TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

kor8der Archive

View 3 posts and 286 comments by kor8der 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)
-5

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I do attempt to apply these things evenly. Given how FATL was banned for being a consistent and willful (or negligent) detriment to the level of conversation, and does not agree with this assessment, it is understandable that he will consider me tyrannical.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/06/21 05:58 AM
1

That's all right, where's your grievance with the sub? I'd be curious to hear about it.
/r/MensRights16/05/21 04:54 AM
1

That I am. A recent addition. We're aiming for a different climate than here, a bit of a place to converse, rather than argue, but hopefully we can get some people interested in discussion to show up, and avoid tempers running high.
/r/MensRights16/05/21 04:53 AM
5

Might I suggest /r/feminismuncensored? It's small, but we're trying to focus on conversation quality, over enforcing viewpoints.
/r/MensRights15/05/21 07:28 PM
1

You don't control how food tastes to you, or how your brain reacts to sugar with a sweet load of dopamine. Nor do women who stay with and protect their abusers tend to be in control of how they feel about those men, and the propagation of abusers tends not to be very beneficial for the individuals or society. Hell, the selection of a partner is selfish, not selfless.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/21 07:55 PM
1

The consistent thing is of course to advocate following our instincts sugar consumption with the same ferocity and conviction that you advocate following our instincts when it comes to having a taste in men.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/21 06:44 PM
1

Acquiring sustenance with a high caloric intake, and having a preference for such foods has been a matter of life and death in our evolutionary history. It is something that has been evolutionary adaptive, by the same token, seeking out fat and salty food is super important, so that we can have energy stores for lean times.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/21 06:16 PM
0

Women lowering their standards means she will likely end up with a sub par partner who will not be able to care for offpring, hence the standards. It’s literally life or death from a evolutionary perspective. I'm curious. What is your perspective on sugary and fatty foods?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/21 03:20 PM
6

Ah, succinct and insightful. Thank you for your service.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/21 12:15 PM
3

Does someone mind translating this to English?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/21 09:53 AM
6

I'm keen to hear where you think it misses the mark.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/21 09:01 AM
4

Of course women get rejected, it's just less likely than it is for men. Lots of men have things like a preferred type, or an existing romantic partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/21 08:41 AM
3

I laughed, now it's a joke again, simple
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/21 02:07 PM
3

Maybe they've been hit by women a lot, and realize that in those situations, defending themselves can be detrimental if you want to live a healthy life for the next few hours.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/21 02:02 PM
2

interesting, i don't know if we can rewire the sexes down the genetic level. like have only low t men reproduce or something for manymanymany years? Pretty much. If every woman stopped sleeping with high-t men, only the low ones would reproduce, soon enough, t in men would be reduced, if we did the same to feminine women, we should expect to see differences. But it would take a great amount of time and generations, even with a conscious effort. Of course it wouldn't happen organically.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 06:00 PM
3

Absolutely, that's what I'm basing it on. We'd have to rewire sexes down to the genetic level. Might as well breed away rape while we're at it.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 05:50 PM
4

Yeah, but we'll need a couple thousand generations for it. Or a couple hundred with conscious breeding efforts.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 04:48 PM
2

That presumes an absolute malleability in norms. I have severe doubts that 3, or even 10 generations that don't "teach boys not to cry" end up with a society where there is equal acceptance for men and women expressing emotions.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 03:00 PM
1

I don't think genderless childrearing is very possible, men and women do tend to inhabit different social realities, and I'm not quite convinced neutrality in child rearing is going to prepare them for that reality, or even change it.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 02:28 PM
2

If you take antidepressants, and it works, go ahead. I'm assuming you have methods for mastering the rest of it. Nobody's going to gain from therapy if they don't want it in any case. While the internet is full of worthless advice, just writing things down is a helpful way of working through your thoughts and emotions. Having someone listen is really just a bonus.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 10:39 AM
1

I believe that MBT is the current standard when it comes to psychological treatment for BPD, but I'm not a clinician. You get antidepressants over the counter?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 10:32 AM
1

That entirely depends, clinically, I would have no clue at all of course. When it comes to a more colloquial understanding, visible emotionality, insecurity, a writing style that is somewhat hard to follow in long form, and to a certain extent the externalization of mental damage to be something that is caused by outside events. Now I'm mostly theorizing though, because you've already confirmed my suspicions, and that means almost anything can be rationalized. But I'd probably guess that if you …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 10:18 AM
1

Hah, that would be poor judgment on my part, I've been voting for the Norwegian parallel to the communist party myself, either that or blank. Getting involved with someone older, as a woman, is also quite normal, it seems to make sense. It's a hunch, based on need for affirmation and a somewhat particular writing style.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 10:09 AM
2

It's toxic because it's overly combative, and trying to facilitate discussion between two groups that do not inhabit the same world. If ppd is the only place you're getting your information, sure it's bad. But there's nothing worse about this than there is about candy, as long as it's not your whole diet, it's fine. I'll abuse my authority as a certified asshole: A 40 year old stalking someone who broke up with them is worth even less as a partner than a stalker. I have no doubt you're crazy, bu…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 10:03 AM
2

