TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

agent2277 Archive

View 14 posts and 188 comments by agent2277 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

This part: Answer: I know this sounds a little condescending, but this along with your "takes two to tango" really give off the impression that you don't understand sexual reproduction. Here is the answer : Because women have a gestation period they have a different strategy to copy their genes from men. A man in the top 20% can sew his wild oats with a harem of women that includes the top 20% all at once. It is reproductively advantageous for him to not be selective and have as many simultaneou…
/r/MGTOW05/01/17 07:25 AM
1

What was even your point for the second and third paragraphs? I would argue that in the worst situations, the two sexes were capable of doing virtually the same work, just that this was not ideal. That's retarded. Men are stronger and tougher than women. And alright, why would that not be ideal? Are you claiming it would somehow NOT be more useful if men and women could do the same work? Of course it would be. More workers = better success for the tribe. You also fail to account for the high inf…
/r/MGTOW05/01/17 07:09 AM
1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooh-pooh
/r/MGTOW05/01/17 06:49 AM
1

Right. Wouldn't evolution not want MGTOW to exist (because it fucks the species in the ass)? And therefore, wouldn't it not select for conditions that create MGTOW?
/r/MGTOW05/01/17 06:43 AM
1

You didn't even respond to the actual points I was making...
/r/MGTOW05/01/17 06:41 AM
1

LOL
/r/MGTOW01/01/17 08:44 PM
0

You should go back to elementary school as a student then. You clearly belong with them if you're childish enough to throw insults at people because you have nothing intelligent to say. I thought women were bad. But you've just proven than men can be much, much worse in some cases. I'd rather talk to a self-entitled, narcissistic bitch at this point (not that there's much difference in the first place). No wonder you're so bitter. The reason you couldn't be happy with a woman probably wasn't bec…
/r/MGTOW01/01/17 08:43 PM
1

You're confused about what is ingrained and what is learned. "Mutual trust and value" is the socialisation that, quite frankly, has been eroded by feminism and barely exists now. ie hypergamy is the natural biological state, anything else like you suggest has been socialisation, or to put it bluntly a lie. So which is it? Has hypergamy always existed and modern socialization has covered it up? Or has feminism eroded "mutual trust and value" (tacitly implying that it existed before but now it doe…
/r/MGTOW01/01/17 07:57 PM
1

I never said hypergamy would never exist. Yes, but you tacitly implied such. If there are more women than men, hypergamy cannot exist. There were more women than men (because men died more frequently). Delta: Hypergamy could not have existed. How is that not clear? EDIT: Formatting reddit errors.
/r/MGTOW01/01/17 07:48 PM
1

If a tribe mostly consisting of women had their choice of three men, all the men would get laid. Yes, and you're arguing that more often than not, there were more women than men because the men were all dying! Which is it, were most men dying (and therefore the survivors lived in a harem and there was no hypergamy!) or were most men not dying, meaning the sex ratio was still roughly even, such that hypergamy couldn't exist for that reason either? In the case of the latter, it's also illogical be…
/r/MGTOW01/01/17 07:44 PM
1

Well, we're kind of back to just where we started, where I stated a bunch of reasons why hypergamy couldn't possibly exist in pre-modern times, and you ignored that to just say that I'm wrong. The debate isn't "does hypergamy exist" but "is it women's natural state"?
/r/MGTOW01/01/17 07:31 PM
1

while simultaneously realizing she didn't want to breed with him because he wouldn't have made a strong healthy baby. That's not how genes work. If a guy is old and crippled, his child will not be old and crippled. His child will have similar traits as he had when he was younger, or before he was crippled. Genotype vs phenotype. Men were too busy protecting them from nature. Too busy having men sacrifice so that women will live. This was common and expected. Society gathers around women to prote…
/r/MGTOW01/01/17 07:28 PM
1

And these things would not have affected women also? Were they immune to disease, didn't require food, and were somehow not susceptible to accidents or animal attacks?
/r/MGTOW01/01/17 07:15 PM
1

I agree completely. Where this is interesting is when you imply that men have more to lose by associating with women, nowadays. Now, conventional wisdom states that women, in pre-modern society, would have had more to lose by an association because they're weaker and could easily die in childbirth. The mainstream MGTOW idea is that this imbalance of risk afforded the benefit to women of being hypergamous. But as you say, men are now the ones taking more risks. So why, exactly, have the situation…
/r/MGTOW01/01/17 07:13 PM
1

"Mutual trust and value" is the socialisation that, quite frankly, has been eroded by feminism and barely exists now. Either way, hypergamy has been seen time and time again a quick look at any female publication or article excuses and promotes it. "The grass is always greener", there is no loyalty, certainly no respect Right, so in saying that this is how things are now, are you not automatically implying that they weren't always that way? I agree with your assessment of the modern area, but my…
/r/MGTOW01/01/17 07:09 PM
1

I just want to say, thanks for a calm response instead of being smarmy. I appreciate it. It doesn't select for you having a happy life. True. At least, it doesn't directly select for that. It would, ostensibly, indirectly select for a happy life. People living happy lives are more likely to be successful at virtually any task they might try. Human populations living happier lives because the mating pairs have a meaningful, deep, mutually loving relationship with each other would be intrinsically…
/r/MGTOW01/01/17 06:56 PM
1

Oh, look. Another one of those "neener neener I'm smarter than you. You're wrong and dumb, but I won't tell you why." rolls eyes. Yup, totally not transparent at all. Maybe instead of acting like a catty teenage girl, you give me an actual argument? Please, never even think about going into any career where you need to relate to other people (which is basically everything). Your failure to comprehend how interpersonal skills work is pretty abysmal. Seriously.
/r/MGTOW01/01/17 06:35 PM
1

FOR THE BETAS! I literally tackled this point already. If the top 80% of women are having sex with the top 20% of men, the gene pool will be too small. Less genetic diversity, worse species. Also, we MGTOWS are the ones who call the provider blue pill white knights betas. By being a provider (i.e. sacrificing your independence by bending your knee to pussy) you get women. It's not undesirable for the betas. It was good for them in the old times, while the true alphas who weren't gullible enough …
/r/MGTOW01/01/17 06:32 PM
1

Well I didn't explicitly say that. It has nothing to do with the argument. But yes, I do. Evolution is like, the scientific theory with the most proof for it in the history of science. There is more evidence of it than evidence of gravity. Care to explain wtf apes have to do with it?
/r/MGTOW01/01/17 06:25 PM
1

So humans are exactly like wild animals now?
/r/MGTOW01/01/17 06:24 PM
0

Great. The classic "you're dumb, but I won't tell you why or back myself up with an explanation. LOL I am so much smarter than you, even though I had to rely on hand-waving because I couldn't defeat your argument."
/r/MGTOW01/01/17 06:23 PM
1

So your arguement is that, in the past, there were less men than women to begin with. What would have caused this?
/r/MGTOW01/01/17 06:22 PM
1

I'm going to need a roadmap to figure that one out. Care to substantiate these claims of yours at all? My issue is that women having rights isn't the problem. If you think about it, it's that their rights are given disproportionate consideration than ours, to the point of making them "more equal". Wouldn't a less heavy-handed fix be to say "look let's just put equal weight on both sexes' rights?" It's not a terribly complicated or unreasonable position to take. You're talking about using a nuke …
/r/MGTOW01/01/17 08:46 AM
2

