TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ex-turpi-causa Archive

View 1 post and 188 comments by ex-turpi-causa on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

ex-turpi-causa/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/22 05:22 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Which came first, the supply or the demand? 🤔
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/23 06:44 PM
1

I hadn't either. Little confused why it only applies to women though?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/23 07:12 PM
1

Why would they hate a guy and still sleep with them?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/23 09:09 PM
1

Women too
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/23 11:32 PM
6

Which explanations resonated with you?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/23 11:26 PM
2

Hashtag notallwomen
/r/AntiFeminists17/09/22 05:31 PM
1

Thing is some guys are thirsty enough they wait around for a month, have sex, then bail. But in principle you're right I just also think women need to be taught other skills for this sorta thing to work.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/22 07:38 PM
2

It depends on the man, just as it depends on the woman. Some men have more options, just like some women have fewer.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/08/22 09:06 PM
3

It's precisely ~because~ pussy a commodity that dick sell better, om some level. Economics are circular, on some level. Plus, of course, all men, gay or starlight will fuck almost anything. Same don't apply to the average woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/22 12:29 AM
1

And yet some women need random men to "discover" how much of their needs are met regarding sex and relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/22 11:48 PM
6

Women are easy. And on top of it you now have women convincing other women that having loads of sex with strangers is somehow empowering, despite the fact that studies and private conversations show this makes most women feel like shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/22 11:46 PM
1

I think you're right and have dated women like this but there are also limits and still some hypergamy underpinning it. A women that earns well ("strong, independent" type) will often look down on a man that earns less than her.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/22 12:05 PM
3

But first, both genders lie and a word from our sponsors.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/22 12:52 PM
7

The more I read this sub the more my faith in humanity as a whole is restored. Comments like yours exemplify the nuances to life that are so frequently lacking in 99% of reddit or other internet posts, but especially when it comes to relationships. Thanks for this.
/r/RedPillWomen28/07/22 10:59 PM
5

Exactly this, as with most things in life there aren't really any "solutions", only tradeoffs.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/22 07:29 AM
2

My ex was like this regarding my stereo - it was and is a major investment for me, something I care a lot about and enjoy very much as well. Still. It wasn't an acceptable hobby to her.
/r/AntiFeminists26/07/22 07:32 PM
1

Confidence is valued higher than intelligence
/r/AntiFeminists26/07/22 07:26 PM
2

They're not always the victims but mire times than not they start getting attached after sex. This means that eventually they lose out after getting pumped and dumped.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/22 10:23 PM
6

True say, thanks for putting in the time ti write it all out
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/22 10:18 PM
0

This is the correct answer. Women are entitled.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/22 10:14 PM
1

There's no set n-count, as the number itself isn't the important part but rather what the number says or might say about the person's values, emotional history and relationship experience. For instance, someone with a lot of partners might have committment issues, trust issues, or similar. They may not see sex as a form of love. Or they may not have had any serious relationship experience, all of which are causes for concern but never really automatic deal breakers. That said, there is still a l…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/22 10:42 AM
2

Inside her, but still on the driver's seat, kinda like someone sitting on her lap. It depends how the rules are worded. Does an "occupant" have to be in another seat, for example, or can they be in the trunk etc.
/r/AntiFeminists12/07/22 10:24 AM
5

By this logic they could issue another fine for driving with two people in driver's seat
/r/AntiFeminists12/07/22 09:58 AM
3

I think if a woman can and knows how to give/receive validation in any amount from other people, they shouldn't find it so hard to do so with their partner. I think it's also about power and power dynamics that relationships go this way.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/22 05:07 AM
3

Truest man analysis here hehe.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/22 09:02 PM
12

Also the whole of my experience. Any negative feeling or even slight criticism winds up with you consoling her over how it upset her to learn this. For the longest time I thought it was just the women I was with at the time but it seems more and more like it's just all women that live in a fantasy life.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/22 08:24 PM
9

I think it's pretty straightforward tbh and most men would know when they see it, they just don't ever really receive it.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/22 06:00 PM
1

So because the man gets more fulfilment out of it?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/22 05:04 PM
1

How would you say they advertise themselves and what are the obvious red flags?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/22 03:25 PM
0