If he's calling you crazy for that, it's a good sign you made the right decision. I don't know the particularities of your relationship with this guy, but it seems like he can handle rejection rather poorly. And I don't know how old you are, but I'd consider political shaming of someone because of their sociosexuality to be excessively childish. If you're the type to want attachment, and to veer away from flings or casual relationships, someone who doesn't respect that should be your last pick. …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 09:52 AM
2

Sounds like he's already serving triple duty as an emotional tampon. If there's a high chance of a relapse with willing prospects, I'd recommend trying to get over your crush.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 09:46 AM
1

Because of the overwhelming odds that his exes don't want to touch him either, but her exes would trip over themselves to be third in line to suck the cock that fucked her last.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 09:42 AM
1

What is your view on a guy who breaks up with exes, says to them he doesn't want any further relationship but keeps in touch with them in a regular basis, like chatting, videocalling or even hanging out? Does he fuck them? is this a person who is polyamorous? Does he have more than one girlfriend at a time? Who just wants fun and sex with new women while keeping the exes around to make sure he can go back to them if he ever wants a relationship in the future? Only if the exes are simping for him…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 09:39 AM
1

How about a deal, I'll only complain about the following: Mumbo is not a proper noun, you don't need to capitalize it. Same goes for Fr, type the words out, it takes little effort, and adds a lot of credibility. rlly just makes the word obscure, you're missing two vowels that have nowhere better to be. punctuation is your friend, when you're at the end of a list, indicate it with something. try thinkinging before you use initialisms. They make things less readable, and hamper your authority. ab?…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 09:35 AM
3

The problem here is that we are generally operating on two different definitions of feminism. What's the second definition?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 07:22 AM
3

Great, and the same would go for accepting feminism. What ideas would you outline as good?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 07:21 AM
6

Rather more basic. With the minimum investment in producing offspring being radically different (one lay for a man, 9 months, labor, and a period of dependency for a woman), the risk, and thus, the cost of short term mating is higher for a woman. In such a risk, having a high requirement for genetic potential is important.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 06:25 AM
6

this is due to the shortage of women (relative to men) in the casual sex market, which i explain here. Also, if you look a little deeper. Sex differences in the "cost" of sex are vastly different from an evolutionary perspective.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/21 04:52 AM
4

Some women don't want attractive men, most women want attractive men. I don't think within-group variation is big enough to justify not making observations about group differences. For example, men find looks more important, women find wealth more important. Men are taller, women's hair grows faster. These are observations based on reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/21 11:08 AM
4

I don't see how any of this negates any ability to make observations and phrase them accordingly. Sure, women also want handsome men, and most men aren't handsome.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/21 11:01 AM
10

If most women want a wealthy man, and most men aren't wealthy. That's bound to cause some conflict, not all women would be able to get what they want unless they shared. If most men are willing to cheat for a one off sexual relation, but most women want sexual exclusivity, this will also cause conflict. If you have a partner that suits your personal preferences, that's cool though. Most people won't get an ideal partner, and should be aware what the prospects are.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/21 09:21 AM
1

Cool, we're there: yes it did. Now what? If you don't actually engage with the science and talk about the reasonable conclusions we can reach, what's the point in this?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/21 08:43 PM
1

Men have actuallly said "Nice Guys Finish Last" so there's no dishonesty. Seeing that sex isn't a race, you're going to have to interpret it to apply it to sexual situations. Or are you saying that if a nice guy fucks a dick, he's going to take care of his partner's needs first? Be hot, be charming, and be good in sex. It's that simple. And be an asshole, as the data shows.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/21 08:37 PM
3

You would because it's intellectually honest. Why go for incels, when you have the chance to arrive at something halfway sensical. For example: Do men lower in trait agreeableness have more sexual encounters than men higher in it? Does the opposite go for women?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/21 08:31 PM
2

"ALL WOMEN LOVE ASSHOLES! NICE GUYS FINISH LAST What would you do if you opted to steelman this position?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/21 08:20 PM
1

I'm curious what standard you would judge physical attractiveness by, in order to make a comparable scale.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/21 12:14 PM
6

So you're saying he likes my ass? Sweet.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/02/21 11:36 AM
1

Doesn't seem like he brought much to the table either. In a sense, they deserve each other.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/21 10:00 AM
7

Odds are the woman in question didn't bring much else to the table.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/21 09:52 AM
3

Copernicus had lots of math and shit. You have a single trait difference and suggest it as a sole determinant for gender differences, no evidence. I don't know what you smoke on the regular, but it seems to have shifted your understanding of providing evidence for claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/21 04:05 AM
1

I couldn't say I would be a good example, being a woman and all.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/21 06:35 AM
7

The second I drop a Harvard published meta-analysis backing the things I'm saying, you'd respond with "bUt dIs wUz pUbLiSheD iN 2010", iT's 202wuuuunn" or some other dismissal that you have locked and loaded in case I get past Level 1 lol. Then don't drop it for my benefit, drop it to prove that you have any evidence what so ever to back you up. This is the wordy man's "get educated."
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/21 06:21 AM
1

