TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

forlorn0 Archive

View 0 posts and 237 comments by forlorn0 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

On what?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/20 04:26 AM
1

In this gender revenge scenario, women will provide for those burka wearing men and work in the fields for their children, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/02/20 08:02 PM
1

our Speak for yourself. elitist snobbery How is this elitist snobbery? Ghettos and trailer parks are shit. Anyone that can move out from there does. They are just enjoying themselves doing the very same things. They're enjoying themselves being meth head prostitute single mothers?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/20 11:19 AM
0

That's nice, but those neighborhoods are generally filled with drug addicts, prostitutes and single mothers. Sometimes those descriptors apply to the same women.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/20 04:55 PM
-2

This would be far more interesting if low n-count people didn't always divorce and face poverty. How many chaste women do you think live in ghettos and trailer parks, bro? Lmao!
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/20 01:33 PM
1

Yeah you didn't specify what exactly you meant by "damage" so I went with the topic of this thread. What other metrics for damage are you using? Just general psychological instability. Drug use, emotional problems, etc. Wolfinger is the author of the first study op of this thread linked. Ah. More extramarital partners damage relationship satisfaction regardless of whether they were LTRs or casual partners. Data here. I was referring to a higher n-count. It's easier to stack it up higher if you'r…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 11:54 PM
1

Some are, but what's your point?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 08:55 PM
2

So 10 partners is where the risk of substance abuse gets higher for women than men. Well, for the 21-25 range it's about 15 partners, but yes. It is quite disingenuous however to suggest that when Tradcons rail against promiscuous women they are objecting to a higher risk of substance abuse. Generally their objections concern the higher risk of divorce, as well as lower marital satisfaction that comes with more partners. Substance abuse is tied to all of that, but my argument didn't really menti…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 08:54 PM
1

Those images talk about women ages 20-24, not teenagers.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 06:31 PM
2

Increasing numbers of sex partners were associated with increasing risk of substance dependence disorder at all three ages. The association was stronger for women and remained after adjusting for prior disorder. For women reporting 2.5 or more partners per year, compared to 0–1 partners, the adjusted odd ratios (and 95 % CIs) were 9.6 (4.4–20.9), 7.3 (2.5–21.3), and 17.5 (3.5–88.1) at 21, 26, and 32 years, respectively. Analyses using new cases of these disorders showed similar patterns. This st…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 05:09 PM
5

Stats show that promiscuity is more damaging to women than men, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 04:59 PM
1

Why make up this nonsense? https://i.insider.com/54455482ecad04a7637efb7a?width=1100&format=jpeg&auto=webp https://i.insider.com/54455482eab8ea361710fecc?width=1100&format=jpeg&auto=webp
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 02:46 PM
1

You're one of the most pathetic people I've ever talked to. I hope you're just a good troll, though.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen25/02/20 02:33 PM
1

Yes. That explains it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 02:24 PM
1

No, it doesn't. Unless you have such a loose definition of what a businessman is that a meth dealer on the corner could qualify. I ALWAYS TALK LIKE THIS But you can be flexible to your environment and tone down your gangsterism to fit the mold First of all that's contradictory. Second of all, are you really calling your bad grammar "gangsterism" now?
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen25/02/20 02:23 PM
1

Are you fucking illiterate? I'm not trying to insult you but it seems like English is your 4th language or something.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 02:12 PM
1

How is that the same way? Hip-hop is mostly promoting short term strategies of success and simple-minded crap. It's one of the lowest forms of music. Obviously it promotes certain values and mindsets the same way country or rock or heavy metal do. Let me you ask you this, though. Do you talk "like finna boutta inna dawg I gotta ain'ta finna gotta" like this to your coworkers and future patients, or you keeping real dawg only on the internet? EDIT: Also, damn. Are you downvoting me literally less…
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen25/02/20 02:10 PM
0

How is it possible that those same strong men are having their spaces "taken" by women? How is it possible that strong and intelligent women were oppressed by men for 99,99999% of human history?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 02:04 PM
1

All I said is that it obviously had an impact on you, which is something you strongly denied. Why were you so emotionally invested in denying it if you're now saying "who gives a fuck"? Just admit it and move on. And I never admitted that because I don't think reciprocating your personal attacks is being an asshole. I’m a law abiding citizen who has survived some bullshit that would make you shit your pants. Again, just cringe.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen25/02/20 01:58 PM
1

What the fuck are you talking about?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 01:50 PM
3

Technology followed the same cultural trend as evidenced by a great increase in all forms of censorship across practically all platforms.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 01:49 PM
1

That's not correcting your grammar, that's calling out your lie and mocking you at the same time.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen25/02/20 01:47 PM
1

No, I never said that. Stop strawmanning. Yes, you did. Jesus Christ. Lmao! I've already said it, we can talk about the evils of capitalism and the oppression of the proletariats by the bourgeoisie all day. That is irrelevant to feminism and gender inequality. We could, but I doubt I'd enjoy the conversation.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 01:36 PM
1

Huh? I never corrected your grammar and I wasn't being an asshole about it. You made the point that listening to hip-hop had no impact on you and you used an analogy that you can watch a movie and not have to imitate what happens on screen. I replied that you obviously use ghetto slang that you've most likely picked up from the songs you listen to, so they obviously affected you. You then tried to pass it off as being le edgy anarchist who doesn't care about any rules, and then I showed you thro…
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen25/02/20 01:33 PM
2

