TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

WowYouMustBeJoking Archive

View 0 posts and 1,360 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 1,360 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
–

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
–

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
–

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
–

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
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
–

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

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
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
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

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

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

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
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
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
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

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, 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
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

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
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
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
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
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

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

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
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
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

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
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
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

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
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

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
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
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
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

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
–

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

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

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

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

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

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 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
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
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

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
–

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
–

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
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
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

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
–

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

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

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

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
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

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

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
–

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

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
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
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
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

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

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

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
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

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
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
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
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
–

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
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

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
–

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 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

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

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
–

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

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
–

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
–

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

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
–

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
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
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

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
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
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

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
–

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
–

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
–

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
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
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
–

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

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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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
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

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

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
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

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
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

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

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
–

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

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
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

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

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
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

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
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

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
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
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

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

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

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

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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
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

Sure, just because they are motivated by sexual success it doesn't mean they will achieve it. But that's why they are doing their best. Besides, gotta define sexual success. For some men it would mean having a wife and a child, for example. As for abstinent men, again, those are negligible exceptions. Most men are not voluntarily celibate.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 09:15 PM
1

I am not 12 or even 25 or something. They are involved but I have my own life. Parents are parents, they would love you even if you're not successful enough to get women.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 09:13 PM
1

I am not talking about women, I was talking about men.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 09:12 PM
1

I don't need to read their minds, I can talk to them and observe.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 07:21 PM
1

Ok that makes sense, thanks for clarifying. STDs would change her life for sure. Of course ideally this would be discussed, I don't think I ever said the opposite. The point is, the original comment I replied to said that a woman would only agree to have this arrangement with a top 1% man if she met him when he was already a top 1% man. All I said in this thread was in this context.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 05:36 PM
1

No, you don't get it. I'm not projecting I'm reporting. And for future "Oh so you're saying/doing something" arguments literally never work and only expose that you are not arguing logically.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 05:28 PM
4

What do they have to do with the OP? They exist, yes. Does the non-negligible number of them take celibacy vows? Doubt it. Either way, the thread is about men's motivation. It's in the title.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 03:22 PM
1

For one what? What question are you answering? I didn't ask about benefits of condoms anywhere. Of course, STDs are bad, but are they really that widespread to the point that it's impossible for him to find someone without it? Like, it's not even about his wife, he himself wouldn't want one. Other than that, you didn't really add anything new here. Yes, there could be a risk. Still, going back to the previous comments, it's a "punishment" if she won't take this risk but if he broke up with her h…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 03:14 PM
4

Most successful men. What celibate men are successful? Are you talking about successful monks? Or are you assuming a non-negligible amount of them exists? It's funny how you don't see that it's way more child-like to argue just to argue. Most men don't take celibacy vows.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 03:09 PM
8

the idea that the more women you sleep with, the more valuable and good you appear to be in the light of other men, women and society, etc. Second sentence and you're already wrong. The idea is the opposite - the more valuable you are, the more women you sleep with. Men just acknowledge it. Like, you don't become more valuable after sleeping with 1 additional woman. The fact that some of these studs do enjoy screwing those man's lives, Actually, they are now. As you say yourself, only women with…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 03:06 PM
3

Right, it's just a coincidence that successful men also are successful sexually. They didn't mean to. Aha. Just think about what you just said and you will see how silly it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 02:50 PM
1

It's absolutely not the same and is irrelevant here. It's not sex-specific like paternity fraud. But for sure, if women trade sexual access for resources from men (roughly speaking), then yes, a man committing his resources to another woman's child is an equivalent of a woman having sex with another man. That would be how men cheat (not having sex with other women). However, if there's a kid and he is not doing anything about him, so there's no effect on his wife's life, then why would it be dev…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 02:47 PM
5

No, it's not. At best, it's the evidence that we didn't get motivated by sex when we didn't have sexual drive. Now we do, though. And now we are adults and don't derive our value from what our parents tell us, so we won't kill ourselves trying to do better at our jobs for their approval. We will do it, though, if it means we get more sexual variety.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 02:34 PM
5

You mean before puberty? Back then we did stuff to impress our parents or to not get punished by them. After that, of course it would be about impressing women. That's an odd argument, to be honest. Before sex drive we were literal children.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 01:31 PM
1

Do you understand what paternity/maternity fraud is? Having secret children is not the same thing as having children that a parent thinks are theirs when they aren't.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 01:16 PM
0

Sexually, it is. She could still be enjoying his love and everything and her life wouldn't change at all if he got some sexual variety every now and then. Or what does her happiness stem from? From the control over him? Besides, define faithful. For a man to sleep with another woman no feelings need to be involved and he can't commit maternity fraud, so he can easily do that and not affect his marriage in any way on his end.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 09:17 AM
1

Right, the whole starter wife thing. But as for her investment, she would get returns when/if he becomes successful. She would still be getting them if he slept with other women. But idk, could it be that he's just placed into a BB box when she started dating him and there's no way out of it for him?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 09:07 AM
1

So? That doesn't support the comment I replied to. He could want both and yeah marry and get her consent. But the way you said it was as if wanting one of those things means that he can't want the other. That's just false. Most men would love to have both, they just can't speak about it openly.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 12:16 AM
1

Yeah but since it's not about your husband in particular, let's get back to real life. No, most men do not have a price for cheating. Women value money in men, men don't value money in women nearly as much. Sure maybe your husband doesn't mind, but most men would. Getting a sugar mama is not the same as having a partner whom they are not leaving if she touches other dicks. Getting a sugar mama would absolutely mean a transactional relationship with an expiration date, prolly when they get enough…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 12:14 AM
0

Don't you get it? You're not one of these billionaires so you have no idea what their lifestyle actually is. But she does have an idea so listen to her. That's probably because she is one of these billionaires, which is what you need to be according to her to have any idea.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 12:05 AM
0

There is no reason why he couldn't want both.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 12:01 AM
-1

Do you think it could be because she still sees him as whatever value he had back when she met him? Which if that's the case, as a man you're sort of punished for sticking around. It's weird to think about.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/23 12:00 AM
1

It's not necessarily about actually doing it. It's about having an option. Especially knowing that other men do get that option. Even more so, knowing that your very gf would allow some other men (or even you if you were better) to have that option if she was dating them instead of you.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/23 11:55 PM
1

I believe the point of what OP is talking about is not being restricted to have sex with only 1 woman (ignoring the last line which is there more to start the convo. It's too specific while this topic is a bit more broad imo). Cheating is just the thing that comes to mind first when one is trying to describe variety while being in LTR. It's just the most obvious way. But ok, then coming back to your story, while your deal is great, it's still not the best deal compared to what you give elon musk…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/23 11:52 PM
2

Obviously not talking about your particular situation. Also, if you're sleeping with multiple women with him and he's not a billionaire, then your price is not what you said it was. Because yeah he already gets the variety, which is the point of the op.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/23 10:37 PM
0

It's a rough thing to know. You can probably expand it and say that every woman has that price, it's just that most women never meet those men. And knowing this and understanding that if your gf/wife is not okay with you sleeping with others then she's just not giving you her best (doesn't see you as good enough) sucks.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/23 10:15 PM
0

The worst part is that you do have that price. So anyone being with you who's not allowed to cheat (and knows about your price) is not getting your best and has to be ok with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/23 10:13 PM
3

Your source doesn't disprove anything. It was said here many times that this culture is very selective towards men. Most men aren't participating in it. You showing that 1 out of 3 doesn't only confirms that. In fact, that's even less than expected.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/23 09:05 AM
11

Going for younger women is not lowering standards, it's increasing standards. Younger women have a much higher SMV usually and are harder to get, not easier.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/23 10:43 PM
1

Hey, don't think this is an exam or something and I know the answer and am trying to check if you know it, too. This is just a discussion. I just asked what you think is right and why. Well, all of them is not a very helpful answer, don't you think? I mean, your thread is about "realistic" solutions. It's not very realistic to expect that we can have everyone contribute but also everyone to have a partner (and both are happy) and you even said it yourself earlier. Or is it realistic, in your opi…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/23 09:44 PM
1

That sub shows couples who married because of love. They all married within the last few decades. Again, this (dead bedrooms) was never a problem before because both partners knew their vows and knew their marital duties. Not to say that both enjoyed it very much. Anyway, who's to say what's wrong and what's right here? Again, what's more important - feels or society and quality of life for everyone? You didn't answer any of my questions. What are you thoughts on those?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/23 08:13 PM
6

Not everyone, maybe almost everyone is good enough. But what exactly is better than today? Like, what's the goal? For women to find partners they like even if it means sharing them? Do you care that in this case there will be even more lonely men who will check out of society? And idk for sure but judging by my observations, many of those will be the ones we actually need. Don't you see that we see more lonely people now that before namely because no one has to be with someone they don't fully l…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/23 07:35 PM
1

I believe this is incorrect and doesn't apply to the real world. It would be nice to live in the universe where it's possible to find the solution where everyone just magically pairs up with somebody they want and they all live happily ever after. But I don't think this is how it works. Think about it, why do we even have the system where men and women pair up? Why did societies started doing this instead of old-school tribes where only a few men got all women? We're probably interested in the m…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/23 07:19 PM
2

she is going to waste her 20s being faithful to a man that is eventually going to lose interest in her once she "hits the wall". I think this is wrong. If she spent her most attractive years with a man, he's already attached to her. She's definitely well well above any new woman who hit the wall. Compare it to meeting an older woman who spent her youth sleeping around but is now ready for marriage aka wants more from you than from her exes.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/23 03:06 PM
2

Right, he could. That's why I said I think there's some coefficient, as in N points in looks = M points in status. For any given 2 people there's some tipping point in status (and in looks) where one will start doing better than the other.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/23 03:03 PM
15

Your argument doesn't support your claim. There's some coefficient of conversion between status/money and looks. You compare a cashier stud to Messi? Why? How about, 6'6" stud cashier vs his manager who is 5'9"? Surely, the manager's status is higher, but now the cashier will probably get more. Or take a school teacher and a principal. Of course, if you look at a celebrity, the status difference is huge, but what if it isn't? So no, sometimes looks will beat money/status.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/23 02:22 PM
1

For some people, not for others. Some people are "natural" which really means they just had the right environment to not put any extra effort into it. Obviously, they wouldn't sit alone, they would talk etc. But they wouldn't need to go out of their way to do it. Looks aren't that simply. Your parents mean nothing if you don't watch what you eat and not work out. Doing those things is a lot of effort. Yes, physique are a part of it. Money and status, too, require a lot of effort if you weren't b…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 07:37 PM
2

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Maybe he was just born and raised in such conditions and with such people where it could develop. Either way, you're not getting the point. How is charisma genuine and not superficial? How are looks, money, status superficial and none of them are genuine?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 07:09 PM
1

They are not. And when acceptable is above average, we usually call it being unrealistic.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 06:32 PM
3

Your blowjob joke could be here.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 06:15 PM
-2

In most cases it does. If her husband did something but is ready to work through it and she refuses that and leaves a relationship instead, then yes, she is the one who ended it. Nothing needs to be her fault for her to end it. It can be a man's fault, but she's still the one who ended it.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 06:11 PM
6

Even worse - it's everyone who complains about anything. At this point the meme is used for censoring and shutting people up.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 06:08 PM
12

Simping is irrelevant. Dating is unbearable because most men would sleep with most women. The supply demand ratio is just too bad.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 06:06 PM
2

Of course they are just fishing for compliments. Them complaining is like rich people complaining that they can't find a specific food item somewhere, while there are people who can't get food at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 01:21 PM
5

Huh? How is it weird to be sexually attracted to someone who is sexually attractive? You're making no sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 08:42 AM
11

Who decides which things are genuine and which are superficial? For example, how are status and money superficial, but charisma is genuine? If anything, maybe that man had to work hard to achieve his money and status, while somebody else did nothing to get their charisma.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/23 08:40 AM
1

And obviously, if you want to know if something is affected by a certain factor, you need to isolate that factor and keep everything else the same. So you need to try the same thing with different partners and have a good sample before you can come to a conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 04:00 PM
2

They didn't like doing it with that partner, that's what. Or are you saying that unenjoyable sex or kiss are still somewhat enjoyable? Or how else would one know they would like it with another partner, but wouldn't like something else with another partner? It makes no sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 03:43 PM
3

Women can also use men as pornified mutual masturbatory tools. And if casual sex is mutual masturbation then whose fault is it that women rarely orgasm? It's not like men get everything they want either. The last sentence is irrelevant. Women can view men as used goods, too. No one is stopping them. So far, everything is symmetric or at least you failed to show otherwise, and the original comment holds.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 01:39 PM
3

That is fine, but the quoted part contradicts what you said entirely. So one should compromise and give up certain things as long as it's not a woman. I don't see how you have to know this. All that matters in a discussion is what was said, not who said it.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 01:33 PM
1

It doesn't need to change anything because it's already not a double standard by definition. Not everything you dislike is a double standard.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 01:31 PM
0

No, double standard is when you have different standards for members of the same group. This is not the case. Men and women are 2 different groups when it comes to sexual relationships. Moreover, the standards are not even different. It's the same, actually. Both women and men are judged for sleeping with men.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 12:11 PM
3

Ok, then sexual experimentation is not an important phase, and you don't get a waiver. But part of being is one is that you give up certain things if your partner doesn’t share the desire. Funny you should say that right after saying that no, a woman shouldn't give up not wanting to do some things for their partner even if he doesn't share the desire for them wanting to not do those things.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 11:54 AM
3

Then don't call them stud? Or don't get offended by run through? It's only an insult if you're insulted.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 11:42 AM
0

It's not the double standard. It's the case of different standards for different sexes.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 11:41 AM
3

If a women isn't getting a relationship out of sex then she better be getting something. She's getting sex out of sex, the same thing he's getting. Men assume the same risks except for the possibility to get pregnant.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 11:31 AM
6

That doesn't work here. I don't think you understand why the key analogy works, actually. It's not just about things that functionally need to go inside other things. It's mostly about the fact that women are gatekeepers of sex and choose who gets to have it while it's men's job to initiate and attempt to get access. Very much like a lock is there to make sure not just everyone goes through the door. For the sharpener analogy to work, you would have to flip it. Whoever has a pencil chooses what …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 11:23 AM
8

Women are also turned off by men who slept with other men.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 11:21 AM
6

Then for you it's not about insecurity. I see no contradiction here and don't understand what you're arguing with. She said - some opinions are about insecurity. That leaves plenty of room for opinions that aren't about insecurity.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 11:15 AM
2

Great story and a great example of the same standards and non hypocrisy. It's gross for both men and women to sleep with other men.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 11:07 AM
2

So many men wanting their partners to repeat sexual experiences they obviously didn’t like They didn't like it with those guys, doesn't mean they wouldn't like it now. Think about it. You like sex/kissing with your current partner, but I'm sure there were men in your past you didn't like doing those things with. What if the very first kiss you had wasn't enjoyable. Is it gross to you that the next guy wants to kiss you?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 11:05 AM
3

