now, the new analogy should be fine. No, not doing is undesirable outcome. So you can't replace it with other fun shit. The fact that they've done with somebody else just adds insult to injury and brings it to a "no excuse" situation. If they've never done it, one could understand why they are reluctant to try. Has nothing to do with jealousy. Empathy? You're …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 06:29 PM
1

I've literally watched guys that are top 5% in height and looks pull regular threesome with women they met just out at a store. Tell this story. Did they really?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 06:21 PM
1

Um, no. Men reject sex all the time. If a man doesn’t find a woman attractive or hates her personality/behavior, he won’t want to sleep with her. It’s not complicated. Except you have to have something offered to you in order to reject it. And men aren't offered sex all the time, so how can they reject it all the time?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 06:18 PM
1

Plot twist - profiles of those women are actually other guys doing experimenting of their own.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 06:13 PM
1

Huh? Why should they handle themselves in this case? In fact, most men can't handle and follow those instincts because they are brainwashed and beaten into submission and monogamy. Why is it not bad that women want tall men and can't handle that urge and go date short men instead? They aren't seen as animals incapable of handling themselves for that.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 05:51 PM
1

That's because no one cares about your feelings. If you're unattractive how dare you want anything from her? And if you are attractive, then that's not a problem and no one talks about it anyway and turns out she always saw your friendships as "talking".
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 05:50 PM
3

Brain damage? Do you not understand how analogies work? Death is irrelevant here. What's relevant is that there is desirable outcome that is either achieved or isn't. Replace eating with, idk, going to arcade. That's another optional entertainment thing. Going to see movies does not replace it. So no, you can't find other fun shit that you enjoy. You can, but it won't replace the fun shit you want to do. Mental gymnastics is trying to deny the facts just so you can virtue-signal.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 05:48 PM
4

I do and you don't, that's why I'm explaining it to you. You are wrong. Whether you will enjoy doing something absolutely depends on the partner. And your own words confirm it, too. Who's being immature if you are the one who can't admit you're wrong?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 05:45 PM
2

Even worse is when the girlfriend does get married, but the husband doesn’t fully consider her his dream girl and will leave or cheat once the opportunity presents itself. Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher are an example of this. Another example is how Brad Pitt left Jennifer Aniston for Angelina Jolie Ok no, this has nothing to do with being a dream girl. "Cheating" that is. Ideally, men want to have a dream girl and fuck other girls at the same time. Leaving sucks yes, but for all you know they th…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 05:38 PM
4

What? No one said anything about 2 feelings. It is a fact - same woman will have different sex with different men (or no sex at all). And what you said you don’t start doing kinky clown sex with a stranger is exactly right and confirms what I said. It does depend on the partner, therefore your claim that I originally quoted is, in fact, false.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 05:23 PM
–

Actually, while I share your feelings about all of this being pointless in this economy, you are wrong about participating. Yes, you try not to bother and actively contribute, but here are 2 points. 1) If you pay any bills, you actually contribute. You probably have a job to afford that, don't you? Again, you contribute. 2) This is the worst part. By being content with low-paying job and not trying to move up, not only do you contribute, you also make it cheaper for them to get your contribution…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 05:14 PM
2

Where? Where did he actually say it when they were in concentration camps worked to death or gassed? Please, link the quote. You come across as retarded in this thread, in other branches you clearly say stuff you know nothing about as well, but this is actually verifiable, so please verify and post your source.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 05:00 PM
7

It comes from the same deck as the "intimidating" card
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 04:29 PM
8

Huh? How does it seem like a good idea to you? Oh, you can't eat? Why don't you go to the movies instead? Like, one thing doesn't replace the other so why would you suggest it as the alternative? Other fun shit is other fun shit, it has nothing to do with this fun shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 04:27 PM
5

If you really enjoy doing something, you don’t just stop because it’s a new partner, there’s usually a reason why. That is actually incorrect. Usually you do or don't do something name because of the partner. And partner can be a huge part of the reason why. She can be attracted to one partner way more, be settling for another etc. (See af/bb). Zoom out and think about it in a bigger picture, not just in a given committed relationship. If she enjoys sex (or any particular act), why wouldn't she …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 04:25 PM
1

The knowledge of men's dicks going into other women's vagina is equally nasty Then it's up to women to vocalize it and not sleep with known players. Unfortunately, in real life it doesn't work like that. In real life, preselection matters and all women go for the same man, including the fact that since ancient (pre-ancient actually) history 17 women reproduced for 1 man. Basically, it seems like vaginas are the opposite of nasty. I mean...OK feel what you're gonna feel but it's just so weird to …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 04:01 PM
–

What are you on about? I'll say it again, mine were attractive and not atrocious. Literally nothing to complain about except for their refusal to try threesomes. An ideal woman is great, but can't replace variety. Like, I know what my favorite food is, but why would it be the only thing I eat? Makes no sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/24 03:32 PM
0

That is simply false regarding men. For men to be able to sleep with many women, discipline is a must, actually. Largely, only men with discipline can even pull that off. As a man, you simply can't become attractive enough to do that without discipline.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/24 04:40 PM
0

Why not both? There is no contradiction. Many men want love with a lifelong partner. Ideally, they also want variety. Bringing one more woman in the bedroom would work, for example.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/24 04:37 PM
-1

I don't think this is it. All my girlfriends were attractive. I would still prefer to have variety. I can't believe I'm very different from the average man, so it's hard to believe that most men don't have bucket-list sexual fantasies that are simply impossible with only 1 woman at a time.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/24 04:35 PM
0

It varies how quickly this happens, but yes, pretty much. Last time even explained it to the girl who wanted to go exclusive and she said we can discuss threesomes later, but of course, once I already promised exclusivity, she kept putting it off until it was very serious already. And then she tried to gaslight me that the conversation never happened. Again, it was too far in to break up just because of that and I did try to see if maybe I will stop wanting variety and I did have to keep my word…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/24 04:32 PM
2

What men actually prefer is having an option to have a harem or one-sided open relationship for variety. Anything else is just a case of settling or even the Stockholm syndrom. They don't do it because they actually prefer it. Mind you, they might not even take advantage of that openness, but they definitely do not prefer to not be able to.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/24 04:02 PM
1

No one is ever talking about someone's value as a human being when they talk about 0-10 scale. It's about the attractiveness. And its existence does make sense. If someone sleeps with N women and I sleep with M, where M is considerably less than N, then clearly our attractiveness level is very different. As for value as a human being, that could have its own scale. Maybe sex wouldn't decrease that value (or maybe it would), but some other things surely would. Just like most people are not equall…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/24 03:58 PM
1

Well then explain further? Well then maybe read the whole thing before quoting. It's explained right after. It is indeed about the energy for the lack of better term. The knowledge of her having multiple dicks in is just triggering some instinctual response. It's kinda like if someone drops an apple in the toilet, then washes and gives it to you. If you saw that happen, you probably wouldn't want to take a bite. And if you found out after taking a bite, you'd experience the gag reflex (that is a…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/24 03:52 PM
1

That's the bottom line, but it's not that simple. Shit is nasty, but if you washed your hands after touching it, it's all good. This is not about their physical appearance.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/24 03:19 PM
1

Huh? So you do need to look up what "same" and "different" mean. Please do and come back. What do you mean how does dealing with penis makes it a different unit? Dealing with penis is not the same as dealing with vagina. Not the same = different. Simple really. How many dicks = 1 vagina to you? And how many oranges is 1 apple? How many meters is 1 hour? You can't express one in terms of the other, that is why they are different units and are incomparable. Not even units, different quantities. If…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/24 10:51 PM
1

Who cares about chromosomes, I'm not looking at their DNA under the microscope. You're either dealing with another person's dick or not. That is how it's different. What is so difficult to grasp? They have completely different sets of genitalia you have to deal with. How is that not different?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/24 10:06 PM
1

Incorrect. Sex with men and sex with women are different things. The end of the penis absolutely matters. Idk who brainwashed so many people to just see sex and not resolve its types. There's no "sex" when we're talking about a particular act. There's different types depending on who the partners are. What do you mean I didn't? I literally did. On one side you are receiving penis, on the other you don't. How is that not different? You still didn't explain how it's not different. Sex with men and…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/24 09:54 PM
1

Sounds like a paradise for dating, right? Not at all. Why not?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/24 09:41 PM
–

So? Eating oranges and eating apples is still eating. But they are apples and oranges. Being penetrated by 20 different dicks is different from not being penetrated by 20 different dicks and touching 150 vaginas instead. How is that not obvious?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/24 07:10 PM
–

Huh? How is that my opinion and how is it not a fact? When you are talking about the number of men a woman slept with, that number is measured in [men]. What evidence do you need? This is literal definition of units of measurement. Or do you need evidence that men and women are different? You can easily find images and videos of primary sexual characteristics and see who has penis and who doesn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/24 06:57 PM
1

You are not framing it, you're just acknowledging the fact that it is what it is. And yes, it is a prize for many men whether women intentionally giving it as a prize or not. She can still enjoy it while giving it as a prize. Again, there is no contradiction. It's a "prize" to be chosen to be the man she will do something she enjoys with. See? Both things fit just fine. It's something she enjoys doing with somebody still.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/24 06:52 PM
–

Comparing apples and oranges here. That 20 is measured in [men slept with] and that 150 is in [women slept with]. These numbers have different units. You can't compare them like you can't compare 20 meters and 150 amperes. If you compare things with the same units, you will see that there is no hypocrisy. Sleeping with 20 men is a lot for a man, too, just like for a woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/24 06:24 PM
1

How is there a contradiction? Yes, you do have it together. And yes, it is given. It's both.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/24 06:24 PM
1

But gender roles would dictate a man pay for a date. Now I'm completely confused as to what you're complaining about. I'm not complaining about anything. I'm pointing out that if the woman expects a man to follow his role while not following hers, then she's giving unequal treatment and therefore doesn't deserve equal treatment etc. If you can't grasp the differences in your quote vs. mine, we're wasting our time here. It's the opposite, you for some reason can't accept the arguments I already g…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/24 04:42 PM
–

No, we're not. Outside of expecting a man to pay for a first date, none of these are requisite to the situation. You're adding them. They are very much relevant. If she wants him to follow his role, she should follow hers. If she doesn't, she can want whatever she wants, but can't expect it or expect equal treatment (in other aspects). Or more precisely- she can expect equal treatment, i.e. getting unequal treatment in response to her giving unequal treatment to a man. I did. If these things hav…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/24 01:13 AM
1

I ask because you seem to be thinking that paying for a date is the beginning and end of a gender roles scenario. Otherwise I can't understand why you see the man as such a victim. He doesn't even have to date her. No it's not, but that's irrelevant. That's just the part we are talking about. You either follow roles or don't, you don't pick and choose. No, this is what we are talking about and you still haven't offered an argument against it: Why shouldn't women who want men to pay still be trea…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/24 01:05 AM
1

Where are you getting this part? I said: I'm getting it from the context. We are talking about a woman who expects men to pay on the first date (according to his gender role), but goes through hoe phases, has casual sex, probably talks to multiple men etc ( does not align with her gender role). And exploitation is the act of profiting off of someone else's vulnerability. No one NEEDS to date any particular person. Sure, no one does, but if they do and you exploit them for meals, then you're stil…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/24 01:11 AM
1

Gender Roles. What made you read that as "gender role"? Did you read it that way? Huh? It literally says "gender roles" in the part you quoted. This is Don Quixote stuff. You're seeing damsels and monsters where none exist. If a man doesn't like her expectations, he can date some other woman. And vice versa. We are not talking about whom a given man would date. We are talking about equal treatment etc. If she doesn't want to treat him equally, she doesn't deserve equal treatment. Simple.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/24 01:03 AM
1

You merely saying those examples don't count as double standards isn't a rebuttal, it's merely you restating your original opinion without any supporting evidence - as I went out of my way to provide. "Your source is wrong because it disagrees with me" is not a rebuttal. That is incorrect. If you're making an affirmative claim, the burden of proof is on you. It is indeed enough for me to say that if those things are simply listed without a satisfying explanation. Anyway, I didn't say all of thos…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/24 01:00 AM
1

Yeah, no. Most examples in that list are different standards applied to different groups. Those are not double standards. Double standard is when you have different standard for the same group based on irrelevant characteristics. And yes, they can be gender-based, as long as gender is not a defining trait. For example, when we talk about jobs or education. If your female students or applicants have preferential treatment in the admission points or have some scholarships just for them - that woul…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/24 04:25 PM
1

Those normal people who respect gender roles show that respect by also following them. If you expect others to follow them, but won't follow them yourself, then you're looking to take advantage of other people. Is that how most people are? I don't think so, so I don't think it's normal. And even if they're way, way eccentric in their thinking or behavior, they're still human beings and no reason they shouldn't be treated that way or have their rights protected and respected like everyone else. Y…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/24 04:12 PM
1

To expect gender roles to be respected in a relationship primarily rooted in gender isn't exploitation. Yes it is, if only a man is expected to perform his role but the woman isn't. If he's expected to follow traditional roles, then so should she if she expects equal treatment. Otherwise, she doesn't give him equal treatment, but wants it for herself? Well that's gonna be a no. Or, if you look at it from a different angle, equal treatment in this case would be to not give her equal treatment (ju…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/24 04:06 PM
1

What is and what isn't normal socially depends on how the society is at the time. What was normal prior to 1960 and what is normal now are different things. Prior to 1960 it was normal for women not to work. Now it is normal for women to work. Do you not see how this would affect what is normal with regards of paying for stuff?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 04:44 PM
1

Normal human beings don't want to exploit other human beings. If a human beings wants to do that - they don't deserve to be treated as a normal human being because that's not what they are. Neither they deserve equal treatment since they themselves do not want equal treatment because they expect someone else to contribute more than them.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 04:42 PM
1

You're right. It's not a double-standard so much as it is a Catch-22. The double standard is more they think it's okay for them to sleep around, and bad for us to do so. Ok, but this next example is also not a double standard. That's a case of different standards for different groups of people. They aren't trying to date themselves, are they? Women also have standards for men that they don't meet themselves, sometimes, that's specifically what they want (see how many women want men who make more…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 04:40 PM
2

You sound pretty great. And it's only logical, right? Supposedly, she's interested in getting to know him, too. So why wouldn't they split? Of course, sometimes it's pretty clear that the date is going well and there will be another one, and then it can be more like "Thanks for paying this time, I invite next time".
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/24 04:32 PM
2

Which apparently scales with what her husband is earning because if they were to divorce a housewife or a rich man will get more than that of the average man. How odd.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/24 07:07 PM
1