Because to most people, body count says something about the person's values and attitude towards sex. Some people don't see sex as special at all in which case high numbers wouldn't matter. People usually want to date others that have similar values as them. For me, a woman that has had a lot of sexual partners but never a serious relationship would be a red flag for me for two reasons, 1. because of what it may say about her attitude towards sex, and 2. because of the possible damage/baggage it…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/22 03:22 PM
2

Why do you think it's degrading? I tend to agree intuitively but can't really say why.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/22 02:54 PM
12

Samesies
/r/AntiFeminists26/06/22 08:00 AM
2

What do you mean by objectification though?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/22 08:06 AM
2

It will scare off the commitment phobic women in general. But it depends on where both parties see the relationship going and how they behave in the early stages. Bringing this up on the first date is probably a bit too much for instance.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/22 12:29 PM
2

Hashtag feminism is about equality TM
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/22 08:27 AM
1

Hashtag notallguys
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/22 04:25 PM
1

And if she's cagey per my post?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/22 06:30 PM
1

If someone has a history of infidelity that matters.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/22 05:57 PM
11

That's what makes her imperfect, that she didn't quite get away with it
/r/AntiFeminists07/06/22 09:45 AM
1

Most empathetic answer here
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/22 06:12 PM
4

Was gonna say the same. If anyone is too agreeable it's like they don't have a personality
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/22 03:20 PM
0

It's obviously more complicated than that. What about men who commit suicide as a result of female abuse? We don't know because we don't even study the latter at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/22 08:32 AM
1

There's no set number. Part of it about values and the other part is about psychology. Some people view those who treat sex like a commodity as distasteful, or contrary to their values. Similarly, some people believe that sex is not ever truly "empty" or "meaningless" as many promiscuous types claim - men or women. People want/need connection and intimacy, sex is usually an expression of this and, usually, not always, but usually, those who are "ok" with a lot of meaningless sex make bad partner…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 06:41 PM
0

They're not - they mostly have all the same needs as men do, just go about it differently and have different privileges than men do when going about it. In the same way that a lot of men don't like to show vulnerability, neither do a lot of women. If you think ANY human being is happy to be a cat person that occasionally goes out with their friends but doesn't have a long time mate without ever feeling lonely, then they must either be a robot or a sociopath.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 06:18 PM
2

Part of the reason for these stats is because men don't talk, and female violence (or equivalents, say emotional abuse) also hasn't been studied.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/22 12:07 PM
-1

They should make a reality show out of this. TRP dates FDS.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/22 08:06 PM
1

This
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/22 08:40 AM
33

"Women have historically been oppressed, therefore I can behave like a shithead all I want and mistreat anyone I want and you're not allowed to call me a bitch or criticise me in any way."
/r/PussyPassDenied30/01/21 04:28 PM
5

Hating the shitty women isn't the same as hating all women
/r/PussyPassDenied26/07/20 01:43 PM
14

One of my favourite subs
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen13/04/20 09:47 PM
35

Best comment I've seen on this sub in a while
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/20 09:38 AM
3

Ahh that makes much more sense, thanks :)
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 09:34 AM
2

Fair enough. I think I just misunderstood what you were saying above when you mentioned scientists in an earlier reply to the other poster
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 09:02 AM
2

Didn't say that, just that natural sciences are misinformed on social science matters
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/20 09:52 PM
1

I just meant natural science, dude, as should have been obvious from the examples I gave
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/20 09:19 PM
1

That's not what I said, but ok.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/20 09:13 PM
0

I don't understand your snark. Someone with a science degree knows fuck all about social science or humanities subjects. It's pretty obvious. They don't study the same material
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/20 09:05 PM
0

Science is useless at studying anything other than physics, chemistry and biology. Applying natural science to humanity just tells you they don't know what they're talking about. This thread is about human issues, not particles or organisms.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/20 08:34 PM
0

I've met scientists who believe all sorts of trash. They're just people, ignorant in many ways like the rest of us
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/20 08:15 PM
1

It depends how intelligent the woman is. On average, yes, size wins. But for a smart woman, they might figure that other qualities, like intelligence matter more. After all, a muscular brute is only as good as what his brain tells him to do with all that meat.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 06:28 PM
2