Define "sexually desirable"? First of all, women don't desire men sexually in the first place. At least not in the way we'd consider it. They're only sexual beings as long as you count an imitation of male sexuality wherein their hormones are telling them to fuck, but only as a means to trapping a man for resources. In this way, all men are TFL guys becuase there was never anything there anyway. Sexually desirable just means "rich" or "willing to constantly boost ego at the expense of his own se…
/r/MGTOW28/12/16 12:14 PM
3

I don't subscribe to this notion that people are entirely defined by their "nature". Biological factors are not the be all end all of psychology. It's obvious socialization plays a huge role in things. There are very few statements I would feel comfortable using the word "nature" in with regards to people. That said, men create. We add to the situation, whether it's socially or physically. We adapted to support, respect, and love each other becuase we had to have cameraderie in order to survive …
/r/MGTOW28/12/16 12:05 PM
0

If the picture on the right was an ATM machine or attention (not sure how you'd represent that, exactly) then it would make sense.
/r/MGTOW25/12/16 06:29 AM
2

How is it not sexist to say that women shouldn't have rights and should be treated like children? Did it ever occur to anyone that if you coddle people like children, that's what they become?
/r/MGTOW24/12/16 08:23 PM
2

I agree on the immigration thing, I just think lowered birth rates wouldn't be a bad thing. Frankly I don't know how you think we're not overpopulated. Assuming you're right about that though, what about for the reason I mentioned of it supporting MGTOW?
/r/MGTOW24/12/16 10:30 AM
1

Yeah, it sure is. I've never seen a woman do it on that level of manipulation though. This guys story makes mine seem like amateurish manipulation at best. I mean hot damn, that girl brought him from a position of "I know what you're trying to do and I refuse" to being dissapointed enough that she ghosted that he wanted to post on reddit about it. What hope is there for me? Guess I'll have to go the monk style then.
/r/MGTOW24/12/16 10:28 AM
2

And to a larger extent, society. Society is a big fucking vicious cycle: people perpetuate a bad idea, the next generation accepts it as normal, doesn't question it (because most humans are stupid as fuck), and goes on to perpetuate that idea to the next generation of their kids, rinse and repeat ad infinitum. It makes me really depressed to know what there's so many women out there who could have been sane, rational, empathetic people, but aren't, because they were taught as a simple fact of li…
/r/MGTOW24/12/16 10:20 AM
1

If he's really such a great guy, you wouldn't be dumping him without giving him a fucking chance to show you who he really is. Speaking of which, how can she even accurately assess something like that about him if she didn't even get to fucking know him? It's a bunch of empty platitudes to give men they dump the hope they need to keep them plugged into the matrix.
/r/MGTOW24/12/16 10:03 AM
3

I don't think the answer to the problem of "women are being horrible" is to treat them horribly back. You don't fight sexism with sexism. I think a better solution would be to work towards a more egalitarian society. Why can't we just abolish the laws that make men so vulnerable to getting screwed over? Why don't we make a concerted effort to raise our children to consider both sexes equally worthy of being cherished? I don't think the problem is women having autonomy. At least, it's not the tru…
/r/MGTOW24/12/16 09:55 AM
1

A better joke: gender dynamics. Only the mind of truly depraved sadist intentionally wanting to torture men for engaging in one of the most human and basic aspects of life could have come up with this shit. There is a god, and it fucking hates us.
/r/MGTOW24/12/16 09:45 AM
5

Ad hominem. That's all anyone's response to this should be.
/r/MGTOW24/12/16 09:41 AM
13

Hold on, let me stop you right there...you said "woman". Batshit insane is part of the definition, don't you know? It's like a synonym: "Is this batshit insane person batshit insane?"
/r/MGTOW24/12/16 09:38 AM
2

Other than "I can't figure out why" this is not even a joke, but a diagram of reality. Like, are they so stupid that they can't see the rational connection between those two speech bubbles? Guess what: if you go around burning people, they start to hate you (and for good fucking reason)! It's complex logic for a feminist I suppose. Just shows how stupid, amoral, and entitled those bitches are. This entire arguement boils down to "It's unfair for me to get hate for being a really shitty person. I…
/r/MGTOW24/12/16 09:35 AM
1

It's simple. Becuase they're interested in socializing with the beautiful, bubbly, angelic, charming females. Getting to know them, making friends, maybe even forging a connection even stronger than friendship. Becuase they don't realize that all of the above is a lie, except for maybe sometimes beautiful. The eye-batting sweethearts are the last thing they would expect to be a threat. And so they invite them to their social circles, like the Trojans accepting a massive wooden horse.
/r/MGTOW24/12/16 09:24 AM
3

I agree that women are more likely to vote liberal becuase the liberal side of the political spectrum carries within it the potential for communistic "equality of outcome" type philosophies. It should be obvious why that attracts women. These days, the left is authoritarian and PC, so it gives them an outlet to become even more disproportionately powerful than they already are...all under the guise of being helpless. Kind of a a brilliant metaphor for female nature. The one thing I disagree with…
/r/MGTOW24/12/16 09:10 AM
1

Society. Women. Their nature makes it so I can't have what I want most. MGTOW doesn't taste like freedom to me, just a slightly more free option if I can't get what I want either way.
/r/MGTOW21/12/16 07:01 PM
1

What's this hookup culture I keep hearing about? It's like the loch ness monster at this point.
/r/MGTOW21/12/16 10:21 AM
1

Lol, this bitch doesn't know how to female properly. He gave her himself on a silver platter by confessing his feelings for her, and she aborts. So it's a pretty unrealistic comic, then. Except in the case of weird feminists who take everything as an insult, but they're in the same boat: women who don't know how to women. I'm guessing the author is one of those or maybe a woman trying to deceive guys about female nature (but even then, it doesn't paint a good picture). Either way, just flat out …
/r/MGTOW21/12/16 09:50 AM
5

I find it interesting that women are stereotyped as being more caring, socially adept, empathetic, loving, etc. By the traditional standards, the genders are reversed on that point. Most men are actually what we think of as feminine and it's women who are the stoic emotionless ones. It's just flipped flopped on what people outwardly express because of social pressure. And the irony is, in many cases, men get depressed and become stoic-independent as a survival mechanism becuase society spurns th…
/r/MGTOW21/12/16 09:42 AM
1

You must be a lot older than me becuase women my age aren't even willing to make the minuscule commitment you talk about. They'd rather date their tinder apps.
/r/MGTOW21/12/16 09:18 AM
1

Funny, it doesn't feel that way to me. I would have imagined freedom would taste a bit more like being actually free to do what I want.
/r/MGTOW21/12/16 09:15 AM
1

I think that's a somewhat a false analogy. Your fantasy is an unreasonable expectation. Meanwhile, wanting to be happy with a good mate is a biological drive that most men feel very strongly. I wouldn't necessarily argue it's a human right, but I would say that's it's a basic part of the male side of the human experience.
/r/MGTOW21/12/16 09:12 AM
1

Sure I can love myself, have a dog, have friends, hire prostitues every now and then. But those aren't comparable to a true mate. Is your life devoid of connection in that instance? Well, yes. At least, the type of connection I want. Maybe I can learn to have just those things satisfy me sometime in the future, but for the moment, that's not enough for me. shrug I actually have plenty of friends, love myself plenty enough (maybe even bordering on arrogance if I'm being honest) and had a dog (no …
/r/MGTOW21/12/16 09:05 AM
2