Show the math. That doesn't seem right.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/24 07:04 PM
–

but exceptions happen Do they really? It has "pump" in the name for a reason. Anyway, the difference is that in serial monogamy there is actually no conscious intent to move on. I think, serial monogamy is just when you try to be monogamous but relationships repeatedly fail. On its face, this is better. But of course, you need to know details about a particular case to see if it's comparable with pump-and-dump or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/24 07:00 PM
1

True, provided that's not less than what many other men get and that the woman wasn't passed around before they got together while he couldn't participate.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/24 05:39 PM
1

No one is complaining they can't get laid in vacuum. They are complaining that they can't get laid while other men can. That's a crucial part of it. They see that women are not nuns, just not with them.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/24 05:38 PM
1

Hoes gonna hoe. Casual relationships do not necessarily mean high body count. Casual relationship = we meet every now and again as opposed to every day/few days a week regularly, and we're not necessarily thinking about future/marriage. You can be in a casual relationship with 1 person for a long time. Sleeping around is just a subset of this. So you're probably right, there's some psyop going on with the goal to make women promiscuous or something. It's as if it's beneficial for someone.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/24 05:34 PM
2

Why shouldn't women who want men to pay still be treated like normal human beings? Why shouldn't women who want men to pay have equal rights to a man's? Because no normal human being expects another human being to pay for them when supposedly they are both interested in the date to see if they are a good match.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/24 05:27 PM
1

Why would gender roles preclude this? We should all have equal rights and be treated like "normal human beings" whether we want to be SAHMs or CEOs. Because not everyone is treated equally and like normal human beings if only one gender is expected to pay all the time.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/24 05:25 PM
3

All good points except Men have plenty of double standards of their own - the expectation that we immediately fuck them while keeping a low number of sexual partners is one of the biggest ones. That's not a double standard, that's wishful thinking. Please, look up the definition of double standard and use the term correctly. But keeping possible double standards and hypocrisy in mind, let's circle back to So if a woman wants a traditional man, she's allowed to. And if a woman wants a more libera…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/24 05:24 PM
24

If a girl is insisting you pay their way (kinda tacky but whatever) and that’s a dealbreaker to you (and no judgment if it is) than it’s likely the girl you’re talking to isn’t right for you bc you have different expectations of what a partner should and shouldn’t do. Thing is, maybe a man wouldn't be opposed to paying for his woman. But she needs to become his woman first. Paying for introductory dates is just financially irresponsible.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/24 05:17 PM
1

It's not even about emotions, it's about who could potentially commit the paternity fraud. Besides, if you were watching them, you know that they define cheating differently for men and women. And it's not okay for men to cheat either if they do what constitutes cheating according to their definition. Also this is an important piece. As you admit yourself, women will be ok with some men doing it. Also men are hard wired to "spread their seed" I completely understand the logic behind it and theor…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/24 04:54 PM
3

In this economy? Seriously, though, it's not like they crave it, it's more like they wish they could afford it. They already have to go to a (probably) soul-sucking job making somebody else richer while the prices are growing and the pay is not keeping up. Why would they want their wife to make somebody else disproportionally richer, too, when instead she could be at home?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/24 04:39 PM
1

Are you saying that 70% men are attractive, yes or no?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/24 08:53 AM
1

One thing AF/BB gets wrong is that in the modern West, women rarely marry a guy she is not initially attracted to. Well that's just mathematically incorrect. What percent of men do you think was married at least once and what percent do women find actually attractive? Those numbers are very very far from each other.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/24 06:02 AM
2

You already know the answer, it's been implied here and in endless podcasts since forever. That is to reinforce the thing where men are encouraged to sleep with multiple women, while women aren't encouraged to sleep with multiple men and instead should find that rare one that will give them an orgasm (or accept that orgasms aren't guaranteed so no need to promiscuous whether she has orgasms or not with the chosen man). Also, it's possible that the evolution is heading to women not having orgasms…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/23 09:13 AM
1

Again, not my idea, a fact. Of course, you are free to choose to remain ignorant and keep the wrong opinion.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/23 07:02 AM
1

What kind of question is that? Why does a man who can afford a balanced diet eats all those different foods when he can have the best steak every day? No matter how good it is, variety > one best thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/23 11:23 PM
1

I am not lacking awareness of needed to learn things. It's just that logical thinking is not one of those things. Definitely, I could keep improving it because why not make it even better, but this topic is not anywhere close to challenging it and it's not a thing I need to learn. In this case, everything is clear and described above.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/23 11:19 PM
1

If I'm not teaching you anything that could only be because you are refusing to learn. I don't have "my idea" of logic. I just know what logic is and how it operates. It's something many nonscientists struggle with, though, so don't feel bad. You are not the only one.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/23 05:14 AM
1

That's fine. And being blonde makes women less attractive to me (let's say). But it isn't about you and me, is it?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/23 02:18 AM
1

No, incorrect. No one respects a man who's into femdom less. I mean, if he managed to do it with multiple women, too, that's an achievement as the supply-demand ratio is insane. Pegging is ok because no other mens' dicks are involved.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/23 02:14 AM
1

No, incorrect. It's not that it makes them more attractive, it's that it doesn't make them less attractive. Either way, it would be up to women to decide what is and isn't attractive. Male gaze is irrelevant here. A woman who sleeps with women is also a stud etc. See the comment you responded too, you didn't add anything new and the comment already explained everything you're saying.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/23 02:11 AM
2

Why are people on a diet happier than starving people? Come on, you must be joking. You can't be seriously asking this. By large, one of those two groups is single by choice.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/23 02:07 AM
103

This is just another piece of evidence that men and women are held to the same sexual standard: sleeping with men makes one less attractive. For some reason, there's a common misconception that the standard is double and men are studs while women are sluts. That is, of course, false, and it's whoever sleeps with men is a slut and whoever sleeps with women is a stud. And if anything, slut shaming is not misogyny, it's misandry, because it implies that a man taints his partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/23 11:11 PM
1

To keep it fair. You already mentioned the term hypocrisy. As we know, by definition that would be hypocrite of me to sleep with other men when I expect her not to. To be fair, that's not why I won't do it, but that's a nice bonus.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/23 03:56 PM
7

Because if you don't play to win then why play at all? As for looking for proof that women don't find most men attractive (which is true), that's because who doesn't look for external factors to explain that they are losing to show (at least to themselves) that it's not really 100% their fault they can't win? Speaking of because time and time again, its been proven that hookup culture is very lopsided because women do not like hookups that much. Most women try it once, hated it, and dont do it a…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/23 05:36 PM
1

That's not hypocrisy and that is not about me, that is showing you how this works and answering your question. Are you sure you know what hypocrisy is? The definition of it? Because I'm applying the same standard to myself - I also shouldn't sleep with other men.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/23 05:28 PM
1

Being a soldier is not really employment and if it is, then still we don't have to distinguish men and women there. We can just say, requirement for soldiers are X (think objective numbers here, such as height, weight, how much they can deadlift etc). If women happen to meet X, then no one will reject them even if they are women. Similarly, if men don't meet X, they won't get "hired" just because they are men. So it's not about being men or women. "We tend to not use women soldiers" because they…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/23 02:42 AM
2

No, it wouldn't because it's not about who is promiscuous, it's about who they are promiscuous with. And in that sense the standards are the same: Both men and women are respected less for having sex with a many men as opposed to many women. If you were to compare men sleeping with women vs women sleeping with men - that would be different standards because, well, you are looking at them doing different things - one group sleeps with men while the other sleeps with women.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/23 02:37 AM
1

Why shouldn’t a woman have sex on the first date if she’s feeling it? You don't quite understand the man's point of view here. Yes. Yes she should. But she should only do so with me and not with other men. Many men just won't bother finding out if this was the first time she did that. That is a fair assumption, though, that it's probably not the first time. (not necessarily strictly first, depending on her age and how often these things happen, but you get the point - this has to be an exception…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/23 07:44 PM
1

When it comes to anything sex-related, they are not double standards. They are different standards. Double standards would be something unrelated to sex, e.g. employment, education, university admissions - things like that. You mentioned behavior. This fits here.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/23 07:36 PM
0

You don't hear what men say they want probably because you don't care. Hence, the misunderstanding. What men want is a harem, a variety of multiple women. So the men you describe who got into position of power, will do just that - experience variety. Most of them never had a chance with the girl you mention, as most men never do, so they will try that. But it's not like they are going to be monogamous with her forever. Most men, however, are involuntarily monogamous, so when they take that into …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/23 01:01 AM
1

There is some default, meaning this is what it's implied if nothing was discussed. And you're basically stating that default is to trust without verifying unless it was otherwise specified. Why should trust but verify be established in advance, but trust without question shouldn't?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/23 05:34 PM
2

There is no such thing as mansplaining but there's such thing as confirmation bias. Those men that "mainsplain" to you? They do the same thing to other men. There's just this type of people, but you only notice it when they are men and when they do it to women.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/23 05:31 PM
1

Don't you think it could be some psyop by apple, kinda like viral marketing? Like maybe it's not even a thing or never was a thing, but then apple funded spreading those screenshots (which initially could be fake even) around, so it became a trend.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/23 05:29 PM
1

Why shouldn't that be default, though? What should be default? Just trust unconditionally just because? That's illogical, so why would that be default over trust but verify? Exactly my point. The ONLY thing that could be somewhat annoying is having to deal with it frequently. Otherwise, nothing wrong with it. Not in principle.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/23 05:21 PM
–

I am not replying to your post, I'm replying to your comment. And it absolutely does have something to do with it. Your comment about the phrase was off and the phrase was factually correct.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/23 05:20 PM
–

He did miss out, so you can't change the mindset. But why bother? Don't shift the mindset, just let him have fun while being married. It's not like he can make you believe you had a child that wasn't yours. Just make sure he doesn't bring any medical problems. Another way - date men that are older and went through that phase. You know, they don't have to be same age as you, right? Finally, you don't need to change their mindset (or will automatically do it) if you just don't participate in the h…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/23 01:29 AM
–

I think what really happens is the woman blames other issues on it and it becomes an easy scapegoat For sure. It's just another sort of "men are intimidated by X".
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/23 01:17 AM
1

That's more than okay, I'd actually be flattered. And yes, why would I have a problem if I have nothing to hide? Nobody is entitled to nobody's trust. Trust must be earned - and maintained. So it's not just a state you achieve once, and then never verify anything again. You should still expect things to be verified every now and again, especially important things. It's not like the child verification thing would happen more often that once a year, not even every few weeks (so that phone analogy …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/23 01:12 AM
1

Lock down? Getting a girlfriend is easier than getting a fwb. This is one of the reasons why most men will have experienced having a gf/wife, but not having a fwb. You get the gf the same way you get the fwb, but then you lack the balls to not commit because you aren't sure you will find another woman if this one leaves you and you aren't sure she won't leave you if you don't commit. This is how you land them.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/23 01:00 AM
1

Perfect. Thank you for admitting you were wrong and that paternity test is not an accusation of cheating. I commend you for your bravery, not everyone has guts to admit they were wrong especially after suffering such extensive brain damage that they can only communicate by repeating the same thing once for no and twice for yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/23 12:23 AM
1

Not comparable. The key word here is know (as opposed to trust, and they only trust because they already know). The gas station employee only needs to know your age. To know for the fact that your partner isn't cheating on you, you would need to read their minds. To know that the baby is yours, you would need to see the DNA. Suspicion is not accusation. Even legally, being a suspect is very different of being charged. Either way, leaving over trying to verify something is much less justified tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/23 12:08 AM
1

Great. One more time and that will make 2, meaning you admit that you were wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/23 12:04 AM
–

This has nothing to do with what I said. I just stated the fact - those things are in fact rewards sometimes. Also, you forgot about the second part of the argument - when different services are awarded.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/23 12:03 AM
1

They are indeed different and it is indeed not hypocrisy by definition of hypocrisy. Male promiscuity usually involves sleeping with women, while female promiscuity - with men. And that's the crux of it. Nobody is comparing the agents, it's about the subjects. It's not about who's promiscuous, it's about who they sleep with. After all men can sleep with many men and women can sleep with many women, too, and the former case usually results in more shaming than the latter.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/23 11:58 PM
–

Both essential yes, both equally essential - not sure. I just don't see why the ratio of hours should be 1:1. Should it remain 1:1 after whoever is earning the salary got a raise? Contributions should be measured in their outcomes, not in hours spent contributing. What if there's no kids and one partner out earns the other, should they work the same number of hours then? This makes no sense to me. Logically, they shouldn't, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/23 03:53 AM
1

The fact the word “reward” is used so often definitely indicates entitlement because it implies seeing sex as a reward for your actions instead of an activity 2 or more people consent to. The phrase was factually correct and there's no contradiction in your comment. Something can be both an activity 2 people consent to and a reward at the same time. That typically occurs when the value of consent of both parties in unequal (aka it's easier to get consent of one of the parties). Like sex. And the…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/23 03:32 AM
1

Indeed, comparing paternity test to accusation of cheating is peak stupidity.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/23 02:39 AM
1

You're missing the point. Why do they legally have to? Because they need to verify your identity or that you studied etc. Because they ACKNOWLEDGE the possibility of you lying, not because they accuse you of lying. Big difference. Sure, then make it routine, that's the point. And no, just because it wasn't established at the start, doesn't mean it shouldn't be established later. People change their views all the time.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/23 02:38 AM
1

Huh what? The brain damage is indeed extensive and you are unable to add anything new to the discussion. Then this what we'll do. If you acknowledge that you were wrong and that paternity testing is not an accusation of cheating, leave 2 more comments with no new arguments.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/23 02:36 AM
–

I explained it pretty accurately already. What you're doing is proposing intentionally unequal contributions. If one person makes more per hour than the other person, then them working the same number of hours, which you say would be fine, results in one of them contributing more. Hence, the question - why is this "fine"?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/23 02:33 AM
-2

Help me understand this please. I don't see how it makes sense mathematically. Then whoever makes more per hour ends up contributing more. What's the reasoning behind this condition? Why equal number? Why not inversely proportional or idk otherwise unequal but, say, the difference can't be more than X hours?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/23 07:16 PM
0

If you think its possible, why are you dedicating your life to her? It means you don't fully trust her. That's not a very smart take. Safety precautions and verification are still a thing. Like, you would still use a seatbelt even if you trust the driver, right? Doctors would still run tests on you when you come and say you think you're pregnant or got flu. At the airport they still check your ID and in schools you still take exams. That's not because they accuse you of lying, that's because the…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/23 06:49 PM
0

YES. Finally someone else said.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/23 06:45 PM
-6

It's not an accusation no. Acknowledging a possibility of something and eliminating it empirically is verification, not accusation. When they ask for your ID, are they accusing you of identity fraud? Then why not just arrest you? When they make you take an exam, are they accusing you of not knowing the material? Or maybe they just want to know for sure that you are who you say you are or that you studied instead of trusting your word because they can know for sure. If they can know for sure inst…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/23 06:43 PM
1

