TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

dallasdarling Archive

View 1 posts and 557 comments by dallasdarling 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

Why are you just automstically assuming that that will be the case? Also, if that is the case, and no women want to even befriend OP, then how will any of them ever want to be more than friends? Friendship comes first. Generally, if you are getting a negative response repeatedly when attempting to engage others, over and over in many contexts, the problem doesn't lie with all those other people, it's probably about you.
/r/ExRedPill14/04/22 09:29 AM
1

Its still possible and advisable. One can make friends at work, through other friends, in a religious community if that's your thing. But the best way is through a shared activity. Besides, pursuing a romantic connection and pursuing friendship both involve interacting with new people, do I dont see the barrier.
/r/ExRedPill14/04/22 06:29 AM
3

So, your question is kind of an issue. Women are individual people with individual personalities, preferences, wants, needs, and interests. There is no unifying theory that will explain or predict the behaviour of people based on their sex. That's just not reality. I do have some advice for you: try making some female friends. Not friends with potential future benefits, just friends. Girls know other girls, so you'll eventually meet someone nice. But first, you need to heal your understanding of…
/r/ExRedPill14/04/22 12:06 AM
0

All women have inherent value, there are no "high quality" women. There is just a diversity of women with various attributes. It is a redpill paradigm that ranks some women as "higher quality" than others.
/r/ExRedPill15/07/21 03:28 AM
10

I've followed it from age 16-19 This is what we always assume, over in bp - that most of the terps are really just teenagers, which would explain why their understanding of women, and exposure to different kinds of women, is so, so limited and cartoonish. Welcome to reality. I hope you meet some interesting female people out in the world, to be friends with. That will help tremendously with the whole seeing-women-as-people thing.
/r/ExRedPill10/02/17 03:02 PM
5

It's hardly mutilating That's a matter of opinion. it has no real risk Tell that to anyone who has experienced a botched procedure There's many decisions parents make on a child's behalf with similar risks/rewards that no one has an issue with. And none of them involve body modification for infants.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 10:32 PM
9

To mutilate a perfectly healthy organ for no reason, is senseless. The procedure should be reserved for cases of medical necessity, or until the patient can consent.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 08:31 PM
2

Not a guy, so, no.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 08:29 PM
2

No one is projecting. Control of sexual function governs many of their old laws.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 08:28 PM
5

You anecdotal evidence does not undermine the fact that the majority of pediatricians on the governing board making best practice recommendations are male.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 05:25 PM
11

I fail to follow you. Your claim is that established law should trump individual rights of children to bodily autonomy. I disagree. Laws that protect parent's rights to mutilate their children should be changed. Just because it's "established law" does not make it right. We wouldn't permit it for girls, we shouldn't permit it for boys.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 05:20 PM
28

So we should continue a practice invented by primitive nomadic herdsman thousands of years ago, also intended to reduce masturbation?
/r/MensRights31/01/17 05:17 PM
0

The smegma that collects under the forskin is part of an evolved cleaning process, yes. Do some research.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 05:15 PM
19

You and your family represent a tiny minority. Should every boy be circumcised just because you need it?
/r/MensRights31/01/17 05:14 PM
17

I'm neither an MRA, nor male, and my pov is not all the fringe. It is not radical to state that human beings are entitled to bodily autonomy, and to be free from medically unnecessary surgical procedures to appease other people's backward cultural practices.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 05:13 PM
8

There have been few studies, most flawed, and few with definitive evidence of health benefits. Many, many people have done a lot of research on this and there remains little to support genital mutilation.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 04:52 PM
41

1) Hygiene - not really. The penis is self-cleaning, and a minorly easier process is not worth the damage to the body. 2) Not actually true - in fact there is a slightly higher risk for boys who have been circumsized. 3) NOPE. The only findings to suggest a reduction is std spread come from heavily flawed studies on adult men in Africa. Not applicable. 4) Phimosis is uncommon, and can be treated when it arises. No reason to cut up everyone else. 5) The risk is of penile cancer is miniscule, and …
/r/MensRights31/01/17 04:51 PM
29

Either parents own their children in society or they don't. According to US law. Parents are legally responsible and have legal guardian ship. There are limits to this, though, and I don't think those limits go far enough. I don't think it should be legal for a family to reject live-saving treatment for a dying child because they are opposed on religious grounds for example. Other nations have more limits on parental autonomy, and I think that's they are right about it. I don't care if your medi…
/r/MensRights31/01/17 04:46 PM
146

I'm the wrong person to elaborate all of the reasons, but I'm sure there are plenty of people in this sub who would be glad to give you the insight. In brief - there are no health benefits, it's not medical necessary, and it's performed on a patient without their consent for purely cultural reasons, and just for that reason alone, is, IMO, unethical. The medical community in the US is entrenched in the practice but no one else in the world is. It was originally introduced here by Kellogg (yeah, …
/r/MensRights31/01/17 04:06 PM
128

Most parents circumcise because it's what their (primarily male) pediatricians recommend. What needs to change is the medical community.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 03:49 PM
1

I'm saying - It doesn't physiologically alter anything, having sex for the first time, and it won't magically make you not and incel in the rest of your life.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/16 09:20 PM
1

This. Omg. I think this is my brother. Possibly both of my brothers. Definitely a LOT of the young men in here.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/16 09:16 PM
1

There is no cherry. There is nothing to lose. You don't feel differently afterwards. And it won't make future sexual relationships go any better.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/16 09:08 PM
3

Well the majority of RPers are not thinking about prosociality and evolutionary biology on a population level, nor are they conceptualizing the human lifespan and the range of social, emotional, and sexual needs a human and a community have over the lives. They are just horny young men who want to have sex. They cannot see themselves, much less women or anyone else, as part of a bigger picture of our species and it's survival.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/16 06:03 PM
2

The fundamental failing in RP theory is a misunderstanding of the evolutionary purpose for sex and sexual attraction in human. It's not primarily a reproductive function. Yes, of course we use sex in order to reproduce, but sex alone in not enough for successful reproduction, AND sex and sexuality alone and between couples serves many other essential, pro-social functions. Its absolutely advantageous, evolutionarily, for an older man to find his older wife attractive. It reinforces the cohesion …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/16 03:38 PM
2

Funny how everything worked just fine for thousands of years before abortion, There has never been a time before abortion. Abortion has been widely practiced, by women, for thousands of years. There was only a brief period in the late 19th and early 20th century when it was made illegal.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 09:49 PM
2

I did! This year! We're actually fairly gender conforming on many things, but it's purely the result of socialization, though there are a few ways in which we are quite gender-role non-conforming. So yeah, i him on our first date (after he messaged me first) and this year, i asked him to marry me, and he said yes. Though it's possible we'll announce to others in a sort of mock proposal in which he will pretend to propose to me, thereby both fulfilling a role expectation and simultaneously subver…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/16 03:08 AM
4

Blue pill does not have beliefs or a position. Blue pill exists solely to mock TRP. The fact that you keep trying to elevate TBP to an opposing philosophy continues to be amusing to us, and we continue to mock you. It's not TRP vs TBP. It's just TRP and everyone else in the world, with all of their varied beliefs, backgrounds, and cultural norms. TRP is just a tiny weird little clique of men with poor social skills who struggle to relate to other humans without a bunch of guidelines for manipula…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/16 02:31 PM
2

And the study asked people to pick the highest scorers. And yet the male students failed to accurately pick the highest scorers in the class. And their female counterparts picked them with much greater accuracy. You still aren't undermining the findings here. If anything you're demonstrating that those students, based on sex-bias and, idk, intuition? were incorrectly attributing excellence to other male students based solely on their sex. Which is sort of the point.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/16 03:29 PM
1

Why would "the government" (are we talking local? state? federal?) have any investment whatsoever in the dating outcomes of people who cannot find a willing sex partner? I can't imagine anyone would think this is the responsibility of the government.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/16 02:30 PM
6

Males' higher performance was only statistically significant in one of the three classes and was only 0.2% higher than their female peers. That does not account for males citing other males as better, more informed students at a rate 19 times higher than their female peers did. It's not about equitable nomination. Women nominated other students with greater accuracy than their male counterparts.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/16 06:29 PM
1

Nope, divorce was historically illegal.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/16 06:00 PM
1

There is no deeper psychological meaning, in most cases. It's just a glitch in your software, probably influenced by something you were exposed to young, or chose to expose yourself to, which altered your arousal template.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/16 05:50 PM
11

This study proves one thing: in a large group there are few who can accurately assess the competency of their peers. Did you read it? Because actually, it showed that in a large group in this specific major, there were few men who would accurately assess the competency of their peers. Women did just fine.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/16 04:42 PM
2

Nope. No matter how attractive someone is, if you've made it clear you're not interested, and all they want to do is follow you around, constantly interrogate you about the other men in your life and tell you have terrible those men are, and leave you presents and write you letters and do whatever other middle school thing they is normal for an adult, that's still creepy and clingy and weird. Being attractive and nice is not enough. The other person has to a) be interested in a relationship, b) …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/16 09:45 PM
1

The problem isn't kindness, it's just that "kindness" is not enough of a reason to be with someone. Being "nice" to someone is the very. bare. minumum. You also have to be attractive, intelligent, funny, etc. Also - there is, as I've mentioned, a big difference between being kind and gentle to others, and being a dormat or a grovelling sycophant. That distinction seems wholly lost on you all. Here, the prevailing attitude is that if you are not, in your own estimation, attraction, intelligent, f…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/16 09:41 PM
3

I think you're really, really missing the irony with which those women are referring to men as "nice guys." That's what those men call themselves. They aren't in any way objectively "nice."
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/16 05:59 PM
2

What does sexual desperation have to do with whether you are actually a nice guy? Nothing. These are completely and utterly unrelated categories of person. The idea that they overlap, even a little, is all an invention of those same sexually desperate people who bitterly insist that they are "nice guys."
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/16 05:57 PM
3

Again: Sexual intercourse with another human being is NOT a need for survival. It's a drive, sure. It's a want. But it's not a need. It's medically verifiable that every single human being alive today would survive for the rest of their natural life if they never again had sex with another person. However, they would all die without even one of those others: Breathing, food, water, sleep, homeostasis, excreton. Maslow's Hierarchy is a theoretical framework for explaining human motivation and org…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/16 05:55 PM
1

You make is sound like feminists are some rare small group. The average person is a feminist.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/16 05:52 PM
2

Nope. I've only ever seen women mock guys who seem to think they are being nice when they are really just being weird, clingy, or creepy. But I'm sure there are women out there, somewhere, who would mock a nice guy. They are clearly in the minority, and also probably awful people who will make bad decisions in your life. Why in the world would you think tumblr is remotely representative of women in general? Or even an accurate portrayal of the beliefs and thoughts of those specific women? Tumblr…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/16 05:50 PM
2

disrespects the alignment both genders sexes Apart from reproduction, there are few meaningful biologically-based differences that apply across the board. There is vastly more difference between any two men at random, than there is between an average man and an average woman, on most measures, from height, to intelligence, to propensity to tears, to capacity and interest in childcare. So, no, there is no "alignment " of the sexes, whatever that's supposed to mean. Regardless, equality is not abo…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/16 12:16 AM
1

Then why would you answer this question?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/16 12:05 AM
1

I take umbrage with the term "politically correct" because it really only means that a given statement or opinion is approved of by whoever is in power at the time. The co-opting of the term to mean only what is considered politically correct by one group and not for any group within a given context is a tool by the Right to evade acknowledging their own internal language and culture, and their own mutual enforcement of their own PC terms. In the case of Trump, he's saying exactly what is correc…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/16 09:41 PM
8

therefore do not feel, see or think the same way nor hold anything on the same scale Minor differences to not amount to being wholly different in every way. You all keep looking to extremes. There is vastly more variation on every single measure within all men than there is between the average man and the average woman on any of those.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/16 08:04 PM
3

So, women not having access to birth control or not being able to vote, that was equality?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/16 08:02 PM
3

There are no laws in the United States barring men/women from doing anything simply because of their gender sex. Also, there is the problem of abortion restrictions, which amount to laws that prevent women from the freedom to access reproductive healthcare without government interference. Men have this freedom and women do not.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/16 08:01 PM
3

i value someone's worth based on how much they have done to benefit me personally Seriously? The worth of a person varies based on how much you, personally, gain from them? It's hard to even wrap my brain around that kind of self-centredness. Equality is not about how useful people are to your day to day life, but lets go down that rabbit hole anyway. Did you put on clothes today? Some teenaged girl probably sewed those for you. Did you use your smartphone to listen to music? A woman in china pr…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/16 07:59 PM
1

Christianity is based on natural principles. Seriously? In what way? I know this is what Catholics habitually claim, but the whole "natural law" approach is not remotely scientific, and merely imposes ideology on nature. So please, how is Christianity based on natural principles?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/16 07:57 PM
1

Then you don't intend to create a new family with your intimate partner? Would you not consider your spouse and your children to be a nuclear family, of which you are all members?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/16 07:31 PM
2

Values -- must be an atheist, must have chosen a career helping other people, must be committed to family, children, art, nature, reason, and the future. Must be committed to sex as a core part of a functional life-partnership. Ideally, should actively maintain a close relationship with his family. Personality -- must share my sense of humour, must be positive and friendly, ideally out-going and sociable, comfortable mingling in many different groups of people, makes new friends easily, maintain…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/16 06:02 PM
1

True, he's not saying what the left wants to hear. But he is definitely still "politically correct" from a republican standpoint, because he says exactly what the base wants to hear. All of which is complete pandering. He doesn't believe a word he's said. He's just full of hot air.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/16 05:48 PM
1

TRP is not new. It's so old that you quote 19th century philosophers and pseudo-scientists.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/16 05:43 PM
1

In prison before we met? Nope. Who would ever say yes to that? It's not about "turn-offs," that's a weird question to ask. It's not about sex, its just that you can't have a relationship with someone if one of you is locked in a cell. In prison after we were already dating.... depends. If it was something stupid like smoking pot, and it was a short stay, then maybe, but only if I thought I could support the whole family on my own when he gets out and can't get a job. But in the long run, I want …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/16 05:40 PM
0

I'm just asking the questions
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/16 05:06 PM
15

Sex is a NEED. NO. It's not. It's not "up there with food and water." Who keeps telling you guys that? Sex is a bonus. Orgasm, arguably, is a need, but your body takes care of that with nocturnal emissions on it's own. Sex is not a need. It's a want. There are whole schools of thought that sex is actually an inhibition to higher thought processes. No one on the planet is entitled to sex with another person. You will survive without it. Plenty of people do.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/16 03:11 PM
3

Where are the subreddits harassing these people and making fun of their believes? Are you seriously suggesting that all of the laws we've passed, all of the research, all of the registries, all of the outreach, ALL of that, does not count as action against child abuse, necrophilia, rape, etc..... because women have better things to do with their life than create hate-subs on reddit? That's a terrible measure of caring. Reddit is not the real world.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/16 03:09 PM
7

You do realize that it's predominantly men on reddit, and those subs are predominantly led by people like you, not people like us, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/16 03:06 PM
-1

It what universe does any feminist hate a nice guy? You're not even sticking to your own ridiculous pseudo-science if you claim that. Most women prefer nice guys as partners, yet you all keep insisting that we want douchey alpha-jerks, and then insist that you have to become said douchey alpha-jerks in order to get laid, because you tried being a nice guy, which, lets all be honest, you clearly, self-evidently never have. There is a difference between being a nice person and being a spineless do…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/16 03:03 PM
1

If that has nothing to do with love, for you, then you and I have drastically different definitions of love. But that's not surprising, since TERPs insist that women can never truly love a man, they can only respect and obey him, and men can never truly love women, in an equal and companionate way, they can only love them paternally.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/16 03:00 PM
1

Divorce court and custody laws (along with alimony) What does that have to do with marriage? That's about divorce. I'm talking about marriage. Divorce and custody battles are NOT the only outcome of marriage. A marriage that stays together is worse for women - they live shorter lives, they have worse health issues, they are less happy. Marriage is not as good for women as singledom. Whereas marriage is better for men that for women, and better for men than being single, later in life.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/16 02:55 PM
1

Nah, it would still exist. This guy his attractive, and probably nice and funny too. If you are non-masculine AND a weird loner antisocial asshole who can't hold a conversation at a party and can't function socially, you'll still struggle to get laid, much less have meaningful relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 10:49 PM
1

I cited the 2007 study as requested, not because it's particularly good. Good thing there have been follow up studies done. Regardless, this guy: a guy waking up his girlfriend by fondling her vagina Isn't going to be included, most likely, because why would she report that as a bad thing? (Of course, I'm assuming when you say "vagina" you mean "vulva" in the way many men often mislabel female genitalia. If you mean he's actually penetrating her before she's even awake, then yeah, that's creepy …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 10:37 PM
1

Sure. What's your point? Women fare worse in marriage, men fare better.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 10:24 PM
1

A lack of understanding and fear of reprisal.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 09:52 PM
1

We do. I do. Idk what everyone else's problems are.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 09:51 PM
1

You seem to be missing the big distinction here, which is that a survivor of assault may well go on to be attracted to adult men, and to you specifically. A pedophile will never be. So this is a terrible comparison. Why wouldn't you just compare women who were assaulted to men who were assaulted?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 09:49 PM
1