What I meant before was that the amount of money an average guy has doesn't impress a woman anymore. A nice night out is not worth it. I speculate that it would require a more lavish display of wealth than that. In other words, I have no doubt they can be bought, the threshold for that just seems a lot higher than in the past.
/r/MGTOW18/12/16 09:37 PM
5

Right. And the point that I'm trying to make here is that I'm having trouble getting over that fact.
/r/MGTOW18/12/16 09:10 AM
5

I don't interact with women just for sex. To me, a healthy, intimate connection sounds more thrilling than putting my dick in a hole and getting a 2 second orgasm. I wouldn't call them irrational feelings...I think most guys want someone to be with and not be lonely. It's a feeling that has helped our species to propagate so well. So no, a dog or a cat doesn't exactly fill that ache. I don't mean to be presumptuous, but maybe you're aromatic and you just don't get it. And if that's the case, hey…
/r/MGTOW18/12/16 09:08 AM
6

I understand that I have the choice to walk away from women. I realize this sets me free from their manipulation. But it doesn't make me happy. What I want is to have a normal, happy, healthy relationship with a woman. But that's what I can't have becuase that doesn't exist. It's a paradox where I can be mgtow and be free, but not free becuase I'm not free to have what I want. I acknowledge the fact that it's still the better option, but I also acknowledge that it's still a shitty option overall…
/r/MGTOW18/12/16 09:03 AM
3

Well, what am I supposed to do with this so-called freedom when the thing I want most desperately is the antithesis of that freedom? I mean, I'd at least like to try to have a relationship, if only to see how shitty they are. It's like this is a mental block I can't get past. don't express this to anyone. That's the hardest part of all...having to bottle everything up inside and not talk about it to anyone because blue pill is the conventional worldview.
/r/MGTOW18/12/16 08:13 AM
3

I don't want just sex, though. I want a human connection.
/r/MGTOW18/12/16 08:11 AM
2

I'm not sure that I have the strength of character to even hear a horror story like that. You're a braver man than I. salutes
/r/MGTOW17/12/16 11:02 AM
9

I don't know when most people on this sub went to high school, but I did it semi-recently. It was a normal and accepted thing for girls to lead guys on for seemingly no reason. To pretend to be super attracted to you and then just ghost. Which is to say, stop responding to any communication and pretend like there was never anything going on. I even had one girl ignore me in person. Like I though we were at least friends so I'd say hi and talk to her, and she'd give me this blank look and ignore …
/r/MGTOW17/12/16 10:56 AM
1

I was forced into accepting the redpill insofar as it's the conclusion that my mind naturally came to when presented with the evidence that I had witnessed. It's not exactly a tricky deduction. However, I surmise you mean "red pill" in terms of the groupthink aspect of it. I suppose that I used the community of fellow thinkers to stay sane. It actually makes me feel safer, like things are okay and more normal, to know there are other people who know the same truths. Although I knew the philosoph…
/r/MGTOW17/12/16 10:25 AM
5

But why though? This is the time of year their simps buy them shiny things. Are they that ungrateful? Or just that vitriolic towards male happiness (which is double irony because of how the reason they're so happy is that they have a chance to please their women)? God, thinking about the female brain makes my mind hurt. It's like staring into the abyss for too long and going partially insane.
/r/MGTOW17/12/16 10:16 AM
1

Oh, I see. Well, most of my buddies are too busy chasing girls to have time for me. What would be nice is if I could hang out with other mgtow people but somehow I doubt there's many at my age.
/r/MGTOW15/12/16 07:03 AM
1

So...it gets better? Don't miss out on your twenties. Well...should I wait or not? Its a great time for guys. How so? I'm not seeing what's so great about it.
/r/MGTOW15/12/16 06:00 AM
12

Perfect response: "You seem really pretty...no offense."
/r/MGTOW15/12/16 04:48 AM
3

The point I was making is that if you want to craft an argument about this, it needs to be something other than an emotional appeal. Because the basis of the article's argument is "scary, gross, painful, confusing!" Yes, of course it's not a life-saving procedure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. A better example might have been like, "I can easily apply this argument to any kind of surgery since all surgeries are painful, gross, and we don't know exactly what they're doing."
/r/MensRights14/12/16 07:50 AM
-4

Yeah, that's a good point about the anesthesia. They act like the doctors don't use it. What I don't get is why though? What's the point of a manipulative rhetoric like this?
/r/MensRights14/12/16 02:08 AM
5

Except being MGTOW doesn't necessarily represent freedom. Sure, you can take the freedom to walk away from the shitty system. But if what you wanted was a magical nawalt, a marriage, and kids, no you're still not free because you're not free to have what you truly want. So at best, all you can do is choose the slightly less shitty option if you can never have what you want anyway.
/r/MGTOW14/12/16 01:12 AM
-2

I know I'm going to get downvoted like absolute fucking crazy for this, but I don't care. This entire article is argumentum ad passiones, otherwise known as the appeal to emotion fallacy. The main argument boils down to "the kid doesn't like it or understands what's going on, so therefore this is morally wrong." The fatal flaw in this reasoning is that I could easily apply this argument to any kind of life-saving procedure that they sometimes perform on newborns (or even young kids, for that mat…
/r/MensRights14/12/16 12:55 AM
1

Oh, sure. I agree with that.
/r/MGTOW14/12/16 12:20 AM
1

The world leaders are all very smart. Dude, look at the presidents the U.S. has had for the past few decades. Look at the two candidates that ran this year. Look at cucks like Justin Trudeau, or these european leaders that are letting shit tons of violent muslim rapist terrorists into their countries. Not very bright. Vocabulary is really the worst way to judge somebody's intellect. Hey, copernicus, it's an example. Do I have to list every single criteria of intellect for you to get my point? Ar…
/r/MGTOW12/12/16 08:17 AM
1

Now, before you start disparaging women for being so calculating and pragmatic in matters of the heart, remember that a) hypergamy is a perfectly rational reproductive strategy it is actually great for civilization Except it's not. It's totally irrational and ruins society. Bear with me here. I'm about to list a lot of points. It's a really long post. A man who's buff, tough, a badass, rich, whatever, is not necessarily going to pass these traits down. That's not how genes work. Having big bicep…
/r/MGTOW12/12/16 04:01 AM
1

Again, you can't pass on being tough or being muscular or anything else that you name. Even smarts are not heritable. That's not how genes work. I don't choose pretty women because I think they have good genes, I choose pretty women because pretty women are better to look at than ugly women. Prettiness is not a useful trait for survival in any way. Prettiness does not indicate good genes. The only things that are useful traits are things that cause you to die if you don't have them (natural sele…
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 11:19 PM
2

Yeah, just like the directions said where you soak it in warm water.
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 09:22 PM
2

I've never had sex, but I have fingered a girl, and in my experience the fleshlight was nothing like the consistency of the inside of a vagina. They toy's all rubbery and squishy like playdough, not silky but firm like vaginal tissue. I couldn't even finish with the damn thing. It also fucked my dick up and gave me as rash and numbness for a while. So IDK maybe I have a latex allergy or something like that. It could've been a bad model too. I'm pretty sure I didn't get that one you're talking ab…
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 08:46 PM
1