What a strawman. The OP is obviously referring to the fact that social rules used to be more lax and that society has overcompensated for the bullies and the harassing by making everyone way too socially careful which led to social anxiousness and isolation.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 01:23 PM
1

What the fuck are you talking about? She argued that "have a life outside the home" was somehow the norm for men. It wasn't. Most men got married very young and worked to support their families. Often times they had little social mobility and poor working conditions. I never compared working class men with upper class women, I just said she's looking at it from that perspective.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 01:19 PM
1

Who said anything about being nice to assholes? Neither I nor you have ever made this point up till now. And what good samaritan? The person you replied to when you said "fighting sexism with sexism is never the answer" didn't promote immorality or anything of the sort.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen25/02/20 01:16 PM
1

So you don't care about social obligations, but you care about "sexism" and the advancement of society. Do I have that right? You want society to improve and you want to police other people's thoughts but you're also against social obligations. Lmao!
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen25/02/20 01:04 PM
1

You said: I could give a fuck about society’s rules including grammar INCLUDING grammar Not "only" grammar. This is kinda the issue when you can barely speak English. It's difficult for you to get your message across.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen25/02/20 12:53 PM
1

I just pointed out that you're a hypocrite.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen25/02/20 12:40 PM
1

You when you defend whores: as long as we continue this toxic train of thought we will never advance as a society. You don’t have daughters? You should be ashamed of yourself if you do. You when you defend yourself: Cuz I dew wut THA fukkkk I want. I could give a fuck about society’s rules including grammar
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen25/02/20 12:28 PM
1

Cringe. Stop being a teenager.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen25/02/20 11:45 AM
1

If it doesn't affect you, then why is your grammar bad on purpose?
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen25/02/20 11:27 AM
0

What I said is that she is seeing things from the perspective of an upper-class woman, I didn't compare working class men with upper class women. If you want to talk about the plight of the poor men and women, talk about the evils of capitalism and why socialism is a much better system. Capitalism definitely has downsides and a better system would probably be a combination of the two as in a mixed economy, but socialism on its own is even worse than capitalism on its own. And it depends what you…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 09:47 AM
1

The part where you suddenly pivot from men being capable of having jobs is moved to "men who have no choice but to work in the coal mines". What do you mean pivot? The other person said "Because men could, yknow work and have a life outside the home.". This is a completely naive way of thinking and basically states that most jobs were somehow socially fulfilling. It's an upper-middle class housewife's perspective. Everyone talks from a "realistic" point of view. It sounds to me like you're talki…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/20 09:08 AM
1

But you disagree by saying that one situation isn't bad. Can you quote me on that? You are arguing from an authoritarian left wing perspective, against someone who is arguing from a libertarian right wing perspective. I don't know what that means. I'd argue that I'm talking from a realistic point of view whereas the other person talks from an idealistic point of view that tends to romanticize the male experiences of the past.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/20 08:14 PM
1

Few jobs required a college education back then, and men still had the freedom to chose which job, which company, which city, etc. They were ofc limited by location but they had the ability to move. They could get raises and promotions. They could choose not to have a family and just support themselves. No, to all of these things. Social mobility wasn't as high as today, people born in rural areas didn't just all pick up and leave to the big cities, and often times a working class person staid w…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/20 06:33 PM
1

The other person's argument isn't that both situations are bad, but that one situation is much worse than the other. I obviously disagree with her take on it. That's basically the state of the economy affecting marriage. Right, and feminism had an impact on the economy.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/20 06:16 PM
1

One in which men could pick their occupation and have the ability to grow and get promoted. I'm still giving you the benefit of a doubt that you aren't trolling, although saying "have a fulfilling career in mining" was a bit too much for me. Most men had few if any choices. They picked mining because they were poor and uneducated and had to support their families. They couldn't just work as whatever they wanted, and work for them was not about independence or fulfillment. You're still looking at…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/20 04:22 PM
1

He chose to be a miner, he chose which mining company to work for, he has the ability to have a fulfilling career in mining or quit and pursue another job. It’s the freedom of choice that gives him a life, and the freedom to grow in his job. What the fuck type of free market do you think existed for most of human history? Poor women always had to raise children and make money. Since for about... forever. And the “making relatively less money” has everything to do with the economy, inflation, and…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/20 03:50 PM
1

Because men could, yknow work and have a life outside the home. Lmao! So if a guy worked in a mine 10 hours a day you equate that to being socially fulfilled? How...? Cause now poor women have to raise children and work a full-time job outside of the home. For poor women "working" was never a choice and it was never about being happy or independent, they worked because they had to, but now they do it for relatively less money while their husbands also make relatively less. They also can't afford…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/20 03:29 PM
5

How is it cooperation when a woman back then (1950s~) was only really allowed to be a mother, a role with limited freedoms? How did that differ from men only being allowed to be fathers? Feminism is about giving women choices. No, feminism is about giving wealthy women choices. Poor women get fucked under feminism. Modern trends of the nuclear family disappearing are a result of economic factors more than social. Feminists aren’t destroying marriage, student loans and inflation are. Those are co…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/20 06:49 AM
2

The OP of this chain, yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 04:00 PM
1

You disagreed with the OP because of your anecdotal evidence, so it does matter in my opinion.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 03:40 PM
1

I'm sure.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 03:39 PM
1

No, what I said is that I never claimed I disagree with you about women never being approached past the age of 30. Your personal experiences are a different matter.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 03:37 PM
1