It would be understandable if you were.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 11:02 AM
3

Is doing that experimentation a good thing and something people should have access to? You know, so they can decide what they like and what they don't like? Cause otherwise, how would they know. If so, if you love your partner, you would want him to try things, too. So now, if he never tried anal (or anything else in your list) and you wouldn't let him try it once with you, surely you wouldn't mind if he tries it somewhere else?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 10:55 AM
4

I don't like caviar (well it's just expensive salt really). THANK YOU!!!
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 10:48 AM
5

She said some opinions, not all. And she is right. I can only think of 1 example, though, but I guess 1 is a special case of "some"? If you care about the count because you think you won't be good enough - that's insecurity.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 10:43 AM
0

Demand creates supply. You get what you reward. If women sleep with a certain type of guy and other guys see it, then why wouldn't they at least try to get the same experience? They will absolutely date the right girl, but it's not their fault when they meet her and it turns that she is (or acts as if) at a 5+ dick count and sleeps with men before establishing exclusivity/relationship. Then he sees what those women actually do and reward, so why would he try to get more than sex? Yet men use wom…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/23 10:38 AM
2

Obviously, this only applies to men who are chosen for sex. Those men can pick who they marry.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/23 09:06 PM
–

That's incorrect. One of them is an explanation.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/23 03:32 PM
–

I already did. Your definition is exactly what I said about what explanation is, I just didn't copypasted it (like I did with "excuse"). So yes, saying it was natural for a man to sleep with a new partner is an explanation, not an excuse. It makes it clear why this happened and gives a reason for the action. He's still accountable, though. Especially if he promised to not cheat. He could choose to control himself but didn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/23 01:12 PM
–

It has nothing to do with accountability. Yes, it was natural for him to fuck a new woman. Yes, he is still accountable. Using it to say he's not accountable would be an excuse, using it to say that this is why he was compelled to do it would be an explanation. It was still up to him to decide whether or not he would go ahead with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/23 01:10 PM
1

Incorrect. The outcome is binary only if the scale is binary. If the scale is 1-3, then you can have 3 outcomes. What you're saying scientifically speaking is that it's better to round results to nearest integer, but it's literally never better. You're just rescaling the same thing as 1-3=1, 4-6=2, 7-10=3. But rounding here doesn't always do what you want it to do. For example, someone who's below average at 4 will get a 2 out of 3 and will think they are higher than they are relative to others.…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/23 11:12 PM
–

What you believe is irrelevant. This is just what these terms mean.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/23 11:09 PM
1

No. It could be if it wasn't correct. But in this case it is, so it's just an explanation of why whatever happened happened. My dog ate my homework when I actually just didn't do it is an excuse. My dog ate my homework when that actually happened is an explanation.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/23 09:11 PM
1

No, "it's your fault" = I'm not taking accountability. "It's natural" is not necessarily running from accountability. It could mean, for example, that yes I did it and it's not your fault, I did because I was naturally compelled to and didn't control myself.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/23 09:09 PM
1

That's incorrect. Excuse is an attempt to explain in a way that lessens the blame. Explanation is just an explanation of why the thing is actually happening. Do you need examples?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/23 09:08 PM
1

Exactly. And more precision only helps you measure that outcome more precisely.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/23 09:06 PM
2

No, one is an excuse, the other one is an explanation. Saying that something is natural doesn't mean that one claims to not be at fault. As I said, it's natural to relieve yourself when you want to, but usually you wait till the restroom. Even if something is natural, you can still control yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/23 03:08 PM
5

Hard disagree. It's much better than knowing you could do something but failed. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you could or couldn't do. It's about the cheater. Not everyone does things that are natural. It's natural to relieve yourself but we find the restroom first. And there is no gaslighting in your example. He can still love you and this is how guys are, it's just that most of them don't get to do what they want because most of them are loved conditionally. It's mostly men on…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/23 12:24 PM
3

It is less painful because at least it's not framed like it's my fault. Things don't have to be the same for both of them to be painful.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/23 10:41 AM
1

You are arguing that less precision and differentiation is better. You are wrong. There are no scenarios where this is true.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/23 09:10 AM
2

Again, huge difference between "it's your fault" and "it's natural". Only one of them blames the victim.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/23 09:05 AM
1

I don't see how this is weird. If I'm a student I don't want people to think that I am what I study. I could be studying anything else. But how I see things, sense of humor, whether or not I'm reliable, whether or not I will help them move and such - that's who I am. Not my job. Obviously, no one is deliberately ignoring people's jobs. Why even mention it? If they tell me then I know and I won't pretend I don't, but unless they identify themselves as their job position, why does it matter? For e…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/23 04:49 PM
1

Easily. I care about what they think about things, their sense of humor, etc. What they do for money is not my concern. If that is actually their primary activity, obviously, there will be stories they can tell about it. If it's only "primary" because that's where they have to spend most of their time to survive and they don't want to talk about it, then why should I care? They are who they are regardless of their job.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/23 04:21 PM
1

Only if I ask or they tell. Otherwise, no. And I can't tell their job by just getting to know who they are.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/23 03:48 PM
2

When trp says dating up they don't mean social classes. They mean SMV/RMV.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/23 03:46 PM
1

There is nothing defensive about it, it's just about logic. Yes, some people study and work to follow their passion. But it's that passion that makes them who they are. Not the fact that they have a job reflecting that. And they can have hobbies, too. Yeah no, you can't say "if someone works" as if those are exceptions and rare cases. It's the other way around. Most people would not work a day in their life if they walked into a fortune and didn't have to work. Even those people who love their j…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/23 02:06 PM
1

Either of them could lose their job one day or change it. They would still be who they are. Their job is not who they are.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/23 01:52 PM
1

Again no he's not. When it's the first day on the job, the job had no impact yet. That's a simple proof that the job is not who you are. Your life experiences shape you and you can have some life experience you otherwise wouldn't have because of your job. But the job is not who you are, it's what you do. And no person is qualified to assume what kind of person you are due to your job and what experiences you had. No, it's not the same thing. Understanding the difference is very important. I alre…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/23 12:24 PM
1

No, he's not a different person just because the economy changed and he got laid off. Also, funny how that would be grounds to say he's a different person and break up over it, but if he changed the job in the opposite direction (got promoted or got a better job), then it's whatever that he's a different person now? Of course, this is complete bs. No one becomes a different person in 1 day because they changed their employment status. You are who you are regardless of your job. What you do is si…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/23 11:46 AM
3

Most people don't find any jobs interesting at all. Like, they don't dream of labor. If they won a lottery they would never work again. High-earning men select the hottest and most compatible women they can find. It's just logical that people usually meet people within their own class. But within that class you won't see that they prefer women being in the upper range of income over those in the lower range.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/23 11:36 AM
1

Correct. But that's not because I don't have the same job that's because I do those things you listed PROVIDED those things are new and unusual for me. If I was like that while I had the job or in between my 2 previous jobs etc, then I would still be the same person, of course. Say, I'd play video games every day after work when I had a job.. Point is, I am who I am regardless of the job. Let's say I had a high-paying job, got fired, but did look for a job right away. However, all I found is som…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/23 11:14 AM
1

No, it's not. It's just what you do at the moment. Yes, going to school does shape you to be who you are. But holding a job is just what you do for money at the moment. Let's say I had a job yesterday, but today I quit or got fired. I am still the same person , still who I am, even though I have no job. Not necessarily at all. You're really reaching there. They can love you regardless of your job - that means they actually care about who you are. And that way you know that if you lose or change …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/23 10:56 AM
2

You mean do they find those jobs interesting in women or what do you mean? Because they don't really care and don't usually select specifically for women with high-paying jobs.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/23 10:21 AM
2

College professors and high school teachers are completely different leagues and money. No one is actively after high school teachers.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/23 10:20 AM
1

Yeah no. You are you regardless of what job you currently have, if you have one at all. Your job is not a part of you, it's just what you do. If they care about the job, then they care about what you can do for them. And it's funny you should mention teachers. Where are all those women who want teachers/cashiers or find that job sexy? Oh no, somehow all they look for are high paying job.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/23 10:19 AM
3

And here we are, having people trying to argue about something on ppd without even reading trp sidebar. Talking about how no one is doing something, while one of the first links on trp is the Michael's story that reported the opposite 11 years ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 10:11 PM
1

Right, that's why the marriage vows include "unless he's lazy".
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 09:36 PM
1

Good try :) But no, most of what is listed in the OP is not required to be a good husband.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 09:08 PM
1

That's just a job description. One job can have multiple responsibilities. Just go to linkedin and you will see that many jobs have long lists of duties.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 08:59 PM
1

No, it just shows that whoever says "sex is not a need" doesn't understand that needs aren't just about survival.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 08:27 PM
1

Which has nothing to do with the question. Time that costs more is more valuable by definition. And if you want to bring chores into it, ok. They need to be done. But person A and B earned different amounts of money, so why wouldn't they also earn proportionally different time to rest?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 08:25 PM
1

So my time is less valuable if I make less money? That's literally the math of it. If person A is paid $X/hr and person B is paid $Y/hr, and X>Y, then person's B time is less valuable than person's A time. It literally costs less/brings less money. Why is that a question?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 08:18 PM
–

No offense to short kings and promiscious queens, but I'm thinking about this for theory's sake: alot of high N women get the same feeling of frustration as a short man; it's a problem beyond their control. You're not very good at theoretical analysis then. High N is totally not beyond a woman's control.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 07:53 PM
1

But if preference means 'I only date black women despite the fact that there are plenty of other women to choose from', nah mate that's weird. Well, that's usually called "a type", and how is that weird? I mean, I see how it can be weird to you, but it's not weird universally to have a type. Ok now you're getting to the absurd. Yes, obviously, a 17 year old who has a preference for men who are not geriatric is not weird. Hard disagree. A visual difference between a 20 year old and a 30 year old …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 07:39 PM
1

I consider that pretty weird Ok, that's consistent. Eye color preference is also weird for you? How about height, weight, age? How about a preference for a certain set of genitalia? What preferences are not weird? Have you ever even met an Asian person? What color is their skin? Yes, ~8 of them yesterday. Their skin was yellowish. Race is not equal to skin color ffs Of course not, that was just the most noticeable factor. There are other differences in appearance as well. Since when is it weird …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 07:02 PM
–

Technically, yes, it's not a "need". In what universe is it technically not a "need"? Needs are not just things necessary for survival. There are multiple examples of needs that are not.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 06:54 PM
0

Why? How are they different from age or weight preferences? Or any looks preferences, really? Like, how is racial preferences simply not someone's type? I mean, there are hair color preferences and those aren't considered weird. But skin color preference is weird for you?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 06:41 PM
1

Which, again, has nothing to do with my 2 questions.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 06:09 PM
1

They are, but new cars are overpriced proportionally. Either way, that didn't answer what I asked.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 05:49 PM
1

Pretty good deal. As in, you didn't pay the full price, did you? And would expect somebody buying this same car after you to pay even less.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 05:40 PM
–

No one cares, they are not gatekeepers of sex and can't get pregnant. Or maybe there are other reasons, who knows. But it's up to women to care about it and they just don't care as much. Also consuming porn has nothing to do with cheating.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 05:25 PM
–

Of course, if you have nothing to say on the subject and/or won't argue in good faith, it's easy to go ad hominem and call someone a troll or accuse them of not understanding something. What makes you think I can't understand it, though? In fact, I understand it better than you. What you're trying to do here is pretend that women and men are the same when it comes to sex. But they are not. Therefore, heterosexual sex men are having with women is different from heterosexual sex women are having w…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/23 05:51 PM
–

Yes. You must be joking calling something hypocrisy not knowing the definition of hypocrisy.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/23 04:50 PM
5

Those are learnable skills. What's easier for a thinner woman to get better in bed or for a bigger woman to become thinner?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/23 04:18 PM
1

LOL "everything I don't like is hypocrisy" seems to be your only argument. /u/UMDQuestionsBurner already demonstrated to you logically how having different standards is not hypocrisy by definition. Their example can be even more fun if you phrase it as follows: 1. It's ok to sleep with women. 2. It's not ok to sleep with men. These 2 "rules" can apply to both men and women at the same time. So your "rules for thee" attempt of an argument doesn't work at all. Actually, "rules for thee" doesn't ap…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/23 03:53 PM
–

Sex with women and sex with men are different things. So it's only hypocrisy if they call women sluts for having sex with 20 women while also having sex with 20 women. If they are having sex with 20 women and call women sluts for having sex with 20 men, it's not hypocrisy.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/23 03:36 PM
–

Big difference between "your dick" and "other men's dicks".
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/23 03:34 PM
–

No, it's amazing how you don't see the difference between "my dick" and "other men's dicks". Like, why is this such a hard concept to get? You probably use your toothbrush more than once, but wouldn't put another person's toothbrush in your mouth. And eggs and sperm differ in value because of how nature works, not because of men. They don't contribute, they just play the cards they are dealt. Eggs are expensive because women are selective, and nature made them selective because they can only mak…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/23 03:33 PM
–

No, this makes no sense, too. There's no good reason to break a promise, unless the condition under which the promise was given is gone.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/23 04:44 PM
–

Incorrect. There's never a good reason to break a promise first. The only reason you are the first one to break the promise is if you are tempted by something else. Which means your word is worth nothing. Or are you saying that promises don't matter at all? Since all of them are given by people and people always have feelings and good reasons to break them? Then why give a promise? Nobody forced her to agree to their arrangement but if she did and is the first one to break it, then no, she's not…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/23 04:42 PM
–

That's a horrible argument. Just because these are humans it doesn't mean nothing is expected of them. If they gave promises, they aren't justified in being the first to break them. Otherwise, anyone is justified in anything, because they are just humans.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/23 04:34 PM
–

If that’s the case, why should women be forced to remain loyal to a man she doesn’t love? Because that's the deal and she consented to it/promised that. She gets the money, he gets the loyalty. So no, she's not justified in cheating if that's the case. She is justified in cheating if he breaks the contract on his side and commits so much resources to other women that her lifestyle gets worse.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/23 04:24 PM
4

Not ghosting someone doesn't mean giving them the reason why you don't like them. It's just telling them explicitly that you don't, so that there's no possible interpretation that you didn't see the message or your phone dead or you were gonna reply but forgot etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/23 04:22 PM
–

Because monogamy is the "default" relationship. Currently it's an "opt out" if you want a non-monogamous relationship as they're very much not the norm. In what universe? As you say yourself - "currently" it is. That's because it isn't. It's a social construct that we as a society enforced because otherwise - naturally - most men would get no women. Having sex or sexual contact outside of a monogamous relationship (which is the vast majority of relationships) is cheating. Only if both parties en…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/23 10:45 AM
–

Oh wow, that's a textbook strawman from the first paragraph. Didn't last long at all. Who said anything about monogamy? There's not a word about it in the OP or in my comment. As I said, if both agreed and consented to certain rules, then breaking those rules is cheating, but if no such agreement was made, then we just assume that everything is driven by nature. And both parties can do whatever they want and can leave whenever they want. So we just see if what they do signals that they aren't do…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/23 10:15 AM
–

