TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

callmesir35 Archive

View 0 posts and 265 comments by callmesir35 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

What is this, 1982?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/15 08:28 PM
1

Isn't that against the rpw code, or something? I think of it as a kind of anti-bro code, where the Husband comes first, last and always...
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 04:19 AM
1

Does my respect exceed your friendliness? Sure it does. :p
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 04:11 AM
1

That's fine; I don't have any more right to your friendliness than you have to my respect. You do, indeed, make comments on the Internet. Some of those comments are positional and create a persona. Yours is as a rich bitch, and something of a prick as well. If you become uncomfortable with this image I would suggest modulating the comments, but I expect that you are fine with it...
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 03:49 AM
1

Oh, please. You set yourself up as a kind of Ayn Rand-Jewish Princess-bitch composite, and then you get offended when people make assumptions? Grow some callouses, girl; this is Reddit.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 03:30 AM
1

Then remain unenlightened. :p
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 03:29 AM
1

So basically you wasted your life on aesthetics until you hit the wall, then shacked up with the best thing you could find?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 03:11 AM
1

Nah. Surely if you remember anything from your first degree, it's that knowledge comes from books. If you can't afford the books, look them up on the grey-market pdf sites like the young folks do. :p
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 03:10 AM
1

And who supported you through this "career choice"?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 03:02 AM
1

I don't care about the "ivy", really, but she earned her doctorate in Biology according to the same standards and expectations as all the biology PH.D.s earned in her generation; the fact that she chose a meta-topic reflexively examining her discipline is an example of exceeding the expectations of her discipline, not umcomprehending criticism of the kind with which you seems to be familiar. But I'm not really about the credential; my point really is that 30-40 years from now people will see her…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 02:55 AM
1

Well, if you didn't marry a millionaire or at least someone who has since become one (remembering that millionaire is a measure of assets not income), then wtf did you give up your future legal earnings to become an rpw? Childless as you are, you would have been better off would you not? And yes, clearly earning an Ivy League science doctorate and publishing on the history and philosophy of science is a waste of time compared to whatever you did after earning your law degree...
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 02:39 AM
1

If you're in your early 40s, then you should know what people mean when they say "that's a thing", and generally they don't mean "that has Dinglicheit". :p
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 02:27 AM
1

She earned a doctorate in Biology and taught the history of science; what did you ever do besides marry a millionaire?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 02:25 AM
1

What on earth are you talking about? Dona Haraway is a scientist/philosopher, not an author of "schizotypal gender nonsense", a phrase that sounds like it comes from that dime-store Freudianism I referred to earlier. And FFS I know the difference between concepts and objects with Dinglicheit. I was using "a thing" in the colloquial sense of "something that's going on". Or in the words of your generation, "it's happening, man". :p
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 02:00 AM
1

Posthumanism is a thing...haven't you read Donna Haraway?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 01:46 AM
1

Dems cartoon characters. That's like saying all the mickey mouse fetishists -- and the mascot fetishists for that matter -- are like real beast porn consumers. I can't see it myself. And those ponies bear no more resemblance to real ones than Tolkien dwarves bear to midgets, from where I'm standing.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 01:06 AM
1

Buy it? Hell no. But I do think it speaks to the posthumanist mindset...and that it means something other than "I wanna be an animal, baby". :p
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 01:01 AM
1

But someone sexually attracted to catgirls isn't attracted to animals. Someone who imagines herself a catgirl isn't attracted to animals. Whatever it is, it isn't bestiality, as there are no actual animals anywhere along the line.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 12:58 AM
1

Words do have generally understood meanings. Bestiality concerns sex between humans and animals. Whatever is happening in yiff, it isn't sex between humans and animals...
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/15 12:04 AM
1

Which is different from accepting that a difference exists but then saying that both sides of the difference represent some third thing, like the capitalist system or rape culture. I'd like to hear you articulate e.g. how rape and rape fantasy both represent rape culture, or bestiality and yiff both represent xenophilia. So far I'm not hearing anything so coherent, just some snark and lol mixed with apriorisms... Edit: if you did want to try explaining beast and furry as part of some broader con…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/15 11:49 PM
1

If you are able to tell the difference between, say, a rape role-player and a wannabe rapist, then why would you deny the difference? That's like articulating the ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats, but then "DENYING THE DIFFERENCE" (sic.).
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/15 11:45 PM
1

You really can't tell the differences? You really think yiff art consumers are also consuming porn featuring actual animals??
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/15 11:05 PM
1

Pedophilia is defined as arousal directed at children. The incest role-players I've met are not sexually attracted to children. Also, the people I've met who were sexually attracted to children weren't incest role-players. There may be an intersection between the two groups, but I havent encountered it. It certainly isn't the same thing. Using for example a penile response test for a population of male incest roleplay enthusiasts, and I expect you'd see the same trend as the general male populat…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/15 10:33 PM
1

What? It has to do with rape as a trope, not actual rape. Just as incest roleplay has to so with incest as a trope, not actual sexual abuse. I have known a few incest role-players, and not one was a pedophile of any kind.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/15 10:18 PM
1

Are you really unable to tell the difference between sexualizing actual animals and sexualizing catgirls? That's a bit like not being able to distinguish between Tolkien dwarves and actual dwarfs. Foot fetishists fetishize actual feet and may use actual pictures of feet to get off. Yiffies preform roleplay and may use, what, actual pictures of catgirls? You know that's absurd...
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/15 10:17 PM
1

You realize that your position amounts to "I don't care about what people who say they do these things say they mean by them. People lie, so the only thing I can trust is my own ill-informed opinion". That's pretty much Reddit for you, isn't it?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/15 10:06 PM
1

Well I certainly don't have to believe your version, since you have no first-hand experience and are insisting on your apriorisms against what everyone with first hand experience is telling you. I on the other hand actually have first hand experience with rape fantasy, and can tell you exactly what it means to me as well as what my intimate partners have said. And it has zero connection to actual rape...
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/15 10:04 PM
1

Most rape role-players have no interest whatsoever in experiencing actual rape, from either the top or the bottom perspective. This I can speak about from fairly extensive personal experience. Edit: I find highly amusing and indicative your statement "the person really WANTS the taboo things". How the heck would you know what somebody else "REALLY wants"? Because it looks that way to you? Because some dime store Freud told you so? Weak evidence...
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/15 10:01 PM
1

You are denying that the two fetishes are different. You are confusing furry play with actual bestiality for example. The furries I've met have no interest in or arousal from watching or participating in animal-human sex aka bestiality. It is a role-playing fetish.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/15 09:59 PM
1

Um, no. I know plenty of rape role players, for example, and none of them are turned on by actual rape. I don't know as many furries or incest role-players, but the ones I do know aren't turned on by actual bestiality or child abuse. Sorry.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/15 09:56 PM
1

You are aware that roleplay incest is generally legal, and the abuse of children isn't? That roleplay rape is legal in most jurisdictions, and actual rape isn't? That roleplay bestiality is legal everywhere, but actual bestiality generally isn't? You really can't tell the difference between interacting with an adult pretending to be something, and interacting with that thing the adult is pretending to be??
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/15 09:54 PM
1

How is animal roleplay the same as bestiality? Do you also think that incest roleplay is the same as pedophilia? Or roleplay rape is the same as actual rape?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/15 09:47 PM
3

I think it's the really firm distinction in people's heads now between role playing and actually enacting something literally, that has enabled all of this furry/yiff stuff and all the softer varieties. So you can blame consent culture.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/15 03:07 AM
1

All I was saying there is that only elites have consistent access to the rule of law, private property, and whatever is covered by "individual liberty". The rest of the population only has contingent access to any of these...
/r/RedPillWomen07/03/15 04:59 AM
1

So, really, you situate yourself outside of mainstream 21st century bdsm...
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 09:05 PM
1