I mean, yeah they do, but it's infinitesimally small compared to men's. Sex drive is based of testosterone. The average woman has t in the single digits. The average man has anywhere from 300 to 1000. Personally I have 1,200. So the lowest, we have a sex drive hundreds of times stronger than they. Women are not the nymphomaniacs they show in porn. I find the image of a chick rubbing her soaking wet pussy while thinking about some hot guy she saw that day downright laughable. More like she's mast…
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 08:31 PM
1

energy, determination and discipline Except intellectual pursuits can show those things too. height or wrist width Do people even pay attention to wrist width? Come on. Sure, I get how people pay attention to height, but why would that matter? What's so desirable about height? Why does it affect your success at life? Why is that better genes? I mean, the only way I could see it mattering is if you're either freakishly tall or short. The thing is that if I was a woman and I could choose I'd still…
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 08:26 PM
1

I've always lived in the first world (western Europe in particular) and I still was bullied for a couple of years in high school and I couldn't do much about it. From the stereotypes I see in american movies it looks like nerds tend to get picked on by stronger guys over there, too. Actually...no. I've never seen nerds get picked on or beaten up like that. I worked out and know martial arts, but I never had to even use them. The people who were just like me (liked video games, elevated vocabular…
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 07:29 PM
1

Yeah I'm not saying I want this to happen at all. The point was that it could if women decided to do it and that would be really scary. I think you're totally right about the smart people becoming content all that. The one thing I don't get though is why you use the word "protection". Like I said in my post, we're not cavemen who have to fight wild animals and defend from other tribes of roving marauders. This is the 21st century. If you live in the first world that's not a concern. What's the p…
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 04:06 PM
1

Sounds like you're skirting the edge of advocating for rape.
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 03:21 PM
1

I think you're misunderstanding my point and take it too literally. Let me back it up here for a second. What I meant is that people often stereotype all smart people as nerds when that's not the case. You said it yourself: the smart ones are the best leaders. I think things are different now, though. It's a stigma and people assume things about you if you have an elevated vocabulary and such. God, look at our world leaders. A lot of these fools are not very smart at all. Also, many people think…
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 03:14 PM
2

Accidentally deleted my comment, so to type it up again.... Your description certainly makes it sound very amazing. I've always wondered what sex is like. I would have no idea if it's the same for cut guys or not. The closest I've come is a fleshlight and that was garbage. I've had oral but I couldn't finish from it, idk if I was nervous or she was just bad or what.
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 08:07 AM
1

Then enlighten me. We're MGTOW. We are the ones who reject the currently mainstream definition of what a "man" is. It's in our sidebar.
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 05:55 AM
0

Well my point is that if anything, I do not want to be more sensitive. I worry I'll blow my load embarrassingly fast the first time I have sex. And at times it gets uncomfortable because I'm too sensitive. I can only imagine how bad it would be otherwise. So I'm saying that feeling less might be a good thing. I know it's anecdotal, but that's my perception.
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 04:50 AM
1

Yeah, that's the other thing. I always figured that sex or any touching would hurt if you're uncut. I mean basically your dick is protected and not used to being touched ever.
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 04:47 AM
5

The real lie of tinder: that women "like" men in real life.
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 04:46 AM
-1

Well, I'm circumcised, and I seem to be able to get off just fine. Too quick if anything, if I'm totally honest with you. I think I could stand to be a little less sensitive.
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 04:41 AM
3

That's narcissistic (aka female) personality disorder for you. They only give a shit about themselves. Reminds me of a post I saw where some cunt whined that there were no women in "saving private ryan", and that there should be, because women were just as affected by the war as men were and they need a way to represent that.
/r/MensRights11/12/16 04:26 AM
1

Ah...come on. It doesn't do that. We do people say it does?
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 04:22 AM
1

Ideally boys would learn this from a young age, yes. They teach us useless minutia like what the quadric formula is, but don't bother to tell us something way more relevant to our lives and could potentially protect us from getting incinerated. It's pure insanity. But then again, isn't everything else about this fucking world insane? So why the fuck not take another step closer to the edge of the abyss.
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 04:13 AM
2

you're impossible to argue with. You're so out of touch with reality that you think that the people mobilizing against the government has any chance of success whatsoever. I'd mention the fact that they have nukes and stealth bombers and tanks while we have handguns, but facts clearly aren't your thing so why should I even bother presenting any? You reek of a guy with facade of hyper masculinity, but who secretly has insecurity issues on the inside. Why else are you trying to debate me about big…
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 04:10 AM
2

Do you want to explain what the fuck that means? EDIT: What's a buff jock going to do? Deflect a hail of .44 magnum rounds with his bulging, muscular chest? He'd literally have to be superman. This isn't comic book land, mate. Is he going to intimidate the judge that will sentence him to jail with his big, scary muscles? Is he going to bend the bars of his cell with his mighty hands? Is he going to run so fast he escapes the cop cars? Give me a fucking break.
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 03:27 AM
1

I don't know that I believe that. Sure, smart people are more likely to deduce it, but even smart people inculcated with stupid ideas from a young age often fail to apply their brainpower to seeing through the most simple lies. For example, there are many intelligent individuals who believe in god or are religious in some way. I think if society were different, and chicks were offering themselves up to intelligent, so-called "nerdy" guys to be in their harem from a young age, these dudes would l…
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 03:26 AM
1

Go look at my other response to you, mate.
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 03:22 AM
2

First of all, being strong and a "nerd" aren't mutually exclusive. You can be both. But if you are, your strong part is ignored and you're assumed to be a pushover. Secondly, no they can't just take it. That's assault/murder/theft. We have laws against that kind of thing. Also guns. They sort of make physical strength irrelevant. And who invented guns? People that today would be called nerds. Point is, intelligence is what matters in a first world society. Bill Gates is a nerd. If strong people …
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 03:19 AM
1

You can't change it. You realize that I'm saying that I don't actually want women to do this, right? The world will always be dominated by violence. It's the definition of dominance. Ok...how does that relate to it? You're nerd hamstering. And that is?
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 03:13 AM
1

You're either a total troll or the most braincell deficient humanoid on the planet. I'm not talking about autistic people. Like where the fuck do you even get that idea from? You equate "intellectuals" with "autistic people". This just tells me you're a braindead jock who probably flunked out of high school and is working as a janitor, hating life because you peaked when your were 16. You ooze jealousy of people who have smarts. Like do you even realize how transparent you are? That or you're a …
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 03:11 AM
1

But that's what I don't get. They don't earnestly care about who they're fucing because they don't have an attraction to men, just their resources. No factor should matter to them other than resources. And who has more? Intellectuals.
/r/MGTOW11/12/16 02:29 AM
1

That comment won MGTOW.
/r/MGTOW10/12/16 11:36 PM
5

Yes, but that would be a horrible idea. You'd start a chain reaction that would result in all the smart men in society becoming blue pill. Also, the way you phrased it made me think "they're playing with forces far beyond their comprehension".
/r/MGTOW10/12/16 11:36 PM
1

I don't think I failed to realize it. I said the fact that women don't do it reveals their irrationality. We're arguing the same thing. :)
/r/MGTOW10/12/16 11:34 PM
3