See you're already on your way too!
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 09:01 PM
3

You don't strictly need one. You can figure it out yourself too.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 08:41 PM
0

Not a shock at all, just an obvious hypocrisy- that's what I see the argument being about
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 08:37 PM
3

Technically this is just assault (against a woman), no evidence she was assaulted because she was a woman, but in general, yes, you're right.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/02/20 09:19 PM
1

Sounds hot
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 10:35 AM
2

What came first, the chicken or the egg?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 09:04 AM
1

The exception confirms the rule?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 09:18 AM
-1

source?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/20 05:29 PM
3

But yeah, for what it's worth I agree with you, they're both idiots, it's just the law will likely protect the 'lesser idiot' in this case lol
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen16/02/20 02:49 AM
3

Legally it could quite easily be harassment. Flirting and being friendly or slutty aren't crimes, but for someone to go through with it and then spread it around the office could be, even if she was like that with everyone. It's different because she chooses to he that way but he doesn't have a right without her being ok with it to share details etc.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen15/02/20 09:42 PM
8

Telling people could qualify as sexual harassment, especially if he started spreading it without her wanting every fucktard at work knowing.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen15/02/20 12:27 PM
1

Yeah sure man. We're not debating that. This thread is about muscularitity. You don't need to be buff to be fit or attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/20 04:03 PM
3

Pretty much this. Being buff is a way to acquire de facto 'presence' I.e. by merely taking up more space by default. It's the same as being obese. In other words it's a way to avoid doing the difficult work of developing true presence, the kind that comes from being perceptive and confident. Basically being intelligent. The kind of women that value de facto presence over true presence are probably not very perceptive. True presence comes from within, how one carries themselves in relation to oth…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/20 02:53 PM
2

I don't understand what you mean by number 6 for women?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/20 09:17 AM
-1

So true
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/20 12:28 PM
1

Nah, instagram models are repulsive af
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/20 08:47 PM
2

Ah, now you're getting somewhere at least somewhat interesting. But yes, the person I replied to mentioned being treated "fairly". Reread if unsure.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/19 07:35 PM
4

Very easy, and very meaningless to say so, especially n the abstract. It means nothing without defining things. Do you have anything to contribute here other than defend an unsubstantiated abstract concept? Everyone believes in "equality" and "fairness". No shit. Thanks for your input.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/19 07:23 PM
1

Which is... meaningless.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/19 07:19 PM
2

This is kind of meaningless. What do you mean by "equality", first of all? If your partner is better than you at x, or can do something in less time, less money etc etc, would it be "fair" for them to expect you to perform it to the same standard, or to take responsibility for that matter as much as they do?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/19 07:00 PM
6

Believe the name you are looking for is "Liam Whoreson"
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen30/12/19 06:43 PM
-4

I'm not debating whether there is in impact. I'm saying that it isn't impossible to overcome. And, further, that impact becomes irrelevant at a certain stage, I.e. once they hit x number of partners x+1 makes no difference.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen28/12/19 08:20 PM
-4

No, I read that correctly.. you just don't seem to understand the point. It's quoted what I was disputing, not the virgin non-virgin part. Did you miss that? It's literally all I was responding to.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen28/12/19 07:14 PM
1

All good, just copy/paste it over onto the newborn.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen28/12/19 06:28 PM
-9

the difference between zero and one is as big or bigger than the difference between any two other numbers No, the circumstances matter as much if not more than just the numbers. You're even wrong on the numbers point regardless. The differences between 200 and 201 are as non existent as the differences between 100 and 101. Logic fail, buddy.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen28/12/19 06:18 PM
6

Ok, so? Sorry I'm not really following what you're saying in the context of the thread
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/19 09:36 PM
5

What does that have to do with the CMV in the post though?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/19 09:31 PM
7

What do you mean
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/19 09:26 PM
2

This is a challenge.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/19 06:45 PM
2

Some people expect rewards for basic decency. "Entitlement" is as disgusting as it is a scourge.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/19 06:02 PM
2