Actually, the whole point of Affirmative Consent is that the onus is not always on one person "to speak up" but also on the other person to ensure that they continue to have consent. That isn't mind reading, it's basic consideration. And I still argue that sex-positive feminism is a cultural juggernaut compared to bdsm, and that bdsm-style consent has mostly ridden the coattails of sex-positive feminism. I do appreciate the things previous generations of kinksters have figured out so I don't hav…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 08:58 PM
1

Stable rule of law, private property and "individual liberty" for elites only IS the rule of the 1%. It must be nice to live under the form of government you advocate as the desideratum.
/r/RedPillWomen06/03/15 08:51 PM
1

Oligarchy is not "without recourse", and can have checks and balances. Usually did, in the Greek examples.
/r/RedPillWomen06/03/15 07:11 PM
1

Affirmative consent is a real step up from no means no, and clarifies the legal situation that already exists in most jurisdictions, namely, that consent may be revoked at any time and that partners are required to take adequate steps to ensure ongoing consent. I really don't see the downside to this. And if you really don't think 21st century bdsm owes more to queer theory and late 20th century feminist sexuality debates than it does to "old guard" traditions, then I am curious about your evide…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 06:30 PM
1

If there is anyone that does promote "real conversations about sex", it's sex-positive feminists. There and queer communities are where 21st century bdsm comes from, FFS. You can't be arrested for driving under the influence of your own hormones. You can't have contracts undone, either. Legal intoxication by alcohol and drugs is in a different category, and that includes for sex. Look at the case law...
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 06:15 PM
1

I didn't invent that legal definition of consent. And you can't blame the people who are raising awareness of the issue, either. Consent requires unimpaired mental capacity.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 06:03 PM
1

Having sex with an intoxicated person, like other illegal act, requires a huge degree of trust. Which is also a good reason not to do it with strangers... And the fact that people who have been drinking may have even more difficulty judging these things is where "zero drinks" ideas come from. Anywhere beyond that point relies on your judgement, and you can't use your own impaired judgement as an excuse...
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 05:28 PM
1

You are right that men are also victims of sexual assault when drunk. And the idea that an average adult can't consent after one drink is hogwash. But a common legal standard is impairment, which I like to think of as the "beer goggles" rule. Basically, if beer goggles apply there is no consent. And if this rule were taken as common sense, there would be hella less sexual assault.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 05:19 PM
1

I'm not against criminal charges, dude. But the point in kicking someone out of school is to keep other students safe, which the courts may not do, or not in a timely way.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 05:07 PM
1

By the way, I have read the Cathy Young piece, and it is mostly pretty silly. Apart from the college's handling of one case where the alleged "victim" was criminally charged with making a false claim, I didn't see much I'm the way of faulty process by the colleges. The fact is that a lot of drunken hookup sex is criminal in many jurisdictions, as is a lot of abusive relationship sex, and in jurisdictions where it isn't illegal it's still appropriate to insist on good conduct. Men who roll the di…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 05:05 PM
1

That was precisely my point. You would interpret it otherwise?
/r/RedPillWomen06/03/15 04:40 PM
1

Sadly (?) that isn't true. Because it is publicly funded doesn't mean a college can't habe have a code of conduct, etc., just that these policies are matters of public interest and policy.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 04:39 PM
1

TIL that banning a person from campus was somehow akin to lynching. Hyperbole, much? For that matter, title 9 and the California Affirmative Consent law aren't about "rape", they are about sexual assault which, by its nature, carries a wider definition than rape (some jurisdictions don't even have "rape" as a criminal charges; others allow a range of sexual assault charges). Your constant bleating about "being labeled a rapist" shows little respect for the actual laws, the accusations and their …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 04:26 PM
0

But college administrators aren't applying criminal sanctions for rape -- they can't send anyone to prison, for example. They are enforcing a code of conduct relative to access to their services, and sexual assault -- or even acts that are less than criminal sexual assault -- could certainly be a violation of a relevant code of conduct. Criminal sexual assault demands a criminal trial and criminal sanctions, but that doesn't mean the university should treat everyone who stands unconvicted of sex…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 03:21 PM
0

But the college isn't performing a criminal trial, it is resolving a dispute over access to its services. Therefore the criminal standard is not warranted. Also note that criminal acquittal is not a finding of innocence, so it is not necessarily germane. Preponderance of evidence is exactly what it says, preponderance. The idea that it represents "reverse onus" is pure MRM propaganda. Edit: having fun downvoting, are we?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 02:36 PM
1

The CDC is doing some strange things, viz. "forced to penetrate", but the version of "coercion" they are referring to here is not legally applicable in any state, as far as I can tell. Coercion legally refers to threats of physical harm, blackmail, etc., and does not include being a whiny putz. Annoying, yes, but not legally actionable.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 01:21 PM
0

Except that I have read the entire California bill, and it literally doesn't say that. It says there shall be a preponderance of evidence standard; is that what you mean?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 12:49 PM
1

Context, please: what is NISVS? Edit: except for "using their influence or authority", which may be against sexual harassment policies, none of the elements of this appear legally actionable, so I'm not sure what this concept of "sexual coercion" is supposed to do. It doesn't represent any feminist legal doctrine that I've ever heard of...
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 12:45 PM
0

Just read the California law: no, it doesn't. "It is the responsibility of each person to ensure" consent at each stage, not to demonstrate it. Have you read the law? Edit: nice downoting, TRP.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 11:43 AM
0

No; no, it doesn't. Affirmative consent requires that consent be present, or plausibly believed to be present, at every step of an encounter. It does not require that consent be provable at every step of an encounter, which is literally impossible. No man has been convicted because they could not "prove" consent; men have been convicted for proceeding without consent where they did not take the legally necessary steps to ascertain that they actually had consent at the next phase. Edit: nice down…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 06:39 AM
1

Exactly. But don't ask don't tell with a pro might work... I'd try that before dumping her, myself. :p
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 04:54 AM
0

Well, I don't think she'll pay for the hooker. :p But she might feel that a hooker is emotionally safer than a hookup.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 04:27 AM
0

If she were fully aware of her options, she might agree... ;)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 04:02 AM
0

The whole idea of not being that guy is that there is another kind of guy you can be. How does that demonize all men? And affirmative consent does not in any way reverse the burden of proof for sexual assault. CMV. Edit: or just downvote...
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 04:02 AM
0

Hire a hooker then. ;-)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 02:48 AM
0

I am unaware of any 21st century anti-rape campaigns that suggest that all men are rapists. Also, I have seen no movement on the burden of proof for sexual assault. Have you? Edit: nice dowmvoting!
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 02:48 AM
-1

There must be a lot of straw in the population where you live. You don't cite anything about feminist anti-rape campaigns, instead you argue that men are sexually assaulted too. No shit, sherlock. But why should it be the feminists who create campaigns to deal with that issue? And I have never seen any feminist do anything but contemn the predatory women teachers, which is better than I can say for the MRA and predatory males... Edit: nice downvotes, d00dz
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 02:30 AM
1

Back at you on politeness. It seems to me that you may have lacked confidence, and weren't prepared to negotiate getting the things you want sexually while your partner also gets the things she wants. Feminism makes these conversations possible, but certainly not compulsory. NSA blowjobs are definitely not a widespread fetish among feminists and egalitarian woman, but if you think of them that way -- as a fetish not a right -- you can certainly find women who will do them. Much more common is wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 02:28 AM
1

Yeah, some people believe that, for some reason. But it only comes across as douchey when men want to receive oral but not give it...
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 02:10 AM
1

"Don't be that guy" is not anti-male sexuality, it is anti-sexual assault. That's not bullshit, bro. Being anti-rape and being anti-male are two very different things.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 02:07 AM
-1

There's some content! How about actually mounting an argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 01:55 AM
1

Well, per this thread, it seems to me that more women are saying "why won't men come up to me, like ever" than are saying "why can't I go to a club without being hit on". I may just be out of touch, but I believe it is still true that some degree of attention to AAS is allowed among strangers when clubbing. As to relationships, I don't know of any variety of feminism that encourages people to stick with dysfunctional relationships. The idea that people should be trapped in DBR relationships beca…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 01:55 AM
0