But it still doesn't make sense why they would do it from that perspective (though I'm not saying you're wrong, they do do that). Intellectuals usually hold more controversial ideas. If he's willing to express them in a public forum, that shows boldness and confidence. Actually just being a nerd in general takes more badassery, as it's always the brave thing to defy conformity and dare to be different, especially if it means not getting sex or being bullied. Being a loudmouth frat boy doesn't sh…
/r/MGTOW10/12/16 11:31 PM
1

Except for a long time, most of human history, that didn't work for them because there were patriarchies. Their manipulations have less to do with social skills and everything to do with exploiting a matriarchal system.
/r/MGTOW10/12/16 01:26 AM
1

Like I've been saying to everyone else who's had the same idea, I don't think there manipulation reflects good social skills. All it reflects is that men are conditioned to not to notice or care that women are doing this.
/r/MGTOW10/12/16 01:24 AM
1

Thanks for the assist!
/r/MGTOW10/12/16 01:23 AM
1

Yeah, I don't know if that's how these tests were performed, but you have a good point. Essentially a woman can just lie to preserve her image. They prove nothing.
/r/MGTOW09/12/16 06:33 AM
2

I need to do a play-by-play of this because it's so ridiculous. That's one of them most patronizing things I've ever heard a man say about women. And people call MGTOW's sexist... I'll dress however I damn well please, thank you very much. Unlike you, I perceive men as adults who can handle that. Pride is sometimes well-earned. Ah yes, I'll be grateful for being the validating/atm machine because obviously that's all I've ever wanted to be in life. So women can't stand? See #1. This sounds reaso…
/r/MGTOW09/12/16 06:10 AM
1

Yeah. That's sick and disgusting. I wonder how the statistics would be different if the legal system wasn't sexist.
/r/MGTOW09/12/16 01:44 AM
3

I totally get your point, but I don't think that a woman freaking out over running over some ants is a demonstration of empathy. It's just histrionic insanity. You're telling me that women are extremely empathetic about ants dying, but have no reservations about ruining a mans life, taking his money, taking his children, sending him to jail with false rape allegations, exploiting male labor, etc? I don't buy that. Ants are ants. You shouldn't have too much empathy for them. People are people. Yo…
/r/MGTOW09/12/16 01:43 AM
2

I think that men have the ability to read people's expressions as well. Reading emotions is not a complex task. Men can handle babies or children just fine, as evidenced by the fact that single fathers raise better kids than single mothers. So we have essentially the same skills, the universal human trait of being able to read emotions (unless a guy has aspergers), and we also don't go into that feedback loop kind of thing that you mentioned because we're not overly sensitive. Sounds like the be…
/r/MGTOW09/12/16 01:32 AM
1

I don't think that's what people mean when they cite the tests. I think you're conflating emotional with empathetic, and those are very different things. What i am trying to say is that just because women score better on tests when it comes to sympathy does not mean they are not over too sympathetic and don't overreact. That's my point. They have the downsides of emotionality, which is overreacting and being hysterical, whilst also having less true empathy.
/r/MGTOW09/12/16 01:28 AM
6

Because their manipulative skills are nowhere near "legendary". They're very clumsy and transparent and childish. The only reason they work is that society has conditioned everyone not to see it or to ignore it. Men are way better at manipulation. It's just very difficult for us to get away with it because the social power is against us. After all, true manipulation is done from a place of social power, and we have less. If you don't believe me, then ask yourself, have you ever heard about a man…
/r/MGTOW09/12/16 01:23 AM
2

I'm not sure that "emotional" and "violence" belong in the same sentence. You could call it "emotional abuse". Nothing that isn't physical attacks can be said to be violence. That's what the SJW's do, they call jokes or micro-agressions "violence". But yes, you're right. In fact, the way that the statistics showing women abuse children more includes emotional abuse, which is actually the most common form of child abuse by far. (And men almost never use emotional abuse).
/r/MGTOW09/12/16 01:18 AM
1

No, you're right. Perhaps I should have worded it better, but my point was something along the lines of "the difference between the degree to which men and women are violent is less extreme and simple than people think it is". I simplified myself because I'm addressing a common line you hear people say and how it distorts the truth. Men are almost certainly more violent because of testosterone. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Better to be violent than not stand up for yourself. But don't…
/r/MGTOW09/12/16 01:13 AM
3

I kind of see where you're coming from, but I disagree. It's not that complicated and arcane to read someone else's emotional state, or to tell when they might be aggressive. You act like men can't do that. Pretty much the only people who can't do that have aspergers. Look, women are basically coddled and protected and have their asses kissed by society. They don't need to learn how to resolve interpersonal conflicts and read people, because they don't live in the real world, don't experience th…
/r/MGTOW09/12/16 01:09 AM
6

I had a couple people on my comments say things like that. I also saw a video where sandman claimed women are more empathetic and have better social skills, as well as one where he said that women are better at raising children. And I guess I didn't communicate it well, but I also meant "can we stop telling these lies", referring to men in society in general. I didn't mean to call out this reddit specifically so much.
/r/MGTOW09/12/16 12:13 AM
2

The youngest generation of women don't even want to date anymore. Why would they, when they can date their tinder app?
/r/MGTOW08/12/16 09:20 PM
1

The real thing is basically a tube of strong muscles. They're soft and kinda velvety, but basically strong and tough, not a bunch of doughy latex. Personally, I couldn't even cum in a fleshlight. I put my hand as tight as I could around that thing and it didn't change the tightness at all becuase the material just molds perfectly to whatever is touching it. Real vaginas don't do that. Also the latex or whatever messed up dick. It gave me a rash and made me numb down there for a while. Maybe i'm …
/r/MGTOW08/12/16 09:00 AM
1

He did literally say that rape should be legal on private residences. I saw the video personally, as I'm a big youtuber.
/r/MensRights06/12/16 08:26 PM
9

It's a reasonable choice. Women are emotionally stunted and can't handle the idea of being independent becuase they're attention whores. Society has handicapped them.
/r/MGTOW06/12/16 08:07 PM
6

If that stuff about the hand was true, there wouldn't be 7 billion people on this planet. We wouldn't be fucking our species to death by overpopulation. The human race wouldn't have survived anywhere close to this long. God, trp is such crazy nonsense. What a way to waste the gift of red pill knowledge.
/r/MGTOW06/12/16 08:03 PM
3

Haha what? I tried one of those and it didn't even feel like a real pussy. It was a bunch of squishy putty.
/r/MGTOW06/12/16 08:00 PM
1

I don't know, maybe. A lot of us college students, at least in california, get financial aid and additional scholarships for good grades. It's not that expensive. And almost all of us have part time jobs. To think that your average joe college guy can't afford a low key date is a bit silly. Perhaps that's simply not enough of a reward for having to spend time with a man.
/r/MGTOW06/12/16 07:33 PM
1

I disagree with some of what you're saying. Women are just as visually attracted to males as men are attracted to females. They refer to males who are tight bummed, muscular, tall with rugged faces as 'gorgeous'. I don't see this. Women are mentally equal to men except most are obsessed with pretty things, trinkets, colours, dresses, rings, jewellery, fashions, lipstick etc.....They clearly think they are goddesses. THIS REFLECTS THEIR INNER WHORE. I find that pretty laughable. They're coddled b…
/r/MGTOW05/12/16 11:31 PM
1

I'm 21 actually, good guess! Yeah I see where you're coming from. I'd definitely prefer it if social change happened and more women were like nawalts. For me, walking away from it is something I do because its the slightly less shitty option out of two really shitty options.
/r/MGTOW05/12/16 07:28 PM
2