No because patients can be wrong without intentionally lying? Same. Babies can be mixed up at the hospital. Or wife could've cheated when blackout drunk or otherwise genuinely not remember. Point holds, verification is not accusation. Besides, what about other examples other than doctors. What about checking ID? What about different exams? It's a suspension of cheater.. Better? If they trust that you did not cheat, what's the point of the confirmation? Huh? What suspension? Suspicion? Suspicion …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/23 06:41 PM
1

Wow, the first sentence and already ad hom indicating that you lost the argument before it started. No, I'm not an idiot and have multiple papers to prove it. And if you wanted an irony, then that's a good example - a person opening an argument with ad hom calling others idiot. ROFL Idk what's the point of giving explanation in every scenario. Would need to know the exact scenario to say. In general, yes, you can explain why something happened in case they didn't know how it worked. Some people …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/23 06:36 PM
1

There's no irony and I'm having no hard time at all. Vice versa, I am explaining how the word is used. Read the whole thing, not just the first sentence. A paragraph just below explains everything. Words have meanings, trying to use reductio ad absurdum might have worked in your high school debate club, but no one is impressed here. That's like, almost just as poor of an argument as ad hominem. Low effort. Sit down, F.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/23 06:32 PM
1

There's no blame shift no. They are still responsible for their choices. What's so hard to understand about it? AGAIN, read what you're replying to. "It's natural" ---- explanation, not an excuse. It can be natural and still be their fault that they followed the instinct. There's no contradiction here. "It's natural, so it's not my fault" ------- excuse.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/23 06:29 PM
1

Point is, that's an explanation, not an excuse. This is why it happens, that's all. An excuse, again, is an attempt to less the blame. There's none of that going here, there's an explanation of why something factually happened. Research definitions of words if you are going to argue about definitions of words.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/23 06:26 PM
1

No nature or biology can force you to eat either. Yet, it's natural to eat. There aren't many things they can force you to do. What is there except for breathing? But there are many things that are natural. It can't force you to to fuck someone else but it can and does force you to want (or to at least be open) to fuck someone else. You don't understand how the word natural is commonly used, it seems. Brush up on that.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/23 06:24 PM
1

Right what about it? You still didn't say what word it was.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/23 06:20 PM
1

Oh, I see, you suffered brain damage due to all that cognitive dissonance after being shown that you were wrong. That's ok. In fact, I think you're very strong and it's impressive that you can still use the Internet in your condition. I hope you get help, though. Either way, paternity test is not an accusation of cheating. Please, don't add any new arguments if you finally acknowledge this and agree.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/23 01:57 AM
12

Just because it's easy? Almost. For most men that too is not easy, it's just that not sleeping down is hard to impossible. Even though they could get a hot girl with a good body? Most couldn't. It's a trade off. Sleep down or don't sleep with anyone consistently. Or at best sleep with 1 person only. Sure, at least that wouldn't be sleeping down.. But what's better 1 attractive girl, but the same girl who won't let most men to experiment and/or sleep with other girls or be open to threesomes, or …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/23 01:46 AM
1

Right, I remember. You already said it before, but did you look up the dictionary to see which one is last? While you're at it, don't forget to look up other definitions I mentioned.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/23 01:37 AM
1

Huh? What are you on about? Did you acknowledge that you were wrong already?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/23 10:47 PM
2

AF/BB. For every woman there exists a standard which when met leads to her wanting the man and breaking rules for that man. (For some women that man might not exist in reality, if standards are too high). If she's making you jump through hoops when she didn't make somebody in the past do nearly as much, if she had some experimenting done with others but won't with you - then she's not attracted to you as much.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/23 10:32 PM
1

Yeah, you got it wrong. Here's a good place where your mistake is very obvious: women aren't cared for being "who they are" either. When men hit on women its because of what they think the woman can give them (sex) not because he intrinsically values her for who she is. is. Our appearances and bodies are who we are. Without them we don't exist or we aren't ourselves. It's not because she can "give them sex", it's because she can give them herself and they can have sex with her. Think about it. A…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/23 10:28 PM
5

We do, and that's why OP makes sense. It's about rich vs poor, not men vs women or anything else. It's almost like all those other conflicts are funded by rich to distract people so they don't eat them.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/23 10:21 PM
1

Right, which one is it? Most importantly, verify, that you were wrong and verification (and even suspicion) is not an accusation.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/23 09:59 PM
1

I know I made the analogy, so? I'm sticking to it, so why say "dude , you made the analogy not me" as if I was saying the analogy was bad? It's not bad, it works perfectly and I'm explaining to you how it works. Yes, of course, if all men stopped pursuing sex with women, sex wouldn't happen for most men. Which is the point - instead of locking every single buyer in their apartment, lock the store if you want for sales to stop. The analogy is not about who is supply and who is demand, it's about …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/23 09:58 PM
1

Huh? The last word in the dictionary? That'd probably be something like Zyzzyva. While you're reading the dictionary to find which word is the last, please, look up definitions of such words as "accusation", "suspicion", "verification". From there, if you have 2 brain cells to rub together, you should clearly see that you are wrong and that paternity test is not an accusation of cheating.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/23 09:43 PM
1

Huh? You're making less and less sense. At least, finally, you acknowledged that you're wrong, since you're making no new arguments. That's great. Not everything is lost then. There's still hope for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/23 01:10 AM
1

Huh? Go where? You added nothing new in this comment. You're arguing just to argue then, even after it was pointed out that you don't know definitions of words? Sure, go ahead. But nothing will change, suspicion still won't be equal to accusation, let alone verifying. Suspects still won't be equal to accused. You know how both those things are already distinguished for hundreds of years in the legal system, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/23 11:31 PM
1

Then it's all great and the transaction will happen. But it's up to the store. If there's no supply, demand is irrelevant. If you want to stop transactions, instead of going into every potential buyer's home and convincing them not to buy, you should just close the store. Simple. You can lead a horse to water.... It's on you that you choose to ignore this and pretend it isn't true. I pointed out factual truth. Feel free to stay ignorant. I don't care really. Most of metoo was about women abusing…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/23 11:25 PM
1

You keep mentioning cheating and you were the first one to bring this word up, so don't start pointing at me now. All paternity testing does is verifying if the man is the father, nothing more, nothing less.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/23 11:03 PM
2

No, you don't by definition. Unless you're assuming it happened, of course. But you can verify it didn't without assuming that it did. Just like when they ask for your ID at the airport or when a doctor wants to run some tests. It's simply ruling out one of the possibilities, that's all. ​ And again, paternity test does not prove that she didn't cheat even if it's positive. It simply verifies if the baby is his. It has nothing to do with cheating. She could be cheating anyway. No, they don't sus…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/23 04:43 PM
–

How brainwashed must one be to assume that most people are enjoying their careers. Like, if they had enough money to never have to work, would they still be in their career? I don't think so.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/23 04:23 PM
1

Again, you don't need to suspect anything in order to verify it. Do they suspect you're lying when they ask you for an ID? They don't necessarily suspect you, they just acknowledge the possibility that you could. Acknowledging the possibility of something is not an accusation of something.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/23 04:13 PM
1

No, but you do. A person who has the money and decided to buy food goes to the store. If the store is out of food or refuses service, they don't get food. Thus, they don't decide if they get it, very simple. That was response in you arguing that you didn't say that it's the society where men and women have to control themselves, when I literally quoted you saying that. It is relevant, because in that society it happens at much higher rates. And that's why it's an integral part of that society. T…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/23 01:08 PM
2

Ok, then there could be a law to test paternity. And you don't just go to Dr out of the blue. You first suspect you might be pregnant. And verifying it isn't an accusation of lying. Just because it isn't doesn't mean it shouldn't be. And just because it isn't, doesn't mean it's an accusation of cheating and carding to sell cigarettes is somehow isn't an accusation of anything just because it's the law. And no, paternity test has nothing to do with cheating. It doesn't even verify that cheating d…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/23 01:00 PM
1

How did a person who you claim you are would be other than you? So are they accusing you of lying when they ask for your ID? How would you not be pregnant when you say you think you are? Are they accusing you of lying when they're running tests? etc. This question is irrelevant. It doesn't define anything and the acknowledgement of the possibility of something doesn't make it an accusation. Again, it could be that the baby was mixed up. Or it could be that the father is someone else but a woman …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/23 10:00 PM
1

Oh, I'm not wasting my time. As a scientist, I love teaching people how logic works. But indeed, if you finally realized you're wrong, you can stop responding. We all get it, you realized you're way out of your depths here and want out.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/23 09:54 PM
1

What do you mean so what? So everything. Again, he doesn't make the choice for a particular sex act. Statistically, he decides if he wants to have sex, not if the sex will happen. A woman decides that. Wtf are you talking about it wasn't? You literally said about it that to create it "men and women have to control themselves" . And yes, abuse is relevant. Because it's an integral part of that society. As for most of them marrying virgins with low n? I'd like to see the proof of that. Highly doub…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/23 09:51 PM
1

I'm what? I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm obviously logical and simply apply scientific methods to everything, as a scientist would. Sometimes it might coincide with one side, sometimes with the other. Either way, who I am is irrelevant, only arguments are relevant, so why would you attempt to describe me or put me into any group? No, I am not suggesting that. Where am I suggesting that? But then again, no one is surprised that you can't read. After all, you are the person who uses…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/23 09:40 PM
1

There absolutely is one definition, the only thing is that it's relative to the observer, so to speak. Nothing is logical to anyone. It's either logical or it isn't. Yours isn't logical, it involves stuff like "intentions" - something that is very personal and immeasurable. And as such it is illogical to say that doing good actions without good intentions doesn't make you good. It absolutely does, because only the result matters. If you have 2 people doing good things to the 3rd person, one with…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/23 09:33 PM
1

Yep, ridiculous and insanity. Those are good words to describe trying to call paternity test an accusation. It very clearly isn't, similarly to many other examples, some of which I listed above.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/23 09:26 PM
-1

No, sometimes it happens due to revenge or you get raped or something. It doesn't matter WHY people cheat or how or even with whom. The only thing that matters is if they cheated, that is all. And if they did, for men it's much worse if that cheating involved another dick. What is so hard to understand? No one cares if she turned gay or just got drunk. If she kissed a girl at a party that is infinitely better than if she kissed a guy. You are very long, this was given a lot of thought and this i…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/23 12:56 AM
-3

What? Absolutely not. That would be hypocritical. Also, couples? No one is talking about couples. I, as a man, and any other man will apply standards to myself and to other individual people. What you're saying makes no sense, that would mean that things other than result of actions would matter. It doesn't matter who the cheater is attracted to. That would mean, for example, that cheating with a woman he's attracted to is worse than cheating with a woman he's not attracted to as much (for examp…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/23 12:42 AM
-5

That's their personal problem (or not a problem). If we applied different standards to heterosexual and homosexual that would be a double standard and we don't like those around here, do we? Men are fair and apply the same standard to everyone. Sleeping with more women? Cool, let's have a threesome. Men? Ew.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/23 12:28 AM
1

Literally the first few lines I see when I google "dna test reliability".
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/23 12:24 AM
-4

You got it all wrong. Men believe that cheating with men is worse. It just so happens that most women who cheat cheat with men. Other than that, women cheating (as an abstract idea) is not worse than men cheating. Men are very fair and apply the same standards - both men and women cheating with women is better than with men.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/23 12:12 AM
1

Again, worldviews of 2 particular people don't matter. There is a definition. And what you're saying doesn't fit it, so it's not what a good person is. Again, no, intentions do not matter. Results matter. See an example mentioned after Hitler. And why would he be bad if he did what he believed was right? Ohh, so apparently there's some absolute measure of what is right, is there? No, my approach is purely practical. Language is just a tool. For all I care we could communicate telepathically usin…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/23 12:07 AM
1

See instead of typing this nonsense you could instead type "what is DNA test reliability" or something like that in google and see the same numbers. Then go argue with them, not with me. I'm not making it up, I got it from some source. The real issue is that you would raise a child that isn't yours even if it's know they aren't yours. What you're describing just demonstrates one more time how law could be stupid.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/23 12:03 AM
1

There's no need for such combination of words because it's already not an accusation of cheating by definition. And there are multiple examples of similar cases such as medical exams and proof of identity. You still didn't answer - do doctors accuse you of lying when they don't just take your word for it? What about when someone is asking for your ID? How about asking to show tickets? Verification is not accusation. Trying to make it seems otherwise is just mental gymnastics. Really, the only re…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/23 12:01 AM
1

No, it's not that much more abstract. If it was, then you wouldn't be able to use the term in practice, because now suddenly anyone could be good even if you think they are obviously bad. There is one true definition for everything, otherwise there's no point in even having a term. Case in point, your nonsensical argument in the last paragraph. In this case, you're saying that, for example, Hitler is good, because he had good intentions. The last sentence is just the final nail. Oh it's that, bu…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/23 06:23 PM
1

I don't think all of them don't know anything. I never said anything, too. They can know much less than physicists or chemists, while still knowing something. You in particular don't know much, as you demonstrated above, however. Yes, sure that's believable. Many laws are stupid or unfair (e.g. paying child support even if you're proven to not be a father. There are multiple examples), so no wonder that a logical move would work against you sometimes. But we're not talking about that in this thr…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/23 06:15 PM
1

You're missing the point, the second part stands. "Come on man" is not an argument. It obviously isn't. It's verifying that even if cheating happened you're still the father. Cheating could still happen and just not result in pregnancy. Also, it could be one of those immaculate conceptions. Who knows? Most people are religious and believe that type of stuff. Point is, it's not an accusation of anything. Once again. You go to the doctor saying that you think you're pregnant or that you're sick wi…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/23 06:09 PM
1

Who are you redpillers? Why would you include me in some group? Idc about those groups, I care about logic and people using correct definitions. What do you think "we" are suggesting? Because what I am suggesting personally is verifying who the father is by default. It's not at all totally different from testing to see other things. Facts always trump feelings. Any woman you're describing should just get over this and understand she's in the wrong and just doesn't want to share the privilege of …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/23 04:53 PM
1

It's very clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Indeed, if you have no definition or admit that you're wrong, don't reply anymore. Instead of coming up with excuses you could just type it and it would take even less time. No, the truth is you don't have it, never thought about it deeply before and now when you tried to formulate it you realized that you are wrong, but your ego won't let you admit it. So you're dodging with the classic "oh I just wanted to see if you know it" type …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/23 04:47 PM
1

No, they are not in real world. They can't decide for themselves that the sex will happen reasonably soon, while women can. A man can't say - ok I will have sex this weekend and then consistently have it. A woman can. Therefore, no, men don't decide if sex happens. Women do. Go back and see what I originally said regarding this and what you originally said. Your point was that Amish are a good example of a society where men and women control themselves. When demonstrated that you're wrong, you'r…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/23 04:45 PM
1