Just look at how men and women show loyalty. A loyal man is there to protect and provide for the family, so committing resources to another woman would be cheating. A loyal woman is sexually exclusive, so any hints that she isn't would be cheating. In particular, it's known and studied that a woman would sexually cheat if she checked out, while a man could have sex and still be committed to a relationship. That is, of course, by default and assuming they didn't make any other promises to each ot…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/23 09:22 AM
–

No one is justifying cheating. You are right, cheating is bad because it means you went back on your word. Just don't forget that men and women are different and cheat differently. What counts as cheating for women isn't necessarily cheating for men, that's all. Well birth control exists and its just as bad if a guy gets another girl pregnant. That ties the man to another women and that is just as bad as a women bearing another mans kid. That is true, but not due to the fact that there's a kid. …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/23 07:11 AM
1

Because men want sexual variety and getting to do casual sex is more likely than what we would ideally want. That would be having a harem or having an LTR who's down for us to sleep with others alone or in threesomes. Because we can see that others get to enjoy it. Why wouldn't we want to experience something that others can? Because we want to feel needed/attractive/successful. And having access to casual sex/variety is an indicator that we made it. It's not even necessarily about having it, bu…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/23 10:22 PM
–

There is no narrative, just logic. There's a definition of standard and there is a definition of double. There's also an understanding that normally different things are held to different standards. There are different relationships - friendships, employment, marriages etc. And we're not talking about A relationship, we are talking specifically about a sexual relationship between a man and a woman. In this scenario - unlike employment, for example - sexes are relevant and distinguishable. Theref…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/23 02:23 PM
–

What do you mean what exactly is different? Men and women are. They are opposite sexes. They are in the same relationship but on the opposite sides of it. Whether it's ok or not is a whole different question, I said nothing about it. But it's not a double standard. How exactly? By definition. It's not a double standard by definition. Different things - different standards. In the context of a sexual relationship sexes matter and aren't interchangeable. An example of a double standard would be ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/23 12:11 PM
–

No, they are not in the same situation. He's in a relationship with a woman and she's in a relationship with a man. Men and women are different. No one said they were not equal. They are just different. Hammers and nails are equal, but different, too. So they are held to different standards. If we were talking about the workplace or schools, for example, then yes, the sex is irrelevant and the standards should be the same, so having different standards in this case would be a double standard. Fo…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/23 09:11 AM
–

The one that has a vocabulary in it. And what you said is the same thing I said just more vague. And it still doesn't apply to the OP. It's not unfair to apply different standards to different things. You don't expect both hammers and nails to be sharp. That standard is only applied to nails.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/23 11:17 PM
1

That's incorrect. As you said, they do love to fuck you. But they love to fuck you regardless of what you do. They love to fuck you based on how you look and carry yourself, which is based on who you are. If you are attractive, you can keep switching jobs or even quit working and they will still want to fuck you.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/23 09:20 PM
16

Point 1: Women are not a monolith. Human variation among both genders is enormous. Some women do indeed love anyonymous, no strings sex. That's a bad point. No group is a monolith, yet it is widely accepted to make general statements based on sex and race, e.g. saying that people of a certain color are privileged or underprivileged.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/23 05:19 PM
0

Different =\= double.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/23 03:10 PM
-6

This is the case of men and women are different so the standards are different. Double standard is when you apply different standards to members of the same group. A double standard would be if you were ok with one girlfriend doing those things but not another.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/23 09:50 AM
1

I have never met someone who prefers to be valued as a fuckable sack of meat, as just a warm body and not as someone with talent, skills, power and respect. Nice to meet you. I'd rather be valued for who I am than for what I can do. Unfortunately, most men will never get to experience that.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/23 09:19 AM
4

Most men also don't dream to be pilots. And there are some girls who do. Why can't girls be good pilots?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/23 01:01 PM
3

How is flying male? It doesn't require anything a typical woman can't have. If something is traditionally male that doesn't mean that it's male. It simply means that historically men did it more.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/23 11:25 AM
1

Maybe, I never heard of men who don't usually pump and dump to do it just because she had sex fast.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/23 04:03 PM
1

And I do think so and I know I wouldn't pump and dump just because she didn't wait. If I liked sex and like hanging out with her, why would I dump? This makes no sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/23 03:36 PM
1

Yes, I am sure he would. In fact, he would be eager to do that because he would know he's for sure attractive to her.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/23 03:25 PM
0

You are suspected but not viewed like that yet. That's when they start looking at you closely to see if there are any cues confirming high count. The thing is, if you did it quickly, of course men would suspect you do it quickly with many others, but just that one instance is not a proof.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/23 03:20 PM
1

For men it is. If I go to the store and pay more than somebody else paid yesterday, sure, the seller realized they could charge more. That's in their interest, not in mine. Yes, you don't say that. But you understand how it's your fault you didn't think to wait longer last time and how men wouldn't be super happy to pay for damages done by other men. If you made every man wait, no one would say anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/23 03:18 PM
2

I think your comments here are very important for people in this thread to read.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/23 01:51 PM
1

Longer than she waited with any previous partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/23 11:00 AM
5

Aww that's too bad for her. It's not like she didn't know that could happen, she grew up hearing that and then went ahead and didn't wait anyway. And yes, what you said too. If she likes a guy, how could she be okay waiting for months herself, right? Assuming she enjoys sex. In fact, I feel like if you wait too long, then you aren't as excited and kinda mentally moved on already or vice versa set your expectations too high. Either way, it's possible that it would be better to wait less.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/23 10:59 AM
3

No, you're viewed as promiscuous if you get fucked by many men. It's not about how fast you do it, but with how many men you have done it.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/23 06:49 AM
7

No one is angsty if you take measures to pick better men. Men don't like when you're making him wait but didn't make other men wait, that's all. If you make every man wait equally - more power to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/23 06:44 AM
2

Of course. That's why I'm not in any pill.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/23 08:04 PM
–

"Creepy" is a social construct. Nature doesn't know that term. Same story with the age of consent. Men can't openly say anything about it because if the age gap doesn't lead to them being canceled or even arrested, then going below this arbitrary number will.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/23 08:02 PM
4

This has nothing to do with what I said. But yes, men are just as oppressed as everyone else. It's a class thing, not a race or sex thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/23 04:09 PM
3

I'm not, but the society at large is. And that affects me and my options in everything, of course.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/23 04:08 PM
5

Everyone in the West is privileged compared to that shoemaker. It's not productive to single men out.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/23 03:49 PM
2

He literally said "centuries". And he's wrong about that. To answer your questions - because it's beneficial for elites that people blame straight men and identify them with elites instead of blaming elites.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/23 03:48 PM
4

Right, I can imagine that somebody is honestly thinking that. Because they got brainwashed. Straight young men were absolutely fucked just like everyone else, but someone told you to look only at the top as if that represents everyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/23 03:30 PM
19

Wow, that is one of the most brainwashed takes I've heard in a while. At least in this sub. Young straight men were absolutely not uplifted, they were exploited for their labor and bodies (in wars). Only the top men were uplifted - the ones who exploited and abused both men and women. Aristocrats and rich people, much less than 1% of straight men, let alone young straight men. When you’re accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression. Surely, you apply this to the female privilege in se…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/23 03:21 PM
1

All guys have options, some just have more options than others. Point is, if she really likes a guy, she doesn't want the risk of his other options getting him first. This is what you described yourself pretty much. It's even worse that she changes her strategy based on how many options she thinks he has. Like, this is not helping your case at all. This pretty much means that she knows he's less attractive so she withhold sex longer.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/23 02:54 PM
–

No, it has nothing to do with trust. Trust is how a trusting party sees things. They can trust but it could be a false positive.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/23 10:27 AM
–

I speak to probabilities, not possibilities. It's likely that your friendships aren't 100% platonic. As I said, it's possible that they are, but it's more likely that they are not and under certain circumstances whoever is a man in that friendship wouldn't mind hitting it.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/23 10:04 AM
–

Of course, I never said his videos could be used to calculate actual probabilities. But they do show the trend. Pre-recorded videos are not the only source of such conversations. Certain podcasts convince female guests to do those calls or texts live. Besides, it's only logical. If a woman is cool to spend time with (hence, you're "friends") and is attractive, why wouldn't you want to have sex with her given the chance? That can only be better. Friends with benefits are better than just friends.…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/23 09:35 AM
–

Ah no his videos aren't the point here. Just the fact that he hasn't seen something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Although, his videos DO confirm that it's rare. It's not because of his videos. It's just something most men know and observe. It's also about how you define platonic friendships. If you define platonic as no sexual desires involved, and then if a man would actually bang if given the green light, then it's not platonic. It's only currently platonic because she won't give the gr…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/23 08:43 AM
2

This is wrong and you demonstrated it yourself. As you describe in your high smv men section - when a woman really likes a man, she won't be playing games and risk him moving on. She will only do that if she doesn't care either way.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/23 08:39 AM
–

You must've only read the title. His whole point is that odds are the friendship is only platonic on one end at best.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/23 07:52 AM
2

No, it's not about power over women. It's about not being a consolation prize compared to other men.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/23 06:54 PM
2

Sure. But that's also why it wouldn't work for most men now. We can't start accepting this rule now from the majority of women, as they already either got a high d count or slept with someone after less than 3 months. But yes, if young women start enforcing this rule, things will change after a few decades for sure.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/23 04:33 PM
2

Doubt it. She doesn't compare your income to hers. She compares it to that of her other options. Her income is irrelevant, because her other options will judge her by other factors. If she's hot, her being poor won't affect her value too much.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/23 07:54 AM
2

Right, if she is honest about her sexual past, open talks would solve this. To be more precise, they will let you make sure she enforced that standard on everyone and you're not waiting more than others did. Or not waiting for someone who got around.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/23 07:46 AM
1

Your job is not who you are, it's what you do. You're just confirming what I'm saying.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/23 07:37 AM
6

Here's their Handbook. It outright says not to be exclusive in certain scenarios here. It also refers to another page when talking about the timing here. That page is now deleted but you can see it archived. There, you can read "Make him wait. If it’s tough for you, either get a FWB or just stick it out." Then another link takes us here, where we can see that there's nothing wrong with dating multiple men. I am looking at it the way it is. I am de-facto punished if she didn't make other men wait…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/23 08:02 PM
1

Depends on how you define friends. One of very common definitions includes being honest/not having secrets and then if those guys are pretending to not want to get with her but would given the chance, then they are not her friends.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/23 06:59 PM
2

Well, you did mention the name of God, so I guess that excludes Buddhism right away. I was just curious. Maybe you knew something about them being cruel at some point. I'm glad that you don't haha, there's enough violent religions in our history as you pointed out.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/23 06:49 PM
1

That wouldn't change anything, because if normal dudes go for below average women, then below average dudes have no women. The vacuum that is created on top affects everyone, not just the category that is directly below the top tier. Luckily, the society enforced monogamy and laws, so that men get some women and don't just either check out or get together and kill chads. Of course, in the current climate where the system that won't let men kill chads is still there, but nonpromiscuity isn't enfo…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/23 06:33 PM
5

There are 2 reasons why I think this doesn't work. IIRC the 3-month rule was presented as you go gurl get fucked by the men you like while this one guy is courting you for 3 months. Do you mean to say men should be ok with that? This would be a reasonable rule and many men would accept it or even like it if and only if she enforced it on every man. It's not a great rule if it's a rule for me but not for another man. No man wants to feel like he's a consolation prize and is less attractive than o…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/23 06:27 PM
1

They also believe that if a woman fucked one guy for whatever reason on the first night or first week, she then has to fuck every other man that she comes across for all eternity. Not every guy. Just them if she wants them to not feel like a consolation prize.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/23 06:22 PM
2

That's just how that rule was presented on FDS. You go gurl sleep with your FWB while making a man court you.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/23 06:19 PM
1

Sexual strategies are immoral.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/23 06:13 PM
1

Even Buddhism? :o
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/23 05:59 PM
11

That's a really weird thing to say. If a girl is feminine her male self will also look feminine. And vice versa. So you can have girl A who looks better than girl B, but when you gender swap them, girl B will become more attractive. Case in point, found this video after clicking "original sound". This girl is less attractive than the one you posted, but her male version is more attractive. I think this trend is just for laughs, not something to seriously think about.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/23 05:50 PM
11

I think you're right. It's all about "be yourself" or "love will find you when you're not looking" and just be happy waiting while other men are getting laid. You will win because the woman who slept around will choose you in the end :)
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/23 11:52 AM
10

It's funny how it's been more than a decade and all BP does is just arguing with the tone of the message. But they don't really give any alternative and don't really argue with the outcome except "What kind of woman would fall that? I'm not like that. NAWALT". Likely, it's because they can't offer anything that would work and also not highlight the fact that men and women are different.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/23 08:24 AM
0

Yes, thank you! It's like whenever they don't like something they have to use a buzzword to make it seem worse. You can not like or disagree with something without it being hypocrisy, double standard, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/23 06:41 PM
1

There's no contradiction, I already acknowledged that people who care about what their partner can do for them exist. I'm having a successful relationship right now but kind of you to use a personal insult to indicate that you have no arguments left. You could just admit the loss without insulting anyone, though. We're all adults here and know what using an ad hominem means.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/23 04:06 PM
0

No, it's not a part of a person. It's just something a person does. He's already the person he is regardless of whether he does it.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/23 03:57 PM
0

No, it only represents what they do and/or how efficiently they do it. It doesn't have anything to do with who they are as a person. No, not most people, but many people - maybe. Of course there are many people who don't care who you are as a person but do care about what you can do for them.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/23 03:47 PM
0

Physical traits are you who you are as a person. As a person you are your body + some. Money is not a part of you. If you take one's money away, they are still the same person. If you take one's body away - they are not.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/23 03:40 PM
1

Right, that was always the case and doesn't change anything. You said it yourself - if he marries young. So in this scenario somehow he is capable of doing that. That's already established.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/23 07:57 PM
0

Those aren't their only options. For example, they could use their success to get women just to get more experience, so that if they marry younger that woman doesn't have more experience?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/23 07:47 PM
0

Again, that's irrelevant and in no way similar to a debate. In a debate or while discussing ideas, credibility is not a proof of anything. Attempting to use it to discredit someone's words or to justify someone else's words is a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority". In this case in particular, the thing you linked is just someone's opinion. It's not better than anyone else's opinion. If you want somebody credible to disagree with that opinion, see Dr Jordan Peterson, I guess.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/23 03:39 PM
0

This analogy doesn't work, there's no urgency. We're talking about discussing ideas.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/23 01:57 PM
5

Nothing wrong with that, people married into different cultures all the time, not many people, but still. But anyway, she doesn't have to be traditional in every regard to still be better than other available options.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/23 01:54 PM
1