Meh, even in the most patriarchal Islamic communities if a man abandoned his family he'd get his head cut off.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 03:31 PM
1

Of course I didn't believe you. I believe you even less now. But it wasn't nitpicking.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 03:30 PM
1

What?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 03:20 PM
1

But I never claimed that or disagreed with that. I just wanted to understand your experience better.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 03:20 PM
1

Really? Were men encouraged to abandon their kids or what are you talking about?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 03:17 PM
1

I didn't, you just asked me why'd I assume that and I explained to you why. I never asked afterwards again. You don't understand what "the wall" means. It's not about women's incapability of getting laid, it's when the smv of genders mostly equalize and men get an advantage because most women tend to stop caring about short-term casual sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 02:48 PM
1

or even children. I think that crosses a line that few people could defend.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 02:45 PM
1

You didn't say "it's not common", so I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Why are you bringing up being fat again?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 02:32 PM
1

Because you never answered to begin with. You said "I didn’t say it was a common occurrence to get hit on;", that's not equal to saying it isn't common. Maybe if you stopped trying to dodge everything for no reason and just gave a plain answer for once you wouldn't have to repeat yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 02:12 PM
1

I see. But is that common or are these just a few individual experiences that are otherwise very rare?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 01:32 PM
1

That is telling me nothing more though.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 01:05 PM
1

Cause when you said events that your kids are part of I assumed school events or going with your kids to a show, and I really doubt any man approaches other women with any regularity at those types of things. So I wanted you to tell me more about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 12:42 PM
1

You can't say off the top of your head? I'm not asking for precise numbers here, just a good estimate.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 12:34 PM
-1

I see. So all events? Most of them? How many? And are you being asked out or do men just initiate conversation?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 12:30 PM
-2

I've read plenty of dating profiles from women that said "healthy" and "healthy curves" despite being overweight. How often would you say it happens?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 12:11 PM
-1

Healthy bmi meaning what? Are you fat or not? So you're a stay at home working class apparently average-looking woman in her 40's, and your story is it's a common occurrence for you to get hit on by men. I don't know about that. Do you live on Venice beach or what? Haha.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 12:00 PM
0

As in the average BMI, looks, education, wealth, career, family life, etc. Do you not know enough women in the same age group as you to determine an average?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 11:52 AM
1

Not if you're white you aren't. Pretending you have some sort of historical oppression is nonsense. Was this sarcasm or did you actually mean it? Cause those two statements seem contradictory.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 11:50 AM
0

I'm asking you if you're average. As in average for your age group.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 11:43 AM
0

Are you an average woman?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 11:36 AM
1

Yeah, blowjobs might be the only thing that requires skill for women. And "enthusiasm" was my point.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 08:32 AM
1

Like what in particular?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/20 08:30 AM
1

What do female sex experts do for you?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/20 05:58 PM
0

True, that was kinda my point.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/20 05:17 PM
15

Very few women are good at sex, and being good at sex for a woman isn't much anyway since most women are very passive. It's not about being good, it's about not being frigid and willing to try things.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/20 04:32 PM
1

No, but this can be said for almost any relationship. You think educated well-paid women marry guys that make 30k a year?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/20 02:14 PM
1

There's like a 99% chance you're a dude.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/20 11:09 AM
1

Yes, I do believe that. Here, we combined images of male and female body shape with information on annual salary to elucidate the influence of economic status on the attractiveness ratings by opposite sex raters in American, Chinese and European populations. We found that ratings of attractiveness were around 1000 times more sensitive to salary for females rating males, compared to males rating females. These results indicate that higher economic status can offset lower physical attractiveness i…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/20 10:34 AM
2

OP's question reminds me of the story of Tiresias. Tiresias was drawn into an argument between Hera and her husband Zeus, on the theme of who has more pleasure in sex: the man, as Hera claimed; or, as Zeus claimed, the woman, as Tiresias had experienced both. Tiresias replied, "Of ten parts a man enjoys one only." Hera instantly struck him blind for his impiety. Zeus could do nothing to stop her or reverse her curse, but in recompense he did give Tiresias the gift of foresight and a lifespan of …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 10:48 PM
1

That's because that was what the government said. They said they cancelled it because it discriminated against women. I know it works on principle only when it comes to people that are equally qualified, but in practice this is never the case.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 07:37 PM
1

Number one But it was still cancelled because it favored men, that was the explicit reason the government gave for banning it, while keeping affirmative action in place outside of college admissions. So the message I get out of that is "giving advantage to women = good, giving advantage to men = bad. My point therefore stands. Number two I never used the words "general law", I simply said Sweden had affirmative action and were completely fine with it until women started being discriminated again…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 06:58 PM
1

Well, you first said it isn't true and then admitted it was but I don't understand what you're arguing for then. It's true but it doesn't matter because... ???
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 04:44 PM
1

I have no clue what point you're trying to make. I feel you're trying to disagree but I don't know how you've done so.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 04:12 PM
1

How do you differentiate between an obvious count and a non-obvious count?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 02:31 PM
1

Really? Men are afforded affirmative action for college admissions? So is this article false? https://www.dn.se/debatt/positiv-sarbehandling-pa-hogskolan-avskaffas/
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 02:07 PM
1

What did I make up?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 02:02 PM
1

How is asking you to explain your view of it somehow me equivalating anything? Are you illiterate?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 01:56 PM
1

So every relationship between men and women where there's a large wealth gap between the two is a form of prostitution? What about a relationship without a large gap but where the man puts in more money than the woman? Cause that's almost every relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 01:49 PM
1

