TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ilikegiraffes123 Archive

View 9 posts and 81 comments by ilikegiraffes123 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

If society thinks that a behavior is immoral and a group of people thinks that the same behavior is amoral, then it has the same outcome for the group as for them to say the behavior is moral. They oppose society as a whole. The reason for that lies in evolution, see the paragraph above.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/15 06:21 AM
2

Gaming the system is exactly what you think it is. Throughout evolution society could only function if the vast majority of men were "BB". Children without a providing father were almost guaranteed to die. This means that the "BB" were the backbone of society and this view got ingrained in moral values. Even though nowadays children no longer die without a providing father, the moral values of ancient times are still planted in people's heads. People on TRP seem to understand that and also conce…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 07:37 PM
3

I think that most people would agree that short-term and long-term mating strategies exist. Most people would also be perfectly OK with short-term mating inasmuch it is a 'natural' phenomenon. Womanizers have existed throughout history due to their natural charisma and looks. What pisses people off is the systematic approach TRP takes on short-term mating. This is where it goes against common morality. Here is a bunch of dudes that are no natural womanizers that are trying to game the system. Do…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/15 04:55 PM
2

Molyneux explains how the guy feels the relationship will be threatened if he asserts himself. Brings up guy's relationship with mom. Comes out that he couldn't strongly disagree with her without her withholding affection and care. Which is a huge reason why many men nowadays become pushovers in relationships. Agreed, even though these callers may sound a bit extreme, the fundamental problem is actually very common amongst men. The big take home message is that the spineless guy can ONLY fix his…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/15 04:36 AM
1

Increased social awareness is generally an impediment to courtship success. Do you think that a horny dog puts lots of thought into the best strategy on how to approach bitches? No, he just goes for it. That's why the rational approach to mating is always inferior to the don't-think-just-do approach.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/15 07:51 AM
2

Social sciences should be relabeled as pseudo philosophy. At least the philosophers openly admit that they are no use to anyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/15 05:30 AM
0

Assume that you have a group of five people and every individual in the group is doing their own thing. How well would you think that group would survive in the jungle compared to a group of five people that has a common motive and acts in union?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/15 04:29 PM
0

It may make people happier, but it may also make society more vulnerable as a whole. People can do whatever they want may also translate to "no one gives a shit about anything" which leads to social, cultural and moral decay and eventually to the fall of the civilization. See http://www.leaderu.com/common/nationsdie.html
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/15 04:12 PM
1

Honestly I don't know. I haven't heard compelling arguments from either side of the debate if long-term relationships are essential or not for society. Likely there is a trade-off, but is it big enough to have negative effects? I see it as a logical consequence of a society that shifts from growth in a harsh environment to decadence. One thing I know is that we have seen that before in Ancient Rome and that didn't end too well.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/15 03:48 PM
-1

Nowadays neither of the partners have compelling reasons to stay in a partnership no matter what. That's why we see long-term partnerships in a decline. It's a result of the modern decadence.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/15 03:22 PM
0

Does that mean that the loss of the family unit is without consequences?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/15 02:50 PM
3

This is not really my dilemma, but rather a dilemma of society as a whole. The breakdown of the family unit is one of the many consequences.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/15 11:11 AM
1

You could say that men as a whole are too stupid. Men in our society are not becoming more dominant, if anything they are becoming more feminine. I don't see any signs of reversal of this trend. Men that act dominant and object the moral values of society at large become ostracized.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/15 11:10 AM
1

That's exactly the point. Nobody knows what percentage is learned and what percentage is innate. As a result, you cannot make predictions of human behavior.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/15 09:19 AM
6

Germany/Austria: After a divorce, men in most cases lose the house, lose child custody and have to pay alimonies. But the public awareness is literally zero and people just tell men to suck it up and not be a pussy about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/15 07:22 AM
1

Humans are mainly a K-selected species. A large number of r-selected males would be detrimental to the society. That's why r-selected traits have primarily negative connotations.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/15 06:29 AM
7

I believe feminism is harmful to society. Can you elaborate on that? What does "harmful to society" actually mean? Does it mean that the society will perish and all humans will die? Does it mean there will be human suffering? Does it mean that the economy will go down? "Harmful to society" is using big words, but it doesn't mean a whole lot since literally everything is "society".
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/15 10:44 AM
2

Advocating traditionalism is misplaced reminiscence. Those days are gone and there is no going back. Individual freedom is something people won't have taken from them. Even if there was some major collapse of society, people would blame it on all sorts of socioeconomic factors rather than libertarianism. That said, how would you even envision collapse of society caused by libertarianism? The only things I could think of is loss of economic power, population decline or invasion by another country…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/15 09:05 AM
3