Huh? Got nothing to parry with so you will just downvote and waste time posting no new arguments?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/23 04:36 PM
1

Social sciences are humanities, not sciences. See Popper's criteria of scientific theories, for example. None of what social sciences are about satisfy those criteria. Oh, you read some? Intro and the abstract? There is absolutely no way you learned anything about experimental work and don't understand what I was talking about earlier. You shouldn't need to request it, whoever does the test should know how many tests are needed for a specific confidence interval and run that many.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/23 04:35 PM
2

Do you not understand how probabilities work? If she has it fast with one, odds are it's not the first time (and maybe not the last). That's the thinking behind it. Also, you literally mentioned high body counts so wym nobody said multiple men? Other than that, it is possible that it's a one-time thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/23 06:12 PM
1

What are you on about? Who's saying they are not responsible? They are, but that doesn't change anything. They are not deciding if the sex happens. Again, are you high or arguing just to argue? That's exactly what I said. Abuse happens despite the lack of encouragement. Also, who's talking about encouraging men to be promiscuous? No one said that. That is not equivalent to encouraging women to not be promiscuous. They are not mutually inclusive. That's a whole different discussion, whether it's …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/23 06:09 PM
1

No, because you want knowledge over trust. Facts over feelings. The question is why wouldn't you do it? That makes no sense to me. Think about it like this - before talking about paternity, a woman must get pregnant. So when she goes to a doctor and says she thinks she's pregnant a doctor doesn't trust her but runs their own test. Is that accusing her of lying? No, it's just gathering information. When you try to get into the airport or something, are they accusing you of lying about your identi…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/23 06:04 PM
1

That is a fact and there are stats to prove it. For example, see what happens when a spouse loses their job or starts making less money. Or stops helping around the house. Or many other things.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/23 06:01 PM
1

So that's a yes, not a no. Clearly not accustomed to experiments or even calculations. Yes, I am saying it is not insulting. Just like when you go to a doctor and say you think you have flu or are pregnant, they will run tests and not just take your word for it. And they will run as many tests as needed depending on the confidence interval. Sometimes it's one test, sometimes it's multiple. Nothing wrong with it. No, you won't run it until you get the result you want. You run it until you can cla…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/23 06:00 PM
1

It absolutely isn't. It's just verifying the paternity. Before that even happens, you go to the doctor saying that you think you're pregnant or that you're sick with something. The doctor won't just take your word for it, they will run tests. Are they accusing you of lying? No, they just want facts over trust.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/23 05:56 PM
2

No one said otherwise. There is no contradiction whatsoever. You can like sex and not have it with multiple men right away.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/23 05:55 PM
1

There's no agree or disagree here. Your definition is just wrong. And you know it because you still didn't even phrase and instead are dodging the question.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/23 05:54 PM
1

What is your definition? Has to be verifiable, of course, aka actions, not thoughts count. That is not even my definition, it's a definition I googled and simplified. Good person is a person who acts a certain way, that's it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/23 01:47 AM
1

What do you mean how? By definition.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/23 01:46 AM
2

Right, so that means she is not the woman those men are looking for. Why lie and not just find men that are for her?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/23 01:45 AM
1

Lying by omission is still lying.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/23 07:28 AM
2

So? Clearly, women are even bigger/worse sluts if they have that sex right away with (sometimes multiple) other men, but not with them. Like, if the goal was to not be sluts, then maybe don't have sex with anyone until it's clear that it's a relationship or things are going that way.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/23 07:26 AM
3

This makes no sense. "Men say they don't want to commit to sluts, so let me be a slut until he commits"? Or how is sleeping with (multiple!) other men not being a slut?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/23 07:25 AM
1

That is not how it works. You absolutely always should make sure if you can. Why wouldn't you? That literally brings no benefit, you're just choosing to rely on your imagination, trust, faith, etc, instead of knowledge that is obtainable. So why not obtain it? This makes no sense. Yes, you do. Many jobs have regular or random drug testing. Do they suspect all those people of being on drugs? Not really, then they just wouldn't hire them or would fire them instead of testing. Did my teachers accus…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/23 07:13 AM
1

What part of probabilities not possibilities do you not understand? In most cases, yes, the woman has the final word. Men offer, women select. How do you still not know that this is how it works? No one is absolving anyone of anything. It's just a fact - men want sex with many different women. Women prefer the minority of men. Simple math, really. This information is one google search away. I didn't save any links when I found them before typing the original response. They are there, if you care…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/23 07:06 AM
1

Oh, that's not my view. That's just a fact. See what happens if they lose a job, for example. Or stop doing things around the house etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/23 07:01 AM
1

No, is logic that hard for you? You don't know if they cheated or not, that's the point. There's a nonzero % possibility that they did or that the baby got mixed up. There's absolutely no benefit for you in relying on trust instead of knowledge.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/23 07:00 AM
1

Nope, not an accusation by definition. That's a simple critical approach. You test a hypothesis and get facts and knowledge instead of faith and trust.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/23 06:59 AM
1

No, it isn't. Making sure you didn't cheat is not accusing you of cheating. Literally, they are 2 different things. Is any test or an interview an accusation that you don't know something? That's ridiculous. You can want to get a test so that you KNOW something for sure instead of relying on faith/trust. There's literally no reason not to get facts and knowledge if you can do it.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/23 06:58 AM
1

Huh? Are you a liberal arts major? One measurement is never as reliable as more measurements. In this case there are false positives and negatives, too. You can, of course, just go with whatever the first test says, but ideally you should take more. It's up to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/23 06:56 AM
1

Exactly. Calling that an accusation of cheating is plain ridiculous.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/23 06:54 AM
1

It's a person who does good things. Not thinks good things while doing bad things, for example. Only deeds are relevant. Not potential deeds that you would maybe do in certain circumstances, but actual things you have done. No, you are not a bad person for not being opposed to not being a good one. If I'm a surgeon who'd become a programmer if given a chance, I'm still a surgeon until I actually change my career.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/23 06:53 AM
1

Wtf? Of course it isn't. Why would I waste time talking about just 1 person? Obviously, I'm talking about it in general. Good point, if she cheated and the baby was mixed up, 1 test isn't enough. So, as you can see, whether she cheated or not is very very important. So ideally, you'd need 2 tests. Either way, the paternity test is necessary. I see why a woman would be insulted if this came out of the blue without any discussion and preparation, ideally, well in advance. I just think she shouldn'…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/23 06:50 AM
0

Obviously if one doesn't drink alcohol they wouldn't. Are you projecting or something? Like you think it's about you? Most people do drink alcohol. And yes, can overestimate their tolerance and drink too much or even get roofied. She absolutely does have a privilege of at least knowing if there's a chance that the father is somebody else and for sure she knows she's the mother. Except if there was a mix up of course. In which case why do the maternity test if you can do the paternity test and ki…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 07:22 AM
0

That's irrelevant. It's about precautions. Stranger or not is just a detail that doesn't change anything qualitatively, only quantitatively. Again, intentions are irrelevant. Only results are relevant. She could also accidentally get drunk and things just happened. Or the baby could be accidentally mixed up in the hospital. Point is, the only way for him to know for sure is to get the test. She has a privilege of knowing, he doesn't. She should be okay with him wanting equality here and knowing …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 06:33 AM
-1

No it's not. It's just trying to verify that the baby is theirs. You could still cheat, just not get pregnant because of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 05:37 AM
-1

You can only have faith unless you can have surveillance 24/7, so that's irrelevant. And because they are not 100% accurate, you take more than one, so that's not an issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 05:36 AM
-1

Or a baby could be mixed up in the hospital. Either way, making sure you didn't cheat is not accusing you of cheating. It's just making sure. YOU know you didn't cheat, but he doesn't. And he still wouldn't actually, he would only know if the baby is his. You could still cheat.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 05:09 AM
0

Putting it this way: if I asked you to choose a candy from a pool 10,000 candies, but one of them is poisoned and you will die, but before you eat your candy you can test it to see if it's poisoned, would you test it? On one hand, the chance of you dying is incredibly small, 1/10000, or 0.01%, so even if you don't, you'll be fine. Why would you not test it? haha ironically isn't that the argument women use themselves when talking about men being dangerous to women? Also, funnily enough I bet peo…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 05:08 AM
4

Just as women fight tooth and nail for being able to kill their own unborn babies, men should be able to not be forced legally or by fraud to raise other men's babies, at least. This is beautiful
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 04:54 AM
1

Most people are loved for what they do, not for who they are. And they are married because that's how life is supposed to go, not because they are someone's first choice and true love.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 04:51 AM
5

Sure, if we also acknowledge that this means that the right one doesn't exist for some people. But we never say that, do we?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 04:50 AM
1

Some of the baby mamas are sluts though and they still got these wealthy high status men so… So? That doesn't contradict anything I said, so what's your point? I don’t know of any studies nor do I really care. These days the main people I see pushing the anti slut shaming agenda are women. Also see “sex positive feminism” for reference. Nevertheless regardless of who is doing the shaming it’s wrong either way, also I don’t know if women celebrate men sleeping around even if they do slut shame. I…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 04:15 AM
1

Nope. That has nothing to do with being good or bad person. Not a part of the definition, that's literally just your opinion. Your thoughts don't make you any kind of a person, actually, good or bad, only your actions do.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/23 03:39 AM
3

It does have value, it's just not sufficient to not be a loser. Men who don't have family but get laid aren't seen as losers. Men who have families but don't get sex are.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/23 07:38 AM
1

Starving people are more privileged when it comes to food. Most people who get access to food on demand don't really feel any special enjoyment. Only 10% of them do. If they enjoyed it more than usually once it doesn't mean they will again. Starving people are almost guaranteed to enjoy food while eating (90%), while for rich people it's 10% getting some random food and 60% if they hire a private chef. blah blah etc
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/23 05:33 AM
0

Lolol a textbook no true scotsman and will judge who's good and who isn't. I am definitely a good person by any objective criteria or measure. If you claim that wanting to attract women makes someone a bad person, then you are just plain wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/23 05:26 AM
-1

Disagree. I and many others would trade one for another in a heartbeat if we could and knew how.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/23 04:59 PM
2

Their mothers and other women in their family, of course. They teach/condition men how to treat women for women to like that.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/23 04:57 PM
1

Again wrong. How many baby mamas does Future have? Does Donald Trump have? Does Elon Musk have? Does Nick Cannon have? I could go on. Men who are wealthy can do more for many women than an average man could do for one woman. Some of these women got more in a divorce settlement than I’ll probably ever see in my lifetime. So in all fairness a woman could be better off slutting it up for rich dudes than committing to one average dude. (Melania Trump doesn’t seem like an angel to me just sayin). LOL…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/23 02:50 AM
1

Idk I’m too lazy to look at the context to figure this one out. Don't bother, you are wrong anyway. But now it's also clear that you aren't even arguing in good faith and it's clear now why you seem so clueless: you don't even go back and don't remember what the arguments are about. For example: Now you are contradicting yourself. No, I'm not. I have been consistent on this subject for years, let alone in this one conversation. But you can't go back to see what I was saying and put it all togeth…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/23 01:46 AM
1

I was refuting arguments and positions I have heard not “society” as a whole. Right and that's the point. Those were personal positions of those people, so why would you say " That’s exactly what they do " when I say they don't decide how the society should operate. Cucking is a thing, being a single mom is a thing. Hell making a living off selling sex is a thing. And women can become single moms sleeping with ugly dudes too so even from a bio standpoint it makes no sense. At least the hot guy h…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/23 07:01 PM
1

This is a very different type of settling though. How come we only hear men complaining about women having sex with other men faster and or denying sexual experiments they didn't deny in the past, but never hear about those things happening to women? That's because if a man settles, he settles with, not for. But of course, every man settles by default, because he would rather have a harem.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/23 03:47 AM
1

That’s exactly what they do. I literally pointed out the arguments in my post. That's the point. It's your imagination. They don't decide for the society, they speak their own preferences. And why wouldn’t women have sex with attractive men if they can? that’s also bIOloGy. Umm, because, if you want to bring biology into this, she needs to know she won't be dumped alone pregnant or with a kid. On an instinct level that is. Sleeping with every attractive man is a sure way to be a single mother. S…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/23 02:30 AM
2

Whatever it takes. And I'm, let's say, a hard working teacher or a nurse and will never get to experience what he experienced. How else would you measure work if not by outcome? Who worked harder if we both started poor and he has everything he has and I can't afford rent?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/23 10:19 PM
1

So I guess we could say something unobtainable has more value. A £500 steak has more value than a £1 steak. But that value only matters if somebody is trying to get that steak. That's why what you said in the beginning is completely true. Those people are high-value. And even though many women obtained them, many more didn't. It's not about their absolute number, it's about the supply-demand ratio. There's not enough of those men, so they are actually unobtainable. While men who no one wants to …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/23 09:35 PM
2

Being completely honest, he might be pathetic, but he had more stuff and more women than a nonpathetic me will ever have. So maybe he's not that pathetic. Although, I am happy for you that you managed to get anywhere close to where he got by being hard working and honest. Then again, wasn't he hard working?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/23 09:32 PM
1

Because it's on women to be that way but they aren't or even if they are those men don't care as long as they can still keep being promiscuous. Think about it. Men aren't trying to sleep or marry other men, so they have no invested opinion. And women like promiscuous men otherwise they wouldn't be promiscuous.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/23 06:40 AM
1

Yep it’s for themselves. Thank you. That’s what I’ve been saying. No one was arguing. Men don't get to decide how the society should operate. Yes the ol’ men can’t not have sex argument. Men pursue sex with women but somehow get to absolve themselves whenever they have sex because “she accepted”. Have you tried not pursuing women? I bet 99% of men wouldn’t have sex at all of they didn’t do that. 😂 Huh? Of course they can, who's saying otherwise. But why wouldn't they? We live in reality where ou…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/23 05:02 AM
1

It's weird how often y'all say we aren't great for relationships or wife material. All the hoes I know are now housewives. There is no contradiction here whatsoever. You can be something but suck at it compared to how others could perform in the same position.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/23 02:21 AM
1

You're still not getting it. Those men aren't saying what women should and shouldn't do. They are just saying that they prefer women who don't sleep around for themselves. No, men don't create those women. Those women create themselves. Men just take what they can. Other than rape, it's completely up to women whether or not they will sleep around. I am making perfect sense, you just don't understand numbers. The numbers don't need to be even. Using arbitrary numbers to show the point - if 20 wom…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/23 01:48 AM
1

So? And another dude didn't. And another dude ghosted because she didn't gave it up. And another - because she didn't have sex at all, and another - because she did. It has nothing to do with the count.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/23 01:34 AM
1