No one is being shunned. Women are also opting out or delaying marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 09:46 PM
1

You're right. On average, a married man lives longer and is healthier than an unmarried one. It's the opposite for women.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 09:45 PM
1

The infamous 2007 study Another study, from 2014
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 09:27 PM
1

I have, and others that have come after it. I think the most important distinction is to note that sexual assault is potentially traumatic regardless of whether the specific conditions of a conventional PIV rape are met. So just because someone was held down and forcefully fingered while some creep jerked off does not not mean she's not a victim of assault, because he didn't fully rape her. The distinction is moot for the purpose of assessing who might be traumatized and therefore, per this post…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 08:11 PM
2

Further studies continue to confirm 1 in 5 and generally draws on college-aged people, so no, your 2% rate is demonstrably false.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 08:03 PM
2

Your age is irrelevant. I'm talking about the proportion of your available dating pool, whatever that might be. If you only dated women who were also 24, you'd still be leaving out 1 in 5 of them, at a minimum, because of sexual assault.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 07:46 PM
4

Hahahahahahahahahahaha first of all, the fact that another person doesn't want to have sex with you right now at this time in your life is not "misery." Talk about the indulgence and babying of people in western culture. Second of all, nope. It's the silly pseudoscience and the silly, silly misogyny that amuses us. All these men strutting around talking about how "responsible" and "emotionally mature" and "rational" they are, while blaming others for their problems, utterly failing to understand…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 07:36 PM
2

By excluding women who have been assaulted, you are excluding A LOT of women.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 07:31 PM
2

Ok, but based on what? They might be much higher, or much lower? Some serial killers have throngs of fans. Antisocial weirdos who shoot up their work places, are likely not to have any. Conviction also affects likelihood of fandom. What constitutes dating, exactly? Writing letters? Only spouses with conjugal visits? You have nothing to go on here, there is no basis for that estimate, or for assuming that the rate is close to the same. It very well might be, but without any data to work with, tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 07:30 PM
2

It just means that you are omitting a really, really large number of women from your potential dating pool.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 04:56 PM
1

No. No matter how attractive the other person might be, I would derive little if any pleasure from a sexual encounter with someone I didn't know and wasn't emotionally involved with. There would be no reason to pay for it. It would be worthless to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 04:53 PM
1

What's petty and vindictive about laughing at nonsense?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 04:52 PM
5

Funny people saying funny things. No one is veiling anything. We are gleefully cruel and disgusted with TRP and all of its silly trolls.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 04:45 PM
6

That.... is really faulty math.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 03:51 PM
14

Actually, a frighteningly large number of women are into violent convicts, and pursue them in prison. They write them letters, send them panties, some even marry them and visit them for conjugal visits. It's a thing. Nor is it new - people used to sell bits of cloth soaked in the blood of executed murderers on the streets of London in the 17th-19th century. That said, those women are a small minority of women. But they do exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 03:51 PM
2

"Should" is a weird question. You can if you want to. Trauma and baggage are not really the issue. I don't think you could get PTSD though, and I wish people would stop using that to mean "you're a little freaked out because last time it didn't go well."
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 03:06 PM
3

TBP exists only to mock TRP. That you would bother to compare the two suggests you maybe don't realize that it's just a parody. The more absurd and outrageous TRP is, the funnier TBP is to read.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 03:02 PM
1

Then she's is a third wave lib fem who doesn't understand the theoretical framework and foundational claims of her own theory.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/16 02:49 PM
1

Marriages are, overall, bad for women's health. So I guess it's only men in those marriages who are suffering by not having someone to clean up after them and cook for them and take care of them like overgrown man-children, they way they did for your fathers and grandfathers.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/16 11:03 PM
1

Feminists: women are exactly the same as men! Nope. This is not a claim of feminism. Feminism states that sex is real and gender is a social construct.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/16 11:02 PM
1

I don't believe it should be socially acceptable for anyone to speak like that. But I maintain that there is a difference between anyone calling anyone else an "asshole" and using sex-specific derogatory language, like "bitch" or "cunt" or "dickhead." Nor do I think that it's somehow socially unacceptable for men to complain about their dates or girlfriends. Why would that be a problem? Are you all just college freshman trapped in a liberal arts college, out-numbered by women and frustrated beca…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/16 10:53 PM
1

Except that the world is full of men being coddled by girlfriends and families, and not caring for themselves much less anyone else.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/16 10:43 PM
1

Women stop emotionally maturing or maturing personality wise. Can we have a source for that claim?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/16 10:42 PM
1

You all keep saying this, over and over, like you think that will make it true.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/16 10:42 PM
1

the traditional social structures we had back in the 1950 You do realize that the majority of people were on birth control, having sex before marriage, having abortions, and most women worked outside of the home in the 1950s, right? Only the upper middle class and above were one-income households, and only temporarily while there were very young children at home. Same as today. Only today, it's not a choice. It's almost impossible to survive with kids on only one income.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/16 10:38 PM
2

Nice strawman there! I never said it was fine for women. Who said that?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/16 10:35 PM
1

Neither is precise, both are crass and trashy. If you want to use language like that, be my guest.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/16 10:16 PM
1

Asshole is sex-neutral.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/16 10:11 PM
2

Whatever it's origins, it's sex-neutral. I prefer scatological to sexually violent or sex-based prejoratives, generally. But overall, I just prefer to avoid profanity. It rarely serves the speaker, and is best employed only when it will be rhetorically useful, or used very sparingly, for humourous effect.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/16 07:04 PM
2

I just try to avoid profanity and name-calling when possible. When necessary, I opt for "asshole." Surely there are better ways to express your anger and disappointment than acting like a teenager and calling someone a naughty word.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/16 06:51 PM
5

That's a perfectly reasonable thing to say, though I would drop the "bitch." Of course it's unfair for you to pay for all the meals. You're both, in theory, adults.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/16 04:57 PM
1

Yeah, the enforced heternomativity of patriarchy really punishes the victim, doesn't it?
/r/MensRights30/12/15 10:20 PM
0

I think you have a poor understanding of how to establish causation.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/15 10:15 PM
1

That last one is an 8? Why though?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/15 10:11 PM
0

I think you lack a basic understanding of how animal behaviour actually works, and how human behaviour works. But more importantly, I don't think you understand what culture is. Every small child cries when they fall down. When you tell a boy child to stop crying because "boys don't cry," they eventually internalize this. Indeed, MRAs are constantly complaining about the harmful messages men are given about masculinity and suffering. Those are cultural influences. They influence behaviour. If cu…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/15 10:01 PM
3

I seriously have never seen someone blame others or even 'society' for rape and violence. I mean, how does that work? Really? You've never heard a man blame his rape victim for getting him so excited that he couldn't help himself? Never ever heard a criminal blame his upbringing or bullying on his violent outlash? Because I think you need to read a little more news. what are responsibilities? Responsibilities to women and children? Why do single men have these days? Yeah, responsibilities to chi…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/15 09:11 PM
1

Male and female animals both leave the herd when they are ill, actually, did you know that?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/15 09:04 PM
1

They are desperate for eggs, and swimming in sperm. Why is it a bad thing to be selective. I'm sure if they had enough eggs, they would screen for those things as well. As it is, they screen for A LOT, including various kinds of mental illness. They just haven't incorporated minor learning disabilities, and autism, which it makes sense to screen men for because it's so much more common in men than in women. The risk of getting an autistic egg-donor is miniscule by comparison.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 03:42 PM
1

I wouldn't assume major defects until about 30, but I'm usually surprised when people have waited as long as 22. Of course, if someone has waited or got a late start because of religious beliefs, that's completely different. I did go on a date with a 31 year old virgin the summer before last. The fact that he was a virgin intrigued me, tbh. It would not in anyway have been a deal-breaker. However, I found out during conversation not only had he not had sex, but he'd never had a gf or been in a r…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/15 02:59 PM
1

I have pretty much put my career (GPA is very low) in the backseat and dedicated everything to building a future where I can have sex with countless decent looking women to make up for lost time. This is a terrible idea, and you will live to regret it. You're only 23, you haven't lost much time at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/15 02:47 PM
4

This whole claim is founded on the idea that men take responsibility for their emotions and actions. I don't see this happening at all. Men excuse violence and rape by blaming others and society all the time. A certain subset of oppressed men are punished for crimes they may or may have committed, but plenty of men shirk responsibilities and commit crimes large and small with complete impunity. What does any of that have to do with having a functional adult relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/15 12:00 AM
2

The hormone testosterone does not do this. You are talking about instinctive behaviours that other animals exhibit, yes, but they are also not driven by testosterone. There is so, so much more complicity to animal behaviour. And there is more to human behaviour, since it is perfectly possible to raise men to be open about their suffering, seek help, and grow to be functional and resilient as a result. Isolating when sick or suffering is maladaptive in a communal primate species like ours, and is…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 11:57 PM
0

All voting citizens are responsible for voting and following laws. Conscription is unrelated and the linkage is unjustifiable, and was a reaction to WWI. Lots of bad choices are made in reaction to war. For example, the The Pledge of Allegiance, and the Patriot act. But seriously, you're asking whether democracy as it's practiced the world over is not working and the issue is that too many people get to vote? Lol.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 11:35 PM
-1

Oh honestly, I'm not going to reinvent the wheel with you. The workable system that most modern democracies use grants all adults the right to vote. We could certainly allow some teenagers to vote, as they did in Scotland in the referendum. But by and large, societies have chosen an age of majority around 18 and have granted voting rights at the point. This is consistent with other coming of age transitions in other cultures going back millennia. What I would turn you to is due process, regardin…
/r/MensRights29/12/15 10:18 PM
1

So... you're saying that the socially constructed "ideal feminity" that was put on a pedestal turned out to be false? Yeah. That's what we've been saying all along. Patriarchy constructs femininity on a pedestal. Everyone is a virgin or a slut. Women are wonderful. All that bullshit is the product of patriarchy. If you treated women as people and expected them to behave like people, then you wouldn't be surprised when you find out that they are people. That under certain circumstances actual wom…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 09:53 PM
1

Oh you're pseudo MGTOW. Yeah, actually there is some decent philosophical overlap between MGTOW and Separatist Radfems. Basically that overlap comes down to: given how toxic sexual dynamics and socially constructed gender roles are to men and women, wouldn't we all be better off going our own way? I'm not a separatist, personally. I love sucking my bf's cock too much. But I have some radfem friends who are.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 09:50 PM
2

If "all" men were raised to love women as fully human equals, then they actually would do so. But they don't. More men in the world consider women biologically, morally, and intellectually inferior to them, and treat them accordingly.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 09:25 PM
1

You're right, sex-positivity has backfired quickly in the hands of lukewarm feminists still tied to the consumerism of sex and beauty, all of which does nothing but perpetuate objectification. I'll confess, I didn't even glance at your flare. I only read a post positing redpill readings of reality. Enlighten me, why don't you?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 09:24 PM
8

The measure of a man's worth and success is how many women he sleeps with. To you all. Not all people, and not historically either. Women have no use for men anymore besides as that of sex toys. To you. This is not universally true, nor was it ever historically true. Nor is this a redpill "biotruth." Women are supposed to be doing housework and raising children, aren't they? Women can easily make more money than men. I'm not going to touch that one. The govt. takes care of all their needs. Pleas…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 09:18 PM
1

Kiss your mommy goodnight for me, when she tucks you into bed tonight!
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 08:54 PM
2

All of this is the result of a patriarchal society that teaches men and women that women are sex objects and should compete to be the prettiest one. And also, the reality of sexual violence. The fact that you can't see the influence of a male-dominated culture and the male gaze on any of this is incredibly non-redpill of you, since RPers embrace those concepts and claim them to be biologically "true" or predetermined.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 08:26 PM
2

Am I "policing" your "tone?" Is that what I'm doing? I thought I was satirising your desire to be treated as an indiviudal while simultaneously declared AFALT. Stop whining. Calling out your hypocrisy isn't tone policing. Its criticism of your content. Idgaf about your "tone."
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 08:22 PM
2

I'm also powerful, assertive, dominant, confident, outspoken...generally, qualities traditionally attributed to men. This right here is what I'm talking about. Personality traits like this are gendered male or female by society, but occur in both sexes and are therefore not male or female traits, but simply human traits that occur in various humans, regardless of sex. Gendering personality types, and policing them, so that only meek and self-effacing women are "feminine" and only bold and aggres…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 08:16 PM
2

Testosterone is not influencing men to repress their suffering. That's cultural, and it's something that RPers and MRAs talk about all the time.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 08:13 PM
2

Whoa, it's almost like you don't appreciate being lumped in with all these other guys? It's almost like you want to be treated as a special snowflake? It's almost like you think that, as an individual human, you think someone should actually consider you as a person, and not make vast, sweeping generalizations about you based on what other people who are not you, think, say, and do? What a novel idea.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 08:12 PM
2

I care about your appearance, but not to your status Again, appearance is status. And if you were wealthy, you would care that your partner grew up wealthy too, even if she isn't independently wealthy now. It ensures that she will know how to dress and act to better enhance your status. If you are not in a distinct class where behaviour and affect matter, then I guess that doesn't matter to you. But if you were upper middle or upper class, it absolutely would. But back to those fantasies - you'r…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 08:09 PM
2

I don't think you understand what we mean by bonding, and so that's the problem here. We're not talking about the connection itself. We're talking about the neurological effect it has for the individual. A child who is bonded to it's parents thrives. A husband who is bonded to his wife, thrives. A couple who are both bonded to each other, are more successful as a couple. The effects of the bondedness of the individual are measurable in that individual. When that happens for both people in a rela…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 08:03 PM
9

You.... seem to think those men were successful, in their lives, because they had a lot of meaningless sex? That's your measure of success? They slept around and took no responsibility for any of their unfortunate offspring? That sounds really pointless and empty, to me. And it would be pointless and empty to most adults, actually. And shameful. Primates form close emotional connections with other people. The inability to do so is pathological. It's a really good thing that birth control exists …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 07:58 PM
4

No one is talking about two people feeling the same magical connection. We're talking about both people simultaneously experiencing changes in brain chemistry as a result of being together.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 07:49 PM
2

They dream of marrying their boyfriends for their income and validation, not because of the sex with them. How can you claim to know this? Seriously? Just because you all say it to yourselves over and over doesn't make it true. Hypergamy is about status. Men are polygamous. We don't care if a girl with big tits is the president of the free world or a Hooter's waitress. Nope, this is utterly false. For secret sex, sure, but for a public relationship, women are 100% used as a status symbol for men…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 07:47 PM
2

And that tells me you haven't spent any time with radfems, who are less about tone policing, but who tone-policed by other feminists all the time.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 07:32 PM
2

I believe you are talking about libfems there. Radfems and libfems are not the same, at all. Libfems are what most people in here are talking about and complaining about. Radfems make up a tiny little minority of feminism today, and are rarely heard.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 07:19 PM
2

Fantasies are a reflection of reality. This is opposite of what that means. Fantasies, for most people, are things they would not want to live out in real life. If they wanted an equal relationship, they would be dreaming of marrying Beta Bob. And.... you don't think people dream of marrying their boyfriends? All men want as much sex with as many women as possible. Actually, no. Not all men want this to the exclusion of other life goals. You're basically claiming all men are hypergamous (which, …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 07:18 PM
2

So then..... the number of times people go to the doctor has nothing to do with who feels sicker. And more to do with socialization? Culture teaching men to repress their suffering? Huh. It's almost like masculinity is a social construct.......
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 07:15 PM
0

No, it doesn't. Women are people, women want equality. They are the same statement. Men advocating for men's issues are also people pushing for equality.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 07:14 PM
1

There has never been matriarchy. However, matrilineal and matrilocal societies existed and still exist, and those two distinctions render them much more egalitarian. Hunter gatherer societies were and still are, where they exist, quite egalitarian, despite gender division of labour.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 07:09 PM
1

60% of the Egyptian population at one point was married to a sibling.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 07:08 PM
1

Making a blanket statement about the beliefs of a group of people show profess to share the sample beliefs, is legitimate. Making a blanket statement about 50% of the human population, who all have completely different views, beliefs, lives, and experiences, is pointless and inaccurate. But mostly we do it because it makes you mad. You boys get so emotional!
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 07:05 PM
1

You can thank biology to a small extend, but primarily the culture you are raised in for pushing the sexualization and objectification of children. As for altering your arousal template - only strict abstinence and finding something to replace it will work, and that is only achievable for a few people. Most people, once their arousal template is set, are stuck.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 07:03 PM
3

Women don't fantasize about a man who respects her and treats her like an equal. They fantasize about being dominated and degraded by a superior specimen of Homo sapiens. According to whom, exactly? Besides, sexual fantasies are not relationship fantasies. It's a fantasy for a reason. If you want to succeed at dating I think this is the problem here. Your definition of "success" is different. Do you want to have as much sex as possible with as many women as possible? Or do you want to form a lon…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 07:00 PM
2

First of all, all men were raised to love women with all of their hearts. I really don't think this is true. And it certainly hasn't worked, at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 06:52 PM
1

"women don't love men, they love what men can do for them and how men make them feel" How is that not also true for men, and specifically, for RPers? RP doesn't love women at all, but they do love what women can do for them, and how they make them feel.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 06:50 PM
1