And re: your edit, I don't think the position you describe is even pop feminism. I don't think you'd find anti-blowjob screed in Jezabel, for instance. What you will find in Jezabel is the idea that "dressing up slutty" should please the woman who does it -- or she shouldn't do it -- and that oral (and orgasms in general) should be reciprocated. But that isn't really controversial or a uniquely feminist viewpoint, is it?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 01:36 AM
0

Who is suggesting that partner-seeking be taken out of bars and clubs? Or parties for that matter? And what about asking out someone you already know, rather than a stranger? All my pre-internet relationships were with people I knew before we started dating, mostly friends of friends. Clearly you are not looking for the right women. There are literally millions of self-identified submissive women out there who get off on the idea of pleasing a man sexually, whether they feel it to be demeaning o…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/15 12:08 AM
-1

Maybe it's just my privilege as a middle-aged man, but I really don't see all this shaming you are talking about. Asking men to take their partner-seeking out of libraries and classrooms -- and workplaces -- is not equivalent to any kind of shaming of male sexuality. Also note my anal and deep throat edit, above.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 11:34 PM
-1

But surely "male gaze" is not an especially relevant concept, and "entitlement" is just another way of talking about un-self-critical self-centered behaviour. "Objectification" properly understood relates to treating people as thibgs, which is presumably not something that would be part of your sex life... Edit: anal and deep throat are essentially kinks, like any other kinks. Nobody is entitled to them but anyone can discuss them prior to getting deeply into a relationship. It seems to me that …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 11:27 PM
1

True, but are you arguing that the oligarchy you advocate will be better than the current one by taking your views more into account? If so, I am curious how...
/r/RedPillWomen05/03/15 10:58 PM
1

Let men decide economic and social policy. The major argument of first-wave feminism was that women should participate equally with men in policy determination, and you -- ironically in my view -- dispute first-wave feminism while at the same time holding very specific and intractable views on economic and social policy issues.
/r/RedPillWomen05/03/15 10:36 PM
-1

Don't move the goalposts, dude. We were talking about consent and sexual assault. Video can show that a beheading happened, sure, but it can't distinguish between rough sex and rape or, for that matter, between gentle sex and the threat of force (which could also be sexual assault). No question of consent could be definitively answered through video evidence...
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 10:18 PM
0

I don't know why I was thinking bachelor apartment or dorm room, but there you are. I certainly entered many bachelor apartments or dorm rooms with no intention of having sex, back in the day. The idea of never doing so seems strange to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 10:03 PM
0

You have never had a woman in your apartment, or been in hers, and not wanted to have sex? Ummmmmm...okay.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 09:54 PM
1

I didn't mean to be rude, and I know I am here on sufferance. Your monetary theory being more obscure than I had assumed really has no bearing, however, on the irony I found in your supposed objections to women's suffrage which in fact are at best only occasionally consistent with the set of political-economic prescriptions that are dear to your heart, an issue which you seem fairly reluctant to let men decide for you.
/r/RedPillWomen05/03/15 09:52 PM
0

I'm not sure about the "lowered standard of proof for punishing men for rape accusations" mostly because I don't see it. If the "lowered standard" is by comparison to successful criminal charges then I don't really see the problem, since I don't think successful criminal charges should be the standard. But this isn't happening where I live, so I don't really know anything about the specific cases you're referring to.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 09:45 PM
0

I don't know, though. Emotional abuse as a concept cuts both ways, and I dare say there are as many emotionally abusive women as men. And I think it would be very difficult to argue that feminism has had a negative impact on the quality of sex or the quality of communication around sex, from just about any perspective, over the last 50 years and especially since the "triumph" of sex-positive feminism 20-30 years ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 09:34 PM
0

I'm a man, and I really don't hear pop feminism doing this. In so far as I run into pop feminism at all, I hear it saying "listen" and "don't be a dick", basically...
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 09:30 PM
4

No, I'm sure you oppose lots of other thing, like common sense and fiat money, as well as basic social rights for 99.9% of the world population. But I just want to harp about the inconsistency in decrying votes for women when your actual political philosophy is basically elitist, not misogynist.
/r/RedPillWomen05/03/15 09:29 PM
0

And as you've described it your approach is fine. But only if you actually stop when rebuffed, rather than making the bullshit argument "you agreed to go to my room. Everyone knows that means sex..."
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 09:20 PM
-1

You don't have to "ask for affirmative consent" -- it's a state of mind, not something you say. Of course, her judgement about his consent could be impaired and she could indeed commit sexual assault (which she also could even if she weren't impaired). But I doubt this was the man's concern, in the anecdote.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 09:18 PM
-1

Actually, I believe it is mostly men who call each other neckbeards. :p. And as far as the messaging that certain places are not where women go to be hit on, I as a man have certainly participated in that messaging and believe it to be fundamentally correct and socially beneficial. Women in general do not walk down the street in order to be followed or hit on, and an environment where those behaviour are discouraged is beneficial to most of us all, almost all of the time. Legal changes, like sex…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 09:16 PM
-1

That is a pretty silly caricature, and only made any sense in a world where the "entitled" men were at the same time clueless about female sexual pleasure. Sex - positive feminism certainly makes no such assumptions about the "evils" of sexuality or of bdsm.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 08:28 PM
3

Sure, but the situation you were describing is not what first wave feminists fought against. The apex of the movement faced a situation where the male franchise was essentially universal but women were denied the vote on the basis of gender. Also note that there is no reason to believe that your attempt to restrict the franchise and institute less representative institutions would so anything to favor your other goal, viz. less interventionist government.
/r/RedPillWomen05/03/15 08:20 PM
1

I am surprised that you think it is "consent culture" that promotes the idea that women want to be friends before dating or sex. My impression is that consent campaigns promote the idea that women can chose to move as fast as men, or faster, and should not be shamed for their choices. Also, sex-positive feminists have done more than any other group to attack the misconception that women dislike pornographe. I dare say that certain areas, like literary pornography, are now dominated by women.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 08:16 PM
-1

Maybe that made him uncomfortable, or maybe he realized that even though she was drunk and initiating, he could still end up being legally and ethically liable for the results of any ensuing encounter.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 08:11 PM
5

I agree with this statement, with the qualifier that in many circumstances it is completely appropriate for men to be concerned that they might annoy women by hitting on them. Imagine a guy hits on a girl in the first week of a 12-person seminar, and she's not interested, and they then have to go through the rest of the term aware of this awkward interaction. This doesn't mean school is never a place to pick up, but it does suggest that an awareness of context and possible consequences is always…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 08:10 PM
0

So you would rather just fuck the boundaries, fuck consent, and set yourself up for a -- not false -- sexual assault charge?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 08:01 PM
1

What is the "false interpretation about a woman's sexuality" that you are thinking of?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 07:55 PM
1

Mainstream, sex-positive feminism (which has been most feminism for at least the last 20 years) has never understood male sexuality is "inherently wrong and evil". At most, men have been encouraged to "problematize" their sexuality as have women to the same extent. The perspective that feminism somehow runs counter to (hetero)sexuality reflects lazy, dated caricatures of feminism IMO.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 07:49 PM
6

I don't agree with much of TRP's position on this, but I do agree with the last paragraph. There is still an onus on men to initiate in spite of the increasing social costs of initiating. Of course, slut-shamers don't help the situation by heightening the risks for women as well. What would young straight people do now without Tinder? ;) When I was in my early 20s I relied on women to initiate to some extent (though I responded enthusiastically where appropriate). The result of this was a lower …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 07:42 PM
-1

"Unless the interaction was videotaped"? What earthly difference does that make? Videotape cannot communicate inward intentionality, which is where consent lives...
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 07:37 PM
-1

Um, you're not entitled to sex with your wife, dude, any more than she is entitled to sex with you. But one hopes that she is willing...
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 07:33 PM
-1

And by the way, walking her back to the dorm was the correct non-rapist response. The alternative would be to assess whether she was sufficiently intoxicated to be unable to consent to sex, which in a casual acquaintance would be a bit of a mug's game.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 07:28 PM
1