This doesn't change anything regarding the count. It still makes no sense. It's just a special case of a more general thing: Some (almost all actually) guys love sex, but many think she's a whore if she has it on the first date (with others, of course, with them it's okay).
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/23 05:38 PM
1

What? This makes no sense. Numbers are numbers. What is spiritual addition? Never heard of this operator.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/23 05:27 PM
1

Different people - different standards. It has nothing to do with the count.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/23 05:25 PM
1

Nope. You are the one who's not getting it. You see the words in front of you, typed them actually, but just don't comprehend. It's so weird. As you said. MAN has sex with woman. Woman has sex with man. Sex with man is different from sex with woman. They are two different things. Again, there's no double standard. I'm asking you again - do you not understand what the term means? Men and women are different when it comes to sex. Applying different standards to them is just that. And yes, of cours…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/23 05:16 PM
1

What? Like would your count be +3 if you did 3 with the same man? Then I understood the question correctly and then answer is of course not (see above).
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/23 05:07 PM
2

I think it does make sense, actually. It's because it's not about having stuff inside of her (then you'd also ask why aren't you disgusted if he had many medical procedures performed lol), but specifically about giving somebody else an opportunity to impregnate her.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/23 05:05 PM
1

Sure, why would they? Their target audience are other gay dudes. But if you zoom out, though, you will see that throughout the history gay dudes were judged for having even low counts.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/23 01:29 AM
3

Why would it? It only goes up if you use different d's. If you use different orifices for the same d, the count stays the same. Not sure I understood the question.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/23 01:27 AM
1

What's like that? And that saying makes no sense if you take it literally. Will we now let geese sleep in beds with humans and live inside the house? No, they stay outside or in the barn. Then again, if we assume it did make sense, sure. Then again, nothing unfair here. Men expect women not to have sex with men, but those men don't have sex with men themselves. Now, if they want to have sex with women but expect women not to have sex with women, then yes, you would be correct. But is that what's…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/23 01:26 AM
1

Pretty much everyone knows that's how men view sex. Men who say they don't only do that because otherwise they wouldn't get any. But again, not talking about the whole open relationship with rules and stuff. More like, nothing changes, he's just not expected to be 100% monogamous, that's all.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/23 01:14 AM
1

No one is talking about a whole open relationship here. Just start with letting him be open to stuff if it's going that way. Or with letting him visit escorts or something. That's pure business at this point. Doesn't affect how he feels about his family at all. Not negatively anyway. Another woman won't be trying to steal him and he won't be trying to leave his wife for a prostitute.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/23 09:02 PM
1

That's the first time you're using the word monogamous, though, isn't it? But yes, now what you're saying is more complete, then before. But then again, I wasn't talking about open relationships. It doesn't need to be a whole thing. Just let him not feel guilty if something happens, that's all. Literally just talking about taking it on as-needed basis, not about having a whole structure. You're overcomplicating things, when you could suggest that the culture should evolve in a different directio…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/23 09:00 PM
1

The why wouldn't you suggest that when you said they should meet in the middle? Why would they have more or less sex than they want? No one is happy in that arrangement.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/23 08:39 PM
1

Well no, not talking about right now. Talking about where culture should evolve. Why should it teach men to have less sex instead of teaching women to share their man or rather that the man is not theirs and can have some needs that she can't meet?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/23 08:38 PM
1

Here you are assuming that libido doesn't vary with time. I don't think that's a fair assumption. I think you should assume that it will change. So what's the most efficient way to deal with that when it happens? Right, and that's the thing - if a man has an arrangement where he can step out, there's zero risk he will get pregnant and for men sex can be entirely separate from love/commitment. As in, it's a physical urge more than anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/23 08:20 PM
2

This is solved by outsourcing sex outside the relationship. That way BOTH partners get exactly as much sex as they want. Isn't that better than both being unhappy with the amount of sex?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/23 08:16 PM
3

Then why would a LL woman expect monogamy from a HL man? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if they kept the family and nothing would change except he would step out every now and then? Why shouldn't culture evolve in this direction as opposed to convincing a hungry person they aren't hungry?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/23 08:15 PM
2

LOL all she needs to do is bring another girl. It's funny how they are all for equity and giving more to those who have less, but when it comes to their own life they won't do it. Obviously when 2 people want different amounts of sex but only 1 of them gets what they want, that's not a compromise.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/23 08:08 PM
4

It's not about N-count. No one cares about that. It's specifically about the D-count or the dick count and in that sense both men and women with the high D-count aren't exactly praised. So it's all fair.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/23 08:02 PM
1

Do you not understand the definition or something? It would be a double standard if, for example, one group of men is allowed to do something another group of men isn't. Or a group of women. Men having different standards for the sex they want to fuck and the sex they don't want to fuck is not a double standard. It's just a different standard.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/23 07:58 PM
1

This is not a double standard by definition. This is a case of different standards for the sex they want to sleep with and the sex they don't want to sleep with. Women are free to do the same, you know.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/23 04:59 PM
–

That reply doesn't change the fact that there is no hypocrisy be definition.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/23 03:20 AM
–

It's an argument, not an "argument". Know definitions of words you are using. You are allowed to dislike or disagree with things, but not everything you disagree with is is hypocritical. No, it doesn't make them hypocrites by definition. Do you not understand the definition? No, it's not just like bitching about being unemployed, because employment is gender-neutral. Having sex with women and having sex with men, on the other hand, are very sex-specific.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/23 03:19 AM
–

It would have been wonderful if I got it right the first time, but I lost my virginity in college to a man I deeply loved and believed I’d spend the rest of my life with, just to find out two weeks after the fact he’d been cheating almost the entire time because I wouldn’t put out. Sure, stuff like that can happen and it's understandable and it's not your fault. That's why most men don't realistically expect virgins anymore. But fool me twice etc etc. If it happened to you 10 times, that's not v…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/23 03:17 AM
1

Oh ok, that's where you're mistaken then. It's not about gross numbers necessarily. Yeah, 5-10 is a good estimate indeed. Because if you can't be #1, at least you don't want to be Mr. Double-digits. And anything equal or higher than 5 is closer to 10 than to 1. But either way, this is not about 4 digits. 5,10, 20, 50, 100. She could have all that sex with much fewer men if it's about sex drive. Why do you think the context should matter at all? Consider the only verifiable transition between num…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/23 01:35 AM
1

They criticize women for sleeping with many men in this scenario. Do they also sleep with many men and think it's ok for them to do so? If so yes, you are right, they are hypocritical. But I don't think that most men who criticize women for sleeping with many men sleep with many men themselves, so they aren't hypocrites. Also, one important point. Not only it's about engaging in the behavior you criticize others for, you also must claim that no one can criticize you for it. For example, if I say…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/23 12:34 AM
1

Except this standard is not hypocritical by definition of hypocrisy. If a man slept with many men and thinks it's shameful for women to sleep with many men but at the same time it wasn't shameful for him - that would be hypocritical. Same if you replace men with women in the partner field. Otherwise, no hypocrisy here.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/23 12:31 AM
2

You don't understand because you're assuming that high sex drive means many partners. That is not true in general. One doesn't imply the other. She can have a high sex drive and have a lot of sex with 1 man. 100 times with 1 is better than 1 time with 100. She can enjoy and desire sex and not give it to multiple men. How is that shocking and unclear?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/23 12:27 AM
1

You clearly don't understand what that statistic means nor how statistics works if your opening argument is that something is not true because you personally didn't witness it. Of course, age gaps that high are rare, but that's not because women select against them, it's because usually people with such age gap don't really meet each other. On the other hand, you can easily verify that you are wrong about same age, because you can see that most marriages /relationships DO have an age gap. Why wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/23 05:09 PM
1

No, it's not the same at all. Chemistry etc. is literally explained using physics, it's just a more specialized thing that historically was focused on interactions between different elements, but the existence of those elements as well as their interactions are all explained by physics. Physics works and exists without math, you just can't describe it and wouldn't be able to dig in as deep as you can now without math. Math is just laws of logic. They exist separately from laws of nature. Like, p…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/23 04:56 PM
–

There was no need to characterize what you will say before you said it. Of course it's delusional and incorrect, but then why even type it? No, of course they don't want to be with men their own age regardless. Saying that they do is easily shown to be wrong. Literally just go outside.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/23 02:40 AM
1

It isn't, physics exists without math. Many experimental discoveries were made by experimenting. Math is used as a language to describe what's going on. I don't struggle in life, never said I did. Either way you should see how you go ad hominem when you're wrong and can't say anything on the topic. You could just admit you're wrong and learn instead.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/23 02:38 AM
1

I also think sex work should be illegal. People who work as prostitutes should have jobs that produce something useful for society, not be human sex-dolls Who decides what's useful? Human sex-dolls can be very useful for many members of society. Much more useful than many other jobs you wouldn't question, including some very high-paid careers.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/23 05:25 AM
1

No, physics is physics, it's not applied math. Math is a "language", it's a separate thing. No, what you find interesting to study is often simply what you think will get you a good career. I never claimed myself to be anything. I used physics as an example, and after being asked 3 times you still didn't expand on your claim that different fields of physics mean different character traits. I don't have any pay expectations, again, I'm just using stats to define what is high relative to average. …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/23 09:03 PM
1

Incorrect, you just have zero knowledge of the field. That doesn't mean I'm the one who's obtuse. Quite the contrary. Optics is one of the physics fields, not engineering. That's just the one I picked. But again, engineering is just applied physics, nothing more, nothing less. It is not a pittance, just look at the distribution of pay. That number is well into 5% percentile. These are not my beliefs, these are facts. Well, whoever is reading is still for some reason can clearly see how you got n…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/23 01:44 AM
1

If their problem is worse than I think then it only makes my point stronger, not yours. Sure, dictatorships can and frequently do hide information, but the numbers for many others countries are solid, especially for what we would could call western civilizations+anything close to those. The thread is about first world countries anyway. If the flaw is that Chinese numbers are wrong, then nothing changes. If there's another flaw, then what is it? Having a flaw doesn't mean that everything can be t…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/23 10:43 PM
2

No, they are not. That's what fertility and birth rate numbers clearly show. The number increase is due to "inertia". If you look at the graph of population, you will see that the increase is no longer exponential or even linear, the second derivative right now is negative AKA the rate of growth is decreasing and if nothing changes the population will reach the maximum and start decreasing. Think of a position graph of motion with the positive initial speed but negative acceleration. There are n…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/23 09:49 PM
2

All the sources I linked agree on numbers, if there are any variations, they aren't great. It's not too soon, no. If those generations start having babies, the stats will show it. But right now we have what we have. The fact that more people live longer is just a factor that is decelerating the population decrease in the countries where fertility rate dropped below 2.1, but it can't overturn the trend. This can be easily demonstrated. Point is, those surviving people aren't having babies of thei…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/23 07:53 PM
2

What's wrong with all these data? https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?most_recent_value_desc=true https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate (scroll down to fertility rate: children per woman) https://www.prb.org/international/indicator/fertility/map/region (doesn't include a few countries). Never cared about the topic before, but just a quick search gave me quite a few sources showing that indeed the fertility rates and birth rates are very low in most places.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/23 10:24 AM
1

Ok, so basing everything on emotions. "To me" is not a criterion. Percentiles are. Top 10% is high-paid already, so 140,000 would do it. No one is talking about millionaires, those are rare and like top 1%. Right and it's clear that you can't judge a person based on the group they belong to, as already shown in the previous comment. It's akin to racism or sexism. It doesn't per se, it definitely shows that those people are opposite of what you described, though, when you said that they are autis…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/23 09:58 AM
1

That absolutely should not matter, but again, if it is, how exactly should I specify it? The field? Let's say optics. See, I asked and you could've already answered but you keep dodging and evading. It is a very highly paid job if it's not in academia. Academia and industry are very different numbers. Everything you're saying, again, is like from some astrology book. Something you read or heard somewhere and have no idea about. And your sources were wrong. And even if I didn't tell you that, why…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/07/23 08:27 PM
1

Yeah, that's what I was talking about. I know multiple people in the field who have zero of the traits you mentioned. Using a job to say who someone is is complete bs akin to astrology. Specific how? What types of experimental physicists are there that would be different? Those working with lasers are different from those working with particle accelerators? Are Leos different from Libras? This is nonsense. A job is what you do, not who you are.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/23 10:24 PM
1

Again, you're not answering the question. I'm not making a claim, it's not on me to provide examples unless I really want to. You're the one making the claim, so it is on you. All I'm saying is that you can have people with opposite personality traits doing the same job and therefore jobs are not what people are, they are just things people do. But just for fun - scientist/experimental physicist, go.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/23 10:10 PM
3

Non sequitur. It's like saying you women who want 6ft tall men, are you ready to be 6ft tall yourself? Men will be traditional if women will require that from men to get sex, like it used to be. Otherwise, they will be what the market wants them to be, but obviously will have their preferences still.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/23 09:05 PM
–

By receiving information and choosing to remember and use it. That's absolutely irrelevant here. Sexuality is not a choice. And no, what you're doing is called a false dilemma and your statement is wrong. It doesn't suggest that I don't believe in psychology. Not that I need to believe in it at all. It's not a science, after all, as its theories don't meet Popper's criteria of scientific theories. It was shown to have very low reproducibility rate, too. Either way, that's irrelevant here. The fa…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/23 09:04 PM
–

The former has nothing to do with the subject at hand, the latter - yup, just a form of gaslighting.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/23 08:48 PM
1

As a phenomenon, maybe, as the most common behavioral strategy - absolutely not.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/23 08:44 PM
1

Nope, you are the one who's just wrong. Language is learned but it naturally emerged to begin with. Laws didn't naturally emerge. Empathy is natural, no one said it wasn't. But so are other emotions and feelings. And our society discourages many of them, that's why it's unnatural. Niceness is not just about having empathy. Also, being sexually aggressive is not mutually exclusive with having empathy anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/23 08:20 AM
1

I'm not asking to go deep, I asked a yes or no question. And if your answer is yes then you're simply wrong and it's easily verifiable and was verified by many many people. Most people absolutely can't choose who they are attracted to.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/23 08:17 AM
1

Noting offends me, and you still didn't answer any of my questions and ask yours instead? Not how it works, nope. And yes, that's exactly the point, no job predicts personality, just like no hobby does. That's because they are things that people do.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/23 09:46 PM
1

It is actively unnatural in most cases because it seeks to limit many natural destructive behaviors and instincts. Or any that aren't beneficial to the society as a whole. Either way, it's irrelevant because clearly for an individual their individual instincts are more important and anything that limits those is unnatural. And if somebody beats you up or sends you to your room without dinner to make you act a certain way, then no, that way is not natural.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/23 09:45 PM
1