You seemed to think that should be obvious. I'm telling you in a cheeky manner that it is not obvious, and you would benefit from being explicit about your sample so as not to come across as if you're mistakenly using any discussion here to inform a generalization about half the human population.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 09:01 PM
1

So the right way to treat this post would be. By far, with no competition, the easiest way to get men (on this sub) to understand how women (on this sub) feel about sexual attention from men (on this sub) they aren’t attracted to is to compare it with sexual attention from gay men (on this sub). Fuck, that's suddenly a very boring discussion. Oh well, here I thought we were talking about sexual dynamics in a little bit of a broader field.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 08:57 PM
1

Men obviously see women as privileged and are telling them to shut up about it because it comes with the good. To be clear: men on this sub only?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 08:51 PM
1

When you make a generalization about a group based on gender, nothing states that you are exclusively talking about posterior this sub. That's super odd. How do you separate a statement about men on this sub from all men. Or do you never talk about men who aren't on this sub?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 08:49 PM
1

Or I could go check a feminist space and come back saying women hate men, and think trans women are prospective rapists.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 08:43 PM
1

They have more investment in ideology than gender. I might as well go to a monastery and say men don't want to have sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 08:39 PM
1

And the same goes the other way. Now there's the issue that neither side can possibly comprehend the other. If I were to accept the claim that is. Men You keep using that word, and seem to refer to no group I have recognized as representative of men's general opinions or actions.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 08:36 PM
1

I'll try again: the unwanted attention is part of the deal, wanted attention is the other part of the deal. Lots of men would accept the cost of unwanted attention for the benefit of wanted attention. Focusing on only the unwanted attention is inane.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 08:30 PM
1

Men feel women should be greatful for the unwanted attention they receive. Oh, shit. Who's the pope for man opinions? Because it sounds like he was talking shit. Or Atlas is attacking a shitty straw man, and unable to attack a better position... Hmm.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 08:26 PM
1

I know it is based on a misrepresentation of the conversation it links to. Getting hit on is a package deal. Trying to separate wanted from unwanted approaches is disingenuous framing.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 08:19 PM
1

It's a very basic premise. If men got hit on by 49 men, and 1 moderately attractive woman over the course of 3 months, I'd bet that bargain would be accepted eagerly over never being hit on. The OP suggests getting hit on by 50 men, period. It does not include the fact that some approaches are desired, it goes "oh, you think this is good, well how about you got only the bad side." It is a colossally stupid analogy.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 08:13 PM
1

You said the analogy of the OP fails. The only other another analogy would be comparing the same thing. False dichotomy. There need not be a good analogy for this, I don't approve of the only other alternative you can imagine just because I see the continent sized hole in the one on display. Many unattractive guys approach women. Not EVERY SINGLE ONE is unattractive. Exactly the problem. There is an inherent uncertainty and gamble in the prospect, where someone may or may not be interested, and …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 08:01 PM
1

You cannot use a ugly woman hitting on a guy in the same way I never mentioned an ugly woman. If a straight guy was only being hit on by gay men, all the time, he'd understand the unwanted attention from someone youre not sexually attracted to is not a compliment. This is the issue. That's not analogous to what happens to women. This fails on the very basic premise of there being a subpopulation that is desired.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 07:52 PM
1

Two populations: [Prospective partner] [Men] This is two separate circles in a straight man's Venn-diagram. This is is one circle within another circle in a straight woman's Venn-diagram. You might as well say "Oh hey, you think being approached sounds nice, try rubbing yourself with cow pheromones and jump into a cow's pasture, see how nice it is." It's useless.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 07:38 PM
1

This is unrealted to why the analogy fails at the first hurdle.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 07:33 PM
1

Check up where I say where the analogy fails.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 07:32 PM
1

So to be clear: The only people who approach women are people literally zero women would sleep with?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 07:24 PM
0

This is so dumb I don't even get what your point is trying to be.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 07:06 PM
1

Unattractive men are men.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 06:34 PM
1

Two populations: [Prospective partner] [Men] This is two separate circles in a straight man's Venn-diagram. This is is one circle within another circle in a straight woman's Venn-diagram. You might as well say "Oh hey, you think being approached sounds nice, try rubbing yourself with cow pheromones and jump into a cow's pasture, see how nice it is." It's useless.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 05:14 PM
7

That's a really long winded way of saying you have no evidence. With the amount of evidence displayed, and the authority you seem to have, I wouldn't take your advice of how to wipe my ass, much less the primary psychological workings of half the species.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 03:11 PM
5

Oh damn that's a bad hypothetical.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 02:08 PM
4

By far, with no competition, the easiest way to get men to understand how women feel about sexual attention from men they aren’t attracted to is to compare it with sexual attention from gay men. So, love the compliment and appreciate the sentiment? Sweet.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 01:51 PM
5