I think this is the part that most people, myself included, forget about RPers. We think of you all as normal guys. But you're right - if you are short, unattractive, have few interesting things to talk about, and a petty, tempestuous, and entitled personality, then yeah.... you would probably need to go to pretty extreme lengths for anyone to want to be intimate with you. Can you blame them?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 06:49 PM
1

"There is a subset of men who move among women with ease. Who are these men and why are they allowed to roam unhindered in the land of women?....We assume it is things like animal magnetism and confidence, the ability to light up a room with sheer force of presence....Why do these men seem to have this presence while others do not? The answer is simple: these men love women with all their hearts." This is my bf. He's got terrible social anxiety, depression, is quite introverted. But he's great w…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 06:45 PM
1

They don't need to dress everything up in flowers and lace. Literally no one does this.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 06:42 PM
13

Yeah, if you want a 24/7 dom/sub role-playing relationship. But for pretty much any other kind of relationship, nothing falls apart at all. I read the whole piece. And you know what, I bet there are some women who would flounder when treated as equals, and there are many, many men who would flounder if treated as an equal as well, instead of a work-horse who doesn't have to make any big decisions or take on any responsibilities for the household, the children, the family, holidays plans, plannin…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 06:39 PM
0

Should? Based on what? The way our democracy is constructed, all adult citizens are entitled to participate in the process that determines who governs and how. We don't disqualify men after they turn 45 or if they are colour blind or deaf. Yet none of those people could be drafted.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 06:33 PM
6

Except that is doesn't, and hasn't, for anyone who still wants to stay at home and be a mother. Economic conditions have more to do with the fact that fewer women stay home with their kids than they used to. It's not longer an option for most families. Those women who have no desire to stay home or have children at all, are not having their femininity "blunted" by some outside force. They are acting according to what they want for their lives.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 06:31 PM
2

Radfems do not deny hormonal differences in men and women. They reject the idea that personality should be gendered and policed.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 06:28 PM
2

Gender and sex are not the same thing. Sex is real. Gender is a social construct. I think most people, and especially this sub, conflates the two all the time.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 06:27 PM
2

Do they?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 06:25 PM
9

No one is talking about magic. We're talking about neurology.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 06:22 PM
2

Dopamine isn't the love drug. Oxytocin is. And you're wired to release oxytocin when bonded to another person.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 06:21 PM
12

Wrong. Men can absolutely bond emotionally to partners, friends, parents, and children. You honestly think attachment parenting somehow only applies to girls?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 06:21 PM
7

Love is actually measurably real. It results in measurably chemical changes, changes in heart rate, metabolism, blood pressure. Hugging your significant other for a few minutes at the beginning of the day can lower your blood pressure and reduce your risk of stroke for the rest of the day, but it only works for a significant other or caregiver. Love is absolutely a real and measurable phenomenon in humans and many other mammals.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 06:20 PM
19

But you can also love your partner as your best friend. Those things are not mutually exclusive.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 06:15 PM
7

women are not allowed or never learn to express their god given talents as mothers, What world is that you are living in? Cause it's not this one, where women still stay home with their children way more often than men do, and still do the vast majority of childcare. Who are all these women you know who are not "learning" how to be mothers? Also, what is there to learn if its a "god-given talent?" And why would it be bad for women to get primary custody if they had said "god-given talents", and …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 06:14 PM
6

There are both men and women who feels this way about sex - that PIV is penetrative and a manifestation of patriarchy. The women generally opt out of sex with men, and the men.... well they don't seem to have any problem with continuing on as they were. I refuse to think of it in either way. Honestly, who cares? That's one part of a larger sex life, and for most women it's not the most pleasurable or important part, by far. Acting like PIV is such a big deal is giving in to this phallocentric yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/15 06:09 PM
-2

Participating in society by voting is something all adults should be able to do. Conscription only applies to a small number of people who fit specific criteria. Linking the two or acting like you should only access one if you are also obliged to the other, is absurd. We don't stop letting people vote once they are past the draft age. It's a pointless comparison.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 06:03 PM
0

a struggle against men to gain more rights rather than a struggle as humans to gain equal rights These are the same thing.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 05:02 PM
0

How is that about female supremacy. Are you actually reading the words you yourself copied and pasted? Those words decry male supremacy, they don't advocate female supremacy.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 05:00 PM
-4

Who has every said boys were defective girls? On the other hand, the claim that women are defective or incomplete men is quite common historically.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 04:56 PM
-17

You know that there is no more draft for men, right?
/r/MensRights07/12/15 07:22 PM
1

he was extremely disrespectful to make the decisions that she did by herself She went to a medical provider for a medical issue, and that's disrespectful?
/r/askMRP07/12/15 04:06 PM
2

You're depriving your spouse of needed medical care. You're no captain.
/r/askMRP07/12/15 04:06 PM
1

The idea that women do not support men is absurd, and flies in the face of the entire model of patriarchy you all are so fond of. Woman have been supporting men's rights to work, to have kids, to have a house and food to eat. Women have been labouring to make men's lives possible for all of western civilization. And feminists today support men's rights too. We want our sons to be safe from pedophile priests and trigger happy police officers. We want our husbands to get paternity leave so they ca…
/r/MensRights03/12/15 08:25 PM
1

Who can't have it both ways? Those people, or all feminists? You don't think there is any problem with lumping the entire movement, which includes many seriously conflicting ideas, into one category and then dismissing all of them based on the most extreme or most problematic cases? There are MRAs here who want to make voting illegal for women. Should I paint you all with the same broad brush?
/r/MensRights03/12/15 08:19 PM
-5

Sounds familiar. Maybe you all could stop bullying each other about your sex lives and, while you're at it, stop classifying women as prudes or sluts based on the same criteria.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 06:51 PM
2

DO NOT have any children unless YOU want them. It's your life. There is no need to have kids at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/15 06:50 PM
1

I don't see how that makes any sense. That's like saying its wrong to open a shelter for cats who need it, because there are also dogs who needs shelters. Cat supporters must support ALL ANIMALS or nothing at all? That's absurd. Women want men to help them advocate for women's rights because that's what matters to them. So what? How is that hypocritical or problematic at all? Just because your rights are included in women's rights doesn't invalidate the request.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 06:44 PM
1

wanting men to be white knights and protect women from sexual harassment at work and rape in bars. Because it's still a risk! If women were not at risk of harassment and rape, then it wouldn't be an issue.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 06:10 PM
1

Nope. Asking men to support human rights for women is not about chivalry, its about humans rights. Chivalry demands something because women are women. That's not the same thing as demanding rights because woman are people.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 06:09 PM
1

If your observed trend does not result in a predictive rule, then it's actually not that functional.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 10:26 PM
1

The dictionary disagrees. Lol. You do realize that people write dictionaries, right? People who grow up in patriarchy. We could just as easily set a different measure for "emotional maturity," such as being able to identify and name your own feelings, and those of others, something that women generally manage to do better than men. Show me a society where not only do men openly cry. But where they openly do so more often than women do so. Why should we pursue "more" and not just "the same?" Rega…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 10:19 PM
1

Or they learn to tease because a) it enhances arousal or b) its a safe way to fend off sexual aggression.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 10:09 PM
1

Based on what, exactly? And also, that totally flies in the face of all redpill theory, which states that women can never love men, and don't need to like them, but can respect and fear them. I would also like to know where you get the idea that men respect others, even if they don't like them. I think you could easily say that men respect and fear other more powerful men, but it's hard to imagine a redpiller "respecting" a beta male or any woman at all, regardless of whether they like them or n…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 10:06 PM
1

Question: In what way do men mature after 18 that women do not? Your Answer: Exhibiting integrity and morals even when nobody is looking. It's laughable to suggest women don't do this, but it's also pretty laughable to think that men do it more. How would you even measure that? I'd be really interested to see if you can show me a study demonstrating that men are more apt to be honest or selfless than women, when anticipating no reward.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 09:57 PM
0

Menstruation is not even close to being this horrible bane you make it out to be. You're making this assertion based on what, exactly? Your infinite experience? You realize its not just bleeding, right? The entire uterus is convulsing to expel its lining, causing severe pain, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and horrible gastrointestinal disturbances. Most women who are on BC are on it to control periods. And it happens every month starting at age 10. The idea that you would compare complaining about…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 08:47 PM
2

No, I'm saying that differences which exist are overblown, and that the ranges for height in men and women overlap for the vast majority of people on the planet. Height is only statistically predictive of sex in extremes. Same with IQ. Same with most measures.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 08:21 PM
0

Irrelevant example.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 08:04 PM
1

And..... are either of them insisting that men need to open doors for women and pull out their chairs?
/r/MensRights02/12/15 08:04 PM
-10

So, you do realize that women who insist on chivalry are not actually feminists, right?
/r/MensRights02/12/15 02:55 PM
2

That's because for them, sex is the only thing that matters and the only measure of success. But sure, men are so emotionally mature.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 04:18 AM
1

Respect for....?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 04:16 AM
1

Your definition of "emotionally mature" is highly problematic. "Controlling" an emotional reaction doesn't make you more emotionally mature. Nor is that behaviour inborn. It's 100% the result of socialization. Had you grown up elsewhere with different norms, you would weep openly when something sad happens, because that's the manly thing to do.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 04:15 AM
2

A person who felt a philosophical underpinning was more valid than making choices based on consensus and what is most prosocial decides to rank those two and preference the philosophical justification over the prosocial one. That means nothing.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 04:12 AM
2

Women stall at the level of emotional maturity men reach aged 28, that women generally have already reached at age 18 This claim is based on zero data. The entire argument that men are unemotional is absurd. Men may not burst into tears, but they erupt into violent anger all the time. Regardless, socializing men to repress their feelings and encouraging women to express them, starting when they are toddlers, has a profound effect on outward affect and emotional awareness. None of which, however,…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 04:10 AM
4

Sex with men, and resulting pregnancies, do not result in better survival for women. It increases risk and makes survival harder.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 04:05 AM
3

Yep, someone will bail them out. That's why there are no women living at or below poverty, right? Definitely not more women than men.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 04:01 AM
1

I don't think any women has forgotten about anger. Crying may be a different way of expressing it than punching things. But it certainly doesn't help to grow up in a society that dismisses and shames anger in women as invalid and unladylike.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 04:00 AM
3

around the time they hit sexual maturity, because typically life from that point on is just easy mode. Oh yeah. Bleeding monthly, the threat of pregnancy, and the reality that you will probably be unable to financially support a family on your own, actually going through pregnancy and childbirth, caring for children, spouses, and parents - that's just a cake walk. It would be way, way harder to just have only yourself to think about or care for.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 03:59 AM
1

No woman over 18 has ever "exhibited integrity and morals when no one is looking?" Really? No teacher, doctor, lawyer, mother, grandmother, student, wife? And men are a paragon of integrity, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 03:54 AM
1

There is no way in which women stop maturing at 18, that men do not. Except maybe height. Some men are late bloomers.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 03:53 AM
1

Patriarchy is not biologically based and does not naturally occur in humans, or in many other neo-local primates. We observe it in some primates but not others, and even those we do observe are not behaving the way early primatologists first documented. For example, Red Pill insists that being an "alpha" male results in better reproductive success. That might be true for lions, but for Chimpanzees, out closest relatives, it is not. Female chimps can and generally do avoid alpha males during estr…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 03:51 AM
3

The Blue Pill exists to mock The Red Pill. And the Red Pill is based on pseudoscience - a misapplication of true scientific data, interpreted unscientifically, and will a poor understanding of basic anthropology.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 03:45 AM
5

What is a red pill feminist?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 03:42 AM
5

The statistically significant average height ratio for male/female around the world is about 1.08. That's actually not a huge difference, at all. Even height isn't a very meaningful measure. There is a difference, but it's not a big difference. Source.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/15 03:40 AM
1

Occasionally to hook up with, maybe, but NEVER to procreate with. Never. Of course, some physical attributes are definitely conventionally attractive to me: Broad shoulders Deep voice Bulk - I like a big, strong man But if that man is not also a sweet, gentle, thoughtful, artistic, egalitarian feminist who is great with housework and small children, then no amount of sexual attractiveness will be sexually arousing to me. Arguably, no guys are ever sexually arousing to me unless I emotionally bon…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/15 07:54 PM
1

So-called "hypergamy" is just choosing a better long-term mate. Males and females both do this, if they don't feel any compelling reason to stay with their existing partner, like a devoted relationship or a sense of duty.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/15 06:52 PM
1

Patriarchy murders men.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/15 06:31 PM
1

I think there is no need for a label. But yes, intelligence is sexually attractive to some people.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/15 06:07 PM
1

If society punishes high partner count, then people will lie about it. In the same way that they will lie about previous criminal charges, or that they are atheist, or other things that might result in negative feedback from others, but which are utterly inconsequential to them, personally.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/15 06:06 PM
1

If redpill focused on that more, I think you would have more success and hurt fewer people.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/15 12:57 AM
1

TRP posits that women are neurologically incapable of making rational decisions, and then holds up rational thought at the ultimate gateway to intelligence. It also believes that women are not fully intellectually mature at any point in their adult lives. Ever hear of "the most responsible teenager in the room?" These are blatant claims of female intellectual inferiority. TRP also posits that women are incapable of or strongly disinclined toward loyalty, honour, honestly, hard-work, self-sacrifi…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/15 03:25 PM
2

People gravitate to other people with power, influence, wealth, intelligence, and physical beauty. Sure. That's not gendered, though. All people are attracted to others who improve their prospects. If more men are powerful and wealthy, you'll get a weird gender-skew. Without that, it's not actually that different, because a person (male or female) who loves and respects their partner, is not intimidated or dimished or threatened by someone else earning more than they do. The systems that control…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/15 07:34 AM
3

So? I got banned from RPW for something stupid like suggesting that a person has a right to refuse sex from their spouse. Do you see me crying about it?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/15 07:31 AM
3

Please elaborate on why women, because of their sex, have less reason to "uphold intellectual and virtue [sic]" than men.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/15 07:30 AM
1

Women are part of society. Being female, and even calling yourself a "feminist," doesn't make you one. Women who treat homeless men like scum are exhibiting the learned value system of a society which enshrines them and demonizes minority men. Those are not feminists, they are still enacting patriarchal norms. Why? Because the status quo may, at times, benefit them (that pedestal is not all bad) and because people are people: selfish, short-sighted, and egotistical. Also, more simply-put: racism…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/15 07:28 AM
3

Maybe, at 29, I'm too old to relate to Tumblr feminism. But as a person who deeply loves and respects my father, brothers, cousins, friends, (most) exes, and my partner, I'm not oblivious to the challenges of living as man in the world today. We just don't agree on the origin of those problems. My partner wants to stay home with a baby, if we have one. We've agreed that I will go first, and he'll go next. I need him to have paternity leave in order to do that. Pushing for paid paternity leave is…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/15 07:21 AM
6

You suggest that all feminists share responsibility for feminist policies. Or that all women are like those obnoxious bar flies you all are convinced are representative of all women because AWALT, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 09:43 PM
5

Feminists are lobbying for women's rights. Yeah. So? Before lobbying for women to retain custody of their children, custody reverted to men automatically. Perhaps it's still unfair. But you can't possibly argue that it's somehow more unfair now, can you? The structure in place is still one of patriarchal authority, and yeah, just because there is also patriarchal oppression of men doesn't men that there isn't oppression of women. You're not getting it. Men do have greater privilege in many conte…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 08:07 PM
1

Sure, you could try it out without ever talking to her about it beforehand, at any point in your relationship, to gauge her receptiveness. Good luck with that. Let me know how that works out when you inadvertently set off someone with PTSD because you failed to ever talk about it ahead of time.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 07:52 PM
6

I said: I'm willing to bet you haven't been threatened with sexual violence for having an opinion, have you? No one has doxxed you, and incited people to rape and murder you for your ideas? Because that's what your brethren are doing to women all over the public sphere today. And here you are asking for a safe space. That reference to "your brethren," as I have explained, multiple times, refers to the whole broad realm of misogyny online. And yeah, you and those gators are all part of the same c…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 07:48 PM
1

Not all domination is rape. Of course not. But to establish which is which, you need to talk about it. With words. So everyone is on the same page. How is that a problem?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 04:56 PM
3

You mean this bit? Where you ask me to defend a claim I didn't make? And show me SPECIFICALLY where anyone associated with GamerGate has specifically identified as red pill or TRP or manosphere and who has threatened someone with rape or murder simply because they expressed opposing ideas to TRP, redpill or manosphere.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 04:19 PM
5

Oh sure, I'm positive that you're a special snowflake terp who doesn't think women are intellectually and morally inferior to him.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 04:18 PM
4

My claim that men threaten women with sexual violence online? Or your strawman of a claim, that a redditor who subscribes to redpill has harrassed someone online? Do you understand what a strawman is? It's setting up and refuting a misrepresentation of someone else's argument or claim. When I say "men who share your beliefs also attack women online for holding opposing views" and you rephrase that as "specifically people on this subreddit attack women online for disagreeing with them about redpi…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 03:56 PM
3

You're wanting to treat TRP like its a special, unique, small little phenomenon. Like you are the secret keepers of some kind of wisdom, and that it's separate from the normal, run-of-the-mill misogyny out there. You're not. You're not special. I said "people espousing your beliefs." TRP is a strategy, as you so often like to remind us, and therefore not a belief. But TRP strategy is founded on beliefs about women - that we are intellectually and morally inferior to you, and that our empowerment…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 03:23 PM
6