Not even ad hominems, his whole line is based on "appeal to authority". Like someone is right just because of credibility and isn't right just because they didn't build credibility yet. That's funny.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/23 12:14 PM
2

It's funny how you bring up science and then talk about credibility. It's not about credibility, it's about what is said exactly, no matter who said it. And what he said makes perfect sense. And what you linked is just an opinion of the authors who wrote it, it's not better than his opinion. In fact, I would even say that it's less valuable, since it's a sociology professor talking about STEM. As for expecting someone with credibility agree with him. Maybe someone did, maybe not, but in today's …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/23 12:13 PM
17

I don't there is any disguising going on. It's more like - if I'm judged by my money anyway, then why wouldn't I want to get a feminine traditional woman over a masculine modern one? And it just so happens that there's more of them abroad.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/23 12:03 PM
1

One can know how to do something and choose not to do it for themselves. Or they can be not great at doing it, but still know how to do it theoretically. Or wouldn't you listen to a school teacher because they are a school teacher and aren't a nobel prize winning scientist or a millionaire or something? Surely, you should understand that those actually nobel prize winners and millionaires were taught by regular teachers mostly.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/23 11:55 AM
0

No, that sounds like an excuse. Besides, we already know that women say that if they tried something and didn't like it in the past, then they won't try it with a new partner. So no, it's about the acts, not the partners. You don't learn this stuff "from" people, not from partners anyway, because they are doing the opposite. All you can get from them is the feedback. You learn this stuff by doing it, like a skill.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/23 11:23 AM
1

In the context of this sub high value doesn't mean high value as a human being, it's about the value as a man on the market. I agree with you that as a human being he was of negative value, but if many women were attracted to him, then yes, he had high SMV.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/23 11:20 AM
2

Psychology is not a science. Its theories are not falsifiable or verifiable, they don't definitely predict anything. The reproducibility rate of the studies is below 50%. It just doesn't meet the criteria of sciences. It's a "scientific" study, in the sense that they attempt to use scientific methods, but it's not a science.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/23 11:11 AM
2

You can gain experience with this man. Experience is gained through the number of time you had sex, not the number of partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/23 10:55 AM
1

This is actually wrong and can be (and was) verified that there's delay and light takes time to travel. In fact, accepting that it has speed predicted many things that then turned out to be true. And if you know something about science, you should know that scientific theories are supposed to be verifiable, falsifiable, and have predictive power. Speed of light is finite and the fact that it is is what electrodynamics is built upon. Actually, if light was static then what are sources of light? W…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/23 10:53 AM
2

I think that problem is related to women's independence very much. If a man can't even hope to get a woman who wasn't ran through, then he doesn't really care about the decent house or the future. There's no incentive to work hard, only to work to survive, if that. That's why you can't just look at those economic issues independently. You can't really address them without touching the underlying cause somehow. You would be treating symptoms, not the illness.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/23 10:40 AM
2

You're not the only buyer on the market, though. If something is a turn off for you but a turn on for others... Say you rate someone as 1/10, but for every person like you there's 10 who rate him as 10/10. That would make them high-value overall. I don't think anyone was saying that high-value men are something absolutely every single woman wants. So it's perfectly fine if you want something else, but you can't ignore the fact that if someone is in high demand in general (despite you not wanting…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/23 10:21 AM
2

It is used in the context of the sexual marketplace analogy. Therefore think of them as prices of goods in the market. In that sense personal preferences don't matter, what matters is the superposition of all personal preferences. Basically, what the item will sell for. For example, I can have my personal preference of not valuing a new iphone enough to pay $1k, but if it sells for that much, then that's it's cost/value. Low and high value are indicators of performance on the market as a whole, …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/23 10:15 AM
1

Nope, that's incorrect, I'm just responding in kind, other than the parts having to do with responding to an insult, there's nothing emotional. And like really? Law/psychology person is logical? Can you be any more liberal arts? I guess it could be literature or gender studies.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 09:31 PM
0

Nope, not zero. Research is done otherwise wouldn't post anything. The use of the word "exploit" is well known and it's not just what you heard in your muh patriarchy class. You can exploit something not just someone and you can see examples of that use of the word in newspapers for example. The rest is just obvious and logical.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 09:29 PM
0

Your qualifications have nothing to do with logic. If they were in math, physics, etc, then maaaybe that would help your case. And even then, we gotta look at what you actually say, not your credentials. And what you actually say is not logical, it's emotional and sounds like something one of those brainwashed leftist professors would say. You either don't know or deliberately pretend that you don't know that the word "exploit" has different meanings. Many women choose to be prostitutes and aren…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 02:44 PM
2

Sure, why not. That doesn't change anything, though, and the original claim holds true.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 01:48 PM
2

No, you are using emotions instead of a brain. Think logically. Prostitution as a business exploits male sexuality, that sexuality is the reason there's demand. Many prostitutes and other sex workers don't work on anyone but themselves. They know exactly what they are doing and are exploiting men's sexuality for profit.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 01:47 PM
8

Assumption 2 is false. Hooking up with whoever you can is an old thing. All those jokes about waking up and regretting it the next morning appeared well before tinder. And you think it's a joke about a man hooking up with an unattractive woman, and it is, but it's also the evidence that unattractive women could hook up with more attractive men.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 11:09 AM
3

That answers your OP then. That's why no one is talking about inverse af/bb for women, because it's not a thing. Come up with a whole new term and then it can be discussed. But don't use sexual stuff in your reasoning, that's what you did in the OP, that's why I had to point out that you're wrong. We're talking about sex and settling sexually here, and since women aren't settled for sexually, no one talked about it. No, they don't. Obviously, I'm referring to cases where they somehow find out. A…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 10:47 AM
1

They are not tangible and measurable parameters. Even if you were right, you can't demonstrate it. You say she is not getting those things and I say she is. So which one of us is wrong? The only way to compare our points is to use something measurable. So let's use something measurable. Sex frequency and specific sexual acts come to mind. She will get as much or almost as much of those, the difference would be negligible. We see very few complaints from women who get less sex than her man's ex o…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 10:26 AM
1

It's not the same thing at all. Male and female lust is not symmetric. And it doesn't matter how much she's desired, what matters is that she is getting everything and every sexual act a hot woman would get. If a man is settled for, he is getting less. So no, not literally the same thing. Also, as you pointed out yourself, no matter how hot a woman is and sex-filled the relationship is, the lust will decrease and the lust for variety will be there. That's because testosterone levels decrease if …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 10:05 AM
2

That's what OP's words are. There's no reason to come up with some new interpretation when what OP said is straightforward. But if you do need to change the question just so that your answer is correct, then I covered that, too. 2 options there - either talk about selling sex, and then I don't argue with anything. Or look at whose sexuality is actually exploited. Prostitutes (of either sex) exploit their clients' sexuality.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 10:00 AM
3

Right, it means she doesn't want this particular guy as much as another one.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 09:57 AM
2

You didn't quite understand the idea of af/bb. It's about settling sexually. What you're describing is not that. That cute woman could be chosen because she's lower maintenance, but it's not like she would be getting less sexually. The result is all that matters here, not the reasoning. It's not the same case as men being settled for and getting less sex or not getting some sexual acts other men would get. In most cases she would get everything and maybe even more. They watch her in porn. They f…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 09:42 AM
3

It can be harder for some men. It can be harder for you, no reason to not believe you if you're saying that's the case. But it is mathematically wrong. Most men can't get a hook-up, let alone consistent sex life through hookups (which is what we say is harder, not just getting one), while most men do get into LTR or marriage. In fact, that's the only way for most men to get sex. So yeah, if more people get more sex in scenario A than in scenario B, then the scenario B is harder to get into.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 07:25 AM
6

Because otherwise only one of them is consistent sex and what men could want. It's like saying, well, it's easier to find money than to earn money. And like, yeah, maybe you put no effort when you found that $5 bill, but so what? That's random chance and probably won't happen again, whereas you can get a job and get consistently paid. When people say casual sex is harder they mean it's harder they don't mean getting it once. Although, even that is not something every man will experience, while m…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 07:22 AM
1

That would only be exploiting their sexuality if their sexuality is homosexuality. Women who prostitute themselves to men are usually exploiting their heterosexuality. So no, not the same thing. The same thing would be men selling sexuality to women, even unattractive ones. What you're talking about is selling sex, not exploiting sexuality. And if that was the question in the OP, then you would be absolutely right. But it wasn't. To be fair, though, the question seems incorrect. Women aren't exp…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 07:10 AM
0

If the very first thing you have to say is an attack on person presenting the argument and has nothing to do with the argument itself, then why even say anything? We're all adults here, we know that ad hominem means you lose the debate, but why just say it without even trying? Might as well not say anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/23 07:02 AM
1

Definitely was, otherwise something else would be said.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/23 07:46 PM
1

Yes, that would be relevant if conditions weren't specified. Basically, say, you're about to masturbate anyway, but instead you can actually feel a tongue there with zero consequences guaranteed. Like, there's no reason to think that it's a stranger eating you out. In this experiment it could be an artificial men who never touched any woman before you, created just to touch you lol. Zero STD, made to act exactly how you like it, etc. The only thing is, no, you have no connection with him. But th…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/23 07:35 PM
1

I know, I was surprised, too, when I realized it.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/23 07:30 PM
1

That's just numbers. Doesn't change anything qualitatively. It is now pretty standard and even the expectation in most LTR, but it's just another sexual act. There are still people who don't like it or who did it with some past partners but not other partners later. The same logic applies to it as to other sexual acts. You just encounter it more frequently, but otherwise from the logical point of view there's no difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/23 07:12 PM
1

Sucking dick turns me on immensely, and I’m not alone in that, I’m not sure why you think it doesn’t do anything for women. It’s great foreplay - turning me on is “doing something” for me, especially since I need to be turned on to actually have a dick in me! My husband is the same way with eating pussy - I can visibly see it is turning him on when he does it! Nothing out of what you said contradicts what I said. Yes, it turns him on because he's doing it to you, yes, it turns you on because you…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/23 07:08 PM
1

No, again you're not getting it. "I am dying to taste her" is the key. You might be doing it for you but you're doing it to her because it's her.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/23 07:02 PM
-3

You didn't get it. There was no attempt to make things equivalent. I actually showed that 2 things are different. And receiving head is something you do because you enjoy it and it does for you, while giving head is something you technically do for the partner. And yes, what you say is precisely what I'm saying. A dude is eating a chick out because he likes how that makes her feel. He probably wouldn't do it for a stranger. Because he would be giving head, not receiving. Obviously, there may exi…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/23 04:02 PM
0

Are you not reading? Your second sentence is literally what I said and demonstrated. You do it for your partners arousal which in turn arouses you. From here it obviously follows that since you wouldn't do it for strangers you whether your partners gets it or not depends on how much you want that partner. Are you saying that if I come up to a woman and after making sure that wouldn't be cheating for her, showing her the proof I got no STD, and offering her to give me a blowjob with my hands tied…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/23 03:55 PM
-6

Because they enjoy participating in them if they enjoy making you happy. Case in point - blowjobs. Most women don't like the taste and have no erogenous zones on their tongue, they do blowjobs to please their partner. Yes, they might also get turned on by the fact they are turning their partner on. But it doesn't do anything for them. If it truly did, why wouldn't they just chase them like men chase them? Here's a thought experiment to demonstrate it: Scenario 1. A man is offered a blowjob by a …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/23 01:52 PM
6

Wouldn't you be concerned with a low frequency of sex regardless? I can't understand how the ex factors into it. It's because if she doesn't like it frequently because that's just how she is - that's one thing. But if that's just how she is with you - that's a different thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/23 08:45 AM
3

That's a survivorship bias. Most men do find long-term relationships, so you don't see them here looking for anything. LTR is how most men get sex. What you see in this part of the internet are men who want to have control of their sex life and who don't want to rely on LTR to get sex. Especially since there are other men who don't have to. And there are women who not only can but do have sex without commitment, and most likely you're expected to commit to one of those later.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/23 08:38 AM
1

Sex requires a willing partner. That is technically incorrect.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/23 01:44 PM
1

No, it doesn't. What matters is that the same outcomes are possible, so if something you didn't want happens, you shouldn't be shocked or think too much about it, because awalt. That's the point. No, emotional is using insults and arguments like people having absolutely rotten taste which you have no idea of verifying, or that everyone is just using the concept you don't understand because of rage. Basically, you're using the publicistic style which is literally used to appeal to emotion. Right,…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/23 07:28 AM
1

No, it's irrelevant, they all have the same nature. All humans. Individual differences don't change anything qualitatively, only quantitatively. Yeah, more than half of what you typed so far is emotional. The entire last paragraph of the previous comment, about half if not more of this one. Conflating the concept with those who use it. LOL. It doesn't matter that some people use it as rage-bait. That's on them, not on the concept. The concept is just a tool. And it's super funny how you generali…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 08:59 PM
0

No, there's a threshold and if a woman is below it, you simply won't get hard. Obviously, there's room, but you can't be conditioned to be attracted to something lower. Yes, having more options makes you pickier. But so does limiting your number of swipes. Again, not that it matters, since she's already not using 50 of them a day. But as I said - why would women even use this app at all? An alternative is being alone forever? In your universe this app is the only way of meeting people? That woul…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 05:58 PM
0

No, they are just swiping on what they are attracted to and attraction isn't a choice and can't be conditioned.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 05:46 PM
0

That's not correct. They don't need to actually have options, they just need to see options to have their standards high. Don't forget that the swiping happens before the options are known. She swipes on who she finds attractive and then matches if that person swiped back. And I doubt women even use 50 right swipes a day now when the swipes are not limited, so nothing will change on their end. They will swipe on the same top men as they are swiping now. The only thing that will change is that th…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 05:38 PM
3

I think you're confusing the cause and the effect. Men didn't choose to do it, they adapted because without mass swiping they get no results. That is because women find most men unworthy of a swipe. And this app suggests only one swipe per day, meaning most men would be lucky to get 1-2 matches a year if that. I mean, when are they supposed to use that 1 swipe? The first woman they find attractive? The first woman they think they have a chance with? The first woman they want to or wouldn't be ag…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 05:24 PM
3

Could you explain how? It sounds like a horrible idea for men and a pretty bad one for women, too.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 04:36 PM
5

How would you market it to men? It sounds like a waste of time, to be honest. Knowing that women find most men unattractive, I'm only allowed to try to match once a day?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 04:34 PM
7

That's not hypocrisy. Even your example with chocolate is not hypocrisy. If you were saying "Eating chocolate is disgusting and everyone who does it sucks" and then eat chocolate but not admit that you suck, that would be hypocrisy. Re-read the definition.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 03:24 PM
1

Wait, I didn't have a question about awalt. The only question I asked is why expect men to say amalt when they aren't trying to sleep with men and hence aren't trying to observe and describe them. And that was a rhetorical question really. But what you said was interesting anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 02:20 PM
1