You obviously had to spell it out, so you have no expectation of everyone knowing. Now whether you think it is common sense or not, does not relieve it of its burden of proof.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 01:25 PM
6

Cool. Got any systematic empirical evidence? A meta study or two would be nice.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/21 01:11 PM
1

How gender egalitarian is Singapore compared to these other countries?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/20 11:29 AM
4

Except men select for looks over anything else. This would need to be demonstrated with regards to long term partner preferences seeing as I doubt it.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/20 04:15 PM
4

This seems to touch on very simple game theory. Any woman able to understand the value of fidelity signals to a man in a long term relationship, should be able to signal that fidelity. If you want a long term relationship, and you know what men select for, then you should be able to optimize your chances.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/20 11:56 AM
1

This does nothing to address the differential in the priority attractiveness is given. ​ Both men and women have height, this does not mean that their height is the same.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/20 08:18 PM
1

Women put just as much stock in attractiveness as men do This is the part where you're mistaken.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/20 07:26 PM
1

Body fat is essential to our survival, it's not inherently terrible. The fact that there are other relevant characteristics in partner preference than attractiveness doesn't change the fact that men put more stock in attractiveness than women.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/20 11:44 AM
1

Correct, these are two different things. But both height and importance of attractiveness in a long term partner are both things that can be quantified and measured. When we do this, we find a shared result in these: Men score higher. This is why I use the example of height. Because it should be plainly obvious that this: but a woman has to bring more to a relationship than her looks. Is completely irrelevant. To try and construct an analogous irrelevant "but." Sure, men are taller, but women ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/20 12:19 AM
1

And that would be special pleading which does not invalidate the general observation. Same with the tendency for men to prioritize attractiveness more than women do when looking for a long term partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/20 11:51 PM
1

Okay, maybe a translation into the more plainly obvious would be useful: Men are taller than women on average. Agree?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/20 06:51 PM
1

This does nothing to refute the evidence or the statement.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/20 06:23 PM
1

Exactly, men just find it more important.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/20 11:01 AM
1

I see it the way that you see it the way it is. So we agree that men find attractiveness more important in long term relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/20 04:29 AM
1

Actually, you do believe that. It's just how I see it.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/20 04:26 AM
1

Yeah. Men still value physical attractiveness in a long-term mate more than women: rejoinder to Eastwick, Neff, Finkel, Luchies, and Hunt (2014)
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/20 04:19 AM
1

Ah great. That would be wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/20 03:56 AM
1

So to be clear, you think looks matter equally for both sexes when looking for a long term mate?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/20 03:05 AM
1

How well does this construct track with sexual infidelity?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/20 12:14 AM
1

as much Is this what you assert?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/20 09:05 AM
4

I don't think I'd trust him that far. Seems like the guy to very selectively present his facts, and more selectively present statements he disagrees with.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/12/20 11:13 AM
6

Progressive stack in action. Woman victim of patriarchy. Very important. Minority victim of racism. More important, enough to merit a 180 degree turn.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/12/20 11:11 AM
6

This presumes that looks matter as much for both sexes when looking for a long term mate.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/20 01:24 AM
2

Also, correlation with infidelity. Nice to know the risks involved.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/20 12:38 AM
0

Love too. So what if you partner hugs, kisses, and tells his female friends and coworkers that he loves them? Those are just actions. And really, objects are just things, they should be worth even less to rational people. So what if he buys more expensive presents for his female friends? As long as you're not actually losing anything, there should be no problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/20 10:08 AM
1

Well, no. Africa is not a nation with an independent state.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/12/20 06:11 PM
1

Child support and alimony are separate constructs. Alimony is giving a wage for having been married. This shouldn't be the default, but an arrangement a couple can come to if they decide together that one of them should sacrifice their career for the sake of the other maximising theirs.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/20 02:48 PM
1

Sounds like she's gotten fairly paid for her work. Unless we've got so evidence that her laundry skills facilitate million dollar deals any better than anyone else, there's no need for a golden parachute.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/20 02:45 PM
1

without the message of intent, what are you even trying to say in your original comment? Well, my secondary comment, but sure. I'll let it be summarized by others: In describing genes as being "selfish", Dawkins states unequivocally that he does not intend to imply that they are driven by any motives or will, but merely that their effects can be metaphorically and pedagogically described as if they were. His contention is that the genes that are passed on are the ones whose evolutionary conseque…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/20 02:43 PM
2

Really seems like this is talking about your experience in the face of hyperbolic statements on general trends.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/20 09:42 AM
1

the genes of any proto-species who didn't have these urges would not have survived to this point. Yes, the genes whose function promote further reproductive success in some way shape or form will outperform the genes whose function does not promote further reproductive success. The idea that your genes "want" to reproduce, even in a metaphorical way, is just wrong. You argue against a bag of dried cereal plant stalks stuffed into a sack to shape the facsimile of a humanoid. This has already been…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/20 10:05 PM
3

You're a walking sack of genes trying to push their existence forwards into other gene sacks. Love, hate, violence, sex, rape, death, bliss, and whatever else: they're just the carrot and stick they use.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/20 06:02 PM
1