Gamer Gate
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 02:50 PM
8

Women are oppressed. Non-patriarch men are also oppressed. We are all oppressed by a system that pits us against each other while enslaving us to an economic system that enriches and empowers the rich and powerful to the detriment of all others. Yes, some feminists, and apparently pretty much ALL MRAs, seem to think that they are at war with each other, and that their rights are mutually exclusive. They are not. Everyone is better off if minority men are not imprisoned at obscene rates. Everyone…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 02:48 PM
8

That's a straw man too! I didn't say I was being threatened. I also didn't say it was happening here. I didn't say "everyone, all the time" was. I said that this is a well documented phenomenon that there are men out there who espouse your beliefs and react to opposing opinions by threatening rape and murder. They are aggressively harassing and intimidating women who dare to question or criticize, and who are obliged to move residences out of fear of violence. I imagine you would like to say - w…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 02:40 PM
0

But that was always already the case. It was always, already the case that you could be accused of rape by any person you had sex with. I dont see how this changes anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 02:32 PM
10

Wow, awesome strawman!
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 06:26 AM
1

If you want hook-up culture to exist, and want to navigate it, be my guest. I think it benefits hardly anyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 06:25 AM
6

I suppose you mean convicted, not acquitted. Acquitted is the antonym. Look, no one is saying there aren't real issues facing men, we just disagree on the source of those issues, and the solution. For example - the so-called "disposability" of men is a patriarchal phenomenon, not a feminist one. It is patriarchy treats women as a means of production, children as property, and all males other than the patriarch as disposable. Patriarchy isn't all men over all women, it's a few powerful men - patr…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 06:20 AM
14

Oh yeah. Sure. Women were doing it first. That's why all those books, papers, sermons, and laws written by men for thousands of years deriding women as lesser beings don't exist, right? And they definitely didn't require women to literally remove themselves from the entire public sphere. If you don't like being shut down, go somewhere else, and make your own platform. I'm not going to cry for you when people who disagree with you drown you out. But I'm willing to bet you haven't been threatened …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 05:51 AM
1

There is never a good way to resolve the he-said, she-said. Shifting the onus onto the accused is problematic, sure, but leaving it with the victim also sucks, and resulted in a skewed system that let a lot of perpetrators go free. It's not idea either way, I guess I don't think this is that much worse, only different. But all of this is avoidable if you just don't sleep with people you don't know and trust, and are in a relationship with. That idea pisses off people who just want to bang indisc…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 05:46 AM
1

Imo men peak at 25. Generously, 24-26. It's the perfect age - they are only just barely mature enough to grasp an adult relationship, they are less likely to be sexually experienced, and they are energetic and virile. And less likely to have kids or other obligations that would hinder their availability. 25 is the peak.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 05:39 AM
1

What constitutes "great enough" consequences for morality to suddenly count?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 05:36 AM
1

By that standard, would we not then moralize about a RPer who miraculously does actually sleep with a bunch by overcoming that pesky last-minute-resistance?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 05:35 AM
0

You can't change your blue eyes or height, so you follow the rest of the advice to find how to make you more attractive as you are. Except that you only make yourself attractive to the worst kind of women. Nothing red pill teaches makes a man more attractive, it just makes him a douche that dumb girls will gravitate too.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 05:32 AM
13

It goes both ways. If you can complain and deride, so can women. Otherwise you're basically claiming a right to be anti-woman and anti-feminist but suggesting opposing view points, however offensive or benign, should be silenced, because they create a "hostile environment?" Suck it up. We all have to.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 05:26 AM
1

But the law, as it's written, makes it easier to prosecute actual rape. Unlike other crimes, this is one where the state has no vested interest in prosecuting offenders when there is no victim to press charges. That's why the scope shouldn't be so troubling. If you can't trust your partner not to falsely accuse you of rape, establish verbal consent. If you can, then do whatever you want, because you're both fine with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 05:22 AM
2

I don't really derive much meaningful pleasure from sex with someone I'm not also deeply in love with. Maybe for some people, sure, but I think even they will say it's better with a partner you actually have a deep romantic attachment to.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 05:20 AM
1

I honestly don't understand why you wouldn't want your partner to be alert and consenting, but whatever. So sure, you've fulfilled the requirements, but who cares, you won't be prosecuted because you won't press charges. Therefore it's irrelevent. But if some random person started having sex with you while you were asleep, you'd call that rape and press charges, wouldn't you?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 04:36 AM
1

What if I told you.... SMV is not really a thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 04:30 AM
1

What's to understand? Plenty of women opt to stay single too. It's not pro-social and therefore not evolutionarily sound, but it's certainly not hard to understand. Also, who cares? I don't think anyone, at all, cares if men choose to stay unmarried and do whatever they want. Why would that bother anyone?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 04:29 AM
1

Not any kind of sex I ever want to have. It's about intimacy and mutual love and sharing. Power exchange is a reductive way to think about sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 04:26 AM
2

No, it's not, since neither of you have pressed charges. Either of you could, but since you are in a relationship and have agreed on these boundaries, you're fine.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 04:25 AM
2

The thing about this law is that's only applicable if the other person files charges for rape. This poster wouldnt, so it's not an issue. It's only an issue for someone who might actually feel violated and file charges. Doesn't it make sense to avoid that by ensuring she's down for it before you do it. I just don't see what the issue is here.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 04:24 AM
6

I don't think you should reward someone with sex who is saying no. If she wants it, she can say yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 04:20 AM
1

In my (F29) relationship with my partner (M27) I can't remember any particular time where we had sex without any verbal acknowledgment. But honestly, that's not only because we believe it's important. I also think it's hot. I enjoy saying it out loud, it turns me on. Sometimes we'll kiss and it gets really heated and I'll whisper in his ear, "you should fuck me right now," and he'll say, "yeah? You want me to fuck you?" and grab my ass maybe a little harder than i was expecting, and I'll squeal …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 04:18 AM
1

No, it's not. You should crack a book written at any point in western history.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/15 01:29 AM
1

That's like asking if blond hair or religious beliefs makes someone more sexually attractive. It varies. And it varies based on factors like what kind of partner you want, and what the women you admire in your life are like. Possibly an innate preference. Sexual arousal is highly complex and individual among humans. It's more evolutionarily advantageous to be aroused by intelligence, obviously. But people will range all along the spectrum of evolutionarily advantageous traits.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/15 11:51 PM
1

Oh I wouldn't be at all surprised if many men are intimidated by women who are equally or more intelligent than they are. No doubt they will reproduce with less intelligent women and produce less intelligent children. But for anyone interested in an equal partnership and children with the best possible potential for positive outcomes, it makes little sense to choose a female partner who is subservient or intellectually inferior to oneself.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/15 11:16 PM
1

Intelligence is sexy in all people. It's not a gendered thing. Knowledge, particularly specialized knowledge, is also sexy in both men and women. Again, not a gender thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/15 10:16 PM
1

Female. Not sure what qualifies as PC. I prefer guys over 6'2". I'll make an exception for 6' - 6'1" but I don't date under 6'. (and no, I'm not tall: I'm 5'2") I like men who wear glasses. Its cute, and I can relax when they are off. Contacts are vain. Broad shoulders. Near perfect command of the English language, if a native speaker. Well raised, well read, well educated, well spoken, excellent table manners, charming conversationalist in public. Other women should be drawn to his charm like a…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/15 05:38 AM
1

I wouldn't really want a "stud," as you put it, unless most of those sexual partners were actual girlfriends. Someone who habitually goes out to pick up girls at parties and bars just to sleep with them is not the sort of man I want to be with. But yes, the fact that other women have been attracted to him and wanted to be in relationships with him would make someone more attractive. That's true for both sexes, though. And while I would find bar-crawling gross, low-class, and an incredible waste …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/15 05:18 AM
1

I don't really think "too many boyfriends" or "sex with too many people" is something to worry about, anymore than someone who has had a lot of girlfriends or has sex with a lot of women. Apart from disease. That's a real risk. So let's assume a clean bill of health. However, it's not unreasonable to say, though, that someone who has only had one-night-stands (man or woman) is not experienced as a relationship partner. Indeed, someone who has had only one-night-stands is exactly as inexperienced…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/15 04:17 AM
2

From her relationship track record, yes. 100%. Those are not the same thing. But someone who has never had a boyfriend, or who has been in mutually destructive relationships or only had terrible break ups, is probably not a very skilled relationship partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/15 02:13 AM
2

It's not really the fact that he visited a sex worker, though I do object to that practice for other reasons. I'm happy to elaborate on those separately. A partner who has been unable to form a relationship with another person by 31, and has had to resort to paying for sex, OR has a self-professed history of bad relationships and particularly bad break-ups, simply has not developed the skills necessary to participate in the kind of relationship that I want to have.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/15 01:34 AM
2

Not exactly. I don't think their past relationship experience is a measure of their value as a person or the attractiveness or even potential sexual prowess (my current partner had only been with 2 people and not very often, and he's the best I've ever been with). It's not a measure of his worth or value. It's a measure that I, personally, consider with regard to fitness as a partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/15 12:19 AM
1

Well the whole situation sucks and I'm sorry about it. Clearly there is nothing anyone can say to make a difference, and that sucks, too. I hope things work out for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 05:28 PM
2

Eh, look, as long as she knows and agrees with your beliefs, and you two have voluntarily divided your spheres and she's happy to let you be in charge because she loves and trusts you and it's easier than arguing, then great! Who cares what other people think? My problem with MRP is never going to be when it produces a functional, working relationship. Plenty of people live like this and never needed to be "unplugged," they just grew up believing in traditional gender roles. I know a lot of Chri…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 04:48 PM
1

ED isn't really the only issue, either. It's virtually impossible to screen for an adequately high libido and the kinds of sexual skills that you want in a partner, without trying it out for an extended period of time. But dating and trying it out is not the same thing as randomly hooking up or riding the "cock carousel."
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 04:02 PM
2

If you are open about it and it works for you two, I don't see what the problem is.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 04:00 PM
1

I really don't see why this is such a big deal. If you are too "shy" or nervous or skeptical to talk about sex and consent with your partner, put your pants back on and get to know each other a little better first. You're not ready if you can't talk about it like adults. I think that many men get upset with these guidelines because they know there are those borderline encounters, those times where they faced "last minute resistance," and they know it's pretty easy to overcome, and they probably …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 03:57 PM
2

Yeah, but if they just want casual dating and NSA sex, why would they choose the uggo? Besides, I really don't think single moms are actually into that and not looking for a daddy for the kid. Why not pick someone who's not an asshole? And as for their intentions - you're really not in a position to judge based on never having dated any of them, ever. It's not a choice. Sure it is. You're the one measuring yourself that way. You govern your own mind. Try a little cognitive behavioural therapy. n…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 03:49 PM
0

I don't want a provider relationship. Moreover, I don't believe that provider relationships, or really any relationships that aren't based on mutual attractions, are not real relationships. Oh, I'm not recommending you enter into a relationship with a single mother. Just date her and maybe stretch your dating muscles, and have some sex. Not all single mothers actually want a bf who will be a part of the family. Plenty of them are fine on their own, and just want someone to shag who can work arou…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 03:18 PM
2

Well, look, I think we don't really empathize enough with how lonely and difficult a life without an intimate partner must be. It's hard for me to even imagine, since I haven't really spent much time single since I was 16. There are, of course, many married incels, so being in a relationship isn't a guarantee of sex AT ALL. But at least you're not completely alone. I don't know what to tell you except that, if you ask, I bet reddit would help you generate an ex-gf or two (photoshop, etc) with ba…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 02:23 PM
3

Have you ever actively wanted casual sex instead of a relationship? Casual isn't the right word for it, but I have sought non-committed relationships in the past, and I genuinely wanted to have sex with other people, outside of my primary relationship (I was in an open relationship). However, those people were not random hook-ups. I talked to them at length, and went on dates, and got to know them, and if they seemed cool, I would maybe sleep with them. I can think of 2-3 of these fellows, and t…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 02:11 PM
1

I have once met an incel who had never been in a relationship, and had only had sex with sex workers. That's honestly the only reason I didn't have sex with him. He was funny and very, very smart. But he's used a sex worker. If he hadn't told me, I would probably have done it. But I screen for past relationships to make sure all is well - as soon as someone calls their ex-gf a "bitch" or confesses to rough, hateful break-ups, or, in his case, admits to never having been in any relationship at al…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 01:47 PM
1

All of which demonstrates that what we are observing are cultural trends, not evolutionary and biologically predetermined behaviour.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 01:27 PM
1

But.... but... Reality TV TM does not, in any way, depict reality. Maybe I'm really out of touch bc I don't have a TV, but you might be onto something, if the only women they know are mommy and the Real Housewives.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 01:15 PM
3

I think power exchange is only one way to conceptualize a relationship between two people. I think it's problematic because it pits people against eachother. A pro-social way to think about it would removing power and commerce, and thinking about the communal unit, the marriage or the family, as the thing you are committed to, and act not in your own interest, but in the interest of the marriage, sublimating your own interests that would be harmful to the marriage/family. It's not about power, i…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 12:59 AM
5

They are playing a zero-sum game. That means there can only be one outcome: one winner and one loser.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/15 11:17 PM
2

Moreover, in any relationship between any two people, one is always dominant and the other is always submissive. This is simply not an accurate statement. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what leadership means and how it works in a team/group. You don't need a leader in a relationship. You need the leadership function to be fulfilled. And that can be fulfilled by agreed upon guidelines and consensus, and turn-taking. There is no need for a designated and embodied leader, there is only a…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/15 09:59 PM
9

It's a good theoretical question, though it's hard to imagine two diametrically opposed options that are both equally rational. The only way that happens is if they are motivated by two completely different core values - that is, that we consider different things to be more important in weighing what is the most correct outcome. While that hasn't happened yet, I imagine it will. It's still hard to imagine there there isn't any measure, any where, that we could select to break the tie. So, most l…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/15 09:47 PM
8

What is contradictory about being equal partners with complementary skills and contributions? I'm not going to be able to teach the kids how to play guitar, because I don't play. He won't be able to teach them other languages, because he only speaks one. We have different skills, strengths, interests, and hobbies. We overlap at about 30% of our shared activities, but it's growing as he becomes more involved in raising a kid, and I become a more experienced gamer. Still, we think 50% overlap is a…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/15 09:26 PM
4

Not married. And.... well that's probably a bit of an overstatement on my part. We defer to each other on things all the time. But I defer to him when I either a) do not care about the outcome and he does or b) when we have both laid out our plans, and I've decided that his seems like the better/more efficient/more rational option. That's about 50% of the time. The other 50%, I've got the better plan, or I care more about the outcome, and he defers to me. But that's not about dominance and submi…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/15 09:00 PM
5

No, I don't think I could work from home. I only lasted 10 weeks on maternity leave (with the ability to work from home) before I felt like I was losing my mind. I need to interact with the 'adult business world' to feel useful, whereas my husband chafes at meetings, conference calls, TPS reports, corporate culture, etc. Are you me? Seriously I went crazy staying home for a year. I couldn't do it again. But my partner super does not love the social intricacies and constant competition of a corpo…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/15 08:53 PM
4

I did. Also - re the "partner" question - we are not married. But if we were, we would probably continue to say "partner" because it's a more accurate representation of our relationship, as egalitarian complementarians.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/15 08:50 PM
2

Nope. We're both previously married. Around the same age and divorced after the same length of time. We both left for good reasons (abuse; not wanting children). Having that experience in common has left us both scarred but it's been really bonding. But biology isn't worth much. The bio-dad is utterly uninvolved, by choice. Pays no child support and never sees her. Whereas my partner has stepped into the role of a dad quite smoothly and does a great job. He's ready to stay home with this one and…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/15 08:47 PM
3

Yeah, if it works for you, that's great! We tend to be like that on specific things, just not all the things. For example - i can't make food related decisions when I'm already hungry. I just can't manage it, I never know what I want to eat. So we either make a plan ahead of time, or I need his help to pick out a couple of options, and then we decide what is most easily doable (doability is the biggest issue because we don't eat out, we always cook at the house.) Sometimes, I just can't manage i…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/15 08:28 PM
5

My partner plans to do this, since I already stayed home for a year with my first child. I think he's in for a rough time, but I still hope we can make it happen because it will be good for the kids. It will be hard for me not to be the go-to default parent, though. I can't imagine him being dominant in anything, though. I don't defer to him on anything, I see no reason why I should. Our two brains together are better than either of us apart. We can rationally consider the implications of our ch…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/15 08:13 PM
1

Female, 29. And I already have. But I don't think I would have been sure I would "find" love. It's not out there somewhere, in the void, waiting for me. I was reasonably sure that, given there are 7 billion other people on the planet, and online dating algorithms like OKC are pretty excellent if you actually answer enough more interesting questions, that I would find many people I was compatible with, and that I might come to love one or more of them at some point. I do not believe in a "one tru…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/15 08:04 PM
2

So you basically think the only value a man has is as a provider? That's pretty lame.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/15 07:42 PM
6

I personally know some girls who date guys like the ones TERPs are all trying to be. They are attracted to them. It definitely works on them. But these girls are also bottom-of-the-barrel, spoiled, selfish, and just plain stupid. Every one of them will marry for money if they are lucky, because they have little else going for them. They have nothing in common with any other women I've ever known. These girls represent a tiny, tiny minority of young 20-24 year old upper middle class white women i…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/15 06:58 PM
3