I don't understand what sugar baby means then.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 01:38 PM
1

I said "naturally". Obviously the modern system is not natural at all, since it gives women an advantage by default. Sweden is the perfect example since they had affirmative action for women and as soon as women became the majority of graduates they immediately removed it to not give men any advantage. It's the same all over the West. And as for your quote, that is meaningless since all big companies employ the same gender quotas. It's not a meritocratic system.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 01:03 PM
1

Generally they're not. Those guys tend to just cycle through young women since they have an endless supply of them.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 01:00 PM
1

That's not what projecting means. Then we'll agree to disagree. I'm sure some women are paid to be there and some are not. It seems like a dumb correction to try and make but whatever.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 12:58 PM
1

My argument is that women take low-risk activities to advance themselves because they don't want high-risk activities generally speaking. Women are also less competitive and ambitious than men naturally, and so achieve less on average regardless.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 11:55 AM
1

I didn't equate it, I compared it. My argument was that it's still beneficial for those women to go there despite not being literal hookers since they still get things out of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 11:54 AM
1

Here's how the conversation went: You said HVM don't go after sluts, I gave an example of plenty of sluts going on yachts and etc. You replied that many of those are literally hookers (which still goes against your initial claim), I replied that many aren't, you replied that the only difference between a hooker and any of the other women going there is the amount of money they receive, I gave another example to suggest that makes no sense. I hope that helps you understand where you're wrong. EDI…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 11:53 AM
1

My argument has been the same since the start of this convo. I don't know what you're confused about.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 10:50 AM
0

You're literally projecting.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 10:02 AM
1

The rate is still ridiculous today. Despite the fact that there are more female college graduates than male, most of the elite spots are filled by men.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/20 10:02 AM
2

Except I don't and you tried to make that equivalence, not me.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 11:51 PM
3

So basically you're saying that if you go on a date with a woman and you pay for her meal that makes her your hooker?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 11:44 PM
1

It’s why female beauty standards change drastically with the times Do they? Find me an age where the men wouldn't find this attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 11:43 PM
3

And many of them are not. And they don't give it up for free, they get a free cruise out of it as well as all the commodities and being around rich powerful dudes.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 11:35 PM
7

You're right, bro. This must be why you never find young whores on the yachts of millionaires. Oh, wait...
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 09:32 PM
1

Higher education itself is the exception. If you look at how long it even existed, you'll see women were allowed for longer than they were banned from it. And again, for most of late medieval Europe, higher education was a symbol of wealth, not a means to achieve wealth.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 08:45 PM
1

I grew up lower middle class so I guess that might've had something to do with it. The relationships I'm talking about were between an athlete and basically the hottest girl in our year, another girl who went out with an engineer, another girl started dating a guy she met while working at her part time job, etc. The age of the guys was always late 20's.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 07:02 PM
1

Well, I don't know of any girl that got pregnant right in highschool or was already married, so I think we really do have different frames of reference.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 03:47 PM
1

Exception to what rule? That women weren't allowed an education or that women were only educated to do household chores? That wasn't the case in the Roman Republic. I repeat, when women have easy low-risk activities open to them, they'll use them to advance socio-economically. It's only when they lack those things, which is usually correlated with having a very small middle class that women have little social mobility. Like it was the case in medieval Europe or immediately after it.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 01:44 PM
1

That's nice, but Cicero talks about how several of his own money lenders were women, so many of them were financially independent and had their own businesses and careers.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 01:13 PM
1

I can't relate. The girls I knew were always the popular ones that almost every guy wanted to fuck. You don't really see nerdy bookworm Jessica in a relationship with a 28 yo dude, it's always popular Wendy.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 01:11 PM
1

You said "until 20th century" and "Throughout history there have been exceptions but mostly, women were barred from higher education." You keep going back and forth about what time period you're even talking about. I'll agree that discrimination existed, obviously. But that the discrimination wasn't the source of the wealth gap and that women could still achieve wealth and status through high-risk activities the same way men did if they really wanted to.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 12:28 PM
1

No, what I said is that a power imbalance doesn't imply victimization. that the young man is not yet at a position where he can take advantage in the same ways Which ways are those? It is also not perceived as quite as pathetic on the young man’s end because older men going younger tend to be seen as (often but not always) not impressive to older women I agree, I explained why I think that's the case.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 11:19 AM
1

No, that's a non-sequitur. A power imbalance doesn't imply that there's an abuse victim, and saying that wealth is traded for beauty doesn't mean there aren't people being taken advantage of. None of these things disprove the existence of any of the other ones. In age gaps where the woman is quite young, the concern is her lack of understanding about what she is being used for. We are talking about adult women here, no? Why would she completely understand the way relationships should work with a…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 10:37 AM
1

We aren't? The wiki link you provided gave plenty of examples of educated women from antiquity and early medieval period. It even says about Roman women that: In ancient Rome, upperclass women seem to have been well-educated, some highly so, and were sometimes praised by male historians of the time for their learning and cultivation.[79] Cornelia Metella, for instance, was distinguished for her knowledge of geometry, literature, music, and philosophy.[80] In the wall paintings of Pompeii, women …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 10:23 AM
1