The most I'll ever get asked is like, "what's your major" or something (since I'm in college). I think this is because today's young women in their early 20's aren't interested in manipulation for monetary purposes. The only thing they seem to care about is affection, validation, etc. It's their new type of currency. Like I said in an older post, women my age don't even want to date. They basically think that men aren't worth even exploiting for a free meal. They don't even want to spend time wi…
/r/MGTOW05/12/16 07:25 PM
1

The issue isn't that it happens to super badass or rich men in the movies. The real issue us that they depict it happening at all. As we all know, even in those cases it's still simple exploitation and no authentic feelings are there. So your badass\rich guy in real life is going to have an even harder time swallowing the red pill. The movies have an even more dramatic effect on him, since he seems to be getting so much sweet action just like in those films. Yeah it's fun for a while, but he's b…
/r/MGTOW30/11/16 01:37 AM
1

I find it really hard to believe that women score better on empathy tests when they abuse children more, initiate domestic violence more, are all around more violent. I really don't understand how women can be so allegedly empathetic when they treat men like dirt in many ways. Hell, they even treat each other like shit. You could argue they're just non empathetic with regards to men, but very empathetic with children. Then again, the statistics show that fathers are just as important, if not mor…
/r/MGTOW25/11/16 06:20 PM
1

But how much of it is biology though, and how much is social conditioning? We know both things can influence people. I'm more quick to lay the blame at the feet of society, personally. Just seems like a more direct cause with the way laws/traditions are. shrug I actually don't see why this pattern of behavior is evolutionarily favorable. At least, not as favorable as the alternative: women being equally capable of empathy as men and loving men as much as men love women. More corporation between …
/r/MGTOW25/11/16 10:27 AM
7

Thanks for the encouragement and advice. I've always had a hard time knowing 99% of humans out there are trash (stupid political opinions, general idiocy, selfishness), and I hope that this new red pill/MGTOW thing will teach me to trim the fat from my life and galvanize me to accept harsh reality. Yeah, I really love the MGTOW community. But like you say, maybe I need time to work through the acceptance phase. Who knows.
/r/MGTOW24/11/16 07:44 AM
2

Yeah, you're right. I suppose I was engaging in wishful thinking. Probably most women would not recognize the hypocrisy because they're stupid, or recognize it, but not care thats its hypocritical because they're harpies.
/r/MGTOW24/11/16 03:16 AM
11

This is priceless. I can't wait to try it someday. The look on her face would be one of absolute cognitive dissonance as reality smacks her in her silly little fucking head. Truly something to see.
/r/MGTOW23/11/16 11:56 PM
1

I've noticed this too, and here's how I interpret it. It really goes to show how contradictory and unpleasable women are. They see being nice as a sign of being a blue bill white knight, even though being nice and being a blue pill white knight are not necessarily synonymous. But for some reason, they've decided to make it synonymous by talking about/assuming all nice guys ARE blue pill white knights. Now it looks like they're disparaging these type of men, even though that's the type of men the…
/r/MGTOW20/11/16 11:01 PM
1

This reminds me of something that I have been thinking for a long time. Of the people in my life who have been genuinely concerned for my well being and want to see that I am happy in life, all of them were men. Well, except for my mother, but that's a different situation since women biologically designed to care for their children. They don't care about men who aren't their offspring, though. I think this can be traced back to hunter/gatherers and human evolution. Men were out doing the dangero…
/r/MGTOW20/11/16 10:36 PM
2

You're welcome. I honestly don't know. Maybe they wait until they actually need help, then cultivate a wimp to do it for them? Every now and then I do see simps doing that kind of shit for women, but it's rare. Maybe younger women don't care about getting assistance anymore, but rather, place more value on nursing their egos since their psyches are more fragile than they used to be? Quite honestly, the way older MGTOW talk about women makes them seems like these devious mastermind manipulators, …
/r/MGTOW19/11/16 08:32 PM
3

Don't worry, you make perfect sense. And thank you, glad you found it insightful. You're not at all wrong in suggesting that women need attention but I wouldn't necessarily confuse extracting attention (narcissism) with resource extraction (survival strategy). Right, and I do not mean to conflate them at all. I just re-used that word extraction because it sounds nice. But in retrospect, I suppose it's not entirely an apt term. After all, you can't "extract" someone's affection. Well I guess you …
/r/MGTOW19/11/16 04:45 AM
4

You'll really see this when they hit the wall. When even the glances are hard to come by they will turn absolutely sour. And it's poetic justice, isn't it? They burned and used and manipulated men in their early twenties. By the time they're that age, men their own age don't trust them anymore. If they're going to be burned, they'd rather get burned by someone cute. Personally I'd rather not get burned at all.
/r/MGTOW19/11/16 04:39 AM
2

The conversation is mainly about THEM and not about BOTH of you. So often, I'll be talking to a girl and it will become a one sided conversation. She only enjoys talking about herself. If I don't fill the silence with questions about her then there would be no conversation at all. It's kind of like talking to a child. God, if that isn't eyeopening I don't know what is.
/r/MGTOW18/11/16 03:12 AM
5

I feel like I'm in the depression stage. How do you go to the acceptance stage? How do I lose the desire to have love with a woman?
/r/MGTOW18/11/16 03:08 AM
2

It's kind of an oxymoron, though, isn't it? If you refuse to marry, that means you can't date or ever have a serious relationship. At some point she'll get upset that you don't want to marry her in order to browbeat an guilt trip you into giving in. Eventually she'll break up with you. So, in effect, don't you end up dying alone either way? This also means you can't ever have any kids. So yeah, it's lose-lose. Now, if 99% of men weren't total, brainwashed, pathetic, idiotic cucks, then we as men…
/r/MGTOW18/11/16 02:52 AM
2

Blue pill answer; If these are the reactions you get from women on a regular basis then you obviously don't understand women. Those idiots are so cute. "Hey so I know the evidence incontrovertibly points to the fact that women are manipulative and selfish, but it only seems that way cause you just don't get it. You're not smart like me, someone who understands women." -a cuck with scuffed knees
/r/MGTOW18/11/16 02:41 AM
1

Thank you. Of course the institutions are to blame. But where do institutions come from? Well, they're influenced by the collective beliefs of individual people, right? And how did individual people get those beliefs? They were manipulated to do it. I know it seems circular, but I think society dictates individuals and individuals dictate society. A vicious cycle of idiocy and sociopathy.
/r/MGTOW18/11/16 02:39 AM
1

Nobody can make you feel anything bad - or anything at all really - about your self without your consent. Your feelings are YOUR reaction to stimulus. Right, I agree. I certainly don't get upset and insecure about it because that's unreasonable. I'm just saying that lots of men do get upset by it because they internalize women's judgements and are too brainwashed/stupid to know what is reasonable. What "creepy" means is subjective. Its essence is that the "creep" is a Beta instead of an Alpha. W…
/r/MGTOW18/11/16 02:33 AM
1

I'm not so sure about that last part. It feels pretty painful to have no association to women right now. Like I said, I can't imagine being alone. For me at least, I don't feel like this good for my overall sanity. But then again...I can't go through what I've gone through before. Seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't type situation.
/r/MGTOW10/11/16 08:52 AM
1