You have asserted, yet again, a claim that I've already conceeded: statistically, there are more men than women scoring on the tippy top of the IQ scale. Conceded. Do you have any other data to use to show that the 96% of men who fall along the overlapping bell-curve are somehow better at performing cognitive tasks than all the women who score the same as them? Besides, devaluing the ability to multitask makes absolutely no sense at all, especially in this stage of human evolution. Regardless, a…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/15 06:01 PM
2

There's a reason why most geniuses have been male. We have no real way to assess this, as we are only aware of those genuis-level individuals who were also externally successful. Most known geniuses have also been white and wealthy. Are we to assume that those attributes are also biologically determined and not the result of a differential in freedom and access to education and resources?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/15 03:34 PM
2

I'm sorry, this seems like a complete non-sequitur. For one thing, IQ is a poor measure or predictor of "success" at pretty much anything, and anyway, again, 96% of men would have the exact same outcomes as most women, because they still call under that same bell curve. So "more" means up from .1% to like 1%? That's not a lot of difference in positive outcomes, on a population level. There are myriad biological difference between the male and female brain, but those differences are actually rath…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/15 03:30 PM
1

Apart from having no women friends or lovers, do you have social or professional contact with any other women in your life on a daily or weekly basis? A mother, sister, cousin, grandmother, aunt, boss, employee, coworker, teacher, student, doctor, classmate?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/15 02:12 PM
5

That really only refers to people in the top 2% of the population. 96% of the population fall between 80-130 and cannot be distinguished by sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/15 02:09 PM
1

Here is an example of an intelligence measure, IQ, for males and females. Yes, the bell curve for males extends further on both ends. But observe the overlap. Anyone scoring between a 75 and 125 could pretty much be male or female, and it would not be possible to predict correctly more than 50% of the time. And that portion occupies the bulk - roughly 85% of the population.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 05:54 PM
1

You're talking about a medical context. The problem is when RP insists that sex is predictive of things it simply doesn't predict, like intelligence, capacity for compassion, mating preferences, sex drive, whether someone is able to make rational decisions competently, or pay bills, or understand morality, or vote, or lead an organization, or hold a conversation, or nurture and raise a child. Sex is not predictive of these skills or attributes, as they vary wildly within a given sex, much more s…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 05:20 PM
1

Oh yeah. Numbers are meaningless. Sure.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 05:09 PM
1

the top 1 woman is in the top 0.000000000000000000000001% of women out of however many billion. Wow. Really living up to your superior male math skills there.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 04:43 PM
1

Biological differentiation does not necessarily make for a useful, functional categorization today. I understand sexual dimorphism. I just don't think it accounts for nearly as much difference as you do. As a species, we are actually not that dimorphic. No where near as dimorphic as birds, or even gorillas. There are real and statistically significant variations based on sex, but they are not large differences. And for those of us outside of your world view, they are not the the most automatic a…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 04:39 PM
1

I'm not unfamiliar with the biological basis for differences between men and women. I just don't think they are that significant, and I don't think there is a rational basis for placing either sex in a superior status over the other because of those differences.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 04:36 PM
1

I think, without an actual study to refer to, all of this is theoretical. Maybe we should look at an actual measure: For example, few runners can run a marathon in under 2:20. It's just a fact. The fastest man can run it in 2:03 and the fastest woman can run it in 2:15. That 12 minute difference is significant among really elite marathoners. It's really not that big of a difference compared to the average marathon enthusiast, who runs it in 3:30-6 hours. And it's virtually nothing compared to th…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 04:01 PM
1

I understand what you are saying, and I still maintain that, for our species, choosing this division as a way to organize all people into categories is an arbitrary choice on your part, and not the only option available to you, nor is it the most functional way to organize people into categories, imo.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 03:36 PM
1

Women absolutely can compete with men. The 200th best man is still in the top 0.0000000571% percent of men, out of 3.5 billion. The top female athletes do just fine with the bottom 95% of male athletes. That's a massive amount of overlap.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 03:31 PM
1

Very few other species have recreational sex. It's quite rare. Most animals are physically incapable of it unless the female is in estrous.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 03:28 PM
1

Those behavioural differences in all species are primarily about mating. Yeah, when you are talking about mating, it's an obvious line to draw. But human beings have MUCH, much more complicated social lives and much much more going on. Most humans will only mate procreatively on purpose maybe once or twice in their lives, so even sex isn't about mating for humans anymore. We are a different kind of species, we have evolved to use sexual intimacy for bonding, for social cohesion, for private plea…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 03:00 PM
1

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who actually believes in pure social constructivism. That is a remnant of Second Wave feminism. Trans-inclusionists and trans-exclusionist feminists all agree on some kind of inherent sex/gender identity, which must necessarily be biologically based. The problem is identifying what is biological and what is socially conditioned. And actually, that's an utterly false dichotomy, since the majority of biologically influenced (influenced, not pre-dete…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 02:50 PM
1

Yes, we have different chromosomes. Sure. I'm just saying, I don't actually think this is such a massively big thing to split people over. How about politics? Age? Religious vs secular? Nationality? How about literally any other thing that informs beliefs and behaviour? What about other biological traits, like IQ? Skin colour? Straight, gay, or bisexual? You're making an assessment that this dividing line is the most obvious and the most relevent way to split people up, and I'm saying, I disagre…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 02:44 PM
2

There is actually no "gap" at all on pretty much any measure. There is profound overlap on everything. There are biological differences between male and female brains, for example, but these are actually quite miniscule.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 02:20 PM
2

This is true - on most measures, male and female humans fall on primarily overlapping bell curves.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 02:18 PM
2

Male vs female is literally the biggest thing you can separate people by. This right here is the reason those of us on the outside of redpill are utterly baffled by it. Why? Why gender? There are a thousand things you could separate people by, gender isn't an obvious on to me at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 02:17 PM
2

This. Power is not sexy. Money is not sexy. It's not sexual at all. Its just a performance for personal gain.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 02:15 PM
2

You you're a lesbian who believe women are inferior to men? I'm confused.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 02:14 PM
2

Focusing on diversity only works when it doesn't lead to hierarchy. And that's what RP is founded on - the belief in a biologically justifiable hierarchy between men and women in which women are never fully adult human beings.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 02:13 PM
2

Most of the DNA is not actually being used by the Chimp, and most of the DNA we have in common is not being used by us either. We have DNA in common with all of our primordial ancestors. 1% of all genetic material is actually a huge difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 02:11 PM
2

Both experience lead me to believe not all gender differences are social constructs. This is the big problem with the absolutism of RP's biological determinism. Saying "not all differences are social constructs" =/= "all behaviour is biologically pre-programmed and AWALT."
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 02:10 PM
2

They have zero choice. And the sex ratio is established by kicking out competing younger males. Patriarchy is never about men over women. It's about a few powerful patriarchs over all other men, women, and children. Patriarchy is what renders some men disposable. But of course, try telling RP that.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 12:12 PM
1

Makes sense to me. My bf is a die-hard feminist and he hooked up with three different women in two states in the last week. Full disclosure, I'm one of them. But that's still not too shabby.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 05:26 AM
2

So.... basically the FLDS. That's what you're describing.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 05:24 AM
1

It is what TRP has come up with. There is nothing cultish about naming a phenomenon.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 05:21 AM
0

105,000 redpill subscribers (assuming all the bluepillers are cross subbed) is a teensy tiny number of the 7 billion people on earth. No one here is the dominant ideology in any meaningful sense. In this sub? Who cares? As for the size of tbp - these are just those of us patient enough to sift through the crazy, or alert enough to be watching the New Misogyny unfolding. No one else cares or takes TRP seriously.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 05:15 AM
2

I would rather let the RPers decide not to marry. I would feel sorry for any woman who married one. Besides, they will get old and become less attractive and less valuable by their own measures. Unless there is some major shift in the balance of wealth, they will never make what their parents did, and will never have enough to support a family even if they had one. They will be the lecherous weirdo loners hitting on girls too young and dumb to know better, and the rest of us will be doing the ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/15 04:59 AM
4

That's absurd. There are other adults in your children's lives, whose job it is to teach them. If you don't want them to learn anything from anyone else, why aren't you homeschooling them? Your controlling attitude will only alienate your daughter from you. You have no idea what this club is about. For all you know, her "hidden agenda" is to push bible study and abstinence. I feel bad for your girl that your immediate reaction is suspicion and judgement about something she's excited about. You k…
/r/MensRights02/10/15 01:21 AM
3

I don't think anyone is being told they are a victim. It's about awareness and empowerment. I really don't think you understand the point. Don't you want your kids to question the messages they are getting about sex and gender from the media? I think you're having a knee-jerk reaction because it's a club for girls.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 10:27 PM
1

So start a club for the boys yourself.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 06:03 PM
2

Making young women aware of the way they are objectified in modern media, and encouraging them to resist objectifying themselves sounds like exactly the kind of thing MRAs and TRPs would want. I don't understand what you would have a problem with this. Besides - the boy scouts are a club. Does that mean boys are weak?
/r/MensRights01/10/15 05:48 PM
1

Well the difference is the victims age. Any sexual innuendo directed at a child is inappropriate and potentially harmful.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 12:59 AM
1

Yes, it's unfair that men do not get pregnant and women do. But that's just the way it is.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 02:22 PM
14

I suggest making friend with some girls. They are everywhere - 51% of the population. Make friends with some girls and hang out. You will find that not only are they people, they are individual and different! AWAnotLT.
/r/ExRedPill27/08/15 03:14 PM
1

Yeah, but that observation is based on anecdotal evidence and is not supported in the academic literatue. I guess I have a problem with that. You don't?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 09:11 PM
1

Ok, but applying a gender binary here to indirectly reinforces a pseudoscientific belief system based on your own anecdotal evidence. That's problematic, isn't it?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 08:51 PM
4

Yeah, I get what you are trying to do. Of course, I, personally, think the gender binary is utterly ridiculous. Men and women both suffer when they don't get enough sex, or if they are guilted into sex they don't want. The female equivalent of not getting enough sex is not getting enough sex. The male equivalent of having sex when you don't want it is having sex when you don't want it. These are not male/female issues. These are High Libido and Low Libido issues. There is nothing gendered about …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 06:14 PM
2

Like most women she may also go through randomly horny moments where she could fuck all day, but that isn't a frequent thing. Since when is that like "most women?" She's compliant. That's.... pretty awful. Compliance is a stance you take when someone in authority over you makes a demand of you. This is her partner. She can agree to join him in sexual activity, but to comply suggests that this is an order she is obeying. That's not how it should work. Regarding your title - creating binary equiva…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 05:50 PM
19

Men used to dominate everything, every part of life. Women eventually did not like this. This is actually a false premise of Red Pill. Patriarchy was not in place for that long. Patriarchy is a relatively new phenomenon in human culture - it only goes back a few thousand years, and isn't universal even today. Whereas as a species we've been around for 200k years. Gender relations between males and females in primate species who are not particularly sexually dimorphic (and humans actually are not…
/r/ExRedPill30/07/15 04:54 PM
17

"women have no ability to empathize" This one was always baffling for me, because it doesn't make any evolutionary sense at all. But then, that crowd is parading around under the pseudo-scientific banner of "evolutionary psychology" without much of a firm grasp on evolutionary theory in the first place.
/r/ExRedPill30/07/15 02:06 PM
7

My partner and I treat each other as equals. We take turns leading and following sometimes, and other times we work as a team of equals, it just depends. If he takes the initiate on some project that he cares about, I jump up and eagerly want to help him. If I have something I care about, he takes me direction and helps and supports me through it. Other times, we're facing something we either both really want to do, or don't want to do, and we split the job or take it on together, step by step. …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/15 11:45 PM
1

It's a long term solution, I think, but I give it like 500 years before we are really able to make the kind of progress we need to. But we're a resilient species - we've been at it for 200k years already and look how far we've come. You are right though - over population is not solve-able in the short term by any means other than reducing birth rates, particularly among the impoverished, and loosening immigration policies for employable expatriate. If Japan was easier to immigrate to and work in…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/15 08:39 PM
1

No, I'm aware, but I'm talking about the global population. Declining birthrates are a problem when they are a sharp decline, and isolated. But broadly speaking, global population decrease is a positive thing. I was notably a very positive thing in China, for curbing out of control population growth, and they are now closer to replacement levels, with policies allowing people who were themselves single children to have two children now. Not that I'm advocating for the one-child-policy approach t…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/15 06:45 PM
1

More people =/= more money. FTFY. More people in economically and politically stable = more money, but only up to a point beyond which the population strains existing resources. More impoverished and destitute refugees of economic and natural disasters and victims of famine and war =/= more money for anyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/15 01:51 PM
2

I'm ok with that. And actually with better planning it doesn't have to be that painful.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/15 01:00 PM
1

I'm saying that we should be.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/15 12:59 PM
5

Declining birth rates are a good thing. It will take a couple of generations of adjustment but we should ideally decrease our numbers to survive as a species. We should aim for a sustainable population and return to replacing ourselves only.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/15 04:16 AM
1

Yeah. I mean I tend to agree.... this whole conversation was sparked by my trying to explore the idea that there is something fundamentally different about penetration, but maybe that's not a defensible stance. Someone (might have been you, idk) used the term "enveloped" and that does sound kind of horrific, tbh. It's hard for me to really imagine, as a woman, so maybe this is a failure of imagination. But molestation sounds like someone fondled you through your clothes - that's super creepy, bu…
/r/MensRights16/07/15 05:45 PM
1

Interesting take. I think there are many male rape victims in the military specifically who would have a problem classifying forcible penetration with other objects as molestation but not rape.
/r/MensRights16/07/15 04:18 PM
2

Well actually, no, that isn't a legal definition, to my knowledge. somebody is being sexually violated and did not consent to it Well yeah, and I don't want to treat anyone differently. I'm just trying to get at why people perceive these as different.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 01:54 AM
0

Yeah but there are a lot of things that fall into the category of being sexual violation but not rape. All sorts of forms of molestation, for example. We call that sexual abuse or sexual assault, but not rape. So the argument that the only measure is "sexually violated without your consent" already isn't the measure used. So then, to incorporate both forcible penetration and being forced to be penetrate, you have to say it's about forced sexual intercourse. But that's not accurate either, since …
/r/MensRights14/07/15 01:52 AM
1

Ugh, that's awful. I'm so sorry. But of course, any fine line between mutually violating consent while inebriated or the question of can you coerce someone into penetrating you, is totally irrelevant in your case, since you weren't just intoxicated, you were actually unconscious. I don't think anyone anywhere could possibly make a rational argument that that wasn't rape. Though I suppose that throws out a distinction between penetrator and penetratee, at least in the case of being unconscious. A…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 11:32 PM
0

I think the issue here is different people operating with different definitions of rape. If rape is just forced intercourse, then yeah, no distinction. But if rape is forced penetration (vaginal or anal) and everything else is sexual assault, but not rape, then this poster makes some sense. maybe that's the disconnect. I'm not sure how I feel about that distinction, though. It makes a kind of intuitive sense, But then it's very difficult for me to imagine what being forced to penetrate would be …
/r/MensRights13/07/15 10:26 PM
0

Not really. Most men who report rape are reporting that they were penetrated against their will or ability to consent, and are therefore equivalent to a woman who was similarly penetrated against her will or ability to consent. It only becomes a problem in cases of being forced to penetrate.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 09:24 PM
0

Yeah, I agree that it's problematic, I'm just trying to put my finger on why this isn't as clear cut for me as simply saying if neither can consent, then either both or neither are guilty of misconduct. I mean, I think we all agree that being completely incapacitated by alcohol means you can't consent. AND we agree, generally, that just because you are under the influence does not mean that you are absolved of responsibility. So then either they are both victims and both perpetrators, or you hav…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 08:37 PM
-1

I'm just asking here, ok, so don't bite my head off, but is there something different about being penetrated, maybe? I am not saying that being forced to penetrate shouldn't count as rape, that's obviously absurd. I'm just talking about this specific circumstance: is there something different about Jake's experience of this drunken sexual encounter, and Josie's because one of them was penetrated and the other wasn't? I'm willing to bet that if their drunken encounter had involved pegging instead…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 08:06 PM
6

I think this is great. Most western countries have paternal leave, and everyone else have maternal leave too. The US has neither. We're right up there with Papua New Guinea.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 05:30 AM
1

I don't think it's a question of gender, i think it's a question of whether you could reasonably hope to contribute to someone's defense without putting your life at risk. I wouldn't expect a 12 yo boy to be able to do much, any more than my 4'11'' 100lb kindergarten teacher friend. But i do expect both of them to immediately call the cops, and alert passers by of the assault, film it on their phones, and try to get a licence plate number if the attacker leaves in a vehicle. And I expect them to…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/15 06:05 AM
-1

But this is exactly why patriarchy harms both men and women. Whoever said patriarchy placed all men at an advantage? Of course it doesn't! A patriarchal system, lived out to it's logical conclusion, looks like the FLDS: woman are a means of production, children are property, and most men (with the exception the few very powerful ones) are disposable. Male disposability is a symptom of patriarchy, which holds up the patriarch to the exclusion of everyone else, male and female.
/r/MensRights03/06/15 07:50 PM
7