I believe the fault is more likely to lie in your unrealistic expectations.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/20 10:30 AM
8

People knowing you on any cognitive or emotional level is not a more important trace to leave behind than people sharing part of your genetic makeup. Nor is it less important, because the meaning behind it on a level of importance would be inherently subjective. It doesn't matter whether the desire to leave a trace behind is irrational. Wanting to keep existing for another day when it will end in your death is also irrational, and we keep on doing it.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/20 10:26 AM
1

A gay man just has to be out there willing to pound to get lots of sex. But I wouldn't really say gay men are trash.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/20 10:16 AM
1

If they got enough people interested? We're speaking about gay men, right? One of the most sexually active sub-populations we have?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/20 09:49 AM
1

You view people who enjoy sex, and are open to sex without commitment as trashy? Do you mean to say that men are sluts?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/20 09:44 AM
0

Of course, and you're describing a group of people as trash, because they don't meet your personal expectations.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/20 09:42 AM
1

You still care about romance and maintain your high expectations there though.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/20 09:40 AM
10

Biology isn't morally prescriptive, sure. On the other hand, genes use you as a vessel to spread. There's no intent behind the countless drives towards reproduction and survival, but we don't need to pretend that survival and reproduction haven't been causal in our being here. Plus, reproduction is for most the best way to leave a trace. Blessedly few remain historically relevant in perpetuity.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/20 09:37 AM
3

What is the common denominator in your relationships with gay men? May it be that your expectations and aspirations are unrealistically romanticized, and societal scripts telling you that you'll get true love and your prince charming have set you up for disappointment?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/20 09:28 AM
1

Ah, you're one of those. And I said nothing about incentives. I stated the premise was wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/20 05:31 AM
1

Did you have any opinions of your own on the subject, or were you just making sure I noted down that you don't like TRP?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/20 10:12 PM
1

They do it to maintain a household. Doing something "for your partner" implies it being for their sake exclusively or primarily.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/20 10:01 PM
1

It's a significant factor on its own. Even when controlling for family wise error, and correlation with other significant factors.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/20 09:33 PM
27

Cooking and cleaning isn't something you do for your partner, it's something you do because you're an adult. Single men don't do the dishes because they love scalding hot water and soap.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/20 05:43 PM
1

There are also other factors, for sure. I have not denied that there are other factors. I'm claiming that number of sexual partners is a significant predictor. So can you pick out a study that link number of sexual partners to infidelity *exclusively" with no extraneous variables? I wouldn't do that, it's not my claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/20 11:00 AM
1

Well, there isn't just one, so let's start here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/000712605X47936 The results of moderated multiple regression analyses revealed that a respondent's number of sexual partners, level of dysfunctional impulsivity, satisfaction with current relationship, and quality of relationship alternatives significantly predicted inclination to engage in both of the extradyadic activities.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/20 10:16 AM
1

Sure, locally sourced even: https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/gqifng/excerpts_relating_ncount_likelihood_of_infidelity/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/20 09:58 AM
1

There is a correlation between number of sexual partners before a relationship, and the risk of cheating in that relationship, correct. There are also other factors, for sure.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 01:46 PM
1

It should be easily apparent that people want to fuck fuckers, and dedicate themselves to the dedicated. I am a programmer and trust programmers in their job to an extent. When I have a programming need, I'd like a programmer to handle that job. But when I'm at the hospital, I would really like for a nurse or doctor to treat me. Different folks are better for different purposes. When it comes to getting a long term partner,. minimizing the chances of cheating seems prudent.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/20 09:57 AM
1

Oh shit, PPD is a dating site? God damn, no wonder my inbox is full of tits. I've been wondering, looking for curious moles for months now.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/20 10:38 AM
1

Casual sex is an indicator for paternity uncertainty. Men want to minimize that uncertainty, and seek long term partners who don't indicate a preference for short term strategy.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/20 10:48 PM
10

I'd probably go a slightly different direction here. Don't be an ally. It's a word that smacks too much of subservient deference in my book. You can be a male advocate without having to put identity or lived experience front and center, I'm sure you can recognize social issues that a group faces without having to experience them first hand, and I'd trust people with systematic information at hand over those exclusively promoting personal anecdotes. If someone won't listen to men because they are…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/10/20 01:07 PM
1

If we're talking about the dictionary definition of hypergamy the reality is marrying up out of your class/caste/financial situation is HUGE, literally life changing Cinderella fairy tale huge. That's not what is being discussed here, may help explain the confusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/20 05:38 PM
1

If you'll see above the point is a rhetorical example, using a common observation to criticize a flawed argument. I find a lot of interesting studies for the first time on Reddit. I keep off the storytime subreddits though. I'm not that vapid.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/20 11:30 AM
-1

They, the researchers in question, who found male and female aggression to be equal. I'm also a woman, but I don't take anecdotes to represent general reality. Try putting your sex aside, and provide some evidence above what some pop science rag indulges in.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/20 10:45 AM
2