It doesn't shock me, and I'm not disputing any of that, just pointing out that this CMV is quite sexist. Sorry if the phrasing was a bit literal for you. Thanks for letting me know there are other worse things floating around. Never occurred to me. Do you disagree with it being sexist? If not, maybe go spend your time doing something more valuable than split hairs with me.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/19 05:56 PM
4

I've been here enough, thanks. This is the first I've seen that openly includes the claim that "men would rape if they could get away with it".
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/19 05:49 PM
8

Not just men, but all of society, including women. What evidnece is there today that this is still the case? Little-to-none. You are essentially using a limited/poor reading of history to support a claim about a completely different world and culture.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/19 05:46 PM
22

Because it doesn't matter whether it's a woman, man, hermaphrodite, or OP that's in the group. It's not about ownership. It's about ingroup loyalties. Let's try this another way. Why does "male honor" translate into possessiveness and not protection of what they care about? There is no argument for that in the OP, it's just flatly stated as though that is a substantive claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/19 05:44 PM
-1

Even if people have the same values, 'testing' still occurs. I think it's natural and ultimately part of the process. Words are cheap. Ultimately you need to see people put their money where their mouths are.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/19 08:45 PM
2

Depends what they count as a "date" -- if it's a coffee, daytime gallery outing or short hangout etc this doesn't seem that much. If you're doing dinners and drinks etc this many times before sex then prob something wrong with you haha.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/19 05:13 PM
1

Very true, thanks for the comment
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/19 10:14 PM
3

Depends how often you see each other I suppose, but yeah it's probably a bit long. I'd say 2 months cutoff seeing each other once a week max. Usually probably more like 1.5 months but it depends again on how often you see each other, how many other people you are seeing etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/19 09:18 AM
2

Preach, my Queen
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/19 03:49 PM
1

I'm not sure casual sex is intimate at all. It also takes time and money out, so I'm not sure I entirely follow the notion that being career focused makes one less inclined to pursue a relationship. You can also maintain a serious relationship without having to "settle down" early, just wait for the career(s) to be viable before tying the knot etc. At the superficial level it makes sense, but in reality I think the casual environment damages people in a way that affects other relationships, incl…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/19 03:26 PM
4

So in general are you basically saying that women have higher attractiveness standards overall now than before?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/19 02:38 PM
2

And probably donkey dick too.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/19 02:36 PM
5

A blowie here and a handie there, oh look there's semen in my hair... and everywhere.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen09/12/19 09:15 AM
1

I see what you're saying. I think it's unrealistic to expect unconditional love though. That's basically for children. But I understand what you are trying to say. I think sluttiness comes from (most of the time) some kind of deep or repressed trauma / issue. It doesn't make the "slut" less able to by in a fulfilling relationship, but it is something to be aware of in how it may make many relationships more difficult. Just like any other issue or trauma that say a man might have.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/19 12:23 PM
1

Ah well that's interesting, would you say you yourself are ashamed of some of the sluttiness? ;)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/19 11:19 AM
1

Haha define really slutty?? I suppose in your case you can really see both sides. Not so much that it was like "your fault" with the first guy, but the idea and knowing that about you rigtlfully or wrongfully still affected him.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/19 10:28 AM
1

How could I haha, was a bit of a slut myself ;) But yes, there are very few guarantees in life
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/19 10:03 PM
1

You can, and it's of course it's every person's prerogative, but there's a reason most people think that being "easy" cheapens things and says negative things about your character. Usually, but not always, easy people are insecure and looking for validation, rather than unicorns who can instantly transition from a long history of sleeping around on first dates to a serious relationship. It's a different "game" altogether, the casual cheap fuck and the long term commitment. I personally wouldn't …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/19 07:52 PM
1

I agree. I'm not that hardline myself personally. But it would be a bit of a red flag, unless all I was looking for was to sleep with someone. To me, it personally means they are less likely to be good at LTR, but of course there are always exceptions and if they have enough other qualities I find attractive then of course I won't dismiss them out of hand. I just think someone with too many partners means they aren't good or don't have the practice/mindset to be with someone long term.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/19 07:43 PM
1