If you want a happy, fulfilling relationship with another person, your best bet is going to be to seek out someone you can love and respect, who will love and respect you, in an egalitarian way. Try getting to know some women as the people they are, not as examples of "females." Make some friends. The best cure to TRP is actually having friends who are girls. And chances are one of them will help set you up with a friend. Good luck! Also - definitely seek mental healthcare if you are clinical de…
/r/ExRedPill03/06/15 07:22 PM
2

There are obviously some confounding variables here. For example, persons who wait for marriage also tend to be opposed to divorce on principle. Survival of a legal marriage is not indicative of success.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/15 06:26 PM
1

I'm saying if it can't survive no matter how much medical intervention we can offer, then it is not alive in any meaningful sense. Babies can survive with intervention. The elderly can survive with intervention. A 12 week old fetus cannot not matter what any one does.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 08:42 PM
1

The things that are good about TRP are not at all unique to TRP. Assertiveness is something everyone benefits from developing, obviously. That's not remotely unique or new, though it might be new to many TRP men who never developed those skills for some reason earlier in life. The things that are unique about TRP (specifically, the view that its actually a rational and positive thing to view women as objects or lesser beings to be controlled, manipulated, used, or paternally nurtured) are what m…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 04:18 PM
2

Nope. I'm sorry. This is utter bullshit. There are women in the world who are actually egalitarian. But if you buy into TRP you will never, ever find one. You are self-selecting out of the pool of people who are worth actually being with, and into a pool of people who are shallow, selfish, and thoughtless. Though I guess that doesn't feel like much of a loss to you if you believe all women are like that anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 02:51 PM
2

Women in the modern west are raised to be entitled brats who should get all the benefits of chivalry combined with all the benefits of feminism while offering men nothing in return for these sacrifices. These people may exist, but surely they are not the norm? I know a few women who would fit this criteria, but they are also poorly educated, lower-class or new money, and not particularly thoughtful or bright people. They aren't particularly good parents, either, so they would be a poor match any…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 02:37 PM
2

And we don't think that such women are conditioned by living in a society that is less likely to respect them for their brains and brawn than their male counterparts? We don't think that's cultural conditioning? Because women who are raised in an egalitarian society have different expectations. Just like women who are raised under strict patriarchal structures like in rural Pakistan, or in the LDS church, will tolerate all manner of invasions of privacy and methods of control, and perpetrate the…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 02:21 PM
2

consequences to having many partners whether or not you get pregnant or an STD Such as? I can think of a lot of benefits: more experience, a better understanding of what you like and need to get off, higher skill level at getting your partner off, a more emotionally mature perspective on love and relationships that doesn't permit for infatuation and worshipping your partner because you haven't had any other experiences to compare them to, a greater sense of independence, a better understanding o…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 02:14 PM
1

But it's an important distinction for people who seem to feel that being married means you not longer have a choice about whether you want to have a baby. Though yes, there is considerable overlap between women who are married and women who already have kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 01:45 PM
1

In this same thread, someone else has posited aggressively that "male love" is not about respect. Is that a false statement?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 01:44 PM
0

Not all work environments are the same. Sure, TRP is probably great for male-dominated, sales driven, for-profit enterprise, but such a partner, no matter how much he was earning, would be living out values I don't share. I'm talking about collaborative and service work environments, like teaching, or non-profit work, or navigating a work place dominated primarily by women. I would much rather struggle to make ends meet with a partner who shares my values than sit comfortably with someone whose …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 01:24 PM
-1

I'm telling you that in practice, it results in ass-hattery. However, love that does include respect as a equal is not love that I am interested in.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 01:06 PM
1

Reproducing =/= having sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 06:32 AM
3

No one put it there. Sex carries risks. You know what else carries risks? Walking around barefoot. But when someone comes into the Minute Clinic after stepping on a rusty needle, we don't say "sorry, you can't have this life-saving tetanus booster, because you took a risk and you should be ready to face the consequences." No. We give them the vaccine and they to on with their lives and are hopefully less stupid next time. There is nothing different about sexual risk-taking than any other form of…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 06:30 AM
2

If a man just decided to move into my house without my permission, it doesn't matter if he'll die on the streets if I kick him out. I still have the right to kick him out. Exactly
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 06:27 AM
1

"Fetus" after 12 weeks (ie the start of the second trimester).
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 06:26 AM
1

Even with protection, she took the chance that the protection might fail and she might get pregnant. So now she has the responsibility to carry a child to birth and then give it up for adoption if she doesn't want it or take care of it herself. Nope. It makes zero sense for her to risk death during pregnancy as a result of choosing to have sex when her partner risks nothing. We have the technology to remove the pregnancy. She has a right to radical bodily autonomy. There is no reason at all why …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 06:24 AM
1

Do you have any idea who much a baby costs? "Stable" is actually fairly uncommon for the majority of households in the US today, adding a baby would derail everything for most people, and perpetuates a cycle of poverty. Accidents happen. Surgery to terminate fertility is expensive. People need access to abortion because life is more complicated and not everyone plans ahead perfectly. We shouldn't punish them and their children by preventing responsible birth control.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 06:18 AM
1

Why, though?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 06:17 AM
1

Nope. The women who use it most are women who already have children. Like 80% of abortions are women who already have kids and just can't afford any more.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 06:16 AM
1

It's not a child at all, though. It's a embryo or fetus leeching nutrients and interfering with your bodily functions and ability to protect yourself, exposing you to a host of health complications and increasing your risk of being a victim of domestic violence. Its very presence in your body puts your life at risk.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 06:14 AM
1

It's not able to survive on its own, though. How does that count as killing? I mean, more than a parasite or a fungal infection?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 06:12 AM
2

That doesn't change the core reality that your religious opinion, while based on a religion, is still just an opinion. You may believe it to be true but that has no bearing on its truthfulness or its perceived validity to others.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 06:08 AM
3

the women who have had several as a means of birth control because she didn't bother to take her pills regularly or ensure condom usage It's quite expensive and uncomfortable. I'd like to see some data on how frequently this occurs and what we mean by "multiple." Even 5 or 6 abortions hardly rises to the level of a form of BC, since the average woman is at risk of pregnancy over 400 times in her life (assuming menstruation at 11-45, 12 times per year.)
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 06:06 AM
2

Well, yeah, but then you are giving women the freedom to have sex without consequences! That's not very RP of you!
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 06:01 AM
2

not proper That's kind of a peculiar formulation. What do you mean? It's unseemly? Or its or intended to be that way? Did you know that upwards of 50 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion anyway? Abortion/pregnancy termination is a natural process, we are just harnessing it the way we do to when we prescribe birth control pills, or insulin injections, or selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 06:00 AM
1

Pro-abortion. Abortion, like controlling conception, is a good thing, has been practiced throughout human history, and is essential for safety, voluntary procreation with your chosen partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 05:57 AM
3

Men are more able to overcome those emotions, and act against their requests, than women are. Can you cite a source for this claim?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 05:52 AM
1

Can you cite a source for those claims?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 05:50 AM
1

Opiate of the masses.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 05:49 AM
1

Yes most men, but the rising merchant class of the early modern era (late 1550-1600s) were starting to preference women of leisure. Certainly by the Restoration (think of all those flabby, pale, naked debutants in art from the period) and up through the 1700s we see a feminine ideal akin to what Jane Austin encapsulates: women of leisure and education who speak a few languages, play piano, dance, give parties, and have perfect manners and pale skin un-exposed to the daylight of hard labour. That…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 04:55 AM
-4

Some men love women who meet those criteria. Other men love women who meet completely different criteria. Because "male love" is not monolithic, and neither are men. Or women. The idea that there universal traits that all or most men like about all or most women is absurd. Besides, your ideals are not sound evolutionary adaptations, these are cultural constructs. Evolutionarily it is more advantageous to seek a female partner who is physically large, strong, and hardy, and able to bear strong ch…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 04:33 AM
3

I have yet to meet any so-called alpha whom I respected, much less loved. I'm utterly unconvinced by these claims. All the alpha men I've known have been assholes. It's reproductively preferable for me to choose a mate who is socially adapted enough to be a kind and loving partner and parent and a functional and cooperative member of families, communities, and work environments. The RP alpha model is poorly adapted to success in a large family or a collaborative work environment, or in a positio…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 03:03 AM
0

I don't see how you can love a partner and not respect them. That's not love between partners. Thats.... odk, paternalism, isn't it?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/15 02:59 AM
5

I'm sure these strong feminists will still expect their fiance to get them a $10k ring and fork over thousands more for the actual wedding. And I'm sure these women still want a pricey white dress even though they've probably banged 20+ guys. Based on what?
/r/RedPillWomen18/05/15 03:24 PM
1

Here's a protip: if you legitimately think you can get PTSD from lectures, or assignments, ortwitter, then you've probably never seen any trauma of any kind at any point. Nobody is "getting" PTSD from those things, they are experiencing symptoms of existing PTSD. How much do you actually know about how PTSD actually works in the brain?
/r/TheRedPill08/05/15 03:32 AM
2

Female. Yes. For either party. If it's important enough to you, any issue is a good enough reason. Visit r/deadbedrooms for a vision of the alternative.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/15 03:45 PM
1

It would still be interesting to see the stats. Im not trying to suggest that those men "deserve it," im interested to know if criminal history is barring people from residential options. Also, custody fairness is irrelevant - the question is, are aide organizations giving women housing mostly in order to house children.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 02:04 PM
1

What is the comparative percent of homeless men who have been convicted of a crime compared to homeless women. Also, what percentage of homeless men are in custody of children, compared to the percentage of women in custody of children?
/r/MensRights30/04/15 06:41 AM
1

What is the proportional percentage of combat deaths (ie: what percent of women in combat roles die compared to what percentage of men in combat roles die?) The US military strictly restricts female participation in combat roles despite numerous attempts to overturn this policy. What is the gender ratio of perpetrators of those homicides?
/r/MensRights30/04/15 06:39 AM
0

It's definitely emotional manipulation. Not rape. Rape by coercion would need to include a threat to life and limb.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/15 05:53 AM
1

No. I can't imagine why I would want that. I don't feel burdened by, driven by, or controlled by my libido. Do you?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/15 05:50 AM
1

Lying does not constitute rape.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/15 05:43 AM
2

That's the most extreme version, though. Less extreme versions can actually cause less damage than male circumcision. But I'm opposed to both on principle. Scale/degree is irrelevant. It's all unethical.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 02:39 AM
2

Yah I've often gotten the impression that TRP is all about the bar and club scene, which is a pretty narrow pool of pretty trashy people. I highly doubt anyone meets their dream girl or guy in a drunken one night stand. If the only women in your life are drunk chicks you pick up at a bar, no wonder your whole perspective is utterly skewed.
/r/ExRedPill22/04/15 02:37 AM
1

Yeah and hers is kind of sloppy. The goal is basically a smooth surface, no external genital parts at all, just a tiny opening down below. Makes them more prone to UTIs, yeast infections, bacterial infections, and painful sex. Also childbirth results in a lot of damage. So it pretty much just ruins sex. But apparently Egyptian men prefer their ladies privates to look like a Barbie or Ken doll.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 02:30 AM
1

Direct your totally justifiable anger at the medical establishment and the culture that excuses and perpetuates the practice. They are more to blame than your parents, who didn't know any better.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 02:26 AM
1

The full process: no clitoris, no labia, sewn up to leave a tiny hole peeing, sex is difficult and painful until tearing and stretching accommodate it. Here is an example.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 02:20 AM
1

False equivalency. Your appendix doesn't have an essential function. Your foreskin does.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 02:17 AM
2

Sure, but when you were circumcised you were an infant and we're not able to make the decision for yourself either. We're not talking about you, the 32 yr old man who has lived this way his whole life, we're talking about you, the baby. You the baby was subjected to an unnecessary medical procedure that permanently removed part of his penis.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 02:16 AM
2

I thinks it's a finder talk difference in goals. If your goal is just to have sex with as many attractive people as possible, without consideration for any relationships with tjem, their friends, or anyone else, being a PUA can certainly help so some degree for some men. If you want an adult relationship with someone, you need to treat women and other men as people, and actually be friends with them.
/r/ExRedPill21/04/15 11:21 PM
2

If you want an ally, you have to look for an ally and also be an ally. Which does mean getting into what your partner is into, and making compromises, but also setting clear expectations for what you need out of your relationship. None of which is gendered at all. People are all just people. Go meet some people and make friends with some women first before considering them as potential romantic partners.
/r/ExRedPill21/04/15 11:17 PM
9

TRP made me forget that women actually have lives, desires, hopes, and dreams. They have a mission, too. This, this is what TRP lacks an understanding about. Or just doesn't care. Either way it's toxic to mature, emotionally fulfilling adult relationships.
/r/ExRedPill21/04/15 11:12 PM
2

Well of course it doesn't actually work, but that was the original motivation for introducing the practice to the general public. Today's reasoning is all post hoc justification.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 11:04 PM
3

No one has any recollection of their infancy. You don't have to form a memory for your neural pathways to begin to change in response to an experience.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 09:42 PM
1

How is "uncircumcised" not similarly problematic? Your reaction is both appropriate and exactly the point of using that kind of language. It's intended to call into question the term "uncircumcised" to describe just plain old, normal, natural penises.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 09:41 PM
16

I'm glad you finally came to terms with the reality that girls are people too, and that building relationships with other people is better than having manipulative friends and in turn trying to manipulate women into sleeping with you.
/r/ExRedPill21/04/15 09:25 PM
1

It improved for men who had already been incompletely circumcised.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 08:35 PM
1

PE attributed to foreskin remnants because of how densely enervated the foreskin is. Also demonstrative of the significant desensitization that results from circumcision.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 08:16 PM
3

I was saying that fewer than 50% are in Canada. Almost none in Europe and Japan. I edited for clarity. Because you are right - i grew up in Germany and my bother were the only circumcised boys we knew (both had been born in the US).
/r/MensRights21/04/15 08:00 PM
4

And I'm sure the recovery was painless for him, too? No pain at the incision site? His own urine didn't burn him where we was healing? He didn't experience any pain at all for the whole process?
/r/MensRights21/04/15 07:58 PM
2

You're an MRA (I assume, by your presence here) - doesn't it trouble you that the whole reason circumcision was introduced into American medicine was to shame and control male sexuality, to demonize boys' natural impulse to masturbate, and to inhibit their sexual pleasure?
/r/MensRights21/04/15 07:56 PM
2

*Here is a study in the International Journal of Epidemiology where non-intact men report more orgasm related difficulties than their intact counterparts.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 07:54 PM
5

Claims that it lowers rates of infection of HIV are spurious at best. I posted this elsewhere in here so here's a quote: The few studies in Africa that have showed lower risks of HIV infection are flawed, have you actually read them? Circumcised men had less sex because of recovery time than their in-tact control group, which was free to have sex again right away. Circumcised men also had more face-time with doctors and increased safe-sex education because of repeat visits to check healing. ALSO…
/r/MensRights21/04/15 07:35 PM
2

It certainly can be. FGM women struggle to get off at all. MGM men struggle with premature ejaculation and/or erectile dysfunction. So yeah, it can be tough.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 07:33 PM
5

I understand why they did it, because they didn't know any better. But we know better now. "Everyone I know does it" is a terrible reason to do something, when it can be shown to cause harm. If everyone was starving their kids for mouthing off, would you do it? If everyone was beating their wives, would you do it? If everyone was playing russian roulette at a party, would you do it? Appeal to majority is a faulty justification.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 07:32 PM
0

Most abortions are medical, not surgical. You take a pill and have a heavy period. It's nothing. No bigger deal than the 75% of all conceptions that either don't implant or are miscarried. It happens all the time, to every woman. I don't think you could make a case that MRAs care one way or the other on Abortion, as a group, though.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 07:27 PM
2

What about men who struggle with premature ejaculation or erectile dysfunction, which are both more prevalent in circumcised men? Sexual performance is definitely affected, but not in a good way for many. It's not a preventive measure for any medical conditions. With circumcision, UTI risks increase, infections following surgery occur frequently, rates of infection for most common STDs increase because of abrasions and lack of protection of the glans, and lack of self-lubrication. The few studie…
/r/MensRights21/04/15 07:23 PM
3

The foreskin contains 20,000 nerve endings, which is about half the total nerve endings in the human penis. Its way, way more sensitive than the glans or the shaft. Severing it is a significant loss. Sure, you can learn to orgasm without it, just like women learn to orgasm after the external clitoris is cut off. But why do that to someone?
/r/MensRights21/04/15 07:15 PM
5

But, why?
/r/MensRights21/04/15 07:03 PM
3

A "child" only counts as a child when it's viable, legally, everywhere. We do not consistently charge people with two murders, its highly controversial when it happens, and we shouldnt do it, imo, unless the fetus was viable. So no, pro-choice and anti-circumcision is a perfectly defensible position.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 07:02 PM
3

You're ok with removing 50% of his nerve endings?
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:55 PM
4

Circumcision doesn't lower risks of anything. Mastectomy would though. Should we go around removing breast buds on girls because 1 in 12 will get breastfeeding cancer if we dont? And call anyone who refuses "unmastectomized?" Routine infant circumcision is not a medically necessary preventive or diagnostic procedure, and is not a treatment for anything.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:53 PM
3