If you want to get a good feeling of what women want, just read a bunch of romance novels that are specifically tailored for women. You will get the idea. This will get you started: Master of Desire But wait, aren't you a woman, you should know anyway!
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 05:31 PM
1

The theory of sexual selection dates back to Darwin, Bateman and Trivers and is pretty much text book knowledge, so you won't find many biologists that have strong arguments against it. There is of course discussion about the details concerning specific species and a general cautiousness when it comes to its application to the psychology of humans. Most criticism will come from the feminist camp concerning sexual selection specific to humans. This site should give a nice overview of the criticis…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 05:20 PM
1

Counter-arguments to what exactly? You need to state the theory if you want to have a discussion. The theory of sexual selection is not an invention of Buss.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 04:49 PM
1

If you want to read a recent review of sexual selection theory, I would recommend this one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22394/abstract;jsessionid=C40D4816C850CCF607507DC2AF277398.f04t04 This review simply presents the data in a descriptive manner without stepping into psychology. Also, if you want to discuss specific theories or findings of evolutionary psychology, it would be best if you make a thread that links to the publication(s).
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 04:33 PM
2

Let's take an example, courtship behavior. In flies, this behavior is completely innate: The male fly will always do the same pattern of dancing and singing around the female. Humans also have a courtship behavior. Part of it is innate. However the margin of behavioral possibilities is so huge to the point where it becomes impossible to make clear delineations of what defines human courtship behavior and what not. In order to incorporate all possibilities, you end up with a definition so broad t…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 07:19 AM
1

Agreed, human behavior becomes predictable if you know the input and the processing. However, each of those factors is so complex that you would have to essentially incorporate thousands of parameters into your model to make any valid predictions about individual behavior. Psychology is not doing any of that (because it's impossible). That's why it fails to make predictive statements about human behavior. All psychology does is retrograde description: "Oh this person behaves like this, so he mus…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 06:56 AM
1

People can adapt and put on layers above but they cannot change their animalistic nature. Sure, but that also means that we cannot predict behaviors by only considering the animalistic nature. A simple example would be the observation that "men are inherently aggressive and violent". How can you use that information to make predictions about modern male behavior? The answer is you can not. You can say "men only have the tendency to be aggressive and violent". But how does that help you in modern…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 06:23 AM
1

What is key to realize is that the theory of sexual selection centers around concepts of "paternal investment" and "survival of offspring". In our society both those concepts are shifting from its ancient meaning. Fathers increasingly start taking care of children and the acquisition of resources to ensure the survival of offspring has become less important due to the welfare state and automatization. So the theory of sexual selection is still intact, however our behaviors are adapting to the ch…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 05:40 AM
2

Why do you waste time on TBP? Good point, I got nothing on this. I'm outta here.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 05:19 AM
1

I have a background in biology and I fully subscribe to the concept of evolution and sexual dimorphisms. However, when it comes to evolutionary psychology I have my doubts. There is a lot of bullshitting and theory crafting going on in that field. What people often overlook is that humans due to their superior mental capacities are the only animal species that have the possibility to completely change their social structure. A change in social structure also leads to a change in behavior. The mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/15 04:51 AM
0

That would only give you insights into the choice of those women that went through divorce and remarriage. But the hypothesis states that ALL women have the propensity for hypergamy. That given the opportunity, all women will leave their partner for a higher status male. How would you test that?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/15 07:56 PM
1

How would you design the experiment that tests the hypothesis of hypergamy? In particular the part that says that all women will leave their partner for one with a better status?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/15 07:05 PM
3

Well it is neither a good reason to dismiss nor a good reason to follow the RP hypotheses. It reminds me of those guys that create extensive models to try and predict the stock market. Yet they cannot even outperform the market index.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/15 06:28 PM
3

Most stuff in social sciences including evolutionary psychology is unfalsifiable. In addition, it is impossible to test TRP predictions in an experiment that follows ceteris paribus.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/15 06:24 PM
10

Paternity tests exist mainly to settle legal issues regarding child support, inheritance, adoption, immigration, etc. If a father demands a paternity test just to satisfy his curiosity it is often construed as a breach of trust in the relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/15 10:28 AM
3

If a male commits to a female, he wants to ensure that the children he raises are actually his own. Just like hypergamy, this is more of an innate behavior resulting from sexual dimorphisms in sexual strategy rather than a conscious act of decision making. That is not to say that changes in sexual strategies, as they are occurring in our society, cannot partially override these innate tendencies.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/15 09:51 AM
1

I agree, I haven't met any feminists or women in general that would expect the man to pay. Out of convenience, it would often be "I pay this time, you pay next time".
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/15 09:00 AM
0