Isn't this because it came to be seen as inappropriate to hit on MOAAS in class or at the library? I don't think it is about gender, as such.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/15 07:26 PM
6

So you actually believe that poorly-educated men should have the vote but that you -- and the unmarried or divorced women you knew in law school -- should not?
/r/RedPillWomen05/03/15 07:21 PM
2

Not under the current system, because the educational and internship requirements are not the same for nurses as for doctors. But for professions with similar levels of education and experience, the differential can't readily be justified.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/15 08:54 PM
2

The 25% pay gap is not supposed to measure women and men doing the same job, in North America. It is an income gap among full time workers. Some of that is because men are more likely to have more job tenure and work experience, some of it is because men work more hours, and some of it is because men are more likely to be in higher-paid occupations. My "pink collar" point was about that last issue -- at the same levels of experience and educational qualifications, occupations where women dominat…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/15 08:04 PM
1

Have you never looked into the Maquiladoras, outsourcing to Bangladesh, etc.? They do exactly that, where they can can... In North America, though, it's more in services (think fast food, health care and education where you can find pink-collar ghettos...
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/15 06:34 PM
4

I dare say it is fairly common for middle-class and upper-middle-class parents to expect their children to work, at age 18 if not before. I am old enough that I was expected to work the summers between my years of undergrad to pay for my schooling, and was able to do so.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 11:19 PM
0

You are aware, I hope, that the findings the blogger is extrapolating are in no case the findings of the peer-reviewed studies he is citing. He has also not even looked at the available evidence to determine whether promiscuity among men has an impact on divorce risk. So no evidence has been provided that it makes any sense at all to judge men and differently in relation to promiscuity and LTRs. Secondly, because the blogger is recycling data from studies conducted for other purposes, he has not…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 09:00 PM
2

Source? (That the origin of any difference in "aggressiveness" is natural not social, I mean.)
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 08:35 PM
1

Really? And gay men don't work as hard as straight men...source?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 08:35 PM
1

I don't see how any of this has to do with "male labor ... pushing humanity forward".
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 08:07 PM
2

The difference between men's and women's "aggressiveness" in the workplace is "nature"? Ummmmmmm, no.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 08:01 PM
-2

There are observable, statistical differences between men and women. Of course there are. Women are more likely to be raped (by men) then men are, and less likely to be murdered (again by men) than men are. There are also observable differences in size, strength, and behavior. But so what? The question that would have to be answered for TRP to make sense would be: are there differences in the abilities and limitations of men and women that would justify profoundly different strategies of social …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 07:46 PM
1

Your study doesn't price what you say it does, dawg. Please learn to read. And testosterone doesn't cause sexual assault, either.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 12:46 PM
2

But you're the one who proposed the testosterone theory if sexual violence. I for one find it completely absurd. For one thing, if true, men with pattern baldness would be more prone to rape since their testosterone levels are higher...
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 12:28 PM
2

AFAIK hormone therapy has been agreed to by certain seemingly incurable sex criminals. Nobody that I know of has proposed population anti-testosterone dosing as a solution to sexual violence. Sounds radfem to me. ;)
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 03:16 AM
2

Wait; you didn't just explain sexual assault based on levels of testosterone? Inappropriate touching, cropping, assult with objects, assaults on children: that's all just testosterone? So we could reduce sexual violence through society just by administering anti-testosterone compounds in the water! Who knew?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 01:11 AM
-2

There is a 20-25% income difference between women working full-time and men working full-time, and somewhere between a quarter and a third of that cannot be explained by work force experience or hours worked. I am paraphrasing the U.S. Department of Labor here. How is this "disproved"? "Rape culture" may be a sloppy term, but sexual violence is mostly perpetrated by men and mostly targeted at women, and has been largely tolerated rather than confronted over the last 50 years. Again, how has this…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 10:53 PM
2

Because of course the expectation that women are primary caretakers for their children (and aging parents) has nothing to do with it...
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 07:32 PM
1

I didn't say it was a moral obligation. In various places, gender-nonconforming people have different rights to use varioiusly gendered washrooms, depending on laws and property regulations. I wouldn't regard any of those entitlements as representing moral obligations...
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 07:26 PM
2

Disagree. Women who work full-time earn about three-quarters what men earn, on average. It is equally true that young women who work full time -- who are less likely to experience the differences in work force tenure and in family-related time pressures that older women experience -- are likely to earn as much as men within the same occupations. This observation confirms feminist analysis, rather than undermining it.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 07:25 PM
1

I believe that the question is why there is a persistent gap in measured IQ, not whether there is a gap. Richard Nisbett, for example, provides a different explanation for these differences than the racial genetic explanation of Rushton, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 07:23 PM
1

75 cents is the approximate income differential among full-time workers, as all intelligent feminists know. The components of that differential -- years in the work force, hours worked, etc. -- have everything to do with social factors feminists are trying to change, so it is perfectly fair game to include them, even though they aren't wage discrimination...
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 07:12 PM
2

The front seats of the bus, with written instructions to give priority to people using mobility aids and pregnant women. Drivers can stop the bus to enforce these rules, though I haven't seen one have to.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 07:10 PM
0

And the argument that a (mostly female) front-desk worker at the DMV making $35,000 a year has more power than a (mostly male) private sector manager making $135,000 a year is completely laughable, in just about every case.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 07:08 PM
0

Men don't form unions? Where do you think unions come from? Men "have no identity" with other men -- then why were most professions dominated by men (often through formal exclusions) until recently, and why are the most lucrative specialties in pretty much all professions dominated by men? Why do you think "leadership" is defined in terms of a skill set traditionally associated with men? Do you really think this happens, but men "have no identity" with each other?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 07:07 PM
2

I've seen the Department of Labor studies, thanks. It still finds 5 cents after considering "danger" (a rather subjective factor), and doesn't consider differences between female-dominated and male-dominated occupations with similar experience and education requirements. So I will stick to 10 cents as being a nearer approximation than 5. :p
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 07:05 PM
1

As far as divorce and selective service go, just look at 1970s feminism to see repeated calls for an end to selective service in the US. And the main drivers in the elimination of the 1950s adultery-female custody-and eternal alimony model of divorce have come from feminists...
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 06:58 PM
1

You mean, because men will have sex with them but not enter relationships with them? I know I said "relationships", but was actually thinking all-partner-selection when I said it.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 06:56 PM
1

At least 5-10%, controlling for hours worked and tenure (labor force experience). Probably at the high end of that range, because studies reinforcing the low end don't often take into account unequal determination of wages by occupation, where female-dominated occupations typically pay less than male-dominated occupations at the same level of skill and education required.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 06:55 PM
2

My opposition to your point, really, is this: how do you feel that men's relationship choices are any better, on the whole?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 06:51 PM
1

Men are the majority victims of violent crime, the vast majority of which is initiated by men! If women initiate domestic violence, but men are the ones who are more likely to murder, maim, or hospitalize their partners, then should we really see this as a pro-woman status quo? If the bottom of the hierarchy, in the public and private sector, is occupied primarily by women and the top by men, then this is a perfect example of power being unequally distributed by gender. And where did I suggest t…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 06:47 PM
4

So wait, your nerd rage is because you are a doctor and not a DJ, so you can't get laid? Try being a 40something doctor versus a 40something DJ, and trying to get laid. Then call me back.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 06:42 PM
1

Actually, feminists have demanded no-fault divorce, and have promoted an end to the assumption of maternal custody along with various reforms that promote women's dependence on their own income rather than alimony in divorce cases. Feminists have also historically promoted the end of selective service. "Equal pay" however is not a myth, except to believe that men's and women's earned income is equal if their experience, education and labor force participation are the same. But you don't actually…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 06:39 PM
1

Nah. Strange men and strange women are under equal obligations towards pregnant women. Some places I've lived there were actually signs to indicate this obligation. :o
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 06:34 PM
1

I don't know; I believe most women do a better job choosing their mates than do most men. ;)
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 06:32 PM
5