Sort of. I mean of you prefer, but not in a moral sense or as in they deserve fewer rights or something. Being subjected to things against your will is never the victims fault. Those guy's attitude to women is equally off putting in my view. No, this is more about the qualities that make someone more likely to be a good LTR candidate. Would you rather be with someone insecure or secure. That's the sort of spectrum we're talking about here.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/19 06:27 PM
1

This is more about quality rather than quantity per se, especially if you're just reducing it to a stats game like that. I don't think you need to sleep with everyone on the first date to accurately judge their character. What I think it shows overall is a lack of stable, secure relationship patterns that are generally more conducive to an LTR.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/19 06:24 PM
1

If we're talking about LTRs then "quality" means the same personality and behaviouvarl traits that make anyone, male or female, good in a relationship. "Absence of slutiness" isn't the quality itself, but it speaks to some qualities that do matter -- things like reliability, being secure as a person, not needing sex for validation, not needing attention from any guy for validation etc. If the only, or main thing, the girl thinks she has to offer a guy is sex, this does not bode well for an LTR, …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/19 05:15 PM
1

It isn't that hard to know who you like and gell with. People who need to have this much sex "sesarching" are too lost / insecure most of the time to be worth being in a relationship with. You can't be a decent partner if you're still trying to work out who the hell you are. Obviously there are exceptions but this is a pretty good general rule of thumb.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/19 05:08 PM
1

Fair enough
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/19 07:54 AM
1

But then aren't you also assuming that RP doesn't care about agency? Sorry, not too familiar with the phil
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/19 05:33 PM
2

Ok, but they're assuming women won't exercise their agency and just sleep with those guys anyway?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/19 05:21 PM
1

Right, but just because one party has no regard for agency doesn't mean the other party actually has no agency.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/19 05:17 PM
4

Not RPiller but why would you assume they have no agency? I think the point the other guy was making was about women wanting to have sex and being attracted to men still.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/19 04:15 PM
1

Afraid not... Was she married to Mr. Scatman?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/19 09:39 AM
8

Here's a simple example. I'm not sexually compatible with a woman who needs me to defecate on her chest in order for her to get off. Make sense?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/19 05:29 PM
5

It's the new "mysoginist" for people that see misogyny everywhere yet can't understand why they're single and in therapy.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/19 08:14 AM
3

Plow me, Sven. Please.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/19 02:50 PM
0

Por qué no los dos?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/19 02:36 PM
1

More likely to GET HIT by her I reckon
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/19 01:50 PM
2

I agree. I think most radical or hardcore feminists are just totatilitarians in disguise. "True" feminism is "liberal feminism" -- and indeed this is the kind of feminism that has brought actual changes to society so far. What's needed is less of the militant and rather sexist/bigotted gender war propagated by the radical feminists and instead a focus on humanism.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/19 10:30 AM
2

I like your flair, can you explain what you are conflicted about?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/19 11:13 AM
1

I should have written marriage while young is .ore common. Either way, how does any of this affect the fact that if you are married you are more likely to be better off financially?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/19 11:28 PM
0

Eh, wealth is not merely a measure of disposable income.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/19 11:26 PM
0

Erm ok, sure if you consider US norms the same as the rest of the world.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/19 08:52 PM
0

I doubt that. Marriage is more common among working class
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/19 08:37 PM
1

Omg, you people are useless. You have the world's greatest research tool at your fingertips and can't don't even know how to google. https://www.worldfinance.com/wealth-management/for-richer-for-poorer-the-economics-of-marriage
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/19 07:12 PM
0

Disposable income isnt a unitary measure of wealth.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/19 06:32 PM
1

I didn't day that lol
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/19 05:55 PM
0

I did, and it doesn't engage with anything in the studies I'm referring to.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/19 05:40 PM
0

Thanks I know the definition. Look up the relevant studies.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/19 05:16 PM
2

Yep
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/19 05:16 PM
-1

Look it up buddy.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/19 04:51 PM
6

I didn't say it was. Fact is married couples are richer than non married. Look it up.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/19 04:24 PM
10

That would make sense if marriage didn't make you richer, but it does. People should be getting married earlier by your logic. I think this topic is less about "women doing what they want" and more about both genders making something like sex more "casual". Sex can't ever really be "casual" without on some level generating psychological and attachment issues for everyone involved. Trying to force it to be casual makes people treat each other more like objects, and it provides an easy way to avoi…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/19 03:55 PM
1