There is no direct link. And no, the fact that I don't see those links doesn't suggest that I'm not exposed to them. Given my background, it actually suggests that those links do not exist. Again, this is easily verifiable. You can't match a job to a personality. You can't use one to predict the other. Tell me a job and what type of personality it predicts, and I will show you somebody who is a complete opposite of that doing the same job.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/23 07:15 PM
1

Right, that's because that's what they all experienced. You can't be serious thinking you can tell a man that he will get hard no matter who or what his partner is when he knows that's not how it works. Even if that was true, being hypnotized is absolutely not the same thing as controlling it yourself. But basically, are you saying that homosexuals can just choose to not be homosexual or not? Is sexuality a choice in your opinion? Or is it a condition that can be "cured", say, in a church camp?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/23 07:12 PM
1

Nope, that would be a good argument if not for the fact that those same men have no troubles getting it up with other women shortly before and/or after. Also, why would you assume the partner's gender? If you're arguing with me, then you're also supporting the fact that people can choose who they are attracted to. So then homosexuality and heterosexuality is a choice. Being attracted or not attracted to inanimate objects or animals is also a choice. "It was a man and I'm heterosexual" or "I can'…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/23 06:16 PM
1

Why? So in your opinion everyone who disagrees with you has to be low skilled or dumb? Like, you can't imagine that someone is just more educated than you and you should listen and learn instead of sticking to your beliefs? Idk if a stem phd means I'm low skilled, maybe I am. But I don't need to be high-skilled in order to know what definitions mean and how logic works. I had quite a few years in academia and philosophy (of science) is one of the things I like studying for fun, even though it's …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/23 06:10 PM
1

No, I don't. I remember that, it's just irrelevant here. All those things are social, not natural. Naturally speaking, for a man to optimize his kid strategy, he doesn't need to invest resources in all of them. But then again, what if he can afford more than a kid with just one woman? The optimal strategy for a man is to have as many kids as possible and invest into as many of them as he can afford, hoping that the others will be raised without him by the mother only or with the help of another …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/23 06:03 PM
1

Exactly, and they never prefer any women over any other women and all women get the same amount of attention from the same caliber of men, right? Because it's not like it's possible for young men to have a weaker erection for a fat or ugly, or even a man, or an animal. You're making no sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/23 05:37 PM
1

No, that's incorrect. You're forming a team to achieve a goal. It's not about being nice. It's about getting along well enough to achieve the goal. There are multiple examples of overall toxic teams or teams where some people hate each other or dislike each other which still have high performance. A society doesn't require that members aren't constantly at odds with each other. That's some make-believe world. A society benefits greatly from competition and encourages it in many spheres. But most…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/23 05:35 PM
1

No, I'm looking at a job as something people do, which is what it is. You are looking at it incorrectly. It is not a proxy for personality whatsoever. People with different personalities can do and do the same jobs. People change jobs, too, as already mentioned many times. That doesn't suddenly change their personality etc. Physical traits are who you are, jobs are what you do.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/23 05:30 PM
–

It's absolutely not because one of them is resting during that hour to start making X per hour and the other to start making Y per hour when they go back to work. Only if X=Y is their time equally valuable. Another way to look at it is if someone makes more per unit time than the other, then, if we start counting in the morning, by the end of the work day their contributions are not equal. One contributed 8x and the other contributed 8y, so in order to equalize contributions or at least approach…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/23 05:27 PM
–

This makes no sense because their time is not necessarily equally valuable. One could be earning way more than the other per unit time. In this scenario, the other should put more time into the house so that their contributions are closer to equal.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/23 08:08 AM
1

It's not hard to discuss at all. We can clearly see what is more beneficial if we just consider the input parameters, which are, again, that women can get pregnant only by 1 man at a time, while men can impregnate many women.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/23 07:59 AM
1

Being a team and being nice are not the same at all. And this thread is about dating, not about functioning in the society. In these scenario those men don't need those women for anything else.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/23 07:58 AM
2

Riiight, that's why young men have no preferences and all young women get the same amount of sexual attention from them.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/23 07:57 AM
5

True, that's why there are no businesses making money off helping men get erections and that's why men never go soft with any women.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/23 09:19 PM
1

Sure, how is that relevant? We also learned to make weapons and whatnot. I'm talking about what's natural and instinctual. And no, from this point of view it might not be more beneficial. In fact, those are not the only 2 options. The winner is pretty clear - it's the system that we have now. Where every man gets access to women and having his own children. If they don't, then they just won't participate and care. That's how you get weak underdeveloped tribes who get assimilated by stronger neig…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/23 09:07 PM
1

Ok, so another proof that those societies don't develop and at this point they basically only exist because we allow them to as no one cares to conquer them/their lands. Polygamous and monogamous are social constructs. I'm not talking about those terms, really. I'm talking about the reality. And the reality is - women can have 1 child every 9 months, men can have many more children. That's just how nature made them and it made them like that for a reason. Whatever we enforce is a whole different…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/23 08:51 PM
1

Right, in which case I didn't misread it and there's a reason those societies are gone, together with the matriarchal ones. We don't need enough information about the structure back then, all we need to do is check which societies stood the test of time and survived.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/23 08:43 PM
5

Huh? Could you link to the exercise regimen that would allow men to consistently make their penis hard with their mind? And keep it that way no matter who their sex partner is. Speaking of which, if men can control who they're attracted to, where is the line? Does it only include different women? How about men? Other species? Inanimate objects? What about ages?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/23 08:24 PM
1

Those things are not similar at all. You don't need to brainwash children to start speaking, you just need to speak around them - and they pick it up, too. Being nice is not natural.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/23 08:18 PM
1

You said this " Considering that people used to live in close-knit communities, there are some theories that women used to sleep with multiple men so multiple men would "father" the kids. Kids were of a community, not of a couple. " For some reason as a quote. Other than that you didn't add anything else. If you realized how men are paying finally, then that's great.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/23 08:16 PM
1

Huh? Quite a lot? How many out of 4 billion? Your weird exceptions of some perverted cuckold communes don't change anything. Where is that model? Why didn't it go big while the systems that ensure paternity did? That's because it's that important for men, so the systems that gave that to men absolutely outcompeted those that didn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/23 12:53 PM
1

Huh? Were you trying to reply to somebody else/another comment? In no way I am getting upset or have any emotional reaction to any of this. Right, if the job displays some superiority and she's into that, then she's into what the man can do for her, not into who he is. Again, a job is what we do, not who we are. If he lost or changed his job today, he wouldn't stop being who he is. Why is this is hard to grasp?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/23 12:50 PM
1

It absolutely isn't because we are now social creatures. If it was natural, it wouldn't need to be encouraged. We would just do it because it's natural. But it isn't, so we have to encourage it.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/23 12:47 PM
1

How is top 10%-5% not impressive?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/23 10:18 PM
1

That's right. Where did you see men approaching for friendship? Most friends men have are men, they didn't approach each other.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/23 10:15 PM
1

What planet are you from haha? Where do you see men approaching other men for friendship? Most friends are made in school or shared activities where you don't approach, you just do stuff and bond. Why would you want to get to know a stranger and cold approach them? No, if you're approaching, you're doing it with some goal in mind, you want to get to know them for some purpose.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/23 10:14 PM
–

Yeah, it's not getting better with age or the duration of an LTR either.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/23 09:55 PM
1

That's probably because men understand that marriage is not about happiness and being happy in marriage is not a necessary condition.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/23 09:53 PM
1

It is really proven and you can verify it yourself very easily. Ask any man if he'd rather be monogamous or had sexual variety. Your results will be very straightforward. Also, it's not something separate from the reproductive instinct that you need to "prove". That is simply math and logic of it in action. Why else do men have a much shorter recharge period between creating babies? Obviously, those men who didn't use this or couldn't use it with multiple women didn't propagate their genes. She …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/23 09:51 PM
1

because being nice is accessible and relatively easy to achieve compared to the many other things a man could do/have to be attractive to women. Not really. It takes decades of brainwashing by parents and society. I remember very well being pretty far from nice even as late as teen years. Niceness is not natural and in many cases our instincts would tell us to be aggressive and the opposite of nice. And that's one of the reasons many men feel lied to. They were lied to. They were told being nice…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/23 09:45 PM
1

What are you on about? The reproductive instinct is well known. No, she's not paying anything, not in the same sense, she can't be pregnant by multiple men simultaneously. She picks one. He on the other had could keep trying to get other women pregnant during her pregnancy. It's not the same thing at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/23 09:13 PM
1

Sure, we're talking about the ones that are pretty well known, though, and are observed and studied in other mammals extensively as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/23 08:18 PM
1

Right, which are all products of our instinct to have kids. Which is why men have an instinct to have many women and women have an instinct to get the best man they can get. That's why if she picked this man she got what she wanted, but he "pays" by being monogamous.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/23 02:14 PM
1

Irrelevant, she can only get pregnant by 1 man.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 08:54 PM
1

Exactly. So my scenario fits here perfectly. The man in this case knows that the kid isn't his. He just doesn't know it when the kid is born, but he does know it at some point later. Yet, he is forced to pay.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 08:54 PM
1

That's what I'm saying. And what is considered "fat" in the paper you posted, is definitely not fat fat. So the point that we only started obsessing about being skinny recently is just bad. It's just that in the past we didn't have to obsess because we were much skinnier as a whole.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 08:53 PM
1

Do you... just... not understand what this thread is about? It's not about legal status or terminology or anything like that. It's about raising kids of other men knowingly. I was obviously referring to the scenario where the woman cheated or got raped or something and the man thinks/hopes that the child is his, but then it turns out that it isn't his. In many cases the government will force him to raise that child anyway, effectively it's a government-mandated step kid.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 12:18 PM
0

That's a bad take. Why would a given man have to pay because of how giving birth works? She would suffer all that damage anyway, whether it would be with another man or as a single mother. Now, if she doesn't want kids, then maybe don't marry a man who does and/or don't have kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 12:12 PM
1

What was considered fat in the past is absolutely not the same thing we consider fat now. Don't forget this, it's only about 100 years ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 11:58 AM
–

No one said it was only for sex, OP said that sex was the main reason. And then highly successful, attractive men would never get into commited relationships. that's not how you support your point. You need to consider if those men would never get into committed relationship without sex. That's just how logic works. It's pointless to look for positive examples, you need to check if no negative example is possible.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 11:42 AM
-1

Would only consider it if it's open on one end. Okay, if it has to be fair and equal treatment, maybe I'd consider it if it's open on both ends but only open to other women, not men. Would take occasional extra girls (3+ somes) for variety as a compromise instead of just having an opportunity to get with them on my own.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 11:37 AM
0

The father of that child is still using you, though. You are raising his genetic legacy for him. But of course, in this scenario only 1 person is using you as opposed to 2 (both mother and father), so I guess it is a little better.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 11:09 AM
1

Then who are they and why do people want to have them?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 11:07 AM
1

Unless you are too late to find out that the kid isn't yours. Then you are stuck paying for a step kid. There are many examples.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 11:05 AM
0

Think opportunity cost. He could be and should be inseminating other women, but he's not doing it because if he does then this one will leave him and he might not get any at all. Not to mention all that effort he needs to become a man who's valuable enough to even be considered/visible to this woman. Also, it's not really correct to just consider the time when they are already married and ignore the fact that he most likely paid for everything at the beginning. It's not like he got reimbursed.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/23 10:56 AM
1

Most men can't do it. If they dump, when is the next time they get a woman? Having sex once every couple of years is not really living the lifestyle. That's why most men are involuntarily monogamous.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/23 09:22 AM
1

Define average or it's pointless to discuss. So far, the guy you described is definitely above or about average (average man would be fat and balding at that age) unless his face is super ugly (but then he would know and wouldn't be surprised). Yet, no one would be surprised that some guys like that struggle. So your own example would disprove your title.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/23 06:55 PM
1

But if you start dating someone and expect them to change what they do for work, Hard no. For example, it's absolutely normal for people to get together when they are young and have bad jobs are students and expect their bf/gf to get a better job, or to get a promotion, or to, you know, graduate and not stay a student. Your rule is not a thing, people are just using a buzzword for something they don't like, even though you can dislike something without calling it misogynistic, abusive, controlli…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/23 06:54 PM
–

Yeah no, she is right. It's just like women starting relationships with men knowing they would prefer to be able to sleep with other women or have ffm threesomes, but the women then go and require monogamy instead. Many women exhibit this controlling behavior. Seriously though, it doesn't matter what she was before they started dating. Maybe he was ok with her being like that back then, but then he stopped being ok. It's not like he can control how he feels. So he drew new boundaries, she didn't…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/23 03:47 PM
1

I posted the link to show you that people do stuff like that inspired by other movies, too, and that porn is not special. Sure, that doesn't sound great. But did you forget what comment you responded to? My point is that you don't need to talk about how porn is unrealistic when all movies are. You started arguing with that, so clearly I will keep pushing that line. Simply saying that it doesn't sound great would have nothing to do with the argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/23 09:03 AM
1

And no one is making excuses for criminals inspired by movies. In conclusion, fiction can inspire people to do things they shouldn't do that would harm other people. Porn is not special so no need to single it out.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/23 08:42 AM
1

People do stuff inspired by movies all the time. Most of it is harmful to themselves but some of it is harmful to other people. A simple google search would yield this, for example, as the evidence. And there is more.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/23 08:28 AM
1

Looks better than before, but because it's (and degeneracy), technically, it's still not quite there. Whoever will find this exchange will understand though haha. Thing is though, you're using that definition to evaluate a hypothetical man saying what's in the example. So how would you know if degeneracy is implied if it's not spoken about directly. And most people won't say it even if they imply it. That's not a critique of the example, but more of a question to you. The second one I don't feel…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 08:46 PM
1

You should edit and add that somewhere then. I'm just reading what is written and what I say is based on that. The way it is right now, only the 3rd example is valid, others don't fit your definition, even including what's in the link.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 08:26 PM
1

That's not how the example was formulated, no. The third example was about degeneracy and I already commented on it before. Now I was talking about the first example. The OF example. It's also the example that was referenced in your link.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 08:00 PM
1

My bad I meant to write about the latter, but wrote about the former. Thad doesn't change anything, though. "OF creators are gross, porn is immoral. Except when I watch it, then it's ok because reasons." This is still not hypocrisy even by your definition for the same reasons as the original example. Let's do it step by step this time, we need to identify values and behavior and show that they aren't matching. First, behavior. The behavior is that he is watching porn. Ok. Now, this needs to cont…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 07:48 PM
1

Sure, he can choose that, as I already said. That doesn't change anything. I'm not talking about a hypothetical man. I'm talking about you and what you said. You were wrong when you said which one of the two would be selfish. Again, the man is not necessarily rich and can afford to pay for both. He can choose to be with her and not want to work more than he has to in order to cover his half.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 07:42 PM
1