All men want some form of special treatment, whether they realize it or not. See what I did there?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 06:31 PM
4

One could equally claim that marriage was inherently anti-female for most of the 20th century. What would be the point of that kind of labelling?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 06:28 PM
1

Are you seriously suggesting that the reason for declining productivity of the male workforce in the West and Japan is that men aren't getting laid?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 06:25 PM
2

Women dominate the way young women get their media? Who knew? /s Edit: I would like to see you demonstrate e.g. that gawker advocates for preferential treatment for women, overall.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 06:23 PM
12

Ability to handle pressure? Do you have substance abuse issues? I have never seen any difficulty in women "handling pressure". I also love how this is essentially a list of entirely subjective and culturally constructed attributes, presented as if they were measurable and proven. Haha.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 06:23 PM
1

Your "violence" link only covered spousal and dating violence, and did not take into consideration intensity of violence. A look at criminal charges and convictions, either for spousal violence or for all violence between men and women, would show women more likely to be victimized and men more likely to be aggressors. As to paid and unpaid work, you are looking only at paid work which was not my point. Look at time use studies, which include paid as well as unpaid work, then get back to me. Als…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 06:20 PM
2

Among all the other nonsense in the OP, I hope you are aware that dogs were deliberately bred for particular roles by particular groups of humans practicing first folkloric, then scientific genetics. Human beings, ummmmmm, were not deliberately bred in this way.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 06:02 PM
3

TIL that power in the media rests with Jezebel, gawker and buzzfeed. Hahahaha
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 06:00 PM
6

In what sense are men "superior" to women? Ability to grow beards? Likelihood to exceed six feet in height?? Edit: oh, wait; you meant how much men can press or jerk, yes?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 05:57 PM
2

Well, I haven't seen any flying pigs recently, and any countries where women are drafted men are also drafted ... But women are certainly subject to hate campaigns, they are much more likely to experience violence from men than men are to experience violence from women, women do more (paid and unpaid) work than men do and have far fewer financial assets, and men occupy the vast majority of positions of (formal and informal) power in the world, especially at the highest levels, and appear to shar…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 05:55 PM
2

Considering that the male supremacy movement is not exactly dismantled, I don't know why you feel women should surrender first. And all men (in general) do benefit from the remaining institutions of male supremacy...
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/15 05:47 PM
1

If a wife expects nothing more from her husband than errands and bill payment then yes, it is. That is approximately what most women expect from their ex-husbands, i. e. men they have a purely instrumental relationship with and no longer respect.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 10:35 PM
1

Because you are very unlikely to find anyone who will do that. North American women are unique flowers who need to be recognized individually; they will not audition for you for cooking, cleaning and fucking in the hopes that if they do well for you in those respects then you will recognize their unique individuality. Really, if you can earn the money, you would be better off dealing with the sex traffickers.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 10:32 PM
1

Aaaaand you don't explain the relevance of the difference, nor do you respond to my substantive point on consent. Nice. I'm enjoying the downvotes, by the way!
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 06:36 PM
0

As I have told you, over and over again, it is "wrong" to value this as your primary desideratum because it is counter-productive -- seeking these things above all else will prevent you from obtaining them. And I have explained why, over and over again.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 06:35 PM
2

To take an audio recording, e.g. wear a wire. You do know that a person can withdraw consent after the recording but before or during sex, yes?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 06:32 PM
1

If you are trying to find "a woman who cleans, cooks and fucks" rather than a woman with whom you are compatible on all levels including emotional compatibility and life goals, then you are much less likely to find anyone. The reason not to make those your primary or exclusive goals is that it will not find you anyone except a maid, a prostitute, and/or a sex traffickee. There isn't anyone out there whose only goal in life is to give YOU blowjobs or do YOUR laundry.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 05:55 PM
2

I have, in fact, repeatedly explained why. Namely, that North American women (among others) want to be understood and valued as a person, which means considering them fundamentally as a human being with desires and goals rather than as a domestic servant with sex duties. Even if those goals and wants include being a domestic servant with sex duties, that will almost never be the whole basis of a successful relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 05:51 PM
0

And you literally delete the part of my post where I explain why -- namely, that for you to get what you want with a North American non-psychopath she needs to fall in love with you, and for her to fall in love with you she needs to feel that you understand her and care about her as a person rather than a set of domestic subroutines. Which is why I question your empathy.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 05:38 PM
1

Given your comments about audio surveillance, I beg to differ. Agreeing in advance to a safeword, so that during an encounter someone can say "no" but mean "yes", is a perfect example of consent in action. If you don't understand this, you don't understand consent. This, by the way, is a good example of why bdsm folks typically have a more thorough practical knowledge of consent than most vanilla folks.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 05:36 PM
1

Point taken.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 05:32 PM
3

Actually, in the second one good arguments were presented, but you weren't convinced by them because you don't understand consent. Edit: a perfect example of your messed-up views on consent is your recommendation on TRP to illegally, and pointlessly, wear a wire in all your possible sexual encounters in order to "prove consent".
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 05:13 PM
0

If you want someone to cook, clean and fuck, move to a third world country or buy someone who has been sex trafficked. I cannot be clearer than this. If you want to have a relationship with a North American woman who will, as part of that relationship, satisfy you sexually and take on domestic responsibilities, you must 1) ensure that your income will provide for a one-income household, which most North American men's won't, and 2) care enough about some particular woman, as a human being with n…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 05:09 PM
1

Your "I'm being serious, why?" is a perfect example of why I question your capacity for empathy and wonder whether you might be ASD. If you do not care whether your prospective partner has her own interests or not, I am sure this communicates itself in your interactions and is one of the reasons you have not had success with women. You are much more likely to connect with someone who will give you blowjobs and do your laundry if she loves and respects you as a person, and she is much more likely…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 05:02 PM
0

The difference is, I did not post to okcupid (or the equivalent at the time) looking for a domestic slave. I was looking for a sexually submissive woman, because that's my thang, but that was more "someone whose sexual and emotional gratification comes from taking a sexually submissive role" rather than "someone who will get me off on demand". Can you see the difference? Secondly, I was paying attention to the interests and goals of the women I met, to see where the women were interested in / op…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 04:52 PM
1

Then how about trying to find a woman who will love you and fit with your baggage, in stead of whinging about how women don't want to cook and clean any more? My first point is, unless you are willing to live as an expatriate in a much less expensive country, or accept a rather spartan standard of living, it is very difficult for a North American male to support a North American SAHW at a middle-class standard of living. So unless you stand to inherit some rather serious money, you have to take …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 03:50 PM
0

But the difference is all about the grammar of your sentence. What you communicate is that you want to be in a relationship in order to have someone to cook, clean, and service you sexually. There is certainly nothing wrong with a relationship where your needs are met. I have been in a very satisfying relationship where my partner did not work outside the home but was responsible for cooking, cleaning, and being my submissive slut. It is a perfectly fine kind of relationship to have, but the pur…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 03:38 PM
0

Actually I was referring to other human beings, not just women. Based on your recent postings I'm not confident at all in your ability to empathize with any other human. But if you do recognize these varied capacities, why do you only engage women in terms of tasks that could be entrusted to a sex-bot?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 03:15 PM
2

First of all, I am a man. A generally heterosexual man. Secondly, if you want someone who can cook and clean, hire domestic help. If you want someone to fuck, hire a prostitute, keep hooking up, maintain an FWB, or maintain a mistress or sugar baby depending on your means and needs. None of these are good reasons to be in a relationship (and neither is access to someone else's paycheck a good reason). A marriage in particular is an engagement in various long-term common projects, including looki…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 03:13 PM
1

Yes; they are also capable of thinking, feeling, and planning for the future. Had you noticed?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 02:47 PM
0

Since sexbots are not yet on the market, err, no; not really. Even your most deeply exploited sex-trafficked mail-order bride is going to have dreams that extend beyond that tiny box. So you might as well learn to deal with actual human beings rather than seeing most of the species as some kind of Sim character.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 01:00 PM
1