Obviously no ADRALT is used. That's why I said - it's rephrased. What is used is the realization that all coins and dice rolls are the same and have the same probabilities of outcomes. They are random in a way, as in you don't know which one you get. But no, the probability distribution is not a horizontal line, not all outcomes are equally possible. But you knew that probability theory works with other distributions, too, right? Like, the gaussian which actually describes a lot, when talking ab…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 02:16 PM
5

It is, although if patriarchy is mentioned it's important to note that it's not a system that benefitted men and oppressed women. Both men and women were oppressed by the rulers. It just so happens that most monarchies prioritized males and sons would inherit over daughters and that was because of religion for the most part.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 02:06 PM
1

I don't think I'm the first one, but maybe no one has said it in a while because it's kinda obvious. In fact, you can search for that term yourself and see that it was discussed years ago in this sub and also in rpw. I did it out of curiosity and saw a 9-year old thread, could be something older, too, but I didn't look into it too much.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 01:55 PM
1

It's not the fault of women and most men don't hate women. What are examples of misogyny even that would say that men as a sex hate women? Some people do, but that applies to both genders. And what I was saying about misandry earlier can also be said about misogyny. But it's not "men" who are at fault. The overwhelming majority of men are down there with the overwhelming majority of women.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 01:52 PM
7

Was one really caused by the other? There was (and still is) institutional misandry at all times, where men are forced to do hard labor and die for the ruling class. Men and women blaming each other is exactly what they want.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 01:43 PM
1

There is no difference, you can say that. But do you understand that it's the sub for heterosexual men who are trying to get control of their sex life. They are trying to sleep with women, not other men, so why would they discuss men? They do categorize men already anyway, e.g. see af/bb.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 01:39 PM
2

Strength is something men are supposed to have traditionally. So, it is reasonable for women to demand that if those women are traditional themselves.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 01:27 PM
0

You don't understand AWALT. AWALT is a rephrased concept from the probability theory. What it means is that all women are capable of doing the same things, it doesn't predict that all of them will do those things. Think about dice or coins, all dice can roll a 3 with the probability equal to 1/6, but not all of them will (remaining 5/6). You can, however, say that all dice or all dice rolls are like that (ADRALT), even though the results are different and you can't predict a result of any given …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 01:22 PM
6

No, I think what's meant here is that they choose their careers keeping in mind that they will need an opportunity to focus on children when the time comes.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 01:15 PM
1

That article is absolutely horrific. Whaa? The article on a site called womens agenda dot com is horrific? Well, that's a surprise hahah
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 01:14 PM
–

This study is as good as defining those 19 capabilities. And if you really look at the breakdown, the fields where women outscored are things like working with others, building relationships, etc, really they could all be grouped up in 1-2 categories (social and selfconfident). The 2 where men outscored are technical expertise and strategic perspective. So no one is surprised, one is better with people, another is better with things. And frankly, most men would want to follow a better expert and…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 01:10 PM
1

Sigh, another "so you're saying" argument. Like, schools really need to stop graduating everybody. No, that's not what I said at all. That's not what traditionalism offers women. You are supposed to give consent to have children. But yes, implications are there. And I'm pretty sure if many enough women refuse to have children or many enough men can't get good deals in the relationship marketplace, the society won't just roll over and allow itself to go down the drain. Don't you think? It's like …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 08:20 AM
1

No, not always. But we don't talk possibilities here, we talk probabilities. It's obvious that anything is possible, it's pointless to mention it. Of course, if in a given couple a man is better with children and at the same time a woman is better at providing, that's what they should do. Although, a man can still be better at leading in this scenario, but yeah if he is indeed better - that's what he would choose. When I said traditional, I meant her trajectory before marrying mostly. She can be…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/23 08:13 AM
1

Obligatory : Suffer? They enjoy it. But seriously though, MW complex is when you aren't sexually attracted to the woman you date, as in you won't really sleep with her other than to procreate, let alone have any nonclassic sex. And I don't think that's what's going on. When we hear the stories of partner A refusing to something sexual with partner B, partners A are overwhelmingly women. It's not like men in general won't let their gf/wife swallow, won't stick it in their butt, or won't experimen…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/23 07:34 PM
0

I think the big idea is that for the society to work, everyone or the majority should have incentives to contribute. Being traditional simply means subscribing to how the society functioned not so long ago, and it evolved into what it was because promiscuity was limited and most non-top tier men could get a wife who wasn't ran through. Imagine if none of them had any reason to work harder than needed to survive? Women can only be nontraditional because many of them still are. What would happen i…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/23 07:28 PM
12

You are right. I wonder who was surprised by this. It's not like we see women lining up for all those intelligent and ambitious teachers and scientists. They just self-report liking those things to be politically correct and/or to disguise that they actually like money. I feel like ambitious is womanese for rich.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/23 07:14 PM
2

That doesn't really work because these 2 groups of people aren't isolated.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/23 06:40 AM
–

You are right, but that applies to everyone. For every race/nationality it is conventional to be overweight and not dress all that well. So if you lift and get fit - you're unconventional.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/23 06:31 AM
1

That's incorrect. Women also report to be less satisfied in marriages and report that they wanted more breakups happening on all stages of relationships (for example, see Fig 1 on p.35 here) . So they aren't "too lazy" they are just ready to work with what they have. Women are the ones who feel like men behaviorally initiated, but in fact they just don't like their behavior aka realize they settled.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/23 06:24 AM
3

They are not entitled they just see no point in going for something that's obviously and considerably worse.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/23 08:06 PM
3

That's already a checkmate. But for your use in future arguments - what if alimony and splitting assets etc stay, but in return she "pays" sex alimony? :) Bet you'll see some nice mental gymnastics and hamstering in responses to that.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/23 08:04 PM
1

For the same reason 70-80% of breakups are initiated by women. Do you understand the difference between what you want and what you have to settle for?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/23 07:49 PM
1

What is wrong? None of this is my opinion. There are studies, women themselves say that they want men who make more than them, iirc 25% more than them was the average preferred difference. And yes, if they find someone, good for them. They will just need to change their standards.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/23 06:14 PM
5

They never said women should be 100% dependent on men. You can be able to earn money as long as you're single without chasing career if you're not. Education is a tool, there's nothing wrong with having it. It's about how you use it.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/23 12:28 PM
2

My man look at the video you posted. Look how many old women are saying that. These women are mothers who raise their sons. This very well might be brainwashing and conditioning.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/23 08:46 AM
0

LOL good luck with that. Considering that there are studies showing that women prefer men making more money than them (while the reverse is not true) and that the US is one of the highest-income countries, they won't improve their situation very much. The men they would go for are even higher percentile in their country than they would be in the US and those women will have to compete with everyone there. So they better be hot and young when they make that move. That being said, women who have d…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/23 08:41 AM
5

Absolutely, even when men are victims, it's all about women.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/23 08:54 PM
2

Right, I mean, "fun" guy doesn't sound like an insult at all, too. It's a compliment.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/23 08:32 AM
2

Yes, the size and technique could be different, also, since it's a long-term things now, you both can practice to make it feel good. After all, as they say you don't know if you like something until you try it 3 times. And yes, the name is perfect. It was specifically created to call out people who must be joking. It's not cheating if there's no reasonable expectation of exclusivity. If she wants him to be happy why wouldn't she want for him to be sexually fulfilled, especially since she helped …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 09:24 PM
3

Survival is irrelevant here. Point is - both things are needed, without one of them the situation is objectively worse. Again, you're not understanding how analogies work. You don't need to die in both cases if one of the two things isn't there. You just need to get an outcome that is objective worse. It just happens to be death in one of the scenarios. Again, don't like air and water? Use the one with friends. Or can come up with both. Either way, both things are needed. No, it's not better, be…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 09:21 PM
3

No, you don't. Because you don't see how the relationship is shown very clearly. In the original both things A and B are usually the part of the same thing, so the original question is asking to choose between two things that naturally go together. The computer analogy is about two completely different things and is a worse analogy in this regard. But it still works, because in the end you are asked to choose between two things that are not mutually exclusive and having both is better than one.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 07:18 PM
3

It's because if a woman cheats, more often or not she's already done with the relationship and doesn't love her partner. Men can have sex with other women and still love their partner. That's why, men having sex is not even really cheating, even if it technically is (if he promised he won't have sex with others). On the other hand, if a man is involved emotionally and financially, even if there was no sex, that would be more like cheating and something that would make him more likely to leave.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 07:15 PM
8

No, the analogy is great, you just don't understand how analogies work. Most people also don't think having a car at all is necessary, but if you want one, which way would you like it? Same here, might not be necessary, but if you want it, why would you want only one thing when both are objectively better?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 07:02 PM
1

It's totally fucking stupid to not understand how analogies work. It's about being able to need/want, even prefer, 2 things instead of 1. It was never about nutrition per se. Like, idk what to tell you, google an analogy example and see for yourself how it works. The whole point is that you use different things but their relationship is similar. You want emotional needs? Ok, why have one friend instead of having two friends? That's emotional needs for you. Still clear that wanting 2 friends is n…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 04:00 PM
2

They enjoy the fact that the man likes it. If they just enjoyed the sucking sensation by itself regardless of the man being there, we would totally see that behavior in other things as well. There would be flavored dildos for once, and a huge demand (and supply) on different suckable food items and pacifiers, which we would see adult women using all the time. But we don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 03:38 PM
1

That's a great analogy, you're just in denial and/or don't understand how men work. Why wouldn't a man want to have both a meaningful relationship and threesomes to still get some variety?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 03:36 PM
6

Right, so if women really want men, they want to give them what they want. That's kinda how all markets work.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 02:53 PM
7

Not quite, that complex doesn't seem to be widespread these days. And even if it exists, it's because those men who have it don't get to experiment sexually, so they see love and sex as 2 separate things. That's in agreement with how Freud explained it back in the day. In reality, we don't hear women complain about men experimenting and then refusing to let her try the things he tried with him. We do hear about the reverse much more often. They probably also don't want blowjobs as there are no e…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 12:45 PM
3

That was just one example, you can use act X instead. But it doesn't matter if she doesn't envy or won't be mad, because in this scenario it's about him, not about her. To be more precise, about the certain type of person who had certain past and what that person values, not the person they end up with. He has a different mindset, not the same one, as he won't withhold anything sexual from her.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 12:38 PM
-1

2 things to note here. She tried it with someone else, she doesn't know how it would be with the new guy. Maybe the previous guy didn't do it right. Second, it's all fine and an acceptable scenario if she still won't try it with him despite the first point, but doesn't mind if he tries it with somebody else then.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 09:57 AM
13

So? Ok, if analogies are that hard for you, here's another one. Would you rather have a car with the lifetime supply of wheels but no engine or would you rather have a car with the best available engine updated regularly but no wheels?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 09:52 AM
9

What kind of question is that? Would you rather have an unlimited amount of water but no food or would you rather have all the food you can eat but no water?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 09:31 AM
14

has the same morals, values, and mentality as the guy That's not correct. They are very different. One of the reasons men see it for a bad deal it is is that those women will give their sexual best to "fun" guys, but not their bf/husbands. Men don't usually operate like that. I've heard zero stories from women complaining that her bf/husband had threesomes or anal with "fun" girls, but wouldn't do it with her.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 09:29 AM
7

Usually, being sexually adventurous is 1000x easier when you are emotionally comfortable with that person and know, based on past evidence, that you can trust them. You'd think so and it does make sense, however, nearly all the women's accounts we see online agree that they would experiment with FWB or ONS rather than in their LTR. The second tweet in the op pretty much sums it up. Almost all women who said anything about it in public said that they would try anal, threesomes, kinky stuff with r…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 09:26 AM
1

Everything in the world is about sex, except sex. Sex is about power.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 09:19 AM
3

Intelligence. Men really admire and respect each other for cool scientific research, inventions, being a specialist in some difficult STEM field, stuff like that. Yet, women don't really line up to have sex with those men. For women - makeup and all that weird plastic surgery. I don't think it needs to be explained further.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 09:16 AM
2

If you consider the need for a seatbelt, you probably shouldn't be driving in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 08:43 AM
2

They don't chase them for sex, they can date and marry them and have sex as a part of that, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/23 08:29 AM
1

Better than not being able to afford it and/or not sleeping with the same caliber for free anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 08:00 PM
1

Of course, I don't think they have any illusions.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 06:41 PM
5

You almost got it. The right way to put it is "The majority of younger women (18-24) are NOT attracted to MOST old men 30+", and then you are correct. They are attracted to high-value men, if the value is high enough, those 30+ men can be more attractive than 20+ men (not necessarily physically only). As for the rest of what you said - sugar dating is used by all men who have money, not just old men. It just so happens that young men usually don't have as much money. But that's the main reason t…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 03:44 PM
18

Well said. Yes, men are seen as expendable and were oppressed throughout the history. People like making it about men vs women or race vs race while looking only at the top, which is not a representative sample (it's a sampling bias or apex fallacy colloquially), when both men and women were oppressed, and it's very arguable which was treated worse. What it's really about is poor vs rich or common vs "noble"/aristocracy. We're talking about races or sexes being over- or under-represented somewhe…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 03:27 PM
1

Why would he? Men and women are different and the standards are different. Besides, he's not trying to date himself. It's up to women to hold him to their standards and women in general don't seem to care as much about the partner count. But they care about other things, and no, he's not allowed to not meet their other expectations. Like, he's not allowed to be fat or short for most women.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 03:03 PM
2

Some of the things that men prefer in women are the absence of kids, the absence of baggage from previous relationships (where you'd have to "pay" for something her exes did to her), being excited about you and not being jaded, having a low dick count, being enthusiastic/interested to try/have new experiences with you, sexual and nonsexual, as opposed to having seen it all, etc. All these things are more likely to be found in younger women and usually any given woman is losing those things as sh…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 10:57 AM
0

Effectively what this means is that homosexuality is a choice. I disagree with you on that. But if it was a choice, then there's no wonder why societies wouldn't want to promote that, since you never know how much damage it could cause. And if you are talking those pretend-marriages, they don't mean much, usually both are aware and don't force each other to be exclusive.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 09:06 AM
1

Does acting heterosexually include dating and fucking women? Think carefully before you answer.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 08:38 AM
2

I don't quite see the connection between the existence of homosexuals and their rights. They will still take themselves out of the dating pool even if no one promotes LGBT rights. Unless, you think homosexuality itself is some sort of a choice and the number of homosexuals correlates with their rights. Could you please clarify?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/23 08:08 AM
2

You are right, I agree with you. Even if one includes the other, that means there's the difference - the part that only relates to one of the two.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/23 06:11 PM
1

Then, going back to the OP, you can't use one instead of the other if they mean different things, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/23 06:02 PM
1

That doesn't matter, they are still not independent and one includes another even in this context, although it feels like which one is more general is reversed. How can you settle for a person without compromising in a relationship?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/23 05:55 PM
2

Not only. Or what do you think men care about? Career/money and kids from previous partners? Most things men care about are more likely to be found in younger women. And looks are valued highly by most men, yes, and money by women.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/23 05:52 PM
0