It's not the parents right to sever part of his penis (arguably the most important part for sexual gratification). Parents rights are limited - they can't tattoo an infant, or starve him, either. Why should amputation be acceptable?
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:50 PM
5

That's not sleep. That's shutting down because of going into shock.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:48 PM
5

Except.... that there is a pretty good way to measure sensitivity objectively, which they can do on skin for burn victims, etc. They have used it on intact and non-intact penises and determined that non-intact males have half or less of the sensation on their remaining tissue than intact males do. Add to that the need for lubricants to masturbate and sometimes in order to have sex, plus the higher rates of sexual dysfunction, and it seems like you can draw some quantitative conclusions.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:45 PM
13

it taught me that if you have that shit done to you, you will defend it and consider it normal and will consider people without it to be gross and slutty or ugly. You will perpetuate it and pass it to your children because that's what was done to you and it therefore seems fine. Exactly. People need to believe that's it's all fine, or they would have to admit that harm was done to them and their loved ones, and worse, that they perpetuated this harm on their own child. This ego-dystonic realizat…
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:24 PM
1

Non-intact infant boys have higher rates of colic, sleeplessness, and other symptoms of trauma for months afterward, and a permanently decreased capacity for pain. You don't have to form a memory for your neural pathways to begin to change in response to an experience.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:21 PM
0

Yes, that's exactly what they say. Based on claims that went uninvestigated from way back in 1870. Leading to various serious surgeries being performed on infants with no pain control. Edit: Don't believe me? Here's an article on the practice of surgery without anesthesia on newborns (including open heart surgery) which went unchallenged until 80s. The article is from 1987, that's when the medical community started to investigate the claim that infants could not feel pain.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:19 PM
-3

Not to mention suffrage, ending slavery, etc Edit: are you seriously down voting people having equal rights to vote?
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:18 PM
3

Plenty of people do. The whole 20-week fetal pain tripe, which is scientifically unfounded, is used to justify abortion restrictions. Those same people will say a baby can't feel a circumcision and sleeps through it (in reality, they are either screaming or pass out from shock), based on claims made in 1870 by a circumcisionist.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:16 PM
0

Nope.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:14 PM
3

Also Europe, Japan almost none are circumcised. Fewer than 50% in canada. (Edit for clarity)
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:13 PM
2

Not any more! Its just about 50%. In the rest of the world, just Muslims and Jews. Everyone else has stopped non-medical genital surgery on infants.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:12 PM
1

Good for you! Just be sure to take him to doctors who know how to care for an intact penis. Many do not, and will advise forcible retraction before the foreskin adhesion has dissolved, which can cause bleeding and scarring.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:11 PM
3

Slight discomfort causes babies pain. Bright lights and loud noises cause panic and pain reactions. Circumcision definitely hurts. But even if it didnt, it's still wrong.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:09 PM
1

Why have it done at all, though? The way you put it makes it sound inevitable.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:07 PM
6

You've heard wrong. The foreskin contains half of the nerve endings of the penis. Removing them decreased sensation because the skin (which is 3x5 inches of super sensitive nerves on a fully grown man) is removed, leaving only scarred tissue and the already-not-sensitive glans.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:02 PM
5

So your ok with severing 50% of the nerve endings in your son's penis without his consent?
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:00 PM
3

Why?
/r/MensRights21/04/15 05:59 PM
11

Any tradition that forcibly severs 50% of all nerve endings in a person's penis without their consent is barbaric, yes.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 05:59 PM
1

A living child has rights. An embryo or non-viable fetus doesnt. How are those two related?
/r/MensRights21/04/15 05:57 PM
1

No, of course women can be abusive. That doesn't mean we should jump straight to abuse for either sex. And if you reply saying, "well, if the genders were reversed, people would freak out", you're not wrong, but those people would also be acting preemptively. The solution isn't to become reactionary in reverse.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 01:35 PM
-1

Why wouldn't you, based in this account? Obviously I have no idea what happened, I'm just trying to envision a scenario where her behaviour is perfectly reasonable (even though the way she is going about it is crass) before we all cry "abuse!" when what this looks like to me is cheating and crisis management.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 01:13 PM
-1

If you had cheated on your spouse, gotten caught, barely kept your relationship intact, and agreed to give up social media while you work things out, would you want your spouse to broadcast that for everyone? No.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 01:09 PM
1

For repeated/compulsive adultery? Definitely. This is the kind of crisis intervention step that would replicate the effect of inpatient isolation from social media. It's never long term, but voluntarily giving over your information to prevent further acting out and reinforce positive behaviour is not unreasonable.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 01:00 AM
0

True but I meant "here" as in on facebook in this case. It sounded like people were confronting her about it, by her comments.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 09:32 PM
1

Yeah, it would definitely raise red flags. But it raised red flags here too. Mostly, i think, because of this woman's confrontational tone. If she had just said "X has decided to withdraw from social media for a while to focus on our relationship" that wouldn't have raised a eyebrow, regardless of gender. Her tone is what creeps me out. "I'm in charge now." Sheesh. But that doesn't mean it's abusive.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 09:13 PM
3

Oh. Well yeah. What person would claim a 16 yr old is the victim of an 8 yr old? She was literally twice his age. Has to be a troll.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 09:10 PM
-2

Only if she was locked in the room. If she's cheating and seeking out partners through social media, a therapist is pretty likely to suggest cutting off all social media and having her phone monitored to help reinforce compliance. True for porn addiction as well. Obviously she would need to agree to this, but it's not that extreme to be cut off from social media, is it? Clearly its not a permanent solution, but its definitely a good step to take to just sever the access to adultery partners or o…
/r/MensRights15/04/15 09:06 PM
1

Nope, true story. That was a year ago. She's out of jail now.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 08:48 PM
5

The quote is fake but the story is real.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 08:47 PM
10

Report checks out. Guess what? This was a year ago. You know what that means? She's out of jail now.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 08:46 PM
1

someone only has to say no Well then that's a good measure. I don't think any of us can verify if this has happened or not. Look, I'm not saying this is good practice on her part, but this is exactly what a therapist would suggest when there is cheating and compulsive sexual acting out, in place of in-patient care, to replicate the isolation from social media and adultery partners that you would experience in a residential setting. Also from pornography, if that's a problem for him. For all we k…
/r/MensRights15/04/15 07:48 PM
-1

Not if there was cheating. Spouses routinely hand over cell phones to be checked to reassure the spouse as part of crisis management right after the cheating comes out.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 07:19 PM
-1

I don't see why she should be obliged to do that in a public forum. He may not want that.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 07:18 PM
2

Yeah that's what it sounds like to me. This is pretty standard advice that a therapist would give to a couple if one of them has cheated or has shown a pattern of cheating.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 07:17 PM
-1

What makes you think he didn't agree to this? This is pretty standard practice (cutting off social media contact) for sex addicts, for example, to prevent temptation.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 07:15 PM
1

The girl didn't blame her partners, and neither did the advice columnist. It's not blaming the men to suggest that they were all acting poorly, which all 26 of these people were doing.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 03:56 PM
-1

Well sure but that seems like a harsh way to teach it.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 01:16 PM
-1

Yeah plus, while hair is just hair, for a girl to grow out even just shoulder length hair does take more like 6-9 months, so it's a long term situation. My doubts would be more, does this small child really want this or will they regret it immediately and mourn it? Some kids don't handle big changes to their appearance as well as others. Edit: Wait, what are you all down voting here? I agree that she shouldn't second guess a parent's choices because he's male. Are you just down-voting because I …
/r/MensRights02/04/15 04:38 AM
0

If boys have the same complaints (which is not reflected in the piece) then don't changes benefit them both?
/r/MensRights01/04/15 01:09 PM
0

Couldn't you view this as eliminating or balancing special treatment that boys get by having a PE class curriculum around them? But here's the other question I have for you: why is this a problem for you? Do you not agree with the premise that schools teach PE in order to introduce young people to healthy life styles? Don't we want to make an effort to do so in the most effective way possible? In what way does making this effort to accommodate 50% of the class hurt the males in question, or in a…
/r/MensRights31/03/15 09:20 PM
2

-195 despite being white and American. So.... yeah.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/15 04:34 AM
3

You say, but based on what? Seriously? Is there any data to suggest that this is a common mating strategy for humans or any primates? Did you know that alpha males in other primate species are actually not the most successive reproducers in their communities? Because they are not. Females most often mate in secret with so-called "beta" males behind the alphas back, because they are nicer and better providers. They actively try to undermine the reproductive success of alpha males. This is well do…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/15 05:40 AM
3

What woman wants to get pregnant by someone other than her partner? Having your partners baby, having a baby together, is a deeply emotional thing. I just don't get this logic at all. I cannot imagine a woman wanting this.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/15 05:10 AM
1

That's a trap we all fall into now and again, when we are insulated by our surroundings. We start to presume homogeny. I had the same rude awakening when I moved the US and realized that, despite being a "christian," I wasn't anywhere near representative of the very literalistic and extremely conservative christian population here. I wasn't a "normal" christian, by US standards, i was a weird liberal Episcopalian anomaly. Who knew? It was shocking to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/15 05:42 AM
1

Netherlands shows 21%. But Thailand and Cambodia are upwards of 70%. Those are, of course, the world's largest hubs for sex tourism, after all.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/15 05:36 AM
1

Sorry, anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. But the rates I found (see above) do show fairly high rates in some places. Interesting the UK ranked the lowest of this list, with under 10%.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/15 05:31 AM
1

Where do we get the "more than half" number? I haven't ever looked into it. I did find this showing 20% in the US.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/15 05:25 AM
1

Hah no. But in the end neither of us know what the existing data show if a) they are confounded by unreliable respondents and b) we don't know if they counted sex work for either men or women, buying or selling. I would need to take a deep dive into the original research to say anything conclusive either way.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/15 05:20 AM
1

You really think sex workers are that highly represented among partners of that many men? That surprises me, but I can see what you mean, if sex workers are responsible for the higher numbers in men, then you would need to include them as well. I was assuming that both men and women were only listing non-business/transactional sexual partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/15 04:55 AM
1

Ok but how helpful is that information when trying to assess patterns in social behavior?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/15 04:08 AM
1

Sex worker's sex partners don't count, because that's not the same category of activity. It's work, why would you count that with voluntary personal sexual encounters?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/15 03:48 AM
1

Well i was referring to the other sex abuse instance in the book, where she talks about being assaulted.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 11:16 PM
2

People are piling on criticism though. If they werent, I'd call that hypocritical. But they are.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 02:52 PM
5

It wasn't a false rape claim, exactly, just a description that was altered and happened to resemble a different person with a similar name. He sued. She made changes to the book.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 02:51 PM
-1

That's already the case, though. A forced abortion is already illegal. It's just shouldn't be considered murder, imo. Because for it to be murder, there has to be personhood. Youre describing consent as the issue, and that makes sense, but maternal consent can't be the measure for personhood, or what would happen when a woman regrets her choice, and claims to have been coerced? What about plan B? Can she charge her bf with murder because he paid for Plan B and she claims she felt pressured to ta…
/r/MensRights28/03/15 06:01 AM
1

I don't see any way to write a law that fails to overlap. You will end up with women who choose abortions having to prove what they believed or felt or ascribed to the non-viable fetus to prove that they didn't believe it was a person and choose to terminate it anyway. If it were possible, though, I would support it. I just don't see anyway that such a law couldn't be abused to convict women and men who choose abortion.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 05:46 AM
2

It doesn't matter if she did or not consider it a person, in the same way that it doesn't matter if I think it was a person or not. Under the law, it's not a person. Otherwise an outsiders belief that it is a person would undermine abortion rights. That said, you are absolutely right, this was, in effect, a forced abortion. That's a horrible crime, a cruel invasion of privacy and bodily autonomy. It's very wrong. But it's not murder.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 05:29 AM
5

Hence, better no to give the government the right to kill. If they can, they will.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 05:13 AM
1

True. In fact, in Alabama, you can be imprisoned and charged with child abuse and put on a registry is you test positive for drug abuse at the time that you first find out you are pregnant. So you can be charged as a criminal for hurting a child that doesn't exist yet, at a time when you didn't even know you were pregnant.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 05:12 AM
-2

If the fetus wasn't viable, it's not a murder of the fetus. However, she should be charged with attempted murder in the 2nd degree, for deliberately and with premeditation intending to inflict potentially fatal injuries, even if the intent was not to commit murder. But no, you can't murder a non-person.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 05:07 AM
1

Look, I'm not saying that there should be benefits, I'm just saying that there still are, which is why people still marry. That an pressure to conform to cultural norms, as well as deeply held religious convictions, which govern a lot of behavior, even today.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/15 01:34 AM
2

I don't think sex workers belong in those statistics. Sex workers are doing a job, not having recreational sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/15 01:33 AM
1

Yeah but there are plenty of other examples of years of dating and even years of marriage, and then as soon at someone hits 35, or they have kids, or for no reason at all, it's over. So it's not always about not knowing someone well enough. You can know someone really well, and they can still change in a way that you can't predict.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/15 01:32 AM
2

Hey, if states and private entities would adopt policies that offer equivalent benefits to non married partners or eliminated incentives, marriage would easily become defunct. I'm not saying we should keep it, i think it's roots are in a barbaric system of exchange of human chattel. I'm just explaining why it still persists in society to day.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 08:35 PM
3

And yet all the existing research shows men have, on average, more partners than women. Anyway it's not about whether you can have as many partners as you want, it's whether people actually do or not. Behaviour matters more than opportunity.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 05:44 PM
3

Generally not, but forcing transparency against someone's will isn't either. And regardless of whether is healthy, it's still a legal right. However, yes, I do believe people have a right to privacy, even from their partners, so I can't accede to a blanket statement like that. It's especially important when the relationship is already abusive and unhealthy. Both partners need the law to protect them from their partners if necessary. But even in a healthy partnership, it's important to preserve b…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 05:43 PM
1

Governmental support never lives up to anything nearly even a part time minimum wage job from a male partner, much less compensate for the loss of unpaid child care and household labour from him. I don't buy your incentive argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 04:09 PM
1

Women are also the primary caretakers of children. Those policies ensure provision for their children more than anything. Paying for childcare in order to be able work can cost as much or more than your rent, per child. And if you are a single parent your work options are limited to a normal schedule, one big reason women choose lower paying, more flexible careers.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 03:39 PM
1

That makes no sense. Allowing women to own property and have custody of their children, independently, is nothing at all like women being owned as property. How are these related?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 03:32 PM
2

It's not always possible to predict how marriage will change your sex life. R/deadbedrooms is full of married people who had a great sex life when they first got together, but after a year or two of marriage there is no sex at all, and it goes on for years.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 03:29 PM
2

I'm sorry, what? What is a "harem system" and who in their right mind would want that?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 03:27 PM
5

There are still some benefits to being married, for both partners, namely being able to be covered under a partners employer health insurance, and ensuring that your partner can visit you in the hospital and help make medical decisions for you. The latter can be secured with a notarized document, but the former is exclusively available to married couples, as are tax breaks. These are some of the reasons people continue to participate in legal marriage. Also, if you don't want to risk half of you…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 03:17 PM
5

Read the OP's text again: For example, in theory, a male could take a saliva sample from a female's fork at dinner time or her straw she drank out of, and perform the test secretly. His intent is a test that can be done in secret, without her knowledge or consent, he spells that out clearly.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 02:33 PM
5

Obtaining the results of a partners pregnancy test results in a medical office without their permission is a breach of privacy and could cost a medical provider their license. As is performing a test on someone without their knowledge. Yes. As proposed in this prompt, it's supposed to be saliva based, so that you could test without her knowledge or consent. By that design, it's absolutely a violation of privacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 02:23 PM
3

The same would be true in the reverse though, which is why the median isn't the most useful measure. Your example is predicated on the assumption that all of those en would sleep with those three men because they possess this "alpha" status presumably. But then, you also consider promiscuous men to be higher status, and promiscuous women to be lower status, I would presume.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 02:21 PM
2

You can tell based in what, exactly?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 02:03 PM
4

She doesn't have a right to say no to a test that would invade her privacy?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 02:02 PM
1

Could you explain your reasoning?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 01:57 PM
2

Unfortunately, to my knowledge, there is no really reliable research out there, and the presumed gap is small enough that female deflation and male inflation could easily account for it. If we add a margin of error of 2-3 partners for either sex, the gap all but disappears.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 01:05 PM
2

Ok, I understand that you would want to know, for that purpose. But what I'm saying is that neither you nor anyone else has a right to access that information without her knowledge or consent. Same would be true for you. Test results like this would fall under Private Health Information or something similar. You do not a have a right to access her STI screening results, or any other medical information. It would also a violation of her reasonable expectation of privacy in the same way that setti…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 01:00 PM
6

I do think it's a breach of privacy, in the same way that private health information is private even from your spouse. You would need a signed release of PHI to access even the most basic information held by a medical provider or insurance company. I consider this information in the same category. If you cannot trust your partners account of their sexual past, you should not be partners. Edit: being a couple does not automatically give you access or ownership over your partners private informati…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 12:58 PM
4

Why would you want to know this information? Would you want it known about you? The idea that you could track it for women and not men sounds like a horrible dystopia.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 06:53 AM
9