I'd love for you to go ahead and provide some sources to this claim. I'd be surprised if they didn't significantly stretch the definition of aggression to fit that purpose.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/20 09:35 AM
4

Exactly, I would have expected it to be some kind of counter against my argument, but that would require the user to be unaware of the invalidity of anecdotal evidence to counter a general rule, which I wouldn't want to assume.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 05:53 PM
2

Tribalism is hell of a drug.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 05:50 PM
5

Right, because I don't see how that would counter anything I said, nor how it would help substantiate my statements.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 05:44 PM
3

Absolutely, treat instances seriously, no matter the sexes involved.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 05:31 PM
5

I think there's a big difference in how a gender difference is handled though I also think it's important to acknowledge that it exists. We can't handle problem we refuse to understand.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 05:06 PM
13

I don't quite see the point of this anecdote.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 04:19 PM
3

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical originating in or based on observation or experience relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment Synonyms existential, experiential, experimental, objective, observational I don't think your concern with empirical translates well.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 01:57 PM
1

That it does, from what I can tell, the current use of empirical is that it is related to or coming from observation or experience. Like survey results asking people about their experience, or observations that measure behavior. So empirical in this sense, quantitative.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 01:17 PM
4

And it finds rather vast differences in the value we're talking about here, correct?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 01:14 PM
3

Yeah, I'll reword my response. I misread.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 01:12 PM
4

It's pretty damned relevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 01:06 PM
3

It doesn't seem like you have read it well enough to point out where it fails any scientific standards.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 01:03 PM
23

Great, so let's start here then: We found that ratings of attractiveness were around 1000 times more sensitive to salary for females rating males, compared to males rating females.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 12:57 PM
18

If you won't accept empirical support as evidence, what are you looking for, an emotional argument?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 12:45 PM
48

To the extent that both would consider a wealthier partner with no trade-off positive yes. To the extent that wealth is in any way an equal priority for the sexes, not at all in ten thousand years. And I'll add that rather than opinion, it is a claim with empirical support, so let's not pretend it's a simple matter of perspective or feeling.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 11:48 AM
2

Male preference for resources in partner, and female preference for resources in partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 11:40 AM
6

You do realize the difference in magnitude, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 11:09 AM
8

Thanks
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 10:39 AM
1

My romantic preference are 89 old billionar guys with cancer who accept to marry fast, wHo aRe YoU to bLaiM mE aNd cRitisCiziNg mY pRefEreNces. Good luck with that. Since today I'll follow your modern vision and cheat on my boyfriend everyday, but when he'll leave me and I'll look for a new one, I'm going to aim only men who don't cheat! This is a great example, having a preference for loyal partners make sense, even for cheaters. It's almost like you get it.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 10:04 AM
201

This seems to entirely miss the distinction in magnitude of its role in partner choice between men and women. It's like saying that both men and women have the capacity for aggression, so male aggression isn't anything special.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 09:50 AM
1

Money is not a romantic preference, Well, at some point, you will be patently wrong about what women desire in long term partners. She didn't chose him for his money. You really can't make a knowledge claim here, even discarding the anecdotal nature of your claim. And what I'm saying, men are trashing women and say that they are just interested in money, You're saying this as if only men judge women who look for financial security in a man. Again, patently wrong. but when this example has to com…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 09:42 AM
1

You can go around fucking everything you find and then have expectations of a romantic partner that didn't do this, if you were to get a romantic partner. Those expectations might be lofty, but they're not impossible. How do men call a low earning women wanting a high earning men already?? Mmmhhhh? I don't know if there's a saying exclusive for men. Given that rich men are happy to be together with women less wealthy than themselves, it seems they frequently call them "wife" Play the tolerant on…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 08:38 AM
1

So what you're doing is trashing people for having romantic preferences? Like overweight women wanting a fit partner, or uneducated women wanting an educated partner, or low earning women wanting high earning men? I can't agree that wanting a partner different from yourself in an aspect is something you don't have the right to do.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 07:51 AM
1

You said demand. If you'd like to explain what you mean with that, please do.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/20 07:37 AM
1

Demand? Oh shit, is that what all those riots were about? Well now I feel silly, I had never heard about people demanding virgins.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/20 11:29 PM
1

Predictor for dominant life history strategy. Is she likely to sleep around fishing for the best genes, or take her bets on a single individual, and invest heavily in offspring? To give you a dichotomy. Also, how many years do you date before you have a baby with someone, and if that baby doesn't turn out to be yours, because your high n-count wife cheated on you, how many of those years have been wasted? The DNA test is only relevant if broadly applied, and before then, it is a novelty.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/20 11:03 PM
2

This does track with the positive correlation between women's income, and their preference for partner income. Economic freedom doesn't really guarantee economic independence.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/20 03:37 PM
1

That's not the people he talks about. I could be having a perfectly reasonable definition of communist, but if I apply it to anyone left of Trump, I would be showing a huge lack of insight.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 06:21 AM
1

Support for authoritarian social policies, right wing economic policies, a tendency to oppose secularism, a tendency towards wanting racially divided states. Opposition towards immigration on racial grounds. Oh, and extreme nationalism.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 06:15 AM
2