No, I never said that. Can you not follow the discussion? I don't think I even used the word option once in this discussion. Could be wrong though, but definitely not in this context. All I said is that mathematically you're wrong, and someone can contribute more even if they work less. And it doesn't mean they should work even more.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 07:41 PM
1

No, because you don't have enough info to say that his values are inconsistent. You just said that he values not making porn. Nothing about watching or not watching it was said. I already showed what conditions would need to be met for it to fit your definition. This is your definition hypocrisy as when your values don’t match your behavior. It would only work IF he values not watching but watches it or he values not making but making it. But you're trying to mix 2 and it doesn't work that way. …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 07:26 PM
3

No, that's the point. So you can't base anything on what you see on the street.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 07:20 PM
1

What you're describing is not partnership. It's a low-paid person taking advantage of the high-paid person. It's selfish to do that. It's not selfish to expect equal contribution. And I wasn't even saying it should be expected. I'm just saying that you're wrong if you expect someone to contribute more than half or they are somehow selfish. No. That would make you selfish. Again, he doesn't care if she contributes equally. This whole thing started because she (well, you) expects him to contribute…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 07:05 PM
1

No, I just mathematically showed you how it's the other way around and you're the one defending being selfish. You are saying that the person who contributes more per unit time needs to work more time ANYWAY, which necessarily results in them contributing more than a half. And you actually want them to contribute more than a half and aren't ok with them pulling their weight. That is textbook selfish. And no one is "making" her work. In this imaginary scenario he can't pay for both of them.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 07:04 PM
5

For starters, you don't know if people you see on the street are satisfied with their relationships. Like truly satisfied and don't think it would be better. Secondly, you don't even registered uncoupled men on the street, looks like. That would affect your stats a lot.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 07:02 PM
1

No, it's still not hypocrisy. Creating content and consuming it are 2 different things. You can judge/shame creators but be ok with consumers and vice versa. It's only hypocrisy if you're doing what you say no one should be doing.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 07:00 PM
1

Yes, your definition is good enough. What I'm saying is just that the principle is wrong. There are no anyone's definitions. There are conventional ones. Yes, you didn't define protons as bananas and you were close enough. This was a bait for a different type of people, you could move along since the beginning. More important is the second part. In my original comment I explained how it's incorrect. I used your definition, too, or the one very close to it anyway. Like, if I value people not maki…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 06:53 PM
4

That's a bad no-true-scottsman argument, you see it, right? Like ok, they are just not average. Sure. How about, maybe they are just not men? I mean, why do you think all these manosphere forums are so big? How many examples of genuinely average men struggling do you need to believe? Why is this so hard to believe that most men were raised unprepared for how current dating and women are?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 06:42 PM
1

That doesn't matter as the point still stands. It's possible to work more hours and contribute less. When you said that you contribute more if you work more hours you were wrong. Why is this so hard to grasp?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 06:37 PM
1

Right, there is no such thing as "my definition" of anything. There's a definition. Words have meanings. Otherwise, what is your definition of a proton? Should anyone care if it's different from the real one? Either way, that's not the point. The point is that you used even your own definition incorrectly in 2 out of 3 examples.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 06:36 PM
1

No, not worse. And he's not treating her like anything btw. I'm just explaining how to measure contributions. If she wants to be equal and not selfish, she needs to try to get as close to 50% as possible. He probably doesn't care if she's equal though and will hire people to do chores. There is no hypothetical man. I'm just showing you that you're wrong when you're saying the person who contributes more is selfish. A rich man is just an extreme example. Now that you supposedly got the concept, i…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 06:35 PM
0

Almost got it. Not a double standard but 2 different standards for 2 different sexes.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 06:27 PM
1

It doesn't matter how you or I define hypocrisy. There's a dictionary definition. Well, different dictionaries have different definitions, but they are all very similar. You're looking at something like "Saying that certain behavior is unacceptable but indulging in it yourself." The actual definition is something like "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case." So your definition is close enough. However, most people have troubles applying the defi…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 06:27 PM
1

Sure, a few dollars is good enough. My point holds. You can work more hours but contribute less if your contribution per hour is less. No, the min wage jobs don't treat anyone well. Paying min wage means they would pay even less if they could, it's just illegal. It's not about wages though. It's about logic and math. Do you not understand the math and how it's possible for someone to contribute less even if they work more?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 04:28 PM
1

You do if your wage is the same, if not then, not necessarily. No, in real life they won't necessarily be paid the same. Definitely not in my hypothetical scenario. In fact - and that's how it would be fair IRL as well - you can imagine that they are paid per plate washed.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 04:26 PM
1

Similarly, but not the same. And obviously if they aren't paid the same, it's possible that one of them works more hours than the other, but is still paid less. It's just math. Yes, they can cooperate or whatever. But if the slower one expects the faster one to contribute more but to be paid the same, then he's the selfish one.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 10:19 AM
1

No, you would be able to negotiate more based on performance. Not all hourly workers in the same position are paid the same. And that's not even mentioning bonuses and such. In this scenario, the slower washer would probably be fired (if his rate is lower than desired) or the faster one would be rewarded (if his rate is faster).
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/23 10:15 AM
7

Whaaaa? Movies are unrealistic? No way! Would you also say the same about action movies? Scifi? Even comedies? No? You wouldn't have to cause clearly they are movies and are for entertainment? Then why do you have to single porn out?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/23 09:55 PM
83

Was about to comment something similar, too. How come he needs to keep performing his role in her life because she's used to living like that, but she doesn't need to perform her role for him? Not to mention, that statistically she is the one who divorced him in 80% cases.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/23 09:29 PM
0

Hope your husband doesn’t dump you because he decides he wants to bang his secretary I guess? LOL why would he dump her for it? An ideal scenario for him would be have the family AND bang the secretary.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/23 09:27 PM
1

Incorrect, I'll fix it for you. If one wants the other to contribute more, they are a selfish partner. Period. End of story. Hours are not a metric of contribution. Say, both of you are washing dishes. You washed 15 plates out of 30 and he washed 5 in the same time. Did you contribute equally because you worked the same hours? No. 5 plates still need washing. Moreover, if he worked twice your hours he would wash 10 plates and STILL contribute LESS than you.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/23 09:26 PM
1

If you earn less per unit time, then you could contribute less even if you work more. Why is that such a surprise? Obviously, that's up to some tipping point where if you work more and more you will catch up. If person A makes more than person B per hour, then for the person B to contribute as much as person A, they need to work more proportionally to the ratio of their wages. Not less like you suggest. And certainly not zero hours, that makes no sense. If person A makes N times more than B, the…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/23 03:38 PM
1

Wow, you're really bad at math, aren't you? Also, irrelevant is not cheaper. You should do as many hours of housework as it takes to make your contribution as close to 50% as possible. That is not zero. You're moving in the opposite direction, actually.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/23 02:50 PM
1

Hours of labor are irrelevant. Only the outcome are relevant. If you earn 80k in 40 hours and he earns 200k in 12 hours, then he contributes more than you because 200k > 80k, it's simple really. When you're talking about who's contributing more, you ought to compare contributions, not hours of labor. You are mathematically wrong, not me. Working all day and then coming home and working more is still contributing less in this scenario because your labor is cheaper (200k/12/52 > 80k/40/52)
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/23 11:06 AM
1

Even then, I'd argue that a lot of them aren't passionate. And I know how it might sound, but I will go there and bring up big female streamers. Most of them aren't passionate about their games or gaming at all. A lot of them are average at best, definitely aren't good, and all they are doing is webcamming without getting naked. Not even talking about pools and beaches loophole. Right, I forgot about what happened to airbnb lol. It's like that star wars meme haha. And yeah, all those gurus, too.…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 11:51 PM
1

No, mathematically speaking it sounds like you are selfish because you expect him to contribute more than you.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 11:45 PM
1

Not necessarily, not anymore at least. Back when it all started, sure. But at this point, they just know it's one of the best sources of income if you're lazy. Like girls doing onlyfans. Not all of them are passionate exhibitionists, some are just passionate about easy money. Hahah but yeah, you see my point. I had to add gamers just to have some sort of list. Cause yeah... ThE rEnT iS iNcReAsInG tO mAtCh ThE mArKeT. What market? I'm not getting paid more. Are there rich people moving from somew…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 10:47 PM
1

Are you reading yourself before posting? Or do you not see the difference between the value of a person and the value of time? I never said anything about any inherent value of a person. But the value of time is literally quantifiable by the amount of money made during that time. I'm not talking about gold diggers either. I'm showing to everyone that it's not about him not sitting around for you. It's about control and jealousy and making sure he doesn't have more fun than you. And about money. …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 09:58 PM
-1

I am not wrong and literally showed to everyone who was reading, that when you opened with " Don't sit around and play video games all day basically. " you were lying or didn't understand what you actually wanted, but later on admitted that " If he has passive income then cool, he can game all he wants." Also, you were saying something about being equal and then say you're ready for him to pay for everything while you would do nothing. So not so much about being equal huh? You of course dodged t…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 09:53 PM
1

No one wants to be working all day, coming back from work exhausted to their wealthy partner who just chilled all day and be asked for sex, dates etc. But that directly contradicts what you just said above. "If you make more, then I compensate another way". Would you want to be with a partner who could chill all day while you were out there busting your ass at work when they could easily support you so you too could chill all day and play video games with them or do other stuff together? Ok, fir…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 09:48 PM
1

If you really think it's equal for one person to sit there while the other works their ass off, I'm sorry for you. What? Where did I say that. I said it's equal for one person to contribute as much money as the other person. If that leaves them more time to sit there, good for them. No one is holding any score over their head. They should keep the score themselves and understand if their contribution is equal. How can it be a fair partnership if you expect your partner to contribute more than yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 09:42 PM
-1

I'm doing amazingly. To the point where I exposed you, for example, and you went through my comment history to see where you can reply. You can't make this up. That is textbook salty.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 09:39 PM
1

In this scenario then there might not be enough money anymore. And no he doesn't "think" anything. He just can afford to pull his weight working less hours than you. If you love him, why wouldn't you want him to enjoy his life? You said that's what people who love their loved ones do.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 09:38 PM
1

And men want to be valued for theirs, as well. Yet, we live in the real world and women value what they value. It doesn't matter what you want to be valued for. If you want a person you need to know what they value and see if you can give them that. That's pretty obvious, no? Supply, demand, and all that. And how is leading with sex an indicator that men don't value anything else? Sex is just a necessary factor, but not sufficient. Hobbies and interests are not human qualities. They don't make y…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 08:24 PM
3

How do you answer the question in the OP, then? It's about money, not about traits, judging by what you said so far, right? I'm just trying to formulate the general rule that applies everywhere. And people with passive income and streamers aren't unheard of. My point was, that it's not just about ambition and grind, but about the outcome. And it's not about having a job of my own, too. What if I'm an ambitious teacher or some other low-paid worker? Then you would have to support me, too, in a wa…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 08:16 PM
1

That makes no sense and is incorrect. Hours worked have some value, too. It's absolutely unfair, for example, to divide housework 50-50 when incomes are, for example, 80-20. Diving housework by hours is a recipe for unequal contributions.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 08:09 PM
3

Of course, why wouldn't they? Think about it, you already had 20 years of observations showing that what's hot in a woman is hot, no matter how old you are. Why would that change 20 years later? Also, the old men who do have opportunities, do have sex with younger women. Let's take rich old men or not-so rich old men who go to cheaper sex workers (maybe in other countries). Do they select for older women? No, they go for the hottest, which are usually younger.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 07:19 PM
1

Because, you said" If he doesn’t want me to enjoy my life with him, then he doesn’t love me. " and this can be applied to a gender-reversed scenario. If he makes enough not to work and you love him, why wouldn't you want him to enjoy his life? No, he won't necessarily be a homemaker. That would depend on how much money each of you brings.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 07:15 PM
0

No, that's not all they want. They just all most women know how to give. Of course they will push for sex on the first date. You are on tinder. For all he knows, he's not your first match and you probably had other men before him. How else will he make sure that you're actually attracted to him? He needs to know you won't make him wait more than you made any man in your past wait. But forget about sex for a second. Let's say, sex happened. What else do you give him? Because if you think men are …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 07:08 PM
2

His time is not more valuable than mine just based on how much he earns. Everyone gets the same amount of time. One hour is one hour whether you're at an office or doing dishes. And those hours are what lead to measurable consequences of exhaustion and pain. Yes, it is if he earns more than you. That's literally how it works. If when he spends one hour and you all can have a dinner in a michellin star restaurant, but when you spend one hour you can only afford fast food, then you see how his one…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 07:02 PM
1

Right, but no one is saying they don't participate in life. If anything, PC to watch porn and play games are very expensive, games cost some money too. They'd just rather stay home than spend time with her, that's all. And no, most men are interested in relationships and millenials are in relationships and are starting families. Not all men are not interested. And if that was the case, what I'd expect his person to do is to become a more pleasant time spent than time spent with porn and games. A…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 06:56 PM
1

Why shouldn't it be okay IF they make enough money? They have to make enough money, though. Money is not the most important thing for me, no. But how else would you measure contribution? And namely because money is not the most important thing for me, why wouldn't I love it if my gf didn't have to work even though I still have to? That's great for her, isn't it? But how is money not the most important thing for you if you expect the man to contribute the more the better. And if his time is more …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 06:32 PM
1

Sure, if they just want kids. But she's not looking for sperm banks, is she? She's looking for a man on dating app. And who's talking about man-child? Don't you see that every man she met in 5 years is a man-child? How probable does that sound to you? Exactly. The problem is clearly her, not all men. And it's not even about her. If anyone wants anyone else, they need to learn what that anyone else wants and give it to them, otherwise, why would that person want to be with them? A man can cry tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 06:24 PM
1

He wants you to enjoy his life, but we're not talking about him. We're talking about you. What if he's not a millionaire and can't support both of us, but has just enough passive income so that he doesn't need to work. And if he wants more, he would need to work 40hr a week. Why wouldn't you want him to not work then? Also, your logic is funny because you wouldn't follow it if it was applied to you. So, if someone loves somebody else they want them to have what they want, right? Then surely you …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 06:19 PM
0

Yes it is. They're both required to survive. They're both necessary. Just because one is paid and one is unpaid doesn't mean they're unequal. No, it doesn't mean they are unequal, but the fact that they are both necessary doesn't mean they are numerically equal. That's just not how units work. 1m and 1cm are both necessary and are both length, but they aren't equal. For example, let's take a chore, say, dishwashing. What would its cost be? $10/hr? How many hours a week do you spend doing it? Let…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 06:13 PM
0

Hahah that's what I've been doing in this very thread today
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 05:29 PM
0