If you are going to stand your ground that men are never taken advantage of by women, and that women are never taken advantage of by men, there is seemingly no such thing as power imbalances or abuse in relationships You're strawmanning. I never said or suggested such a thing. I'm well aware that there is a power imbalance in relationships and that women prefer it that way as they're more attracted to men with more power than themselves. If it was a matter of power imbalance then it would be app…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 10:06 AM
1

So we're talking late-medieval, yes? How many men do you believe achieved economic independence through their higher graduate degrees at the time?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 09:32 AM
4

I think I've seen this shitty argument be used like 100 times already. Eugenics cannot happen if you only apply selective pressure on men. Compare dumb women with smart women and see which of them has more kids on average. Where do you think dumb men come from?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 07:44 AM
1

When I was in highschool I knew plenty of girls that dated older guys. To me the thing was logical, those dudes had more money, had jobs, were more mature, etc. So that's what attracted the girls. Some women here seem to imply those girls were being tricked into something, but I don't see what precisely.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 07:40 AM
1

Your explanation seems faulty because all men select for beauty and all women select for wealth, regardless of whether or not you'd consider them gold diggers. If a 30 yo goes after a 19 yo because of her beauty why does that make him predatory, since the 19 yo only goes after him for money and security? It seems to me like a simple trade where nobody gets taken advantage of. Even in these threads where women constantly harp about how creepy and abusive they are, they can never seem to explain w…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/20 07:38 AM
0

Just seems like the most logical to me. Like imagine a guy would post about how women are attracted to buff dudes more than they're attracted to skinny guys, and then you'd have the entire comment section filled with skinny guys saying about how it's really creepy that that's the case, and they must only like buff guys because they lack self-respect and want to be dominated or they're simple-minded and animalistic; or that buff guys are more likely to abuse them or beat them or are less emotiona…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 09:04 PM
1

I finally understood your point. You were referring to self-pollinating plants that use meiosis. I thought "self-insemination" was some form of mitosis you were misspelling. But then what was your point about cloning and how it isn't sex? What genetic variance do you think there is for self-pollinating plants?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 09:00 PM
0

I said "here" as in this thread. The reason seems bitterness about being an old woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 08:50 PM
1

Are you fucking serious? Quote the article you just posted where it apparently supports your claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 08:49 PM
0

I’ve been in that situation (as the teenager female) and it is not weird in a good way lol. Weird how almost all the women here talking about how gross older men are seem to all have been in relationships with older men when they were very young.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 08:43 PM
1

Buddy, are you illiterate? Where does it say that self-insemination is sexual reproduction?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 08:24 PM
1

Buddy, are you illiterate? Where does it say that self-insemination is sexual reproduction?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 08:24 PM
1

PLEASE provide a source that states so.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 08:03 PM
1

Self-insemination is sex Nope. Provide a source that states so.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 06:27 PM
1

Are you being dumb on purpose now? I literally just explained to you how this conversation started, and you're now saying you don't know what this has to do with anything? The point is that sexual selection is a sub-category of natural selection, they aren't one and the same. You just tried to play a pedantic game about how all reproduction happens through sex therefore all selection is sexual selection. When I explained to you that not all reproduction is through sex in the first place, you dou…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 05:27 PM
1

I didn't use the word "devolve".
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 05:25 PM
1

You said: But cloning isn’t sexual in the two different parent sense. The only "sexual sense" is in the parental sense. That's how sex is defined. Self-insemination is not sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 04:48 PM
1

Bro, your argument is that ASEXUAL reproduction happens through sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 04:04 PM
1

But cloning isn’t sexual in the two different parent sense. What other sense is there?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 03:41 PM
1

Are you mistaking PUA for TRP?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 03:10 PM
1

So your version of redpill is to respect whores? Interesting. Can you go into further detail about your take on what TRP is about?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 02:55 PM
1

Then maybe you were talking to the mirror? This chain started from you saying that "Also, sexual selection and natural selection are the same thing." One another person tried to correct you, to which you replied "What other manner of gene propagation is there that isn’t sexual?" and then I gave you an example of one.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 02:53 PM
1

Not really. Rock is basically "be simple-minded and think only short term cause having fun is the most important thing, even if you get screwed over in the long run". That's as BP as you can get. Pffff. I don't know, where to start? A woman's past doesn't matter, don't be judgmental, women select men based on how "nice and respectful" they are. Stuff like that I guess.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 02:39 PM
2

Stop projecting, please. Just cause don't take my lessons from ghetto dipshits that can barely read and write doesn't mean I was somehow ignorant or unsuccessful with women. The BP mainstream is basically liberal progressivism.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 02:32 PM
1

Did you forget what this conversation was about?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 02:30 PM
3

No, most mainstream advice isn't close at all. At least not in the West. Shitty rap songs notwithstanding.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 02:13 PM
1

So there's no genetic variation in asexual organisms? How do bacteria mutate then?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 02:10 PM
2

No it's not. Blue Pill is whatever the accepted, mainstream and idealistic opinion is.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 01:50 PM
1

So then we're in agreement that you were wrong?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 01:39 PM
1

You can have asexual reproduction as well. Some plants for example have both sexual and asexual reproduction.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 01:14 PM
2

I would say by variety but not by frequency. The average woman loves to be dominated in bed, but she wouldn't want to fuck as much as the average dude.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 11:59 AM
1

How do creatures propagate when they lack sexes?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 11:29 AM
1