The relationship between 2 terms doesn't really change though. One still includes another.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/23 05:48 PM
2

That's on them. Many people in general don't understand definitions of things.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/23 09:41 AM
1

Men and women show loyalty differently. It's women who usually associate sex with emotional attachment, if she loves her man, other man are pretty much invisible. And if she did cheat sexually, that usually means she checked out of the relationship. When they are expecting the same from men, they are projecting and assuming attraction is symmetric. A man can fuck other women and still be loyal, as in only support her and not even think about leaving her. As such, I think it would make sense if h…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/23 09:40 AM
27

Men don't seek age gaps, men seek hot/high-value women. It just so happens, that younger women are usually hotter, and men have enough value to get them when they are older. Women probably have a problem with that because they are jealous and feel entitled to get men their age.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/23 09:29 AM
2

If they didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/23 09:21 AM
5

It's a bro code, not a men code. Not every man is your bro, even if you know him personally, let alone if it's some stranger.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/23 09:18 AM
5

By definition, compromising is a special case of settling, a subset if you will.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/23 09:17 AM
5

If you did not find her attractive, what's up because you were intimidated perhaps? Like women are intimidated by short, fat, ugly, and/or poor men? It's just not attractive, that's all. Like just reading your title makes one thing of an annoying and exhausting woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/23 09:15 AM
2

? I never said always. Are you building strawmen to fight? What I did say is pointed out that the girl you described in the comment I replied to does not support your point whatsoever. I'll remind you what you said: Regarding the girl I am dating now, I am the first guy she has ever wanted anything more than casual with. She said in the past she's had 3 or 4 FWB that she liked hanging with and when they confessed feelings to her she responded "why did you have to ruin this?" Here, bold is what y…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/23 08:38 PM
5

No you don't have more than 1 data point for each given girl. You only really witnessed her conversation with you. You weren't there when she talked to her FWB and if she was lying - that changes everything. For all we know, what she described didn't happen, and then you have no argument whatsoever. How your relationship progressed only supports the point you were trying to argue against, not your point. A girl who had casual sex wanted something more.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/23 07:31 PM
2

She has a reason to lie. And whether or not she lied, you have no way of verifying how it went with those FWB. The only data point you actually have is that she wanted something more with you. And that is in agreement with what you're commenting on.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/23 05:02 PM
0

No they are not applying the double standard. They are in fact applying the same standard - "do not sleep with many men". It would be a double standard if they themselves slept with men but said women shouldn't. But since that's not the case, this is not a double standard. No, who you're attracted to is irrelevant, as you demonstrated earlier. What's relevant is whether a person you're having sex with has a dick. There is no gotcha. I just demonstrated how what you said makes perfect sense by al…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/23 03:28 PM
0

No, you have to if you insist on what you said about having sex with (gay) men (instead of women) being the equivalent of having sex with men. You can't have both, they are mutually exclusive.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/23 03:07 PM
1

Indeed, glad that now we agree with each other. Most women actually think it's hypocrisy or double standard to do what you did (recognizing that sex with men and women are different things). So it's very refreshing to see that there are still people who understand definitions. Cheers!
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/23 03:00 PM
1

No, you're right. Sexuality has nothing to do with it, but it's not because helping or whatever. It's because indeed we should apply the same standards to both men and women and not be hypocritical. If we expect women to have sex with men, then how come we don't expect men to have sex with men? After all, sex with men and sex with women are 2 different things. That's why the analogy works. And that's why men who don't want women to sleep with other men are not hypocritical and aren't applying do…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/23 02:50 PM
0

You are right, I don't know how I missed this. Indeed, sex with men and sex with women are two different things. That's why this analogy works. And that's why men who don't want women to sleep with other men are not hypocritical and there's no double standard. Because if those men themselves aren't sleeping with men and expect the same of women, then it's all fair. Thanks for showing me this angle, I did miss it at first.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/23 02:45 PM
0

The analogy of gay men and ugly men, when there are already ugly women.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/23 01:17 PM
2

Ok, I actually forgot, thanks for explaining it. I agree. Indeed, sex with women and sex with men are two different things. That's why the analogy works here. And that's why men who don't want women sleeping with other men are not hypocrites and don't apply double standards.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/23 01:16 PM
1

Exactly, if you're talking sexual preferences, ugly women are just outside men's sexual preferences as ugly men are outside women's. Gay men are not equivalent to ugly men, when ugly women already are.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/23 01:13 PM
-1

That's not what I commented on, is it? I questioned the "analogy".
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/23 12:10 PM
0

How does that follow from anything I said? I swear, they should stop letting people graduate, so many of those "so you're saying" arguments out there.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/23 11:22 AM
2

It's pointless to argue. We know of literal murderers and drug dealers being popular among women. Or in general attractive people lacking the qualities listed in the OP. However, where are all those people who aren't physically attractive but possess those qualities and are drowning in women? They either don't exist or their numbers are negligible.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/23 09:32 AM
-2

Nah, it was a good argument until you mentioned gay dudes. That is a horrible analogy since the thread wasn't about women sleeping with ugly lesbians. You just know very well that the actual analogy wouldn't work here, because even ugly women rarely die virgins and some men would help them out.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/23 07:17 AM
1

Or, we have a fish who consistently gets caught by other fishermen and is telling you the rules those other fishermen didn't need to follow. The fish can't be trusted if it's telling you one thing, but has a track-record of being attracted by another thing. And no it wouldn't know more than a fisherman because it never went fishing to catch other fish.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/23 07:05 AM
0

[ Removed by Reddit ]
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/23 07:02 AM
2

For sure, but when I said time I meant to say the time that the fish tells you is the best, not the fisherman. I ended up having 3 bullet points without expanding on it, though, so I stopped before I could.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 07:24 PM
5

Right. Women good, men bad. I understand it very well, but this sub is not about genuine connections as much as it is about getting sex. Please, tell us more about all those genuine connections formed by men and women who have double- and triple-digit counts.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 06:42 PM
0

That's irrelevant. In fact, as far as instincts are concerned, her friend is a right person, not wrong. He already gives here all the bf energy except for sex. If pregnancy is a concern, she can make sure he uses a condom. If that's not good enough, there's anal and oral sex as well. Instinct also would tell you not to share food because what if you need it, but you would share it if the starving person is your friend. No, sleeping with the same sex is equivalent to sleeping with the same sex, n…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 06:22 PM
1

That's not contradicting anything. Yes, they do, but all it does for them is that their pond overlaps with more top men who get their pick. And single is irrelevant, that's a relationship status. The thread is about getting sex, not an LTR. For LTR not much changed, since people pair up, but it's men who gatekeep those anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 06:12 PM
1

Because it's not about anything medical, why would it be used there? That is depending on what you mean by medical uses, because it is used in the medical field. Even if it wasn't, it's also not used in math or chemistry. It simply means that it has its application limits. It used in a particular branch of psychology, it's also used in businesses, education and such to assess if people are happy. It is actually used in the medical field for similar reasons - to assess the needs of patients and p…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 05:07 PM
1

It's not good enoug. Any person can be rich, any person can be shot by police. Yet, we look at percentages of people actually getting those things, and then say that certain groups are disadvantaged/oppressed and that apparently it's not good enough that anyone can.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 04:57 PM
1

It absolutely doesn't. Bad people did great things all the time, I listed a few examples. He didn't work in pseudo-sciences like social science, he did actual science. It doesn't matter, however. The point is, that the person doing something is not important. The only thing that matters is what they did. And the hierarchy of needs is widely used. You want social scientists that were crappy? Look up Helmut Kentler who placed children in the homes of pedophiles as an experiment and had a great car…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 04:55 PM
2

That doesn't change how men feel about getting a worse deal.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 04:46 PM
1

That's incorrect. Social science is not a science at all. It just uses the scientific method to process data. It isn't verifiable, falsifiable, and doesn't predict anything. It doesn't produce any theories that are scientific (see Popper's criteria). It's only called science by people who are doing it, media, and some people mindlessly reading those media. The philosophy of science is pretty straightforward about it. "Soft" and "hard" sciences are not a thing. That's a colloquialism used by peop…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 04:41 PM
1

About you arguing with him when he says most men don't hook up and your argument being that any man can. Yes, physically they can, but the fact is that they don't or at least not as often as the minority of men. At the same time, the society doesn't agree that the current system (talking the career aspect mostly) is good for women, even though any woman can become rich and a CEO.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 04:27 PM
1

That's correct. It's about the number of men they give sex to without requiring as much investment. No one will judge her for having a lot of sex and orgasms with 1 person.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 04:21 PM
1

You don't get it at all. Men don't want to feel like they have less than other men. But they can't - legally - kill other men to compete that way. And it especially hurts if now they are expected to marry/LTR women who didn't require the same from their previous multiple partners. The only way they can retaliate is by refusing to deal with those men and women. Then again, those things you listed are usually said by other women, not by men. Also, in most cases, there's no motivation or thinking b…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 04:20 PM
1

Not even that. Technically it's incorrect, because she could still get a 10, just not the very 10 she wanted. But that's like... boo-hoo? Most people are in those conditions. At least she can get someone more attractive than her.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 04:14 PM
26

Fish say to wait for certain times and conditions to go fishing, what are the rules? Bait: don't use it, that would manipulative. Nets, dynamite, etc.: every fish is special and meant to be caught alone, don't use anything efficient that helps you achieve your goals. Eye contact: did I say caught? No, wait for the fish to make and maintain the eye contact, then just put your hands in the water invitingly, ask the fish to jump in, and wait. P.S. Do you really think men who get laid a lot follow t…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 04:06 PM
3

You don't get it, because 8s are lined up to sleep with 10, there's are no 8s for a 9, so he goes lower. Basically, because of the Pareto principle, there's a vacuum on top, so a woman who's a 4 can get a guy who's higher than a 4. That being said, "exactly who they want" is probably incorrect to say.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 10:51 AM
2

And any woman can become a rich CEO. Yet, because mostly they don't, the society screams that the system must be changed.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 10:48 AM
3

Because before that dating pools were more localized. A woman didn't have as many options. So lots of men who don't have a chance now, used to have a chance before.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 10:44 AM
3

It's possible, but we don't define only the pros as the attraction level. We define the difference between pros and cons. I never said she necessarily found him gross, just less attractive. And I'm sure many men are happy to be her second or third best.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 09:58 AM
0

No, education is not a basic need. Definitely not higher education. I'm not even gonna talk that the majority of people couldn't even read or write until relatively recently. But I will say that the higher education and the university degree inflation happen in a couple of recent decades. That level of education is definitely not a basic need. People can, did, and still do have happy lives without it, if other needs are met, of course. Again, job in itself is not a need. It's a social construct …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/23 09:51 AM
–

I know. Those are top men who men here want to be. If you don't like that men want to improve their standing in the sexual market, then why are you in this sub? Are you gonna tell men they should just be happy to wife up women who gave casual sex to other men while they couldn't get it? Men already have no troubles getting relationships in general. We are observing the SM and use SMV to describe it. Also, what you described is not even true. There's tons of businesses helping men to get laid, to…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/23 07:35 PM
5

No, it's not an exception. You have no way to know how her sex life would be with any of the guys she didn't make wait for sex. All you know, is that she wasn't able/didn't want to put off the sex with another guy, but was able/wanted to do it with your friend. So at the beginning of the relationship she was more attracted to other guy as shown by the best objective metric there is.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/23 06:22 PM
–

No, it's not how it works. The seller doesn't determine the price. The seller can list their goods at a price, but it's the market that determines the price. The price is known when actual transactions happen. No, women do care. They prefer relationships, yet they still have sex outside of relationships. So who do they have that sex with? Whoever is in more demand for that non-committed sex has higher SMV. As for RMV, those same men are in demand as well, because women value attractiveness. Howe…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/23 06:15 PM
1

No, I didn't call myself that. It's you either not understanding definitions or projecting something. My argument is not about taking away one's autonomy, it's about checking if they exercise their autonomy to help their alleged friend when their help is needed. They can easily choose to not help.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/23 03:34 PM
1

That's fine, and I have found many that do. Sure, there can be criticisms, so what? You gonna cherry-pick what you like and what you don't? Remove the word sex. It is valid to stop considering your friends your friends if they can help you meet your needs that you're struggling to meet without help but don't. Now, it just so happens that sex is one of those needs. Again, you're trying to cherry pick what you like, but it's not how it works. The general definition is correct. And sex is one of th…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/23 01:18 PM
2

Are you trolling? It's literally on the bottom level. And that shouldn't surprise you, the pyramid is not about survival, it's about having a life. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg"Seriously, come on" is not an argument. There are other needs on the same level as food that you don't need for survival, too, such as light and hygiene (not in the pic I linked, but can be found on many other pics). They are just needed to have a normal life, not necessarily t…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/23 12:17 PM
2

Of course, you wouldn't. It's not politically correct to point it out. But it's very simple - a friend who's just watching you being deprived of a basic human need from the first level of the hierarchy of needs while being able to provide you with that is not your friend. And it's not about sex - it's about the first level of the hierarchy of needs. It includes everything that's there, sex just happens to be one of the things. It's not special and doesn't get the special treatment.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/23 07:34 AM
2

I'm not making rules up. Please, google the hierarchy of needs. Like, why even comment to the thread about it without first reading about it? Sex is a basic human need. That is textbook stuff. There aren't many men attracted to fleshlights or toys either, so that won't work here. The point of sex being a basic need is that your body needs to think it's reproductive instinct is working.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 07:03 PM
2

Of course not. That's not natural, that's just what would make them a good friend. Friends sacrifice for each other. I also might not want to share food if my friend is starving. That's up to me, but if I didn't share it, I can't really call myself a good friend, can I? Since I didn't sacrifice and didn't help in the time of need.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 06:57 PM
2

When I said not let someone starve that could also include buying them food instead of giving the food you already had, basically giving them money for food. What's unclear? Other than that, money in itself is not a need. Only the things that can be bought for money. Do you know what the hierarchy of needs includes? It doesn't have money there.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 06:45 PM
2

If you're talking about anomalies like the ones you mentioned, then sure. But what I'm talking about is the most natural instinct of them all.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 06:39 PM
1

What? How are you understanding this if it doesn't follow from what I said at all. Both men and women should give sex to their preferred-sex friends if requested and they didn't promise exclusivity to anyone. Both men and women should help their friends if they are starving.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 06:28 PM
1

Not boyfriend. Husband. So relationship cancels out in the balance.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 06:25 PM
1

How is that by that logic? What you described is a transaction. Prostitution to be precise. That can be arranged sure, but it's a separate thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 06:22 PM
1

It literally is on the same level. Why are you still arguing? Read about it. I already told you what to google. Google and see for yourself. It's not about life and death, it's about life and existence.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 06:21 PM
2

Friends sacrifice for each other.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 05:59 PM
2

There are also animals and holes in the ground. So what? Men and women are different sexually, therefore, sex with women and sex with men are different. You need the one that your instincts want, aka you will get hard. Most people aren't attracted to animals and holes in the ground, for example, so those things wouldn't count.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 05:58 PM
1