If he has passive income then cool, he can game all he wants. I expect that the amount of work to be done evenly though. Right, so it's about money, not about sitting around and playing games all day. If it takes 60 hours to earn enough money to survive and 20 hours to keep the household thriving each week, then each partner should be doing 40 hours. If he has enough money to lower the amount of hours that either of us need to do, by hiring maids or getting passive income so he can earn and clea…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 04:43 PM
1

Right, even if that means you still need to work?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 04:31 PM
1

Sure, doesn't matter who, though. Because you replied to my comment replying to that comment (for some reason, when I clearly was trying to talk to that person not you). Everything I say below the original comment will be obviously based on that comment. That's how it works. Ok then, if it's not you, first make a statement who's a loser for you and is it about money or about making sure he doesn't enjoy life. So far you said both in different comments. Keep in mind the title of the OP, ofc.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 04:12 PM
2

What if he has passive income, inherited a lot of money, or makes money playing video games and streaming? Why do you care about him sitting around and playing? Is it about control/jealousy and making sure he doesn't enjoy life more than you or about him pulling his weight? Why should the amount of work be 50/50, why not the contribution? If he earns his 50 doing less work why should he be punished for it with even more work?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 04:08 PM
2

They can't relative to the cost of living. What they make in California will seem good in midwest but they still can't afford to live without roommates for the most part. And yes, you absolutely did talk about passion. You said it was about them doing something, not about money. When now it turns out it's about the money so that he can support the family alone, not 50-50. And by loser I say he has no passion, no drive, he’s lazy af. It doesn’t even matter if you’re temporarily unemployed. Just D…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 04:02 PM
3

How do I feel about stay at home moms? No, that's how I feel about what you said in the original comment. What you wanted was money, but you lied about wanting other things that in your mind correlate with money in the future. How is that not what happened?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 03:58 PM
1

Is he supposed to support family alone and it's not about equality? Ok then why lie about passion and drive and whatnot, when all you really care about is if he has money?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 03:50 PM
2

Ok, in this case a man is not a loser if he's lazy, he's a loser if he has no money. Because from what you said it directly follows that you would rather get a lazy man with a lot of money than a passionate low-paid man. Passion, ambitions, laziness, etc. - nothing matters. Money matters. But you did have to mention those things not to seem shallow. It's all clear now, thanks.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 03:49 PM
5

This makes no sense, then he would need to work more, not less, which defeats the point. Why can't he work enough to cover his half? Would you be okay if he didn't work and contribute at all? You probably wouldn't, but that's what you expect him to be okay with.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 03:37 PM
4

What do you mean nope when all your answers show that yes? Why do you want him to provide for you to stay home? You literally just said you don't want him to be a loser, so you wouldn't pay his bills to stay home if he was unemployed. Why is it not enough for him to pull his weight? Why should he work even more so you don't have to work, then wouldn't you be a loser? And what if he doesn't even have a chance to provide for both, but does have a job that allows him to work little and make enough …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 03:35 PM
1

Ok, so it's not about money, it's about control and making sure he doesn't enjoy his life more than you. Thank you for your response.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 03:30 PM
4

So it's about jealousy and control then? If he's pulling his half of income and manages to do it in less than 60 hours a week, so he still has time to play games, that's not good enough? Teachers make shit relative to the cost of living, at least when they are young, they get more money if they keep working in the same district though. Similar situation for many scientists, especially at the post doc level. Point is, what if somebody makes a lot of money without being passionate about what they …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 03:29 PM
-2

It doesn't just suck, though. You're trying to get a relationship from men but refuse to even think about what kind of woman they want, let alone become that woman. Anyway, good luck. Hopefully, it just stops just sucking by itself somehow.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 02:53 PM
0

Well, the fact that you can't answer this question is why you can't find a man who'd rather spend time with you. I mean, even if all they want is just sex, are you giving them that? Regardless, of what they want, if that's what you think they want and you're not giving them that, then why would you expect to find anyone and are surprised it sucks and it's been 5 years? Idk, if you still think all men are the problem at this point, then it might take another few years.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 02:34 PM
-2

Do you know what guys you want want from women and are you trying to provide that? Most guys your age would rather sit at home with games and porn because most women they encountered just don't give them anything. I think, if you find the answer the question in the first sentence, you will find a man who would rather spend time with you. I mean, even porn and games could be more fun with you than without you haha.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 02:04 PM
6

What if he has a lot of money because his family is rich? What if he built (maybe with parents' help, maybe not) some passive income or if he's a streamer or something? They could be making more money than you while still being lazy. Would you go for a passionate teacher or a nurse or a scientist who's barely making any money? Like, who's a bigger loser here? I'd say people with drive and low-paying jobs are. High-paid lazy losers can make more than them. Would you really care that much about dr…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 01:58 PM
7

That's how they are saying they want him to have money without saying they want him to have money. Ambitious, grind etc - just means they expect him to start making more money soon. Some people here say stuff along the lines of "as long as he's not lazy or sitting home playing video games". Please. You think they would go for an ambitious/passionate school teacher over an unemployed gamer who was born into money? Or a high-earning streamer who makes money sitting home and playing games? Or someo…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/23 01:53 PM
–

That's incorrect. My logic is a reflection of my understanding of reality. You clearly don't understand how any of this works and should reread what you're replying to, especially the part you quoted. You are attaching your value based on the number of women you bed around, but in fact it just proves you lack value yourself, because for you - at least the kind of women you go with - are just commodities to buy, sell and discard. No. As I explained, it's the opposite of that. You don't attach the…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/23 10:54 PM
8

This is 100% an ad. It's like those ads where they ask how much people have on their bank account, and everyone is broke until a girl says she has 5-6 digits because she sells pics on feetfinder.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/23 07:11 PM
1

I lost count of how many times you're trying to assume I don't mean what I say. I know exactly what I'm saying. No, I'm not emotional. Statements about emotional states are facts if they are true, which they are. Who is talking about slaves? You are all over the place and can't follow the conversation yet accuse me of being emotional. But sure, status is relevant, too. Only high-status men having options is sort of the point here. Most men are not high-status and therefore are involuntarily mono…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/23 02:07 PM
1

I am not angry, I am completely neutral. I am simply reporting things here. This is not just my opinion, no. This is how most men think/feel/work and what they would truly prefer if given the choice/options. Unfortunately, most men never get those options. Simply look at powerful men now let alone in ancient times and see what they would choose - having just 1 woman or having multiple or main+concubines. You're in denial at this point.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/23 01:31 PM
1

People want variety and novelty. "instincts" are based solely on biology. This isn't actually biology, is it? This is just society not trusting women.... What are you going on about? What society? What people? I'm not talking about variety and novelty in general. Also, no one is talking about trust? What does trust have to do with anything? Men don't want their women to sleep with other men because it's disgusting and repulsive to them, not because of trust issues. Did you forget what the convo …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/23 10:51 AM
1

If you're talking about intimacy (which I do acknowledge a lot of people get mixed up with sex) then how is multiple partners solely for me but not women going to help? How is it not going to help? Men want variety and novelty and also want to not trigger their instincts responsible for disgust due to potential paternity fraud. Of course having multiple partners only on their end is perfect. How is it not? How would women having multiple partners be good for men? Doesn't make sense. Some are. No…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/23 09:47 AM
1

Why? Isn't sex supposed to be a need? Huh? What does that have to do with anything? It's not just about sex as an act in vacuum. Or.....they can be poly. And find a poly woman. Or of course, you can acknowledge that you're poly and that other people aren't. There's nothing actually wrong with being poly - you do understand that, right? What? You can't just choose to be attracted to something you're not attracted to. If they wanted an open relationship ideally - and poly women were attracted to t…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/23 10:12 PM
1

Again with this. Sex workers are not option for many men. They are illegal in most countries, not to mention prohibitively expensive. Are illegal options options? Then rape would be cheaper. Besides, again, the idea is to have sex with an implication that it's not something directly transactional. So no, sex work is not an option and committing a crime is not an option. Oh, and I almost forgot, that it's about actually living life and having family/procreating. That's why since most men won't be…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/23 09:12 PM
1

No, that's incorrect and we already discussed how some people have no viable choices. There's an example literally in the last comment you replied to.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/23 07:05 PM
1

Again, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. No one is talking about a general direction in life, here we're talking about having a consistent sex life. Also no, not for everyone. Only for those who can also not be single. THEN if they are single - it's their choice. Otherwise, they had no other choice, which is the case for most monogamous men.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/23 02:41 PM
1

It's not an option if you're not choosing it but are forced to do it. Also, how is that an option anyway when as we established the goal is to have a satisfying sex life? For most men being single doesn't lead to that.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/23 02:31 PM
1

That is incorrect. Other people have those options, these people tried to see if they have options, too, but found out that they don't and had to accept not what they would want. Thus, involuntary.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/23 12:18 PM
0

Good question. There's no such thing as high-value in general. There's no value if there's no market. It could be what they find high-value, though, but nobody asked about that. The context was relationship/men. I'm talking about all those dating and sexual dynamics podcasts. In particular, I think some of the Kevin Samuels's calls had examples of those women.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/23 10:18 AM
1

I saw many youtube videos where women say something along the lines of "I'm a high-value woman because I have my own business"
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/23 09:47 AM
1

There isn't. They tried everything else and it didn't work. It's literally in the same sentence.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/23 09:37 AM
1

Because they tried every other option other than paying if they can even afford it. With how expensive and illegal in most places it is, that's not a viable option anyway. It does answer the question you asked. That is why that's their only option to get consistent sex. What other legal options do they have? If you know, you should publish a book and get rich. Also if you did and it actually worked, the whole sex part of manosphere would cease to exist. It is involuntary by definition from oxfor…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/23 08:40 PM
1

Why? Idk, because they aren't able to do anything to change things short-term and who knows about long-term. Not only, there are other definitions. For example, "done against someone's will; compulsory" this one fits just fine.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/23 07:08 PM
1

There is no choice to be made, that is their only option to get consistent sex. Depends on their budget. Besides, obviously explicitly transactional sex is not what's meant in these discussions. I already understood it, you don't seem to. The word involuntary doesn't need to exist if it were defined the way you're trying to define it. But it does exist and you can find it in many dictionaries. You simply don't understand what it means.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/23 04:29 PM
1

Incorrect. It's only really a choice if you have options to choose from. Besides, how does a celibate person who is turned down by everyone choose to be celibate? Oh right, I guess if he's strong enough he could rape someone, right? What if he isn't though? According to your attempt to define the term, almost nothing is involuntary, like you can't even be involuntarily homeless, which is just dumb.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/23 03:30 PM
0

That's up to them. Some of them are in one-sided arrangements, some in two-sided. "Pretty sure" is not really an argument here either way. We know they sleep around for sure, we don't know if their partners do, so why assume. Whatever arrangement they are in is probably the arrangement they choose themselves which most men don't get to do, which is an indicator of their value. Some of them could have a cuckold fetish, I won't judge them for that. An incredibly low value for a man is not being ab…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/23 03:00 PM
1

Dying without something has nothing to do with it's voluntariness. If you can't get something as opposed to choosing not to have it even though you could then then it's involuntary. You can be involuntarily celibate, monogamous, nonmonogamous, etc. The scenario discussed here is involuntary, those men can't get sex consistently outside of LTR, so they are involuntary monogamous.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/23 02:54 PM
1

Exactly, so if they want to have a consistent sexual life they have no choice but to be monogamous. That is their only viable option therefore it's not voluntary. It would be if they had a choice between just sleeping around while being single, sleeping with others or having threesomes while being in an LTR, or being monogamous in an LTR. If given those 3 choices they chose monogamy, then yes, that would be voluntary.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/23 02:18 PM
1

Again, no. That's the point. Most men can't sleep with who they want. Most men can barely get laid when single.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/23 01:50 PM
2

I would be hard pressed, yes, because I am not high value. Basically, whether you're able to find that arrangement is a man is an indicator of your value. Celebrities aren't hard pressed, for example.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/23 01:22 PM
1

Of course not, they can't find another partner easily, that's the point. Most women aren't poly to begin with.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/23 01:20 PM
3

We're talking about sexual/relationship market, so not really. Men define HVW, women define HVM. Think about it, say overnight women preferences changed but what men respect in men didn't. And now rich tall men with six-packs can't get laid and can only get sex via relationships, while nerds or fat unemployed men have women all over them - then suddenly even though men respect hard work etc etc of the former group, the latter group is high-value.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/23 11:03 AM
5

You're confused. What you find high-quality is not the same thing as high-value. Whether the man has high value is defined by the market, not by you. It's an objective value (as far as the superposition of subjective values can be objective).
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/23 10:53 AM
1

It can hardly be called a choice to be monogamous since they don't have an option to not be monogamous.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/23 10:48 AM
1

Well, loyalty is loyalty, though. I think in the end it's about the outcome not the intent. But yeah, you are right.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/23 11:28 PM
0

It's not negligible at all, it's snowballing as it goes lower, it's not just trickling down. Think of a pyramid. Every 1 guy on top will mess with multiple guys just 1 tier below. The same applies to those guys. And again, if those top guys didn't exist, then those girls wouldn't be out of a lower-tier guy's league, rinse repeat. So nah, no matter how you put it.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/23 11:02 PM
3

That's incorrect. I literally explained and showed how that affects an average guy right after the sentence where you stopped reading. Like, the only thing I could do to make it more clear is draw a picture. Try reading more than the first line. Ideally, you should read the whole comment before you start replying.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/23 10:48 PM
12

You're contradicting yourself. These guys are the reason why he has no shot with those women. So he is in competition, he just lost easily. But the thing is those guys will go for multiple women including women are bit below which will force some of the guys below to go a bit below etc etc. So they absolutely have effect on even the average guy.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/23 10:36 PM
2

That's what the overwhelming majority of men are doing. The way it works is that you get with one woman and don't sleep with any other women even though you'd rather have an option to do that. You can't though because no abundance mindset and you know you won't perform well in the scene so you won't risk negotiating this arrangement with the woman you have. You're probably not high-value enough for her to be okay with sharing you. That's most men.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/23 10:10 PM
2

The most important thing we can take from this post is that we should start calling men who don't get the variety because their women don't find them hot enough to allow it inmons. Involuntary monogamy is a great term we don't see here at all for some reason.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/23 08:10 PM
1

It is valid, I didn't say it wasn't. It's just valid but learned as opposed to natural. Like cheating as in stepping out of marriage is a social concept, marriage is a social construct. If you go many generations back and look at us earlier during our evolution, you will see that clearly men wouldn't appreciate "cheating" because paternity fraud, but women literally wouldn't care as long as he's with her and their common kids. Cause you know, there's no government to force him to care about anot…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 09:44 PM
2

Haha yes I see how that could be a problem for him. But as an adult man you probably wouldn't care too much about it anyway because it's your life after all.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 09:41 PM
1

Good night :)
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 09:39 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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