Go ahead and explain why they're dubious. Are you kidding me? I did. Guess you weren't paying attention. All men are literally retarded, it is commonly known fact. Donald Trump is a fucking idiot, it is commonly known fact. Barack Obama is actually a communist, it is commonly known fact. You think I'm making an appeal to popularity fallacy? See, the thing about that is it only works if the claim someone is making is actually NOT common knowledge. I think Briffault's law applies to all people, in…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/16 11:02 PM
1

Your entire argument has boiled down to: I observe X, and my observation of X is more valuable evidence than several carefully controlled studies including a meta-analysis (IIRC). Why is that a bad argument? I don't care how much you dress up your thinly-veiled appeal to authority fallacy with fancy terms. The fact remains that the conclusions you present are logically impossible with the observations. In a case like this, we need to rethink the studies. If I have a math equation that shows 2+2=…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/16 10:14 PM
1

This is an absolute trainwreck of reasoning. You don't just get to say 'but you're wrong' with zero evidence (studies, surveys, data that indicate a high probability of such an idea etc. not just some article saying briffault's law exists, or your personal opinion). Why is it a trainwreck? All I'm saying is "if you're going to show me a claim that contradicts reality, you need to justify how this can be right." For instance, if you tried to show people scientific articles that the red stuff that…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/16 06:03 PM
1

Funny you mention gender roles. I was thinking that they are the root of many of our problems today. I think that they are also very primitive and based in survival strategies that aren't relevant anymore. I think that men evolved to be more invested in their partners, because that was necessary to insure a motivation to protect women long enough for them to give birth. Meanwhile women evolved to care only about children so as to insure their survival. After the birth, the man is replaceable. I …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/16 08:02 AM
1

I'm sure that not every single one of them does those things. There are usually outliers in any group of people. However, nothing is going to be achieved by ignoring the fact that in the majority of cases, this is what happens. So you're kind of missing my point. Or are you actually disputing Briffault's law as a whole and saying "not even the majority of women do this?" That will be a hard position to defend, I'm afraid. Now, as for empathy...your evidence does say that women are more empatheti…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/16 07:46 AM
1

I have offered to pay on occasion, but it's not out of any sense that I'm trying to show off my wealth or impress her. I just like to offer because its a nice thing to do for someone you care about, same as I might do for any male friend. Now I wonder, though, if perhaps this kind of behavior from men has had the unintended effect of encouraging women to behave the way that they do? I just wanted to say, it's really nice to hear about the point of view of a woman who doesn't just objectify men. …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/16 10:11 PM
1

What's the difference? Can you define your terms so we actually know what you're talking about, please?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/16 09:55 PM
1

No. This is no different than the academic observation that "men make choices in life based upon their overwhelming sex drive" which is also a red pill idea. But said like that, if I followed your logic I could make the claim that men are emotionless cocks running around trying to shoot loads all day. I don't give a shit about "red pill" ideas, and I don't identify with whatever this group is. If you followed my logic? HOW? What about my logic suggests this? You need to actually explain the conn…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/16 09:52 PM
1

Except I did define those circumstances, you moron.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/16 09:44 PM
1

So, anything that can be measured is a reward? I'm sorry, that's just absolutely not what "reward" means.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/16 09:42 PM
1

That's a bad analogy. It's not selfish to opt out of donating money or time to help the child if you can't afford it. You might have a point if we're talking about a fabulously wealthy person who can more than afford it. I'd also argue that empathy is not just the ability to understand what another is experiencing and nothing more than that. I think it encompasses the state of actually caring about said experiences/feelings. Even sociopaths can rationally understand what other people experience.…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/16 09:41 PM
1

Are you doing a Donald Trump impression? Lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/16 04:34 PM
1

You mean, painting them with one stroke? Yes, I am. But I don't see the irony in stating that generalization because it is true. What you said about men is patently false. Im sure there are exceptions, but overall, yes most women are like that.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/16 04:32 PM
1

Um, what? Men only want sex? Not true. It's also false that men that who do are underdeveloped. Where are you getting these batshit ideas from? Ok so I agree women perceive value. There's nothing wrong with that. Men do too. I just think men perceive emotional/romanctic and women more tangible values. Other than that, yeah I'm fine being a provider as long as what I'm providing is myself and not anything artificial and external.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/16 04:28 PM
1

If you're not taking other people's feelings into consideration, how can you be empathetic? That's literally what the word means. How can I both be selfish and not selfish simultaneously?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/16 04:23 PM
2

Possibly. In a psychology of sex and gender class I was taking, my professor mentioned that some studies show that women might be moving away from marrying guys with more money like they used to do in the past, and focusing on guys they find more appealing, whether that means personality wise, appearance, etc. But they key words here are "some" and "might". So the answer is maybe, I don't know for sure. Going off my pure speculation, I would say that it makes sense for women to do this. After al…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/16 04:20 PM
1

I doubt the conclusions of such studies. I'm sorry, but it's illogical to say women are equally empathetic when they're practically ignoring the emotional aspect of relationships in favor of other kinds of benefits. That just doesn't make sense. How do you reconcile the fact that studies say one thing, the evidence another? You could tell me that studies concluded the sky is not blue, and I still wouldn't believe it, because the evidence I've seen indicates it is blue. Now, if you want to say th…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/16 08:05 AM
1

The whore is pretending to be really into the sex with you, so it's fake in that sense. It is A LOT less severe a pretence than all the things you describe, though, I'm not disputing that. I am not sure you understand any of this but that is what security means in a marriage. Ahhh...I understand. I was being a little too literal. I see what you mean. Yeah, I'm 21, so I'm not exactly thinking about marriage and all these long-term things you speak about right now. I'm still new to this whole thin…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/16 03:28 AM
1

I think there is probably greater honesty in a prostitute giving you the girlfriend experience (?). At least you know that she is not going to ruin you on her way out. A prostitute's affection would be equally fake. Sure, prostitution is a more direct and out-in-the-open manifestation of Briffault's law, but it still suffers from the fundamental problem: FAKE. A sense of security is indivisible from love and affection, at least for me. I feel perfectly safe the majority of the time. I'm not worr…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/16 02:31 AM
1

Yes, well, people like to make appeal to authority fallacies to discredit ideas that are perfectly well-reasoned and rely on observable facts. Apparently, one must be an expert or else their thoughts are invalid (which people don't realize is a self defeating idea, since their own opinions would therefore be invalid).
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/16 02:26 AM
1

Ok sure, educated people are less likely to be able to contribute. I don't think anyone would disagree. Yet, it also doesn't mean they can't contribute. Therefore you haven't discredited Briffault. What's the point of this line of questioning? I don't get it.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/16 02:23 AM
1

I don't know man. I just want to feel loved and receive affection in my life. Knowing it's fake, and even having to do work for it, the deal still seems worth it IMO. Not to say you're wrong. It is depressing for sure.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/16 02:12 AM
1

So some electric charge goes off, one that I don't even know exists or can perceive, and that, to you, suggests "reward"? HOW?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/16 02:10 AM
1

Also, it can't mean anything or nothing. It means exactly what those words mean. I'm utterly perplexed why this is confusing and don't know what I can say to make it clearer.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/16 02:08 AM
1