The general concept of it, I'm already familiar with. So at that point, all I'm getting out of it is the information that he seems to have no clue about what is actually far right.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 06:02 AM
3

Okay good, and when I look at four non-fascist people brought up as "far right thought leaders" I realize that this guy, while he may have read some books, has an insanely liberal definition of far right.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 05:57 AM
3

So you agree he is entirely wrong on at least one count?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 05:51 AM
2

I watched it up to the point where his example of "far right thought leaders" is Akkad, Crowder, Peterson and Watson. At that point, you see how insane the operative criteria for far right has to be.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 05:45 AM
2

Okay, you're giving me a sensible chuckle at least.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 05:42 AM
3

I'm making fun of the video, but if that's you, fair.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 05:34 AM
1

I wouldn't trust that guy to identify the alt right any more than I would trust the alt right to identify whiteness.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/20 05:32 AM
1

I can, let me just use an illustration here. Let's say that we have the trait "Dominance" One group tends higher on it, but has a higher standard deviation, so it has a wider span, let's call that group men. The other group is more narrow. So if we set -2 as a threshold for identifying as a sub, there is a larger population of men in that extreme, and further out, than there are women. On the other hand, if we set 3 as the threshold for identifying as a dom, men once again outnumber women on tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/20 10:41 AM
1

Women with resources tend to want men with more resources. Pooling resources is beneficial for offspring and gestation.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/20 05:13 AM
1

MBTI is fine for discarding. Typing when the types are literally more similar than different is counterproductive. So you'll of course excuse me for looking at your advice, calling it anecdotal, and discarding it as relevant advice for my own situation. Your definition of ego is also rather confusing, focusing my ego on a single observation which you generalize to an entire trait is beyond inappropriate generalization. Of course, a blanket prescription of hallucinogenic drugs is a perfectly resp…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/20 10:25 AM
1

Huh, I thought the shrooms helped you.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/20 04:34 AM
7

I'd think you would add more than anecdote if you wanted to contest this claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/20 10:14 AM
6

Could be an effect of greater male variability combined with generally higher male trait dominance
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/20 12:36 PM
3

Spousal support is retarded in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/20 05:36 AM
2

MB lacks that basic validity of informative accuracy. I'd recommend abandoning it, even if it's easy to understand. I'll reference the study you linked: it talks about therapeutic value for people with depression, anxiety, and OCD. I have neither, you're prescribing a treatment without a diagnosis, generally medically reckless. You failed to define ego here. You're just attempting, and failing, at armchair psychology. Once again, ego, operative definition? What does it do, how does it work, how …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/20 05:29 AM
2

I'll start with the more pressing bit, what is the value of the Meyers Briggs personality inventory? Second, what is the diagnostic context of whatever studies you refer to? Third, what construct do you refer to when you're saying ego?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/20 05:46 PM
12

My advice, as a formerly turbo sperg INTJ, do a bunch a shrooms a few times to rewire the overthinking, over-systematizing, lack of capacity for empathy out of your brains. How much would you say your advice is worth? And does any of this description constitute that you have an authority to back your conclusions without data?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/20 10:43 AM
3

So does life.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/20 03:06 PM
1

Treating normal function as a disorder with a goal to reduce it to abnormal levels seems highly worrisome as a road to go down.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/20 10:10 AM
1

The usage of “value”, outside the context of any particular market in which a valuation metric can be precisely defined, implies an abstracted and holistic kind of value. Like that’s not just your value to this person, that’s your value to the whole universe. This is my first hurdle. SMV applies to a particular market, the sexual marketplace, that is. What would you say it means to have a valuation being precisely defined? There is always an additional level of abstraction where the value of som…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/20 06:28 PM
2

How is LVM a logical contradiction? I believe you may have been unclear in forming the argument here.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/20 02:18 PM
1

What behavior do you associate with mate guarding?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/20 09:44 AM
1

Entirely depends on the relationship dynamic. It's acceptable when it's not causing you or your partner any undue harm. Male or female that is.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/20 09:37 AM
2

Sounds like slut shaming based on the ideal of the nuclear family to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 06:36 PM
2

Sounds like conservative social norms to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 06:18 PM
4

Sleeping around has the extremely natural consequence of pregnancies lest an outside force intervenes to interfere. These bad boys go hand in hand. Expecting people to be in a committed relationship before hanking the pankies is the common denominator.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 05:45 PM
23

You mean like deadbeat dads, "not making an honest women out of her," and shotgun weddings?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 11:57 AM
2

And then you see the disconnect between expecting to be approached, and failing to accept the risks inherent in that choice?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 09:19 AM
2

Correct, putting in effort. Fishing, if you will, hoping the bait entices the desired fish. Rather than hunting, where you can decide what you try to catch.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 09:09 AM
1

Effort and money is being put in to earn male attention. Take makeup as an example. The average US woman spends an insane amount of money and time on that.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 08:38 AM
1