Sure, you can criticize AWALT, no problem with that. That's not the issue. The issue is that AWALT is immune to criticism. You follow AWALT as a heuristic in order to maximize your happiness in life. How should there ever be a debate about another person's happiness? There is no measure of a successful outcome. Everyone has a different opinion on what makes him happy. That's why basically every single debate on this subreddit is bound to fail from the get go.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/15 05:22 PM
2

Presenting AWALT as a heuristic makes lots of sense, however that doesn't mean that it becomes exempt from scientific scrutiny. The outcome of two different heuristic approaches is still something measurable and therefore scientifically tractable. However if you cannot compare the outcomes of two different approaches (as is the case with AWALT and NAWALT), then there is no discussion to be had. Then one side just says "look guys, this works best it is obvious, I have had so and so much success w…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/15 02:45 PM
2

I would be OK with feminism if all women were true feminists, that is, if they all would acknowledge the responsibility that comes with authority. Also the idea that women can be turned into men is all good on paper but meets some obvious obstacles in the form of pregnancy, maternal bond, hormones and female preferences. As a result, feminism is doing more harm than good to women in that it devalues what women are naturally good at. You end up with unhappy family/career jugglers, dysfunctional f…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/15 08:59 AM
9

Sure, but as you said, the friends of friends can consult your friends.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/15 07:28 PM
21

Facebook friends usually includes people like family, workplace and distant acquaintances. Maybe 1% of my Facebook friends are actual close friends. I wouldn't wanna have all those people get insights into my sex life and mating preferences.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/15 07:10 PM
2

Comparing the number of genes or chromosomes gives you no real indication of the degree the resulting phenotypes will differ. The reason for that is that transcriptional regulation is usually more complicated than "gene exists or not". A simple example would be the sex determination genes on the Y chromosome that regulate a number of genes on the autosomes. That means, genes whose code looks exactly the same between sexes will be expressed differently depending on the presence of transcription f…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/15 03:16 PM
3

I'm not sure why make a post like this if you are not even interested in an answer. A MGTOW video will be as good as it gets, because any other channel wouldn't even dare to touch this topic. As I said, the guy in the video puts forward a very sound logical argumentation.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/15 12:41 PM
1

The whole concept is beautifully explained in this video: https://youtu.be/KkPVNTB1570?t=1m39s The professor in the video is very logically rigorous and manages to explain the concept of "alpha widowism" without resorting to an alpha/beta dichotomy.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/15 12:29 PM
1

but I doubt that it effects everything. It does not have to affect "everything". If you would have any idea of how transcription factor networks work, you would see that ONE gene on the Y chromosome is enough to influence a number of genes on the autosomes. Genomic imprinting is a fairly rare phenomenon in mammals If 1% of genes are imprinted, we are still talking about 200 genes. You were started accusing me of not having an alternative hypothesis. Yes, rightly so. The theory of sexual selectio…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/15 07:23 AM
1

You asked "Why do girls not inherit genes from their fathers?". I gave you three well documented mechanisms: 1) Genes located on the Y chromosome 2) Genes on autosomes that act as switches downstream of the sex determination pathway 3) Genomic imprinting Then you ask "But what about intelligence?". I tell you that this is currently too complex a question for research to answer, however I give you an example from a simpler organism that is a very plausible way of how it may work in humans. Then y…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/15 06:18 AM
5

Where I come from we don't even have a word for "dating". People just drink and party and sometimes randomly have sex. This will be the story of every single couple that you ask of how they got together. Dating seems to be more of a cultural thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/15 07:08 PM
1

So I thought, you got nothing. In your world sexual dimorphisms just appeared out of nowhere, like magic! If you don't even understand basic biology there is no way for me to continue this conversation.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/15 11:45 AM
1

Not sleeping around also comes at a cost. Regret. I was a good boy when I was at my prime (religion) and did not do what I wanted to, and what was easy, then. In hindsight, this was the stupidest thing I ever did, and it has caused me significant issues in later life. What issues did it cause other than regret?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/15 08:08 PM
0

Too long didn't read, what is the point you are trying to convey?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/15 06:14 PM
1

Haha, you are turning around the logic for a third time now, congratulations! So now you say an alpha may spin plates or he may not spin plates. In both scenarios he would be an alpha. Now this is the BIG question I am asking: [drumroll] "If alphas are not defined by their pursuit of women, why does TRP place so much emphasis on the pursuit of women?"
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/15 06:11 PM
-1