Almost nothing removes deleterious genes from the population, or promotes beneficial ones. In fact, our medical technology keeping everyone alive who would die from bee stings and peanut allergies has more of an effect than tall Chad. For example, if the sea rises 5' tomorrow due to climate change, we'll build houses on stilts, not evolve gills over millennia. This is such an idiotic understanding of evolution. Your entire argument boils down to a "c'est la vie" mentality. Whatever happens then …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 11:26 AM
2

It wasn't pure sexual selection, it was sexual selection filtered through social and cultural norms. It's why sedentary populations had to invent things like monogamy and marriage to function even though they go against pure sexual selection.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 10:33 AM
2

Ask the same guys how many ONS do they actually have per year.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 10:03 AM
2

You greatly overestimate how many men actually "feel desired" by having ONS's. It's almost always fucking some dead fish woman once every couple of months if you're lucky. Compare that to something you can have sex with 24/7 and you can do anything you want to it with 0 complications.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 09:35 AM
2

Lmao! it's not about female prostitutes replacing ONS, it's about sex bots doing it. Do you not understand that it's a progressive pathway? If you can accept that they outperform women online and in brothels, then what is the barrier that you believe they'll never overcome for ONS?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 09:11 AM
2

Why are you so sure about the ONS? If they could replace prostitutes in brothels then why not ONS's as well? https://www.thedailybeast.com/houston-city-council-bans-first-us-sex-robot-brothel
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 09:07 AM
3

So what you're arguing is that robots could replace women when it comes to cheap thrills or casual sex, but not relationships? Is this the point you're trying to argue?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 12:25 AM
2

Lmao! Very few women can afford that sort of thing, especially if they dream of more than 1 kid.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 12:20 AM
2

Livestream videos of real women. Unless you're saying that camwhores aren't real women?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 12:15 AM
2

It's about showcasing the capability of AI to replace the women. You see, the AI in question didn't get ahead of those women by providing superior sexual content.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/20 12:05 AM
2

Maybe regularly, but most men enter relationships and get married eventually. I'm saying this will change in such a scenario.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 11:52 PM
3

We're very far away from "hyper-realistic robots", however men don't really need hyper realism. That's what that example was referring to. The AI in question is pretty broken often times but it still manages to be more successful than the real women on the website.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 11:51 PM
3

I never said that. I just gave an example of AI already taking women's place despite their obvious imperfections. Did you just not read the rest of my comment and just replied to that in particular for some reason?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 11:08 PM
3

I understand that. What I don't understand is why you brought up that women would be grossed out by guys visiting chaturbate camgirls.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 10:45 PM
2

We are talking about a scenario in which only 10-20% of men would even seek relationships, let alone try to get laid.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 10:02 PM
2

Where from? You already excluded the overwhelming majority of men.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 09:25 PM
1

On whose dime?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 09:25 PM
3

Women will go back to joining harems?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 06:19 PM
4

I’m assuming only men who can’t regularly get sex will be utilizing the bots. So the overwhelming majority of men?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 04:56 PM
1

Yes they do. And I don't understand your 2nd point.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 04:43 PM
4

Why would women care about what betas and omegas are doing? Cause women crave attention and your average 30 yo is desperate for some simp to give her money.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 04:24 PM
4

And?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 04:14 PM
1

Like there's a way, and another way, and they're the same. But in reverse. Cute. Yes, more. How?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 11:58 AM
4

We're very far away from "hyper-realistic robots", however men don't really need hyper realism. I recently saw an article about how some prostitutes on chaturbate are seething cause a dude made an AI more popular than them and he's taking away their customers. https://www.vice.com/en_asia/article/epgbz4/projekt-melody-hentai-anime-camgirl-chaturbate I'm sure most women here will say something like "only stupid dirty losers would even consider them yuck" in some faux attempt at preserving their d…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 11:55 AM
1

In the same way that a drug dealer is less useful than some engineer, morally or amorally, but in reverse. How is it in the same way? Ok, 'wholly deny' might be a bit exaggerated, but female sexual desires were heavily repressed. No more repressed than male sexuality.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 11:46 AM
1

Also, 'the world needs' shouldn't be interpreted in terms of moral merit here. I have no clue what you mean. How is an engineer less useful than some drug dealer on a street corner, morally or amorally? It denied the role of the clitoris, called their orgasms 'hysterical paroxysms' and treated them as a medical condition... 19th century English ladies went to see doctors that massaged them to give them hysterical paroxysm to relieve them of their hysteria, what more do you need as proof of the d…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 11:13 AM
2

It might be uncomfortable to admit it but if musicians and drug dealers get more sex than you, then maybe the world needs music and drugs more than it needs what you provide. Completely fallacious as it assumes the female selection process is meritocratic. If society managed to wholly deny the existence of female sexual desires for hundreds of years It didn't deny that at all, it just didn't provide a giant safety net for women and forced them to think ahead. I promise you that if you remove aff…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 10:17 AM
1

What time period and geographic area are you discussing? Cause even in the Victorian age women learned sciences.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/20 04:31 AM
1

How does that contradict anything I said? I don't follow. What stereotypes are you referring to?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/20 03:54 PM
1

Thanks for giving me permission.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/20 03:54 PM
1

Who had less to risk? Women or men? Not sure what just-so stories you're talking about, but marriage has been a staple of practically every settled community since the agricultural revolution.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/20 11:00 AM
1

I'm not denying the logic behind it, I'm saying there were fewer men that wanted children because they had less at stake compared to women. The social pressures for marriage and having children was meant to keep men's nature in check the same as women's. It wasn't designed to somehow give men a privilege over women.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/20 10:31 AM
1