It is indeed insanity to call yourself a friend and not help your friend out with their basic needs when you easily could.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 05:57 PM
-1

Of course, the gender matters. Because men and women are different, therefore sex with men and sex with women are different. The mansion and shack is a great analogy, but you didn't apply it correctly. It doesn't mean you can go with a man or an animal instead of a woman. It means you can go with an uglier woman instead of a hotter woman. And again, you are talking about the topic you know nothing about. You're basing your words on what feels good, but I already told you to read about it. If you…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 05:55 PM
3

The longer I'm here, the more I'm leaning that way, because the other side is just ridiculous. They are literally changing the definition to whatever feels good, ignoring, how logic works, and going ad hominem all the time. I just made an account to discuss stuff, because the topic is interesting. My understand of logic is on a stem phd level.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 05:48 PM
2

If she has a boyfriend, sure. I was talking about the scenarios where both are single or otherwise didn't promise exclusivity to anyone. If it isn't true, then those men are bad friends, too. Again, if they are not exclusive to someone and it's logistically possible (as in, she's not below the threshold needed for him to get hard and maintain it).
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 05:43 PM
1

He also gives you the same relationship, so that part is cancelled out.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 05:38 PM
1

Yes, another decision that is 100% up to her. If she decides not to get it - you're stuck. Again. There are literal stories of this happening.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 05:37 PM
3

Where exactly did I use AWALT in the comment you replied to? Or the wall? I'm talking about what I said, not some other people. Since you asked me about me. Also, it seems like you don't understand what AWALT means, while it's actually just a rephrased concept from the theory of probabilities.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 05:33 PM
4

Are you sure? There were too many punctuation marks. Again with this crap. You're talking about stupid people but literally can't read the second sentence. It's not about survival. It just isn't. It's about having a life. Sex is a physiological need like many others. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself. Go read about the hierarchy of needs. I'm not the one who invented it. It's established long ago. Also, doesn't even matter if it's the same tier or not. As long as it's something you need, …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 05:32 PM
0

I don't see how this is relevant. The words/thoughts are correct whether who typed them is happy or unhappy. It's all about logic, not personal points of view.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 05:28 PM
0

I agree. That would be a crappy friend. Ewww. It's women like that who are the reason men and women can't be friends. Her male friend most likely would help her out in the same situation with sexes reversed.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 05:26 PM
2

Yet, there are unplanned pregnancies happening all the time. Like, there are literal stories with this very scenario. They happened to actual people in real life. And of course they trusted them, so what? Or look at any cheating scenario. You can't be saying "don't marry who you don't trust". A lot of people trusted who they married and got cheated anyway. Your level of trust to some person says nothing about that person, only about what you feel towards them.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 05:21 PM
1

Clarify who I am in this scenario? Man, woman? Basically, which sex do I need - sex with men or sex with women? Because if I have no need for sex with men, then there's no need they can fill.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 05:19 PM
1

So the answer is a no or a conditional yes at best. So yep, he's in fact paying for it then, while another man provides much less but is still getting it.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 05:17 PM
2

Aww did you feelings get hurt? So many question and exclamation marks. Take it up with "science". I'm not Maslow. You have no idea what you're talking about and instead of typing this, you could've googled the hierarchy of needs and educated yourself. Sex is a physiological need whether you like it or not. That tier also includes clothing, shelter, light, and hygiene, for example, and you can survive without those. It's not about what you need to survive, it's what you need to have a life.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 05:14 PM
1

No, you can't. It's like orientation. Your metaphorical (and actual) dick either gets hard or it doesn't. You don't choose what you're attracted to. You can't choose what you feel, you can only choose what you do.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 05:10 PM
1

No, he's not paying you for sex directly. But if he completely stopped contributing financially and spend more than your bf, then would you still be with him and/or give him sex? Yes or no? No, it's neither hypocrisy nor misogyny. You obviously don't know what those words mean. And no, it's not insecurity. Insecurity is a feeling about oneself, not about others.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 05:00 PM
3

Nope. Not good enough. What a crappy argument. It's like - why would you wear seatbelts? Just don't drive in cars you don't trust. Why would you have insurance? Just don't live in houses you don't trust. Etc etc. You can trust them all you want, and then they change their mind. Or get pregnant by accident.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 04:58 PM
-2

No, what I'm saying is that men and women can be friends if a woman didn't withhold sex from a man (in case he wanted it), because otherwise she's a shitty friend. And he would want it if she was attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 04:57 PM
1

Attraction is not a choice.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 04:53 PM
-9

Imagine, you're starving and a person who's supposed to be your friend has food or resources to feed you, but they are just watching how you're struggling. Granted, their resources/food are a representation of their body, since they had to sell their body (do labor) to get those. I don't think I'd call that person a friend. Well, sex and food are on the same level of the Maslow's hierarchy of needs...
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 03:45 PM
1

No, that's incorrect. Because value is not relative to one person. Value is defined by the market. Men can only sleep with 50 women if the market allows that, and it would only allow that if their SMV is high. SMV is objective, it doesn't matter what you personally think. Like, I can say that I wouldn't pay $1k+ for an iphone, but if it sells for that much, then that's how much it costs, no matter how many people agree with me.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 09:39 AM
3

That's not good enough. She can promise she doesn't want children but then changed her mind after she got pregnant by another man. And then the husband is stuck. We've seen multiple stories like this.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 09:32 AM
1

Men are fine with those when they are open only on their end. If they were open for a woman, too, that would mean other men get to fuck her (unless specified that she can only sleep with other women), while this man commits to her emotionally and financially. And that's just disgusting to men in itself plus why would a man pay to maintain sexual access when another man gets that access virtually for free? Besides, it makes them clowns for their peers, no one respects cucks. Look at Will Smith, h…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/23 09:26 AM
1

No, because I wouldn't be a virgin by definition. Not sure, why you had to ask this. Male's virginity is not a thing to worry about. There are no auctions for male virginity. No one cares about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 11:14 PM
1

Incorrect. We absolutely do as a group, that's why her past is a big deal. Maybe you and your friends don't. The majority of men do.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 10:46 PM
1

Most men do care about men she slept with. That's why her sexual past matters. So it's absolutely where you been, too.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 10:44 PM
6

Right. intercourse noun in·​ter·​course ˈin-tər-ˌkȯrs Synonyms of intercourse 1 : physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person So what's your point? None of this contradicts anything I said.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 10:42 PM
1

They don't count towards the D count. They may count towards the N count. Most men don't really care about them as much as about men.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 10:36 PM
0

I don't think about what it means. I read the definition.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 10:31 PM
2

It's not as disgusting. Like, at that point she might as well be pleased by another woman since no dicks are involved. And women don't count towards the D count. But she's still not a virgin cause STD risk and well, technically it's sex (oral).
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 10:17 PM
3

Not really. The only grey area here is that I personally don't see it as bad as other things where she would please men. But technically, the rule works - she's not a virgin. I just feel like it's not as bad, but I still acknowledge that no matter how I feel about it, the area is not really grey :)
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 10:10 PM
1

Sigh. Are you trolling? Look up the definition of the word. It means "at all times", "invariably", etc. It absolutely implies that it's a rule. Or a schedule. But since you are making a statement about something that doesn't happen due to someone's will, it's not related to schedules. So it would need to be a rule.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 09:44 PM
3

The obvious answer is : She's not a virgin if she had sex. Oral sex is sex. It is a good question, though. Since she received oral, not gave it, I'm not so sure. Alpha widow is not a factor here, but if it was - that would depend on whether or not she had a man who was her best, it wouldn't necessarily depend on the number. But the rest is an interesting thing to discuss. Basically, you found a boundary, like a special case where the definition is not necessarily applicable. Since she touched no…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 09:41 PM
0

You "always". That absolutely means it would be a rule. But no, what you said was false. No, feelings you have about yourself are feelings you have about yourself. Feelings you have about others are feelings you have about others. That's why we have 2 different words for yourself and others.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 09:36 PM
0

No, they absolutely can't. And no, outwards-directed feelings are not always a result of inwards-directed feelings. There's no such rule, you are making it up. People do call a spade a spade, yes. Words have definitions. Disgust is a feeling about another person. Insecurity is a feeling about oneself.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 09:27 PM
1

It's the count men care about - the dick count. The number of men she slept with. Men, not people.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 08:39 PM
1

No, the average is 4-7. Anyway, it doesn't matter as much, the 2nd point was the most important one. That is being in 2 digits. That's just disgusting. And no, I wasn't talking about casual sex type stuff. It's not like men care about the count of their sex partner. They care about the count of the women they are supposed to commit to.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 08:38 PM
1

No, it can't. They have opposite vectors. Insecurity is directed inwards, disgust - outwards. But of course, people who don't like that someone is disgusted with something (that those people probably associate with), will try to call disgust an insecurity instead. The goal is simple - some women want to shift the focus on those who express their preference as if something is wrong with them, instead of either accepting that preferences exclude them or trying to adhere to them. But of course, no …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 08:04 PM
2

It's the same when a guy is rejected for sex(or even a relationship) and is offered to be friends instead. It's only taking advantage of her, of course, if the sex actually happens. She can always say no.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 07:58 PM
2

For guys there is no difference between 9 and 50. Both of them are above average. And both of them mean that he will be Mr Two-Digits.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 07:56 PM
3

Disgusted/repulsed and insecure are 2 completely different things.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 07:55 PM
4

Men don't care about N count, they care about D count. Stop pretending that men and women are the same. They are different and, consequently, sleeping with men and sleeping with women are different.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/23 07:54 PM
3

Incorrect, try again.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/23 04:10 PM
2

Both these things are happening haha
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/23 03:40 PM
3

They need to see them and watch to decide if they want to approach, yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/23 03:33 PM
6

If they did agree on that one, then those good looking guys hunting them wouldn't sleep with multiple women - with more women than guys who aren't hunting.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/23 02:36 PM
0

That's irrelevant. The option is there. Of course, it's an extreme, but illustrates very well how low the bar is and how easy it is for a woman to be a slut if she wants it. And I mean, a homeless woman approaching you probably would scare most men. But not all.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/23 08:36 AM
0

That's perfectly fine. And there are some men who wouldn't refuse to date a woman who had sex with 50 men. No one is saying either of those things is impossible. The thing is though, that unlike a woman who could just choose to get 50 men, a man had to become attractive to be able to get 50 women. So he won't find himself without options.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/23 08:17 AM
2

You're confusing cause and effect. They don't have to be social, they can match on tinder and invite a guy over or go to their place. Or they can go out and just ask who wants to hookup and leave immediately.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/23 08:13 AM
2

No, they don't. And if your last sentence is true, then you didn't approach. Winking doesn't count. Actually asking someone one, setting up dates logistically etc. counts.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/23 07:07 PM
2

That is you. You approached a lot. We're talking probabilities here, not possibilities. Most men never or almost never get approached.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/23 06:21 PM
3

You are in denial. How much they initiate doesn't matter, what matters is how much they initiate *relative* to men, and the ratio is too low to care. It also matters how many men they initiate with, and, again, that number is very low.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/23 05:55 PM
4

Is short men having lower value also sexism? LOL what's the point in replying and adding to black list so I can't read a reply? If you give up and can't acknowledge your hypocrisy, then just say that.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/23 05:41 PM
3

For a man to have sex with a lot of women a lot of self-control is required. You don't get to the point where you can have that sex without self-control.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/23 05:39 PM
8

This analogy doesn't work, because a man can't just choose to go do 20 pullups. He needs to work out a lot to achieve a point where he can do it. Whereas a woman can choose to be a slut without changing anything about her and just start racking up the numbers at any point.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/23 05:38 PM
3

That doesn't change the supply and demand ratio and the fact that women are the ones who will decide everything. Not to mention, that it's not like women are initiating all that often. So what you said is irrelevant. It just doesn't happen IRL often enough. Now THAT is reality. What you said is negligible. Of course, men also have standards yadda-yadda, but in most cases they have to chase women, not the other way around. So if he's chasing - he already said yes to sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/23 05:35 PM
0

You're right. I suppose, it does up to some limit.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/23 03:37 PM
6

I think he's trolling, I already answered this in the first comment he replied to.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/23 03:05 PM
1

I literally explained that very thing in my first comment you replied to. Please, re-read it. There's something I can add, though. Men are repulsed by promiscuous women. Women apparently are not repulsed by promiscuous men, and no wonder, only attractive men can be promiscuous, whereas every woman can choose to be one. It's up to women to call men sluts for this. They don't, so what does it tell you? Or did you expect men to do it? Why would they do it when they aren't trying to date other men?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/23 03:05 PM
7

Lol are you new to society or something? Slut and stud are the answers. But he's not a stud because he slept with 50 women. He slept with 50 women because he's a stud.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/23 02:30 PM
5

You're incorrect, and it all stems from your fundamental misunderstanding that men and women are opposite sexes, so they don't work by the same rules. But it's the same game, just on hard mode. And at the end of the day, you ended up in the same spot as the sluts you despise the most. No, it's not the same game. A woman can choose be a slut, a man can't. For her it's about choosing the best option between her options, for him it's to create options, which he doesn't have by default. He first nee…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/23 02:25 PM
9

You're incorrect, and it all stems from your fundamental misunderstanding that men and women are opposite sexes, so they don't work by the same rules. But it's the same game, just on hard mode. And at the end of the day, you ended up in the same spot as the sluts you despise the most. No, it's not the same game. A woman can choose be a slut, a man can't. For her it's about choosing the best option between her options, for him it's to create options, which he doesn't have by default. He first nee…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/23 02:25 PM
2

You're incorrect, and it all stems from your fundamental misunderstanding that men and women are opposite sexes, so they don't work by the same rules. But it's the same game, just on hard mode. And at the end of the day, you ended up in the same spot as the sluts you despise the most. No, it's not the same game. A woman can choose be a slut, a man can't. For her it's about choosing the best option between her options, for him it's to create options, which he doesn't have by default. He first nee…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/23 02:24 PM
5

That's incorrect. Men and women are opposite sexes, so different standards apply, not the same ones.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/23 02:08 PM
1

One is more common that the other. You shouldn't just count occurrences. If 1 person gets 200 ONS, but 50 people get only 0-1 ONS but can be in a LTR, you would think ONS are more common. But the idea is that in that sample you can see that they are actually more difficult for men to get, only rare men can get them consistently.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/23 08:25 AM
1

Incorrect. You're too deep into men and women are the same matrix if you don't see how men having sex with multiple women is not the same as women having sex with multiple men. Those most women are brainwashed , so can't blame them. But we all know that women are ok sharing men they really want, it's been like that for centuries, there are even some cultures where men explicitly can have many wives.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/23 08:13 AM
0