In that case your CMV should have been "women are more likely to bring false charges after consensual rape play than after other kinds of sex". And that view shouldn't be hard to change, since it is so silly.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 12:50 PM
1

Well, then, your RP "rules" get in the way of both my own twisted fantasies and my desire to fulfill those of others. So as long as I am able to do so legally and ethically, my world just ends up including more possibilities than yours...
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 12:27 PM
1

But this us just a "women lie" argument. Why is a woman who agrees to safeword sex (not 50 Shades of Grey, that's just gross) be more likely to lie about an assault claim than a woman who agreed to another kind of hookup? Less likely, I would imagine.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 12:17 PM
1

I don't know why you are hoarding those out-of-context quotations, there. Are you some kind of chipmunk? The fact that I have prearranged to fulfill rape fantasies (including prearranged ways to communicate consent or withdrawal of consent) is not in any tension with what I am saying about mind-reading or assumptions not being grounds to assume consent exists, either legally or ethically. This is the whole point I have been making in this thread. So the only reason I can imagine for you to stock…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 12:11 PM
2

My point was that some forms of "overcoming LMR" involve touching while she says No, a.k.a sexual assault. Even if she gives in or actually initiates something later, the sexual assault still happened.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 11:57 AM
1

This is not true at all. The prearrangement is relevant to establishing the terms in which consent will be communicated during the scene (safewords, tone of.voice, gestures, etc.). Without that discussion, consent could not be communicated in real.time, but with the discussion it can
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 11:55 AM
1

Don't know why you quoted my other post here... If something before or after the reverse cowgirl is nonconsensual, then the reverse cowgirl does not somehow make the whole scenario not rape. Which is th e context I have consistently presented here. Which is also completely different from someone arranging to enact a rape fantasy with a stranger, btw...
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 02:49 AM
1

You don't have to retype your last post; I read it. But it wasn't that many posts ago that I wrote "If she is being touched against her will, and decides at some point 'fuck this; I'm going to go with it' " your reply was a screed on how you can't "go with it" and withdraw consent after the fact. No, you can't, if the consent was valid to begin with, but in the situation I described it was not. I'm glad if we have since cleared up that little misunderstanding...
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 01:54 AM
1

But what is the distinction between "pushing through legitimate resistance", which you call unacceptable, and "overcoming LMR"? Are you seriously suggesting that they are observably different in practice?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 01:16 AM
1

First, juries don't prosecute, they convict (or acquit). Second, the case referenced was this one, showing an acquittal on appeal because the trial judge failed to consider the couple's bdsm history: http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/29/no-doesnt-always-mean-no-appeal-court-rules Third, false charges can be brought at various times for various reasons (though they seldom are), but legally successful charges of sexual assault cannot be brought where there is legally valid consent, which includes …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 12:43 AM
2

Note, re: your deleted comment, that there are certainly women who fantasize about being taken whether they consent or not. Some indeed who fantasize about being taken by a stranger who doesn't care whether she consents or not. But the woman's consent is not any less real. I have actually enacted a stranger rape scenario with someone I had never previously met in person, so I think I have some idea what I am talking about. Her consent was no less real than any of my other partners', for all that…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 12:07 AM
1

Not if you actually have consent. Consent is a mental state which need not be verbalized, though you do have to have some reasonable grounds for believing it exists. Including during the act. In my experience it has never been difficult to tell. The TRP doctrine of "overcoming LMR", in some of its versions, means precisely not paying attention to whether or not a partner consents. And there is the problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 11:54 PM
1

FFS Autobus, you've been presented with a Canadian case where a conviction was overturned on the basis of safeword play. You've been faced with my argument that what matters legally is not consent as verbalized but the actual mental state or consent. Surely there has been enough to change your view, showing that legally and ethically charges can only be brought where there was not an actual state of consent...
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 11:49 PM
1

A man who has ignored verbalized refusal of consent for touching cannot legally or ethically assume consent for subsequent intercourse. You seem to feel that subsequent non-refusal of intercourse implies retroactive consent to prior touching. It doesn't -- not legally, not ethically. On the contrary, continuing to press with nonconsensual touching can invalidate subsequent consent to intercourse (because the recipient did not feel they had any choice). I can cite sexual assault convictions to ba…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 11:05 PM
2

Link to the UK study, please?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 10:44 PM
1

If someone touches another person sexually without their consent, it is sexual assault (or rape). Pill color doesn't enter into it. If a woman makes a decision to have sex, without being drunk or impaired or under threat of violence, then that decision gives consent. If she is being touched against her will, and decides at some point "fuck this; I'm going to go with it" then both ethically and in law she has not consented and can decide at any time, with total justification, to press sexual assa…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 10:43 PM
2

Source? FBI is my source for 5%; other scholarly sources have it lower.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 10:37 PM
2

It is quite ludicrous to state that "women want dominant and aggressive fucking, with or without consent, by a high value man". First, as a "women want" statement, it is an absurd generalization even if it were true of a majority of women. Second, because for most of the women who have this fantasy (whether they are a majority or not), the desire is for agressive fucking by someone they trust, which is another way of saying with their consent. The idea that any significant number of women want t…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 10:35 PM
1

If your definition of "overcoming LMR" only includes doing things that the woman explicitly or clearly consents to at the time, along with your clear signals of being willing to leave, then while potentially manipulative there is nothing rapey about it. However, color me skeptical that this is what most of those exploring TRP understand by "overcoming LMR", when the other approach is so much more prevalent in the culture.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 10:09 PM
2

And you delete my actual explanation? Sweeeeeet. How exactly is it in a woman's hands whether a man continues to grope her while she says "no"? I'm afraid I don't follow.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 09:41 PM
2

Women can initiate, engage in, consent to, or deny sex, just as men can. Overcoming LMR can mean many things; I am thinking mostly of persisting in arousing touch in the face of verbal refusal, I suppose. Like in an 18th century boudoir. ;-)
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 09:27 PM
3

You realize that your last post is essentially self-negating, in that the second sentence demonstrates the opposite of what the first sentence calls for. And yes, I read for context, thanks.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 09:19 PM
1

Then what conclusions do you draw?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 09:03 PM
2

Because "overcoming LMR" is criminal sexual assault or rape in many jurisdictions. Doh. Of course women can decide to have sex. Women can also sexually assault men. But this thread is about "overcoming LMR", where the relevant risks are sexual assault, for women, and criminal charges, for men.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 09:02 PM
3

Not what I said. But are you also confused about consent?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 08:58 PM
2

Cases where one person tells another, uncoerced, that they consent to sex and then change their story later, are false rape claims and should be dealt with seriously when they happen. What is much, much more common is people making mistaken assumptions about other people's consent. Since this is a thread about LMR, we should be talking about that.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 08:35 PM
3

You are aware, I hope, that a man may be under the impression that he had consent, and still be legally liable for rape. Jurisdictions have varying requirements for how much people are legally required to do, to ensure that they have consent. "Having an impression" would never in itself be enough.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 08:13 PM
2

One third of sexual assault accusations are false? What planet are you on? The rate in North America is estimated at 1-5%
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 08:05 PM
3

I am not saying that you are a rapist. I am however concerned that you may not understand consent very well.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 07:51 PM
5

I find your attitude particularly interesting coming from someone who is so concerned about the danger of FALSE (sic.) rape accusations.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 07:41 PM
1

Yeah, he was fired for bringing the beating photos to "exonerate himself" (!?) so in that sense the photos were crucial to what went down. Had he not been fired, he probably wouldn't have posted "women b bitchez" on Facebook and his accusers might never have come forward...
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 07:31 PM
4

Except that what I wrote fits the whole "overcoming resistance" LRP TRP scenario.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 07:28 PM
1

What exactly do you mean by "her agreeing to have sex"? If you rape her a little at first, and then she agrees to.have sex with you, you're still on the hook for the initial rape, bro.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 07:00 PM
1