I just did. Are you slow? I said it's not possible and that it's not relevant. It's a shifting goalposts question.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/19 01:18 PM
1

Even sober two people cannot rape each other simultaneously. It is both a legal and practical impossibility.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/19 12:47 PM
1

You're suggesting mutual rape is possible. Theres no such thing, this is about rape only.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/19 11:51 AM
1

You can't rape each other but well done. You've learned how to move goalposts!
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/19 11:41 AM
1

No, not automatically. You raised this from the position of a one night stand. Again, a different dynamic.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/19 08:58 PM
1

Well the dynamics are different between men and women. Men are physically more intimidating to women.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/19 08:46 PM
1

I dunno did you consent and actually want to? Did she coerse orbpwrsuade youbto against your will in any way. Did she take advantage of your insecurity and hesitation just to pork you
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/19 08:43 PM
2

dick pics
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/19 08:18 PM
1

I dunno, maybe because you're a good person and don't want to accidentally rape someone?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/19 08:17 PM
2

Sure, but psychologically and objectively speaking arrogance is always considered misplaced insecurity. People fall for it of course, but that doesn't change what it is. People that deliberately make a statement about how bold, confidence or skilled they are sexually are usually considered a joke by quality women. If you have to say it, it's probably not true. Even if they sleep with them, it's more to do with the conditions of the encounter (drinking, their own insecurities, being horny) rather…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/19 10:38 AM
2

Haha, I realise that but you're missing the point. We'll just have to agree to disagree that quality women fall for that sort of cheap trick of confidence (arrogance is insecurity btw, not attractive). Quality people see through that. Desperate people that will sleep with whoever is nearby might not though.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/19 10:08 AM
2

I'm not demonising them, I just don't think it's healthy long term. Of course it can be done ethically, I'm not trying to make a moral claim. I just think that quality women would balk at wanting to be with someone like that long term. The women that do respond to that are free to do so. I've already explained the elements of 'dishonesty' present above. From your example, making them want to be with you 24/7 while not being willing to offer that is, in a sense, dishonest.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/19 09:36 AM
1

Not all relationships are created equal, but sure, I suppose you could.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/19 08:30 AM
1

Not necessarily no, but at best it suggests a high relationship turnover. Maybe the like them for one night sex, but that's the best these men/women are going to get, and if that's the case then really everyone's left pretty wanting.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/19 08:19 AM
1

I don't think sex itself causes damage, but rather the kind and quality of the sex. It's very hard to generalise but I don't think that men or women in general are emotionally well equipped to not be at least somewhat 'damaged' by having many fleeting partners for a sustained period of time. Much as we like to pretend sex is purely physical, it really isn't. I agree it's a judgement choice in most cases.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/19 08:09 AM
2

Eh, this is tautological.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/19 08:05 AM
1

I disagree. Quality women who want an LTR don't want men who have only ever had one night stands.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/19 08:05 AM
1

If you're desirable by easy women, are you really that desirable?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/19 07:56 AM
3

Ok, here's the thing. No offence. But womanziers pretend to be interested in women as people for their own gratification. A big part of seduction is convincing someone to trust you, and a big part of that is usually pretending to care about them, make them think they are special etc on an emotional level.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/19 07:55 AM
2

And also where the little lies and games do too :)
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/19 07:09 AM
2

They also like a bit of uncertainty and danger. The womanizer leans in that direction.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/19 07:02 AM
4

Yeah, see high quality women wouldn't respond well to this. The kind of women that respond well to this are either inebriated, looking to fill a void because they feel insecure, or both.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/19 07:01 AM
0

I don't think most women would find a man with a n count that is too high attractive. That would equally suggest they have no relationship experience, and quantity doesn't necessarily mean they are good at even sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/19 06:59 AM
1

Auto correct missed out a "no" there
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/19 10:26 PM
15

Telling women what they want to hear in order to sleep with them is lying, and the bread and butter or womanizing. Genuine seduction that leads to long term engagements is not what a womanizer does. A womanizer is shallow and good at putting up a facade that can attract people in the short term only.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/19 10:25 PM
6