Sure, but that means that you are letting other people (society) decide over your life and they are getting away with it. If you want to have a family, there should be no reason not to make it happen. Marriage is optional, but even if you are married, it always takes two people to end up in a divorce. Cause and effect. Equipped with red pill knowledge you should know how to behave as a man in marriage. And the "safe choice" of raising a kid alone is obviously not an option.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/15 06:06 PM
1

This is painfully obvious. So much so that I fail to see the point of saying it. It means that your argument that "dating is fun and not a waste of time" is not 100% correct. Yeah, some guys, maybe. But most in TRP would hold onto the main plate and consider upgrading her, if she were that good. If that is the end goal of most people in TRP, then why is there so much focus on short-term mating in /r/TheRedPill? Wouldn't it be much more efficient to talk about how to best filter out the good girl…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/15 05:59 PM
0

So you admit that Barack Obama is an alpha and as a real alpha he is secretly spinning plates. So why does TRP not advocate getting married and secretly spin plates as a real alpha like Barack Obama would do? This is clearly the way of the alpha man!
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/15 05:45 PM
-2

I'm sorry if I'm not so familiar with your revered TRP lingo. Please do go ahead and replace "spinning plates" with whatever you may seem fit, however I'm afraid I must urge you to answer the question at hand, it is of great importance to you, me and the greater good of the world!
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/15 05:33 PM
6

Obviously. And when priorities change, behavior will change with it. So I understand that you do not plan to spin plates all your life? Since you reject LTRs and have a lower sex drive will you just live alone from 40-80, that is 40 years? "Constantly courting new women" is called "dating". It's usually fun all by itself, so the time isn't necessarily a cost. Fair point, but you may admit that not all girls are "equally fun". Some may in hindsight simply not be worth the effort or give you unnec…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/15 05:27 PM
0

1) who are you to say what gets dry or boring for someone else? He or she may find that sleeping or having multiple partners is fun for the rest of their lives I'm not telling other people what to do. I'm just trying to get other people's perspective through discourse. I had this experience of 'emptiness' in the past. I'm not sure what you mean about giving up rights to reproduction. Giving up rights to reproduction here means that you won't father a child that you instill with your values. Sure…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/15 05:07 PM
0

Divorce rate for first marriages is only 30%. Those are mainly unstable, low quality people, otherwise they would not divorce. So these divorces do not enrich the mating pool with high quality people.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/15 04:59 PM
-2

Why would I confine myself to your list? Because these are the 15 most powerful people in the world as defined by Forbes and you are making the bold statement that most of them have an "even more powerful person" behind their back who apparently also spins plates.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/15 04:46 PM
-1

Most of this list are Politicians which need to be seen in a stable relationship. Can you imagine Obama having a string of fuck buddies coming in and out of the white house lol. TRP centers its logic around the "alpha male", yet when you point out an actual alpha male and it turns out he does not behave according to their logic, the response is, "well, this is not a true alpha". The alpha male is and always was a 'public figure'. That is true for the silverback gorilla as well as Barack Obama. B…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/15 04:27 PM
-2

being married doesn't mean they weren't smashing ass that wasn't their spouse's Of course not, I assume you can give examples for the majority of people on the list? Your list is very short, and demonstrates high selection bias There is no selection bias mainly because Forbes obviously did not care if people were married or not. there's more than one kind of power. Being an elected official appears powerful, but being the dude in the shadows that owns that politician is even moreso. I understand…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/15 04:13 PM
5

When you did your cost/benefit analysis did you also consider the following points: You will get older. Your sex drive will decrease. That means, what is of high priority to you now, won't be 15 years from now. Sleeping around does not come without cost. Time is a resource. And constantly courting new women requires more time than you may realize. Sleeping around is fun for a while but gets dry and boring pretty fast. The more you engage in short-term mating, the more you long for some kind of '…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/15 03:39 PM
1

So you are not gonna tell us your alternative theory of how sexual dimorphisms evolved? I assume that you don't have one?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/15 05:38 AM
2

You seem to vastly overestimate the current state of research in neuroscience and genetics. Relating genes to neuronal development and function is one of the most complex questions mankind can ask. However, there is a prime example from simpler organisms: In fruit flies, a gene called fruitless is required for wiring the sexually dimorphic brain. Neurons in which this gene is expressed have been traced and it was shown that their wiring is completely different in male and female brain. It turns …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/15 09:15 AM
1

Men are both parents and providers and protectors though. Pre-feminism no. That is the whole point. "Parent" only implies genetics, not actual investment. Women carry the weight of parental investment in the form of menstruation, pregnancy and maternal bond. Traditionally that also implied raising the kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/15 08:51 AM
1