But you are using a definition of implicit consent that only exists inside your own head, viz. she lets you do it = implicit consent. I don't know any jurisdiction in the 21st century where consent works like this. Consent means she wants you to do what you are doing. How you establish this can be tricky, e.g. if her fantasy is to be pulled off the street at a time and location she doesn't know, in an abduction fantasy, then you need a high level of trust as well as a clear understanding of how …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 06:51 PM
1

Asking for explicit verbal consent during the encounter can certainly be a turnoff; this is one of the main reasons people discuss these things in advance (verbally, by text, whatever). You should not conclude from real-time verbal discussion of consent being a potential turn-off, that mind-reading is therefore the only appropriate alternative, or that consent is therefore somehow optional.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 06:43 PM
1

But we weren't talking about a situation here where she consented. This time it was something she fantasized about but had not explicitly agreed to do. In this case if she resists and he carries on then she has actually been sexually assaulted at that point. Her secret desires don't matter to that, and neither does her subsequent enjoyment. She has been raped or sexually assaulted, and she could justifiedly decide at any subsequent point to press charges.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 06:30 PM
1

In most jurisdictions though it is the actual state of mind that counts, not the words themselves. Concentrating on the words to much also leads to the unfortunate situation when people who have heard a "yes" think they can do wtf they want for as long as they want. Consent can actually be withdrawn at any time, most places, and this need not be done verbally...
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 05:09 PM
1

Testimony. "He grabbed me, held me down and had sex with me even though I was saying no". This thread pointed me to another interesting case from Canada, where a husband was convicted of sexually assaulting (in the second degree=rape) his wife for an incident that took place months before it was reported. The case was recently thrown out on appeal, not for lack of evidence but because the trial judge had not appropriately considered testimony regarding the D/s nature of the relationship, safewor…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 05:06 PM
2

Actually, I don't think this is true, either. In most jurisdictions, criminally actionable rape or sexual assault only happens if someone ignores a "no" that the other person really means.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 04:51 PM
1

Not really crazy, just no Statute of Limitations applies in these cases, and physical evidence is not required. Surely physical evidence is not required to prove sexual assault in PA either?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 04:47 PM
1

I understand that, but I also want to provide context. You have actually argued, recently, that most women fantasize about rape, and that therefore women actually desire to be raped ("have their resistance overcome", I believe was your phrase) by men they find attractive. When a woman described her experience of rape you questioned whether the man was attractive -- as if that decided whether the incident was "legitimate rape" or not -- and you also held the woman responsible for being raped beca…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 04:25 PM
1

While there was photographic evidence of injury in the reports about Ghomeshi, the charge to which that evidence most clearly pertains -- assault causing bodily harm -- has not been laid, nor is it even clear whether the woman in those photos is one of the complainants. Certainly most of the charges are he-said she-said, and some are ten years after the fact...
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 04:17 PM
1

Ah, I understand now. So in PA consent is a defense against rape (to be proven by the defendant) but does not define whether the crime occurred. So in PA, consensual rough sex (past a certain degree of "rough") would be defined as criminal but not legally actionable. This is semantically different from jurisdictions where it would be defined as non-criminal. This does not, however, affect my original contention, which is that a person carrying out a consensual rape scene would not be criminally …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 04:14 PM
1

I am still confused. You are saying consent is not part of the crime, but that consent could be used as a defense where rape charges are brought for consensual rough sex?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 03:56 PM
2

Are you saying that in PA rough consensual sex is rape regardless of consent?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 03:41 PM
2

Viz. the Ghomeshi case in Canada though. Prosecution is being brought years after the fact, without physical evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 03:05 PM
1

Which is an example of what I said...
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 03:02 PM
0

Part of the problem here I think is what you mean by "act out a ravishment fantasy". If you mean that she discusses her fantasy with someone, agrees to act it out, discusses how her partner will know she's still into it (safeword, etc.) and both parties follow through according to her word, then no sexual assault has occurred and any charges later brought would be false charges. If on the other hand she carries this fantasy secretly, or mentions it to someone without intending to carry it out, b…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 01:21 PM
3

For large part I agree with this, but in many jurisdictions prior consent has no bearing on sexual activity, including "pre-arranged" consent. So the relevance of the discussions ahead of time would be to give evidence that the Dom in the scenario had reason to believe the sub was consenting because they did use their safeword/prearranged signal. On the other hand, in many of those same jurisdictions, verbal consent is never strictly required since what matters is consent as a stare of mind. Not…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 01:14 PM
2

Testimony? Texts? Emails?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 01:02 PM
1

But how could a rape-ee in a rape scenario force you to continue? I've done rape scenes (safewordless, even) and I just can't see how it's possible.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 02:03 AM
1

But there may be consequences based on what happened before or after. You can't argue that all is good based on one moment when both are bathing in bliss. There was rape before, and there may be charges and a conviction after.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 01:44 AM
1

Because if the partner saying no carries some risk of deciding in the future to press charges or launch accusations, but lets things go ahead in the present because she is enjoying them, that carries the risk of harm and is unethical. And if the partner ignoring signals carries the risk of being wrong about the underlying desires of the recipient, or of the recipient changing her mind again later and being resentful, or simply of misreading the situation entirely, then there is huge risk of harm…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 01:39 AM
1

But prudence is key to the ethics of this issue. The behavior of ignoring signals is imprudent and therefore unethical.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 01:35 AM
1

You say subjective, I say prudent.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 12:50 AM
1

Because the adult is engaging in behaviour that could harm the minor, and the minor is engaging in behavior that could (legally as well as emotionally) harm the adult. Hence, unethical.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 12:49 AM
1

Except that it is illegal for a good reasons. Namely, that according to everything he knew at the time, the guy was committing sexual assault, on the off chance the recipient would decide it is OK. Like trusting the minor who propositions you not to change her mind, later.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 12:03 AM
2

No, they aren't. But in this case, they are.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 12:01 AM
1

It's only illegal for the one ignoring signals, but it is unethical for both. Just as an adult giving in to the advances of a minor is illegal only for the adult, but unethical for both. Capisce?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 12:00 AM
2

OK. But one of the reasons it is an unethical scenario is because of the fact that it is illegal, and that at any time the other party could change her mind and file a police report. This is one of the same reasons men should turn down the sexual advances of minors, btw.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 10:57 PM
2

But because this is sexual assault in law, it is therefore unethical for both parties to do this IMO.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 10:55 PM
1

Generally speaking, if a crime has taken place, and sufficient evidence exists, then charges should be brought. The exceptions to this are rare IME. And in this case, precisely because it is illegal, I believe it is therefore unethical. For both pargues...
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 10:53 PM
3

Not that I've seen. I've seen people say "it turned out ok, because she changed her mind." This may be somehow relevant, but it is not legally true.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 10:44 PM
3

But not understanding the distinction carries potential consequences, in this case consequences of rape. In a different situation I might have said "thievey" or embezzelment-prone. Some misunderstandings have actual, predictable consequences.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 09:52 PM
2

You would be surprised at the reasons charges are actually placed...
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 09:38 PM
4

If she was not consenting at the moment penetration began, that is rape, bucco. It doesn't matter if she liked it later. Monty Python: Did he rape you? Yes. The first few times, anyway...
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 09:24 PM
1

In the law of some countries it doesn't matter if they are "on the same level". If they are both too drunk to consent, then whoever initiates a sexual act may be guilty of rape regardless of how the other party felt at the time.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 09:22 PM
1

It doesn't matter whether or not she enjoyed it, if she didn't consent to it. If she didn't consent to it then charges can be brought, as long as there I'd sufficient evidence. Whether she wanted to have sex with him at some other time, or in general, is irrelevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 09:10 PM
2

In law if the other person doesn't consent it is sexual assault, whether or not in some more abstract sense the person wants it to happen. They have to consent to the specific act.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 09:08 PM
1

If your issue really has been all along that you don't understand that people have fantasies they would not want to realize, then that gap in your understanding is clueless, and irritating, and also likely to get you in trouble for criminal behaviour if you let that assumption inform your actions. There are many, many fantasies and wishes people have that would be profoundly (and rightly) illegal for others to "fulfill" on their behalf...
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 09:04 PM
3