There were way more men that didn't have their personal wealth tied to their children's existence or the idea of having children. While most women generally depended on their sons to achieve any position in society. Which would suggest that many more women wanted children for financial reasons than men did.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/20 10:18 AM
1

Alright, well I disagree. I believe they simply didn't take them. Men have historically wanted children as much if not more than women Completely false and based on absolutely nothing.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/20 10:07 AM
1

I'm implying that it was a system influenced by both men and women, it wasn't simply decided by the men. As you can see even today that women are more religious and care a lot more than men do about getting married and having kids. Your argument is that men or some men came together and decided how things were and then all women simply said "alright honey" and that was the end of it. Seems retarded and somewhat self-defeating if you want to support any ideology claiming equality between sexes. M…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/20 06:26 AM
1

Yes I can and I do. I wasn't comparing men of back then with women of back then, I was comparing men of back then with women now.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/20 06:19 AM
1

Again, do you want me to repeat myself? I don't know what point you're making. Speak clearly. The way I see it men want easy sex with less commitment, so I don't understand how "patriarchies" somehow promote sexual conservatism. You either misunderstand the influence women had on culture or men are somehow completely retarded despite holding all the power.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/20 02:17 AM
1

In Scandinavian countries there are literally spots on oil rigs specifically designed for women under their weird affirmative action policies. It's why I brought them up in the first place. Those spots, despite being insured for willing women and paying very well, go unfilled year to year. What point are you fucking making? That social taboo dominated women? What exactly stopped women from just making their own shit? Or their own social taboos? If women are so weak and easily dominated by men th…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/20 02:05 AM
1

There were no "oil rigs" in the pre-industrial era Lmfao! Is this how you understood my analogy? and are you suuuure this was all risk-reward and nothing to do with physical dimorphism? The physical dimorphism is what caused the different outlook in the risk-reward equation. I don't know how to respond to the rest of your comment. I feel you're playing dumb on purpose.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/20 01:51 AM
1

No, I just gave examples of poor women successfully doing it. Women could take the same paths that men did, but for the same reason you don't have a lot of female volunteers on oil rigs today, you didn't have a lot of them back then either. It wasn't about oppression or misogyny or men being meanie weanies, it was about the risk-reward equation. For most women the risk was too high for the reward, for many men it wasn't. And I'm sure she is. Literally every unicorn on this fucking planet gathers…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/20 01:33 AM
1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartime_cross-dressers Again, I don't know what your point is do I don't really know how to counter it. I personally know one woman, not only well-off but UC (the kind that's born, not made) who's been rejected by men with no money. I would roll my eyes out of my head if I could.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/20 01:24 AM
1

Examples of women going to war and participating in battlefields are known of. The lack of class mobility applied to men as well, I simply explained what men had to do typically to escape it. Not sure why you're so obsessed with the "traveling with merchants" part as if that's such a ridiculous thing to have said. modern working-class men aren't about to marry fat old ladies. Not even rich ones. How many rich women have been rejected by garbagemen that you know of?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/20 12:40 AM
1

For what part of the world was it before? Cause for the West the mid/late 1700's was the beginning. Don't know what Thomas Cromwell has to do with anything. You've lost me. Do I think that the typical demographic who married fortune hunters is being rejected by broke guys now? Yes. Bear in mind, these aren't rich, young, hot women. These are usually older women, often physically unattractive. It was the same bargain female gold diggers make. You have to be sexually monogamous and act romantic to…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/20 12:29 AM
2

What point is this post trying to make? You understand that you shouldn't wife up a whore and yet you're here arguing that men should go have sex with whores for casual sex? And this is somehow against what the manosphere tells you to do? Since when?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 11:22 PM
1

And men got an education to make them better husbands and providers. I'm not sure what your point is. The overwhelming majority of people across time got no education whatsoever.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 11:14 PM
1

dude just take care of her and pay for her existence and maybe you'll get lucky enough that she'll be loyal Nah.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 10:07 PM
0

uhmm durrr hurr???? le minor durrrrr problem minor hurrrrrr we passed da law hurrrrrrr Make an argument or be quiet.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 10:05 PM
1

Are you fucking serious? I never denied that it was happening, I denied that it was the norm.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 10:00 PM
1

It was passed because it was legal to do it, doesn't mean most did it. That's a non-sequitur.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 09:56 PM
1

In the early 70's. Before the law of 74.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 09:54 PM
1

My mom had a bank account and she made it on her own.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 09:45 PM
1

It means exactly that.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 09:42 PM
0

That's a bit vague, isn't it? What's "many" "could" and "some" supposed to mean?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 09:40 PM
1

Interesting take. So female hypergamy cannot exist since all men are lower than women by default?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 09:25 PM
2

Really? Post a source for that.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 09:24 PM
1

Not that it disproves anything I just said, but yes they did. They were called morganatic marriages.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 09:22 PM
1

What's the other half?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 09:16 PM
1

Alright, I don't know any people like that. I would never describe 28 yo's with their own jobs and careers as "trust fund kids". That's a title reserved more for college students imo.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 09:16 PM
1

Those aren't really wealthy on their own, they're just living off other people's money, meaning their parents. Advance in time about 5 years and make them properly independent and then check again.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 06:10 PM
2