No, he's not a cheater by default. He probably would be if it was explicitly said that he promised no sex. Then he would cheat in the sense that he lied. Otherwise, no, it doesn't need to be called cheating, if a man does it in most cases it wouldn't negatively affect his feelings about the relationship, in fact, could even affect them positively. It is political correctness in the sense that it implies that men and women are the same and the same standards should apply, whereas in reality they …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 08:44 PM
4

Yes, I think you are right. It's not impossible, almost nothing is, but it almost never happens relative to how often men get into relationships or even to how often casual sex happens to some chosen men.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 08:39 PM
-1

No, it's not. Maybe it is in some politically correct subs, though. Women are emotional about sex in general. If they sleep with someone that's because they already checked out. A man can sleep with other women while still loving his gf the same.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 08:36 PM
3

It's not illogical, it's actually mathematical. Let N be the number of men who can get relationships, M be the number of men who can get casual sex. If N>M, then relationships are easier for men, if N<M then casual sex is easier. Relationships are easier because the supply-demand ratio is more favorable to men than that of the casual sex. What you're saying is not reality. It's just not how it works.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 08:22 PM
-1

Cheated on? Who's talking about cheating?* But if the question is what sort they should be doing, then the answer is all of them or bring a girl for a threesome who will do the ones she won't do. At least if the man is ready to do all acts she wants, of course. ---- *reminder that men and women are different and cheat differently. Men's cheating is not sex, it's putting money into others.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 08:20 PM
5

Then I'm not sure wtf you're saying. It's shown time and time again, that many more guys get relationships than casual sex. And how can you ask how does it make sense if you have been reading trp for years? It's literally explained in the sidebar. See AF/BB for example. AF get to fuck for free without commitment, BB get to fuck only in a relationship. Most guys are BB.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 08:11 PM
9

Absolutely not. Most men can't get sex by going out, only top men can. That's why this sub exist. You must be super new here. At the same time, most men can get relationships. As in, girls won't sleep with them for nothing, but will sleep with them for commitment.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 08:05 PM
10

No, that's in correct. It's a common misconception, though, that men and women are the same and everything is symmetric, so can't blame you. Relationships are much easier for men than getting casual sex. In fact, most men don't get to sleep around and have to be in relationships to have sex. How it makes sense? Easy. If you're a man, it's not commit to you vs just have sex. It's give you sex for free or make you commit to them so you can get sex. Most men don't get sex without commitment, only t…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 08:02 PM
13

Reverse the genders and you will have no trouble understanding this: How come average men get relationships but can't consistently get laid outside of it? (Or get the whole "whore who fucks like a prude" in it)
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 06:43 PM
2

Haha they aren't, but you didn't say they weren't oranges :)
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 06:36 PM
2

Yes, I agree. That's what I was saying.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 06:08 PM
2

This statement is no contradiction with anything I said. Yes, there are different possibilities. So what?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 05:45 PM
2

The only way to know if he actually could is if he actually did. Same applies to pre-selection. Sleeping with many women means he is pre-selected. Sleeping with many women maybe doesn't make him attractive, but it confirms that he's attractive. Just think about it, you're saying a price sticker makes something expensive, when I'm saying it's confirmed sales for the high price that do. The latter makes more sense. You can put a 1 billion price tag on an orange, but if no one buys it, then you hav…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 05:41 PM
1

Absolutely no worries. You have the right to choose to stay ignorant.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 05:38 PM
3

Ok, if she thinks that's more productive than saying what she doesn't like and what she would like instead, then it's on her.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 05:38 PM
5

Ah yes, those dick-sucking virgins. An anal would be good, too, probably.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 05:30 PM
2

No, the analogy is great, you just didn't get it, because you focused on the word "train" for some reason. Reread what I said and what I replied it to, make a graph if it helps.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 05:29 PM
0

Is it ok for your female partner to look up naked photos of other attractive men or watching other men perform sexual acts? How would you feel about your partner masterbating and getting off looking at someone that isn’t you? Men don't only look at it because of other attractive women, but more so because of sexual acts their woman will refuse to do with them. So in that sense, there's no reason for their female partner to look at that, as they would be happy to try anything with her. Then again…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 05:25 PM
2

whoosh. You didn't get the analogy at all, did you? The point is, just because exceptions are there, you shouldn't say that the tried method that would maximize your chances shouldn't be used. Or that things that are proven to be important are only important if you think they are important.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 04:58 PM
1

I'm not assuming anything, I don't know how any of this works. I thought that website was something like craigslist or facebook marketplace, so people just post if they want to sell sex. Idk where to look up street prices, and I'm assuming most men would go online, not to the streets. First, because it's more intuitive, second, because that way you can plan in advance, whereas there's no guarantee someone will be available on the street at the time you go there, especially if all men start doing…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 04:56 PM
1

Where are you getting these numbers? To double check, I googled something like us escort sites, clicked on some review site, then clicked on something there and got to some site called tryst. And there I don't see anything below 300, average being more like 500-600. I tried googling $40 blowjobs and stuff, but that only gives me porn. Not that I went through all results, of course. So yeah, so far I don't see how this is cheap.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 01:42 PM
2

Obviously the margin is more than 1. It's not really about the number, too. It's more like - another man gets as much as he's happy with or at least more than I'd need to be happy, so how come I should be content with what I get if that's less than what I'd be happy with.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 09:35 AM
0

Happy enough? Enough for who? For the society and women, I suppose, who just want him to not get in the way. No man is happy when some other man gets more. That's just not how men work.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 07:53 AM
1

Exactly my point. So not very useful here, when he obviously is asking about significant numbers/groups.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 07:52 AM
1

RP men think probabilities, not possibilities. Just because something works for 1 person, it doesn't mean they shouldn't try to figure what will maximize their chances. There was a famous soccer player, who didn't attend training sessions and would get drunk and party the night before the game. Then he would come and win anyway. I forgot his name, but I believe he was Italian. Just because it worked for him, doesn't mean that running, working out, and practicing is only important because they th…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 07:42 AM
3

The red pill community's focus on transactional dynamics in relationships is another problematic aspect of their ideology. Relationships should be about mutual understanding, trust, and support – not about keeping score or trying to "win" by manipulating others. Such a mindset is not only toxic but can also lead to unhealthy and unfulfilling relationships for all parties involved. You're trying to apply morality to a sexual strategy, but sexual strategies are amoral. What matters is outcome. If …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 07:41 AM
1

Huh? Why wouldn't he leverage his wealth to get more variety in sex? Doing those things means nothing.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 07:12 AM
1

People who say it wouldn't change anything probably mean men's issues with relationships. As in, complaints that women are hoes, not feminine, AF/BB, etc. And that's true. But it would definitely change men's problems with getting casual sex/exploring. There's no downside to it. Legalize.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 07:08 AM
1

It's actually incorrect. Polygamy is also an oppressive system, oppressing men who can't get women but are still supposed to work, oppressing women to raise their kids alone or expect that one man to raise her children at the same time as other his children from other wives. How would he even have enough income? Maybe if he owned slaves or the state would pay using taxes from sexless men. But why would those sexless men want to contribute to make lives of top men and women better, but not their …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 07:01 AM
2

So then don't use hookup apps if you don't want hookups? Use the ones where only women message first.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 06:53 AM
-2

We as men do the same so why are they hoes? Because men and women are opposite sexes so opposite standards apply. Women are born with their sexual value and can choose to be promiscuous. Men must build their value and can't just choose to be promiscuous until they become high-value. It's like asking, wow many goals were scored so why are strikers praised and goalkeepers are made fun of?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 06:52 AM
3

What you're describing is a textbook BB. That doesn't make a man high-value. High value man = women want to sleep with him, men want to be him. That does not necessarily include spending 2k a month on beauty products. We know very well that men can get sex without it. Paying for something others are getting for free is not high-value.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 06:48 AM
6

You're wrong. If you think I don't want to fuck hot girls and try everything there is to try just because I'm a scientist, then you're mistaken. It's called sublimation, most of men try to redirect that energy into something else. But not even a few hours go by without thinking that we're jealous and would be down to sleep with those 2 girls over there at the same time. Jobs don't fully define people. Scientists or not, men are still men.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 06:44 AM
1

Of course, if the parameters are fixed, the answer is obvious. But would it be unfair to say, that the 8 in intelligence would be intelligent enough to know that looks matter, so would go to the gym and improve the looks? I mean, let's say she wasn't inspired to do it up to now, because she focused on her studies/career, but now that she has a man she loves, she wants to make him happy and understand that he would be happier if she was hotter.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 06:40 AM
1

Sapiosexual is either not a thing or there's too few of them to say "do it all the time".
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 06:38 AM
6

You're right. Sure, it benefits top-tier men much more, but it's not like it was easier for an average man to get casual sex in the past. However, it's just not good enough. Everything is relative. Like, a worker never made as much money as before, but before CEO would make 20 times their salary and now it's 200 times. And prices are relatively higher. This sort of thinking applies to the sexual market as well. The gap between top-tier men and average men increased and then average men are suppo…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 06:34 AM
1

I don't understand the question, could you explain a bit more what you mean, please? Why would it work both ways? Men and women are different and are looking for different things. Besides, men can't really be sex workers.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 06:26 AM
1

What country?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 06:25 AM
1

I'm just comparing it to how often promiscuous people would get laid if they took it easy. Not necessarily with a new partner, but then again, the same prostitute could be visited. Ok then, keeping in mind that promiscuous people probably can have sex as often as they want/as often as it would be satisfying for them, what would be a frequency that would satisfy a man?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/23 06:24 AM
1

Yeah, I don't know what's up. It says removed for me. Not always expected, but in most cases yes. Most guys aren't attractive enough for women to have to share them, they can be replaced.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 08:21 PM
1

Can't reread the OP it was deleted. But yes, still that in a way, security can also be emotional, not just financial. Besides, I'm assuming she slept around with men without requiring that those men are exclusive, but now this guy had to marry her to have sex and odds are he can't sleep with other women, right? Is the sex even good frequent enough, are there any acts she did for the men in the past but not for him? Idk, maybe I don't understand the situation. Is your only concern that BB is supp…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 08:08 PM
1

She fucked around with guys she was attracted to, then married a guy for security. Check out the sidebar on trp.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 07:56 PM
1

That's a textbook BB
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 07:37 PM
3

Ok hold on. $300 is not that little. How often would a guy go? If it's once a week, then that's $1, 200 a month, that's like almost half of the average income after taxes.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 07:17 PM
1

Of course they do! They care that she's not or never was any kind of a sex worker. Seriously though, as an engineer you might appreciate this mathematic-like model. A man wants for their combined income to hit X, if he makes Y, he wants her to make X-Y. So if he makes enough himself, then he doesn't care at all what she makes. Also, of course, the part about sex workers wasn't really a joke. There are some careers which means she's a pain to deal with or plain repulsive. All of the above applies…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 07:13 PM
8

Doesn't matter, had sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 07:08 PM
1

What location are you talking about? What is the average salary there? Also, how many times a month is a man going to visit prostitutes for the OP to apply to him (in particular see "lots of sex")?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 06:43 PM
1

My apologies, maybe I didn't explain myself well. I never said they were valuable. I meant to say that getting enough money for prostitute visits to be just pocket change is an achievement in and of itself. But it doesn't need to be millions or something. Besides, having money makes you more valuable than not having it, but not necessarily valuable valuable. Value is a spectrum, not a threshold to meet.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 06:41 PM
3

No, you're right in your points 1 and 4. Yes, men are shamed for it for some reason. I just still think it's very different in terms of effort. I don't know if there's a better equivalent, never thought about it. But I always liked those money/gifts vs sex analogies when they talk about cheating or sexual past. Maybe something like that could be applied here?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 04:04 PM
10

The last sentence is correct, it's a more similar value. But it's still not quite there and it breaks at the 2nd point already. 2 and 3 are wrong or rather not equivalent to promiscuous women. The effort is not that low and it's not that easy compared to women. Women are born with their value and can just get sex (more like give sex). Men are not born with what they need to visit many prostitutes. That requires a lot of money and that money needs to be earned and the effort probably won't be ext…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 03:48 PM
2

You shouldn't take tiktok seriously, you don't even know who really leaves those comments an why. There are trolls, fake accounts, haters, etc. And who mocks those girls? And who slut shames the most, too, btw? It's other women who are jealous. Relationship-minded men LOVE nice chaste girls. Of course, not saying that opposite experiences are not possible.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 02:50 PM
1

Your feels about it are irrelevant, though. The original point was - women are valued for being women. What makes a woman woman and not a man? That's not a rhetoric question. The answer is - sexual characteristics, in particular, primary (most notably including genitalia). So yes, sex trafficking only confirms that women are valued for being women. You can think it's not amazing and in some cases it isn't. But it's a fact that they are valued for being women.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 01:35 PM
4

But many enough don't, or at least have to settle for far less than what they otherwise could get. Besides, there's not that many athletes and entrepreneurs. And when man say they don't like hoes, it's all other men. Who don't want top man's leftovers if they can help it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 01:25 PM
3

No, and having a cool fishing rod won't help you get fish unless you go fishing. The point is, that if they want casual sex, they first need to become someone. If I go partying the way I am, then I'll just waste time and money and get next to no results. That is if I can even afford to go regularly, for which I need money, so I need to become someone. There's no free entrance for me etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 12:01 PM
5

Right? I think either we don't understand "lifetime" correctly and it just means "current", but then why not specify it for different ages. Or maybe there's a way to extrapolate whatever they say somehow. So I thought I'd ask, maybe somebody knows for sure. I googled a bit, but didn't find anything fast enough haha
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 11:58 AM
7

You win. Thanks
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 11:31 AM
3

It's not that having sex is an achievement, it's that you need to achieve something to be able to have sex as a man. As I mentioned earlier, women can choose to be promiscuous, men can't. So they wouldn't waste time chasing it, they would spend time doing something meaningful/self-improving and that would open doors for casual sex. That's the idea.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 10:43 AM
5

I think my description is closer to the truth and less biased. You and your friends probably don't like promiscuous men, but not many enough women don't like them. Otherwise, we would see them being rejected more. We would see cat lord memes, etc. But we don't. Why is that? I think not enough women see it as gross. Or for most women traits that make it possible outweigh it. As in she'd rather choose that than a man who can't achieve that. And of course men hold promiscuous men in high regard, be…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 10:19 AM
2

Yeah but at the age you mention most men already see "what's meant to be" and they don't like it. So of course they want to change "what's meant to be" for something else to be meant to be. Something that includes multiple women.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 10:04 AM
5

Is that what lifetime partners are? Isn't it what they had in their lives at the moment of being asked the question? Because how can you even measure partners in their entire lives without the study being inapplicable to current generations?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 09:31 AM
8

No, it's the fact that apparently women don't have the instinct that makes it a turn off. Men don't care about what men do if they aren't trying to date men. They don't like (seriously) promiscuous women though. It's up to women to hold men to their standards. If women cared about the v-count, and men with high counts would be unattractive, then they would be seen negatively too. But the truth is, that women can be promiscuous if they want. They can choose it. Men can't choose it and it's not en…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/23 09:28 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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