It is irrelevant for the allegory to work if NBA players and surgeons are men or not. You can give the same example with female NBA players and female surgeons. What the allegory tries to emphasize is that there are two different groups of people that fulfill different roles in society. To say that the role of parental investment is less important than the role of provision and protection is simply incorrect because both roles are prerequisites for humanity to survive.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/15 07:19 AM
2

"Objectively" here means "as an outside non-human observer". Consider a human who observes an ant colony: For him to say "The workers are superior to the queen" would be a ridiculous statement. Both workers and queen are critical for survival of the ant colony. The workers are better at working, the queen is better at producing eggs. Now consider another statement: "An NBA player is superior to a heart surgeon". This statement is equally ridiculous because both fulfill different roles. The NBA p…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/15 06:18 AM
2

The Y chromosome is generally considered to be the main factor that defines sexual dimorphisms in humans. See http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534798015675 For the second question look up 'genomic imprinting'.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/15 03:05 AM
2

Generally, males have a Y chromosome that is not passed on to female offspring (Males: XY, Females: XX). In addition, even on autosomes some alleles can be asymmetrically affected via epigenetics (e.g. paternal imprinting).
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/15 12:29 AM
13

I don't think it's the feminists who say that women are inferior I didn't say that. What I said is that feminists started to value the things males are naturally good at (competition) more than their own strengths (parental investment). As a result, the feminist movement unwillingly put women into a position of inferiority.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/15 12:31 PM
15

It really depends on what is valued in a society. Objectively, no one sex is superior to the other. But here it is where things get more complicated. In biology, the members of one sex compete against each other for access to the other sex that has to carry the most weight of parental investment. Mind that it is not always the males who compete in all animal species. There are certain bird species who have the roles reversed: Females give birth and males take over care of the child. As a result,…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/15 12:01 PM
3

Life is a shit test.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/15 09:15 PM
1

A self-help group is obviously not the place to discuss science because of group think and the lack of peer review or the scientific method. As far as I know, challenging red pill ideas is even disallowed on /r/TRP. But you can go to /r/evopsych or /r/psychology and ask them what they think of red pill concepts. That said, I would not mind having a subreddit that is dedicated to discussing solely the science behind red pill without all the self-help and dating aspects.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/15 06:59 AM
3

The point is that the high status male does not "want" it as much because he sees the abundance of women. It is the opposite mentality of the average chump who sees pursuing women as the highest goal in life.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/15 02:53 PM
0

Well observed, the world is not fair. And that is why it is so important for the normal chump to acquire the mindset of the high status male. This is a matter of completely changing ones motivations regarding women. Remember, the high status male thinks that women are low on demand. This is exactly the kind of mindset the normal chump needs to get into. By centering his life around women, the normal chump inevitably reaches a ceiling sooner or later. However by realizing that sex and women are l…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/15 02:30 PM
0

The conclusion I draw from it is that for the normal chump attaining high status has priority over pursuing women. Any effort he spends on pickup and pursuing women is not spent on acquiring high status and therefore lost effort. Once he has achieved high status, women will flock. You have to acquire the mindset of the high status male. And that is the one that women are not on high demand.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/15 01:50 PM
-1

Incorrect, you are again assuming that there is a motivation to want the cake. If you can have all the cake in the world, cake becomes completely uninteresting. This is basic psychology.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/15 01:35 PM
0

Yes, exactly. The high status male sees a shift from him pursuing women to him being the one being pursued. The power dynamic has shifted. Suddenly the gatekeeper of commitment is the one being on high demand. Meanwhile all the normal chumps are still pursuing women because they think the gatekeepers of sex are on high demand.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/15 01:28 PM
0

No, that's not what I'm saying. Read again!
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/15 01:16 PM
-1

Agreed. Then it becomes a question of "what the man wants to happen". And my argument is that a high status male that is flocked by women will not have the motivation to put effort into approaching women because he understands that he is the one that is sought after. Women understand that subconsciously and see men who actively pursue as lower status.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/15 12:53 PM
-1

I thought that "not putting women on a pedestal" was one of the basic tenets of red pill knowledge. So when you say "omg, I will never see this woman again, I have to approach", you are putting her on a pedestal. A high status male realizes that he is the one who is putting value on the table. Women have to put in some effort in order to raise his interest. As a result, the high status male will never chase women or initiate contact. He sees "fucking tons of chicks" never as a major goal in life…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/15 10:53 AM
3

Apart from the mentioned, the following channels do stand out: CS MGTOW https://youtu.be/6vuq-DDXqDw Dark Knight https://youtu.be/b5RwrZ312vA The Backlash! https://youtu.be/ewzykGQVG0g
/r/MGTOW03/08/15 12:11 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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