If you feel that "rapey" is an insult directed at you, rather than an appropriate description of someone who misses the distinction between rape fantasy and actual assault, then may I respectfully suggest that you are Too Damn Sensitive?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 09:00 PM
1

In some countries and jurisdictions consent is a state of mind in a particular moment. It cannot be established ahead of time but need not be communicated verbally. In these places, what matters is that one person had reason to believe the other person was consenting at that moment. Setting up a safeword ahead of time, and then not using it while able to, could be reasonable grounds to assume consent in these jurisdictions.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 08:59 PM
1

No, because you misread the study. The study showed that women have fantasies about nonconsensual sex, not that they want to be raped in real life. The fact that you continue to miss this distinction is both irritating, and rapey.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 08:45 PM
3

Actually, that's not true. There are legit rape fantasies who are thinking about / including those times, and for whom noncon sex with a chosen partner really is arousing. That just isn't the 62% entertaining rape fantasies, as you have rightly observed. It is much more rare.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 06:27 PM
3

And orgasm during sexual assault is evidence of what, exactly? That sexual arousal is a physiological process not entirely controlled by conscious volition? Who knew? The argument "she came, so the assault was no problem" is a complete bullshit argument btw. Just putting that out there.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 06:24 PM
1

Many women like rape fantasy. I challenge you to find a survey of women who were raped or sexually assaulted, in which any significant number of them "liked it". It is statements like this that make you come across as clueless, btw.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 06:21 PM
1

Obviously, racist sociobiology is the way to go. /s Or is that sociobiological racism?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/15 02:24 AM
1

Cultural Marxism = not a thing. Adorno is not Reich; Gramsci is not Marcuse; Angela Davis is not Stuart Hall -- for starters.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/15 02:17 AM
1

In Canada a person's state of intoxication doesn't affect whether he or she commits sexual assault, but the standard is that everyone must take reasonable steps to be assured of the continuing consent of the other (there is a limited defense of false belief ot consent). This has resulted in convictions in some cases where someone was taken advantage of "non-violently" while intoxicated...whether or not they could remember the events in question.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/15 01:51 AM
1

There was Canadian case law to that effect at one time, but no longer. I imagine that "deliberately intoxicated by" is difficult to prove, especially for alcohol (though I suppose easier for Rohipnol).
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/15 05:52 PM
1

Is that so controversial? I see no justification for "rape" laws -- as opposed to degrees of sexual assault -- in the 21st century. Nor do I see why people incapacitated by drugs or alcohol should be deemed to consent to sexual activity regardless of their actions while impaired. The tendency in most Western jurisdictions has been to move towards these principles. What am I missing?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/15 05:46 PM
1

I'm not really concerned with the common-law crime of rape, which only exists in certain backwards jurisdictions. (Not that Canadian law is perfect; we still have a sodomy law for fuck's sake.) And it is bizarre that California (and perhaps soon New Hampshire and New Jersey) has a different standard if consent for the criminal law as for regulating university campuses. But there is no doubt that consent-based laws requiring meaningful consent to advances are the way societies are trending, incon…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/15 04:30 PM
1

What you are describing is not the state of law in Canada or other jurisdictions we are describing. Sexual assault law, in Canada, requires that the persons accused of assault to demonstrate that they had legally valid consent from their sexual partner, or had reasonable grounds to believe that they did. Not taking sufficient efforts to ensure that they did, in fact, have consent, is specifically excluded as a defense. If their partner was in a condition where consent is impossible -- such as un…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/15 04:06 PM
1

Well, if half the states require effective mens rea for consent to happen -- as Canada does -- and if there are assault or sexual assault charges that can be laid where legally valid consent does not occur (as is also true in most of Europe) then my point most definitely stands. Sex without valid consent is a crime in most parts of North America and Europe, and should be prosecuted where it happens and is a crime. We agree?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/15 03:38 PM
0

The part you are missing out on, however, is that in most parts of North America and Europe, drunk people cannot consent to sex, so people who have sex with drunk people are committing crimes. Big grown up men and women might want to avoid being in places and times when crimes are likely to occur, but they also might want to see those crimes prosecuted. Just because the assaulter may be an "unpredictable stranger" isn't a reason to tolerate crime. Is it?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/15 03:31 PM
1

That's your defense of cultural essentialism? Seriously? Evidently I should have stuck to the size jokes. ;)
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/15 03:01 AM
1

"White men" didn't invent the zero, dawg. Or writing. Or gunpowder. Or discover radium, for that matter. Odds are the music you listen to every day owes more to the cultures of African Diaspora than it does to your imaginary Asians. So how about holding off on your anti-Black prejudice and your racist essentialsm long enough to admit that cultures are not actually distinct "things" that you can isolate and compare. And odds are that, unless you drive an American car, truck or tank, none of the t…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/15 02:46 AM
1

Obviously I am not using enough scare quotes. The "dwindling white majority" experienced in North America, Western Europe and Australia is of course an artifact of statistical and popular definitions of "ethnicity", but it does get at the one very real development: that you can't visit these societies now and assume that everyone you meet had grandparents (or etc.) who came over from Europe or were just "European". Not that it was ever entirely true, but people did assume it, ya dig? I didn't sa…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/15 02:23 AM
1

Honestly, I have no idea who "white" people are. I've seen British statistical reports from the 1960s that didn't consider Greeks "European". Some US states didn't consider filipinos and filipinos "Asian" for purposes of antimiscegenation laws. Are Jews or Roma in Europe "white" or "European"? It kind of depends on who you ask. Culture isn't discrete entities, dawg. There's something going on in the Netherlands, and in Canada, and in Australia, and dividing it into "European" and "Non-European" …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/15 01:44 AM
2

Japan, Taiwan and Korea are "white"? That's news to me, man. And most of the "white" countries you are talking about are exactly the ones with growing minority populations and a dwindling white majority -- and yet their "cultures" are flourishing more than ever. That must really chafe your racist ass. I'm not blaming "whitey" -- who doesn't even exist. I'm just pointing out that "advanced" means nothing without context, and that places where suffering happens do so because of history, and not be…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/15 01:25 AM
1

Says Mr. "progressivism is sodomy by a black lesbian". Sure, let it all hang out, dude.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/15 01:12 AM
2

First, there are at least a dozen countries with better indicators of health and well-being than your ole' USA, and most of them are more egalitarian so, there's that. Second, the "human species" is not showing any signs of global decline, so whattaya onabout? Third, Zimbabwe is a dictatorship born out of a hundred years of increasingly brutal colonialism and racism. The USA isn't, unless you are talking about some kind of black underclass. So what was your point again? Mine was, that the term "…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/15 01:09 AM
1

Just correcting your statement. You clearly have an exaggerated impression of your size.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/15 12:39 AM
2

Zimbabwe in 1890 was in the middle of being invaded by a globe-spanning empire. The US in 2014 is intervening as an imperial power in various places in the world. Those are different experiences, but I wouldn't call one of them "advanced". And neither represents anything like a "species" .
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/15 12:38 AM
2

"Advanced cultures" . . . "species failing to reproduce"? You, sir, are a racist fuck.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/15 10:14 PM
1

As a primate with an oversized small-to-average-sized brain,
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/15 09:46 PM
-1

"the far left echo chamber that is reddit" hahaha. Where could you possibly live: Afghanistan? Moldova?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/15 09:26 PM
2

How was that more true of France than Austria in the 1770s/80s? How was it more true of the UK than the USA in the 20th century? How was it true of Rome at all?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/15 08:56 PM
2

If there is a "decadence cycle" it has presumably happened before. I am asking you when.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/15 08:46 PM
1

Let's not forget the other ways the court system can punish men with "bad game", like sexual assault convictions...
/r/RedPillWomen01/01/15 08:39 PM
2

Which you last saw when? 1789?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/15 08:30 PM
2

Seen any collapsed civilizations, recently?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/15 08:22 PM
1

What do you call 18th century continental Europe, then, if not patriarchal?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/15 08:15 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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