Why is a high n man valuable in both but not a woman?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/19 10:21 PM
7

Eh, no, it's more about a promiscuous past vs a promiscuous present/future. The thing is, most people that are above average in promiscuity are that way because they are filling a void, not because they are particularly amazing. The other thing is, is that these type of people generally do not (edited in the 'not') make good long term partners because they lack relationship experience. Being good with people in the short term does not equate to being good with them in the long term.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/19 10:18 PM
15

Which inherently a womanizer would be good at doing (lying, that is).
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/19 10:13 PM
11

I hear cult girls are a demon in the sack...
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/19 01:49 PM
4

He's right that 'freedom to' and 'freedrom from' aren't necessarily the same thing, but you're right that in this case it should simply be a right of 'whether to' at all. At least in the context of women claiming it's about equality to choose in favour of something.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/19 09:16 AM
1

Sex is a two person ordeal. *In most cases, sex is a two-person ordeal. FTFY
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/19 08:55 AM
1

but the divide between rich and poor has never been greater, It's definintely been much greater before lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/19 08:53 AM
5

I don't have any experience or practical knowledge of the law, but I can only imagine how messy of a process it would be to try and implement a system that allows for fathers to abort financially in a way that is fair to the mother, father, and the child. Let's just say it would probably be gloriously bureacratic. So much so that inevitably it would, in some cases, be very unfair to one or all of those parties. The law is by nature imperfect. I think we should focus on educating people better ab…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/19 08:47 AM
2

Yeah, but I don't want him to have too many either. I'm like goldilocks.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/19 07:53 PM
2

Good point.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/19 06:38 PM
7

It's possible to have previous sexual experience and be good in bed without a high n count.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/19 05:21 PM
7

They are in the sense they want a virgin man. But the general point stands. Most women seeking a relationship won't want to be with a man whose entire relationship history is an endless string of casual sex. This person won't have any relationship experience. Even if they do think they want that, they will quickly realise that this person doesn't know how to be in a relationship even if they're very good at picking up women.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/19 05:18 PM
2

Thomas Sowell is that you?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/19 05:33 PM
6

Because the risks in sex for women have historically and biologically been much higher (e.g. pregnancy). A man could have many children with multiple wives at the same time, but a woman can only get pregnant once at a time.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/19 05:32 PM
1

It's not better if you're in love with the whale for other reasons. Your post is hilarious because it does the exact same thing OPs does but in a different way. Arousal as well is not the same thing as a priority.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/19 05:12 PM
1

The rest of your post is again just anecdotal and the most we can take from it is that looks and attractiveness and even usefulness are subject9ve. Basically we come full circle to the grandiose realisation that, gasp, people, regardless of gender, have preferences lol
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/19 04:50 PM
1

You're extrapolating far more than what is actually supported by that study
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/19 04:47 PM
1

Similarly personality is not the same as competence.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/19 04:47 PM
1

Just because men don't decide based on usefulness doesnt mean that they do decide based mostly on looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/19 04:40 PM
2

Most men value physical attractiveness higher and most women value personality (or usefulness) above others is just biology because of how we evolved. There's no real evidence of this other than cultural stereotypes. So yeah, if you want to rely on stereotypes to make your point, go ahead. It's still a weak point. This has even been tested (and no I don't have a link it was a lecture). Mens attractiveness to women wasn't based on money but how competent they were. No one's arguing it's about mon…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/19 03:42 PM
2

Well sure, if you redefine words to suit your argument, then anything is true. Honestly all your anecdote tells us is about the particular women/culture of that office. Many women, just like many men, value physical attractiveness highly. Like every other human, it is the first thing anyone consciously or subconsciously notices about the other. That all men value physical attractivess higher than other aspects, and that all women value personality above other aspects is just a sexist trope.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/19 02:42 PM
2

I don't think that's true, just a sexist stereotype. But it's impossible to say either way.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/19 12:43 PM
5

Not sure he does. It's just such an obvious point of view. Women are the same.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/19 12:39 PM
1

Probably because the vast majority of people don't spend all day overthinking gender roles and think much more frequently about getting laid etc than sociopolitical theory.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/19 09:39 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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