Are you really going to ask me to define "benefit" and "association"? Really? You're going to do this semantic word game? Look, I know you know what those words mean. Here's what you're basically doing: Scientist: Objects fall at a rate of 9.8 meters per second per second. Troll: You didn't explain what you mean by "objects", "rate", or "fall". They're so vague and could mean anything. Gotcha! Checkmate! Checkmate! You might as well pull a Bill Clinton and ask your questioner to define the word …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/16 02:05 AM
1

I think you're conflating a lot of different things here. I identify with some things you say but not others. I can kind of agree with what you said about men enjoying being providers. I suppose it depends on what you mean. I enjoy doing nice things for women I'm attracted to. I'm not fantasizing about being the bread winner and constantly protecting her and ensuring her survival, though. So if you meant provider in that sense, I disagree. I don't think that this is the appeal for the majority o…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/16 01:57 AM
1

I don't know what to tell you. I certainly have a strong inclination to do nice things for people that I care about. I just...do, and the only motivation I can perceive is "because I care about them" and until now had never doubted that this answer was enough. But it doesn't make me feel good inside or make me feel happier about my life. I assumed that was normal. If experts have concluded that people "feel good" from doing nice things, I'll grant that it's possible that I just might be an anoma…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/16 01:47 AM
1

Here's an idea. Go reread what I said in my OP. Don't just cherry pick it and pull out the quotes that out of context support your claims. Go look at the part where I LITERALLY said what i'm claiming now so that you know it's not backpedaling. Everyone here seems to get it except you. God I should make a meme out of this. Top: "Calls claim ridiculous" Bottom: "Is the one straw manning and committing other fallacies. Also doesn't explain why the claim is ridiculous at all".
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 11:47 PM
1

I don't know. It's hard to say because nature vs nurture has been, and still is, such a hotly debated issue in the field of psychology. There's plenty of evidence for both.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 09:43 PM
1

Please stop straw manning me. Not sociopaths. Imitation of sociopathic behavior towards one sex in very specific contexts is not the same thing as 100% clinically diagnosable sociopathy.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 09:31 PM
1

Very insightful. Quite an interesting point about it being totally rational for them to behave that way. Of course, in my view, what is rational is not always right or good. The only people for whom rationality is absolutely paramount are sociopaths. I'll leave the implications to everyone's consideration.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 09:28 PM
1

I don't know about your experience, but I do nice things for the simple fact that they are the right thing to do. I donate to charity not because it makes me feel warm inside, but because I feel a moral obligation to do so (within moderation). I'm using anecdotal evidence here, yes. But it's a valid way to disprove an absolute.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 09:25 PM
1

I interact with women in ways that I show interest if I geneuinely like her or at least want to get to know her. I don't approach women thinking "ok, I'm going to see how I can milk some sort of benefit out of her." I love for loves sake, and that reason alone. Is love a benefit? Sure. So that sense I guess you could say I do look for a benefit. However, that has nothing to do with the point. The point isn't "only women look for benefit" it's that "women's ideas of benefit and the types of benef…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 09:19 PM
1

Yeah, romantic/sexual. What else?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 09:17 PM
1

Oh please, don't paint all men as only caring about appearance. That's absurd. I'd rather be with a woman I can have stimulating conversations with and average beauty over a supermodel that I can't stand to be around because we are nothing alike. I know lots of men that feel the same way. You're projecting yourself on us to make us seem like robots.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 09:16 PM
1

I agree completely. Thanks for eloquent comment!
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 09:13 PM
1

I think that's debatable. I think empathy and emotional sensitivity are pre requisites for loving someone.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 09:11 PM
1

I said that the alternative conclusion is they are only sociopathic towards men, or in the very least, much less emotional. You may want to re-read the post.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 09:09 PM
2

You seem like an oddity. Yeah i don't know what TRB or TBP is about. I just found this reddit as a place where briffaults law has been discussed on occasion.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 02:11 PM
1

Exactly what? What are you asserting? Do you think you just proved altruism doesn't exist? You just said you believe it and didn't provide an arguement. Yes, I'm glad you know what I'm arguing. Now, do you have a counter argument? Edit: Never mind, I missed your point. Sorry. Look, altruism does exist. People do nice things for each other all the time with no reciprocal benefit. Look at charities, welfare, etc. Moreover, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. On that footing, I could re…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 10:26 AM
1

So your're essentially asserting that altruism doesn't exist? It will be interesting to hear how you defend that. Additionally, I'd like to say that no, men don't do it too. Men select for emotional/romantic connection, not other kinds of benefit.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 10:19 AM
2

Bad analogy. In your example, you're talking about two people in different areas of study. Comparing Briffault to his contemporaries is more like comparing someone who studied medicine but didn't receive a degree to someone who studied and received a degree. They still know the same stuff, one is just "officially" an expert.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 10:18 AM
2

Well, let me type my comment again since I accidentally deleted it. Stupid IOS! I agree 100% with your thoughts on emotional connection. They do have practical benefits as well as inherent value. Personally, I value emotional/romantic intimacy greatly for its intrinsic worth. I can't see a single reason why women wouldn't agree on this point. The thing is, though, they DO. I don't know why, but they act in a way that suggests they value emotional connection either not at all, or at least far les…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 10:14 AM
2

Well, I respect your right to act in manner that conforms to what you have personally experienced. So, no one can make any observations or logical deductions, no philosophical maxims, unless they have been trained in some vague and nebulous manner?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 10:00 AM
2

Well said!
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 09:57 AM
2

Because it conforms to my observations and experiences, and sensibly explains why a lot of women do the things that they do. The fact than an idea is unpopular does not disprove its validity. Also, I'm starting from a position of assuming the law is true and asking people if the conclusions I draw would be, in their view, valid. If you want to argue the general validity of the law, you should start another thread. EDIT: Moreover, what is an "actual scholar"? Is it simply anyone whose ideas confo…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 09:10 AM
2

Ah, but you're not seeing the woman's POV - the woman is protected by her mate, so her anxieties and insecurities are different. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Could you elaborate, please? The anxiety and insecurity she may have felt from Guy A comes from knowing that she's easily replaced. Why would she be easily replaced? What evidence or reasoning are you deriving this conclusion from? Let's suppose she selects guy A and truly loves him, not desiring a greater benefit in the schem…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 08:59 AM
2

I highly doubt it. It doesn't make sense. It would be illogical to be so obsessed with personal safety in a world where men aren't needed to defend the womenfolk from wolves and hunt for food. Perhaps you would be right in a time period where humans were savage barbarians, but not in the 21st century. Moreover, you're ignoring that women don't always select for physical strength and size. They select for all sorts of benefits, each of which is subjective and contingent upon the woman in question…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 08:48 AM
1

Here's a few good ones that combine a study with a well-reasoned analysis of how this subject relates to society: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/father-s-day-2014-study-shows-men-are-more-emotionally-sensitive-than-women-they-re-just-also-better-9532945.html http://elitedaily.com/dating/guys-more-emotional-girls/1077730/ Note the erie results of the heart warming category...something we might liken to romance, perhaps? Moreover, does the undeniable fact that men select for attach…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 08:37 AM
2

If there are, for the sake of example, two options for an emotional and romantic connection, but one of the options comes “as is”, while the second comes with additional practical benefits, does choosing the latter make you a sociopath? No it doesn't. However, that isn't the situation we're talking about (at least not all the time). Women choose practical benefits over an emotional/romantic connection all the time, or at least choose with a heavy bias on the former and less emphasis on the latte…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/16 08:20 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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