In the short tun, I think it might reduce the stigma on female promiscuity. As far as I can tell, there is no meaningful different in average number of partners between men and women, it's just that women feel they need to lie about to reduce the number, and men feel they need to lie to increase the number. I don't see why you would propose a gendered test though, that's just weird. In the long run, it would result in more policing of women's sexuality and greater sex-shaming for women. It would…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/15 06:51 AM
2

Oh yeah. there is basically no way to tell. Which is relevant because they can reverse themselves, and its not like you would know unless you get a sperm count.
/r/TheRedPill25/03/15 05:23 AM
2

Nope. Men still ejaculate. It just doesn't contain any sperm. It contains everything else, and there is quite a lot of other stuff in there.
/r/TheRedPill25/03/15 05:17 AM
1

Yes, I know about that study and problematic catagorization. As I recall, though, of male rape victims who were made to penetrate, something like 80% of their abusers were male. So the gender of the victim does not indicate the gender of the perpetrator.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 03:51 AM
1

So if patriarchy is the cause, then feminists are reinforcing patriarchy with the way they fight domestic violence. Yeah that sounds about right to me
/r/MensRights11/03/15 03:49 AM
0

Ok, so it's both of those things. I'm not convinced that fear of police is the only reason men do not disclose (not report, mind you, but disclose to a friend, family member, or therapist) their abuse. But you may be right, the reason they don't report may have more practical origins.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 07:33 PM
0

I certainly don't want to emasculate men, but I don't think it's a backlash against manhood, I think the demonization of maleness long predates the feminist movement. Consider the whole "fallen nature of man" (which, granted, applies to both male and female but, because female in constructed as lesser and therefore less responsible, the weight of a sinful nature is places squarely on male shoulders by many literalist readings). All of the demonization and de-humanization that accompanied slavery…
/r/MensRights10/03/15 07:31 PM
1

Do you have a source for the claim that women abuse their partners at a higher rate than men do? That is a claim I have never heard before.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 07:25 PM
-2

But the reason why women are treated as special and unassailable, and the reason men feel like they are less of a man if they report abuse by a woman, is because patriarchy puts women on a pedestal and creates a social construct of "manhood" that is unrealistic and unattainable for most men. That's the whole problem with patriarchy - it disadvantages woman and most men. You may think feminism as it's espoused today is not the solution, but the problem is still the same.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 01:26 PM
1

No, I'm pretty sure they asked. Women generally show up at these kinds of services seeking to physically remove themselves and their children from the abusive living situation. They are asking for a place to sleep away from their abuser. Why men aren't asking is a mystery to me though.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 01:23 PM
1

So, not half, but a big chunk to be sure.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 01:12 PM
4

Both sexes deserve help, absolutely. But the billboard makes a numerical claim, it's worth knowing where that comes from.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 04:35 AM
1

Are half of domestic violence victims men? What about among adult victims (so excluding children, and isolating primarily adult-on-adult domestic violence?) And what percentage of their abusers are female vs male? Because this is a higher rate than I had heard before.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 01:15 AM
1

Seems like discrimination against gay men.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 04:50 AM
2

Can you point me to some academic literature on the male disposability theory? I see it here often, I'd like to read more.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 10:14 PM
3

In this case, no. It's definitely harming men. I would say that this is part of a broader problematic gender paradigm that hurts both, depending on the issue. But yeah, this is a case where paternalism favours females and harms males.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 08:45 PM
2

Yeah someone else has noted that while both attempts and successes come from the same place of desperation, we maybe socialize men to actually give up because of the social construction of masculinity. Men are taught that they are on their own and that a real man doesn't need help, whereas women have the damsel in distress role to fall back on. I think this is a really good explanation for the difference in fatality of suicide attempts between men and women. But i would then want to reflect on t…
/r/MensRights30/01/15 08:38 PM
3

That's probably a pretty accurate characterization of the difference in socialization between men and women. Edit: you all will probably down vote me for this but, are both the idea that "real men don't need help" and the role of "helpless damsel in distress" both tropes that come from a paternalistic and patriarchal culture? If socialization is to account for differences in suicide effectiveness, isn't this a great case study for how a patriarchal gender paradigm is harmful (Indeed deadly) for …
/r/MensRights30/01/15 05:01 PM
7

Man that's just devastating.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 04:51 PM
1

Yeah I know they choose more aggressive methods. What I don't know is why. I'm just proposing one possible way to account for one of the differences.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 04:35 PM
3

That.... is a really good point. I would be really interested to see comparative suicide rates in the UK.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 04:32 PM
0

I have no idea how to account for the gap, but access to lethal weapons might be one factor. Guns cause the majority of deaths by suicide for men, and gun ownership is still overwhelmingly male. Source.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 04:04 PM
0

No I'm not trying to reduce it, I'm suggesting that both suicide attempts and successful suicides come from the same place. Obviously, as evidenced by the deaths, men are suffering more severe consequences from that shared cause. I'm just trying to get at causation.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 03:58 PM
1

Yeah I think that's a valid point. Self-harm is definitely not the same thing as attempted suicide. I wasn't aware of the propensity for conflature there.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 03:42 PM
2

No I'm not saying that. I'm asking whether another measure might also be of value - both suicide and suicide attempts = feeling desperate and not wanting to live anymore. Suicidality, in other words. That doesn't seem as imbalanced by gender. Just the efficacy of the solution applied to the problem.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 03:28 PM
-4

True. But I'm not convinced that they aren't all (male and female attempts) equally desperate or genuine. The rate of suicides by firearms in men is extremely alarming though. But most of the men who would be potential victims are vehemently opposed to any legislation that could limit their access to firearms on a psychological basis. Not that that would be a solution to the suicidality, but it might decrease effectiveness of suicide attempts.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 02:01 PM
9

Well.... isn't it true that women attempt suicide several times more often than men. It's just that men way more successful at it than women?
/r/MensRights30/01/15 01:49 PM
1

Huh. Ok. Thanks. I wouldn't have guessed that.
/r/TheRedPill30/01/15 01:20 PM
1

What is the difference between concern trolling and disagreement?
/r/TheRedPill30/01/15 03:28 AM
3

Gender based abortion is quite prevalent in south and east Asia, though exclusively to abort female fetuses. I would think that gender based abortions that single out male fetuses are exceptionally unusual and rare. However, regardless, both kinds are highly problematic if practiced by the wider society because it disrupts the sexual distribution of the population.
/r/MensRights27/01/15 04:52 PM
5

I'm so angry about this. There are many issues about which i don't agree with you folks but this is one on which I very strongly agree. Genital mutilation of any person without their consent is wrong and should not be legal.
/r/MensRights23/01/15 04:46 AM
1

A fad can't last a few decades? That's a tiny amount of human history. Not to disparage it, though - I think it's a great tool.
/r/MensRights06/01/15 06:42 AM
1

Nah I certainly get that. But I do think the safe-word fad overcomplicates things for those of us who are not playing out NC and for whom "stop" and "no" are plenty. Most people have a hard enough time saying what the need to say during sex without adding a layer of code words.
/r/MensRights06/01/15 05:32 AM
1

I get that, but honestly there is absolutely no role-play scenario in which either of us would ever want to say no and it not mean no. So unless you're into role-playing non-consent, "no" is not only a logical option, but also one that comes out naturally.
/r/MensRights06/01/15 05:27 AM
1

What do you suppose the "ra" in femradabates means? Maybe I'm missing a pun or something.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 04:27 AM
1

Yes! But I can't do it right now. I'll track down the article in question tomorrow. In some cases, the women actually got harsher sentences. It was crazy. I have it saved but it'll take a while to scroll through to find it. Edit: Here you go. Slate article from a few months ago.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 04:26 AM
1

We all do, I think. That's one thing we all have in common. We all hate rapists.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 04:24 AM
1

Oh I know. But even in that study, 80% of the males who were forced to penetrate (which i consider rape, a view which got me banned from r/feminism) reported their perpetrators were male.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 04:24 AM
1

No, i don't harbor resentment against 50% of the population, i harbour resentment against the people who assaulted me. I have wonderful men in my life: my grandfather, my father, my uncles, my brothers, my friends, my lovers, and my partner. I love them. They aren't implicated in my assault.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 04:22 AM
1

Your rhetoric is extreme there. Im trying allow for the reality that women also commit offenses. But the question isnt are most men rapists? The question is, are most rapists men? Obviously these are completely different questions. I would be interested to see a study that showed less than a majority were male perpetrators. That's not an attack on men. It stands to reason that it's a small number of the same people going around committed sexual assaults. But just because most men do not commit r…
/r/MensRights09/12/14 03:26 PM
-2

I think the justice system is unfair to men and to women in different contexts. I would cite laws which imprison women who are victims of domestic violence, in cases where their children are also victimized. Often, the mother is prosecuted as a co-abuser for failing to prevent abuse, when she herself is being abused and is afraid for her life. The justice system favours a woman who murders her spouse over one who doesnt, in these cases. Yet when a mother is found guilty of DV or murdering her ch…
/r/MensRights09/12/14 01:53 PM
-1

I would be very interested to have a source for the claim that male and female perpetrators offend at close to the same rates. Every study I've ever seen shows that while female perpetrators exist, the majority (more than 50%) are male.
/r/MensRights09/12/14 01:46 PM
2

I in no way want to diminish the potential harm to men or women who are falsely accused. Doing so, in the end, only hurts true victims and falsely accused people. I only want to display one woman's point of view. I think many women are afraid to come in here. I am not. (Edit) i am subscribed to this sub because men's issues are important to me, because men's issues are human rights issues. (End edit). I am in a relationship with a male victim of sexual coercion, and I take it very seriously. And…
/r/MensRights09/12/14 07:26 AM
5

I should note that I was actually banned from posting in r/feminism for posting the study in which 167k men who were raped by being forced to penetrate were thrown out as not meeting the definition of rape. I am squarely in support of sexual self-determination for all people.
/r/MensRights09/12/14 07:17 AM
2

I just think that all survivors should be able to band together across gender lines. My experience with my exhusband, and my partners experience being coerced by his ex, have served to meaningfully bond us in shared experience.
/r/MensRights09/12/14 07:08 AM
0

(Edit:)I am not married to my current partner, though i would very much like to be.(end edit) My current partner is a lovely young man who was taken advantage of and deserves dignity and respect for the boundaries he has chosen to set, just as I do for mine. It's because I love him that I respect his boundaries. You seem to be equating love with a lack of boundaries, and that seems extremely unhealthy to me.
/r/MensRights09/12/14 07:01 AM
1

So, you have a specific boundary about touching, but you can't respect someone else's preferred boundary? That seems remarkably unempathetic. You may have gotten to the point where you have that kind of trust, but surely it took you a while? And even if it didnt, wouldn't you want to extend the courtesy to a fellow human being, that they have the right to set boundaries about who can touch them sexually and under what circumstances?
/r/MensRights09/12/14 06:54 AM
1

I can't speak to the new standards in place in a small number of campuses as of recently. The standards have not seemed particularly onerous to me or my partners, who all have had a lot of fun asking for and receiving enthusiastic verbal consent throughout the entire sexual experience. But i acknowledge that, because of the bizarre sex-shaming culture in North america, that kind of frank enthusiasm is apparently rarely expressed openly by men or women, and the standard seems contrary to cultural…
/r/MensRights09/12/14 06:51 AM
2

Well that's certainly a boundary you have a right to establish. My partner was manipulated and coerced into his first sexual relationship, and is very sensitive to coercion even now. I consider him a fellow victim, and always try to be cautious and seek his active consent, surely you can respect that this is his preference?
/r/MensRights09/12/14 06:38 AM
4

Here's the thing - all people could potentially be rapists. Men might be better equipped to do it by force, but we are all capable of manipulation and coercion. The onus is on every one of us, male, female, and in between, to seek consent and be responsible and compassionate partners. The gendered nature of the consent conversation is problematic, imo, because it presumes male consent and treats women as exclusive victims. Statistically, they are still the most frequent victims, but definitely n…
/r/MensRights09/12/14 06:33 AM
1

He knew I was a victim of a previous assault and wanted to be afforded the chance to give verbal consent. He just didn't care. With my current partner, whom I frequently wake up at 3am for sex, i make a point of getting him lucid enough to articulate consent enthusiastically before doing anything. Out of principle, because I want him to know his consent is not presumed.
/r/MensRights09/12/14 06:28 AM
5

Without waging into the affirmative consent territory, i want to acknowledge that abusive people, both male and female, are creating a perception that certain types of people are not trustworthy, or innately violent. This is clearly not the case. Even if I use my own 30 men (20 sexual partners and 10 friends ans relatives who are male) as anecdotal evidence, it doesn't hold up. Some people are abusers. Yes. But all of the rest of us, male and female, are just trying to do right by eachother.
/r/MensRights09/12/14 06:20 AM
–

I tried for a year after our daughter was born. Then I closed off. He spent the nights away from home, we were never asleep at rje same time. Six months later he came into bed and started fucking me while I was passed out on sleeping meds. I came to with him inside him and asked him to stop. I pleaded. He told me to shut up. He was annoyed that I was making noise and interfering with him getting off. I cried throughout because it hurt so much. When he was finished, he shoved me away and asked, "…
/r/MensRights09/12/14 06:14 AM
1

Nope. I'm a feminist and male sexuality is not offensive to me, or threatening, or rapey. Sure, there is the giver-recipient narrative for PIV sex that makes it easy to depict the act of penetration as aggressive but that's not the only way to think about PIV sex. What if the male sexual desire to penetrate is actually a desire to be covered and enveloped, enclosed, encased? And what about my active desire to engulf, surround, and consume the male member during sex? That's a completely different…
/r/MensRights27/11/14 12:37 AM
0

You're assuming, though, that all persons are equally safe to say no. That's the opposite of coercion. Coercion means the person feels they are in a position where they can't safely choose to say no even if they want to. If you genuinely feel that your options are to assent or to be forcibly raped, assent may be the safer option to get through that moment with as little damage to you as possible. If I've backed him into corner with enough emotional abuse that he feels he can't say no, then yes, …
/r/MensRights27/11/14 12:26 AM
1

Maybe I'm not widely enough read in Sarkeesian's criticism but I haven't been exposed to anything sex-negative from her. Her criticisms are of classic, re-occuring negative depictions of women, and the persistent use of threats of sexual violence against female characters in gaming. These are the same critiques widely accepted in other academic fields, such as literary theory. That has nothing to do with sexuality of men or women, that is about violence and objectification.
/r/MensRights26/11/14 07:22 PM
1

I think it works for men, in a way that is less relevent to women. Men are less likely to be forcibly raped or drugged, and more likely to be coerced. Without a standard of active consent, those men would historically have no hope at all of bringing charges, particularly because there is the problem of biological response to stimuli that makes it harder for men to demonstrate lack of consent. Because of the persistent misconception that arousal = consent.
/r/MensRights26/11/14 07:11 PM
1

I genuinely do not believe they are on the same spectrum at all. For one, she is not asserting that female sexuality is necessarily problematic, only that objectification is. They are talking about completely different issues. Just because these are both issues that feminists discuss doesn't make them equivocal or on a spectrum. There is much more diversity of thought and opinion, and a broad range of topics that interest self-identified feminists, which do not necessarily overlap and cannot be …
/r/MensRights26/11/14 05:49 PM
1

A lot of people don't make it "damn clear". Ideally, a woman who fails to actively communicate that she wants to have sex, shouldn't get laid. The onus should be on her to make it clear that she wants to. I understand your point about the problem of reading degrees of yes. But there are also other examples where you might get a reluctant yes that isnt a yes, like pestering and guilting and asking over and over and over, and after a long string of No's, finally a resigned "ok fine". That is an ex…
/r/MensRights26/11/14 02:22 PM
1

I could have a long conversation with you about Anita Sarkeesian, but the summary would be that she is criticizing depictions of graphic violence against women. Dworkin and McKinnon are criticizing all sexual intercourse between men and women, even between happy loving couples who enthusiastically want to have sex. These two are completely different discourses.
/r/MensRights26/11/14 02:10 PM
2

Thank you. I'm just as troubled as you are by what I perceive is "presumed consent" for men. This assumption leads women to feel like they can grab at, pester, shame, and coerce men into sexual activity, and that is so deeply wrong. My own bf has internalized this presumed consent so much that he feels uncomfortable turning me down for sex because he thinks I will be offended or hold it against him, and because he feels like its his job to satisfy whether he feels like it or not. That appalls me…
/r/MensRights26/11/14 01:59 PM
-8

Ok then I'll come out and say it. I'm a third wave feminist. Usually I use the term "gender critical" because the term feminist seems problematic to me. But it's still a term I would apply to myself. But that doesn't change the fact that i would never want to accept a world view where consensual sex is, by definition, a "violation". Dworkin and McKinnon are miles away from what I believe is productive feminist discourse. They essentially propose that only with a complete segregation of the sexes…
/r/MensRights26/11/14 03:43 AM
-1

I don't think it's fair to attribute sex - negative feminist views to all feminists. I'm a female and I would never make a claim like this. It suggests that there is no tangible difference between enthusiastic consent (eg: my boyfriend asks "do you want to have sex?" And I reply "hell yes!" And begin stripping my clothes off) and coercion or force. I dont need to be convinced that we should do it. If i want to do it, i make it damn clear to my partner. I'm offended by the notion that I don't hav…
/r/MensRights26/11/14 03:31 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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