I was referring to any point in time before the industrial revolution. The thing is that most modern men are unwilling to enter that bargain I refuse to believe you typed this out with a straight face. You think rich women nowadays are being rejected by working class men?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 06:08 PM
-1

fertility What do you mean by this? I'm pretty sure the average man is more fertile than the average woman by far. Also youth isn't a positive for men, it's a positive for women so that's not a good comparison. And I don't see how the women weren't satisfying their instinctual drives.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 06:05 PM
1

I agree. I didn't link it cause I figured the other person already knew about them.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 06:04 PM
1

I see. Well, that's not what I meant. I was just referring to easily being able to enter relationships. I doubt many men experienced real love at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 06:03 PM
3

I'm sure they were fine with it, but you're really twisting the word "hypergamy".
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 04:45 PM
2

By rich you mean what? Net worth in the range of what?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 04:33 PM
1

What rich guy do you know of?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 04:26 PM
8

What do you mean? The stats I saw showed that the more housework the husband did, the more likely his wife was to divorce him. So that's inversely proportional to what you're saying.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 04:25 PM
7

Neither did the men.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 04:24 PM
2

I think that was the case in parts of the Muslim world, but not really the case outside of it. I don't know what country forced women not to work, especially since most societies for the last 10,000 years had been agrarian with both men and women working on their property.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 04:24 PM
6

Stats show most women aren't. So I guess you're really special.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 02:45 PM
1

I'm sure.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 02:44 PM
2

Really? What rich man do you know that can't get laid?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 02:44 PM
13

If making money was the easy part, then modern women would demand stay-at-home husbands. However, it seems women are even more likely to divorce such men.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 02:17 PM
5

People often say this, but think about it this way. Do you know of any good looking and sexually competent men that often lack romantic success? Do you know of any wealthy men that lack romantic success, regardless of their physical looks and sexual prowess? The answer is almost always yes to the former and no to the latter.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 02:14 PM
15

They did have the opportunities, they just didn't take them. The normal routes for a man exiting poverty was going to war, becoming a mercenary, getting hired to travel around with merchant groups, working on ships, etc. Generally dangerous jobs that required physical exertion. Even today women are only advancing economically because the system is built to ensure low-risk jobs for them.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 02:03 PM
101

When men had most of the socioeconomic power they had no problem marrying down and basically taking care of their partners. Now that women have a lot of power, do they reciprocate? No. Women are built to go after men they find better than themselves, whether that makes them shallow or not is somewhat meaningless, but it does make them have higher standards than men do.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 01:43 PM
1

I have value outside of sex. To family members maybe.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 01:33 PM
1

Uhmmm oof? Sweetie yikes.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/20 01:04 PM
2

I fucked a woman engaged to someone else. I only found out she's engaged after we fucked and I still fucked her afterwards. Wasn't particularly thrilling, but after I found out I started doing way more degrading things to her. She's married to the guy now.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/20 11:38 AM
1

Give me an example.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/20 09:36 AM
1

Uhmmm ok? Like friendo like sweetie uhhmm cutie like that's just like oooffiee oweeee oooffiiii yikes sweetie uhmm.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/20 09:20 AM
1

I'm too lazy to look for the rolling eye emoji but that's basically what I wanted to put here.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/20 11:13 PM
1

I'm not aware of it. How does it differ from regular trp?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/20 11:03 PM
1

What the hell does that mean? You have too much money to care about taxes? You know even billionaires commit tax evasion right?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/20 10:42 PM
1

So you're either a neet or underage? I don't see how taxes don't affect you but immigration does.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/20 10:32 PM
1

I don't know what MRP is.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/20 10:20 PM
0

TRP got popular exactly because it was unpalatable. It gave you the brutal truth and told you how things work. If it tried to be some vaguer self-help book then it would've died in some bookshop for 30 cents a piece.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/20 09:42 PM
2

No it doesn't what? And most people worry about things that have an impact on them. That's pretty much something you have to do once you become an adult.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/20 09:11 PM
1

You're not affected by taxes or the retirement age? Well, consider yourself lucky I suppose. Most of us aren't in that position.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/20 08:30 PM
2

Don't strawman. I never said you should force anyone to do anything, and it's not like you'd have the power anyway. I just countered your statement that it's not a "me problem". Sexless people lead to low birthrates which leads to high immigration to make up for it which leads to an increasing divide between the rich and the poor as well as a decrease in average salary and an increase in the retirement age and an increase in taxes. This is an established trend among countries experiencing it.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/20 08:09 PM
2

There’s some societal changes, sure. Is it a big deal? I don’t think so. Fuck, don’t fuck, not a me problem. I love this pseudo-libertarian mentality as if these changes don't have an impact on you and yours whatsoever and anyone can just go through life being completely individualistic.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/20 07:32 PM
1

Lmao!
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/20 07:30 PM
-2

Great argument. Are you gonna deny IQ differences as well?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/20 07:24 PM
-2

How is he wrong? Women have contributed very little to art.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/20 07:09 PM
2

Have you ever had a fantasy about murdering some one? A better analogy would be a fantasy of being murdered. And if you were to say that paranoid schizophrenics had the same rate of fantasizing about being homicide victims as the general population, that would be just as interesting as women self-identifying as part of a movement that concerns itself with policing male behavior in the favor of female safety having the same rate as women that don't.
/r/BlackPillScience29/12/19 11:15 PM
32

no one should get out of the way for anyone else on the basis of race or sex or any other measure other than achievement. Oh-oh. Wrong think alert!!!!! Meritocracy is oppressive nowadays sweetie. Keep up with the news.
/r/TheRedPill16/12/19 05:38 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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