To be sure, I'm disagreeing that male attention is free, and maintaining the accuracy of the analogy.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 08:22 AM
1

I'm backing up facts about male and female age preferences. Whether someone uses that fact to justify some other theory is really not the concern of the facts I support. I categorically refuse the implication that people should deny empirical reality on the basis of their identity. I don't think physical attractiveness factors much into it, it's about long them mating after all, where women put physical attractiveness lower in importance relative to men. As for factors influencing this pattern? …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 08:21 AM
1

Well, I wouldn't say free, the spending to attain it among the average woman is higher than my own pizza budget.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 08:01 AM
1

Sure, 29, woman. Now please, give me your analysis.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 07:31 AM
2

The conversation was about the double standard intrinsic in expecting to be approached, and being afraid of being approached. Like ordering home delivery, but being afraid because the driver will know where you live. The solution is simple, go out and proactively procure pizza. The pizza here represents penis.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 07:29 AM
2

I'd have to know the relevance of the information here. And whether you've already assumed my gender.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 07:22 AM
1

I assume you see the difference between driving safe, and assuming all drivers are bad drivers, and stay home?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 07:16 AM
1

You obviously exaggerate as if women like men 15+ years plus. Let alone borderline grandpas. That was never said. You misread. Most women in their early 20s are triggered by huge age difference and only women in their 30s+ settle for big age gap. (To get married). And most women prefer older men, while most men prefer younger women. I suspect the slight age gap is also because men usually don’t have their shit together when they are young, but if a woman doesn’t care about materialistic side, an…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 07:16 AM
0

The problem where the analogy fails, is that the relative rates between positive/neutral and negative interactions is so absolutely incredibly far removed. Any time a shark is at a beach, the beach is effectively abandoned. The time spent around sharks is absolutely minimal to most people. A better analogy would be motor vehicle deaths. Most of the time, driving is perfectly harmless, some drivers are more dangerous than others, but when driving alongside on a highway, it's hard to discern the d…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 07:00 AM
0

No, you mentioned sharks. The most charitable interpretation I could see that the sharks were supposed to be those men whose nature drove them to harm women, and that that represents a subset of the men, which would be represented by the other aquatic beasts. Or do you mean that all men are in this analogy, unthinking predators who harm out of no malicious will, but because it is in their nature to devour flesh?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 06:42 AM
0

Great, so women go for older men, and men go for younger women. RMV has nothing to do with aging (otherwise all the divorces would be initiated by men or being dumped by them when woman reaches 35.) Men marry younger women, and the older a man is, the larger the age gap between bride and groom tends to be as well. Plus we see this in wealthy men, the higher their status, the younger the women they seek. Your prediction on the other hand, doesn't look logical. LTR Women who date few men and settl…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 06:28 AM
4

You seem to fear dolphins too, because you can't discern the difference. At that point, it's increasing to fearing the sea because your friend saw a dolphin once.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 05:57 AM
1

So things like men preferring younger women with increasing age, and young women tending to be more accepting of dating older men, that isn't real? Also, what kind of armchair is that? It seems comfortable.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 05:53 AM
1

Men's signs of youthfulness aren't as highly indicative of fertility, nor do they seem to matter much in women's partner preferences. Then again, when it comes to physical attractiveness, as long as he is symmetrical and masculine, smooth skin isn't really high on the list. And all this male “maturing” talk is based on the erroneous thought that hard work and achievement can make up for attraction. It can superficially but the woman will still not want the man physically. She will just tolerate …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/20 05:48 AM
3

Why is it okay for me to go around talking about how antisemitism affects Jews, but the moment I start talking about how they are a majority population in the economic elite, it's all of a sudden not okay?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/20 08:22 PM
3

Because it's a cultural norm, and because when western societies try to consider it genital mutilation, some groups hit the anti-semitism alarm, and shut that shit down. Oh, and because when some people hear it, they instinctively produce mental images of sown shut vaginas as the "true definition" of genital mutilation. I'd like to see what their definition of amputee is, three limbs or you're out? Or maybe they don't care because they don't need to retain privileges for a group there.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/20 04:34 PM
1

Beauty is probably the most subjective thing there is hence the whole eye of the beholder thing. Bull, find me a single culture where obesity, acne, wide and long jaws, and small eyes make up the cultural norm. These things aren't arbitrary, and the existence of outliers does nothing to disprove the existence of the well known norm. Sometimes makeup makes you look even stupider than you would with no makeup r/badmuas exists because of this. Sometimes climbers fall. That doesn't mean that climbin…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/20 03:49 PM
3

In essence, it's effectively used as a motte and bailey. On one hand, it is used to argue how bad masculinity is, and by extension, how bad men are. On the other, once that is attacked, it is treated as if all that was ever meant by the term, is that men suffer under the pressure to perform masculine behaviors. There is a third here, seeing that even the ones arguing toxic masculinity can't seem to agree about the definition: The extreme behaviors vaguely, or not at all linked to a societal masc…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/20 07:15 AM
1

Well no. Either your skin has plainly visible impurities, or it doesn't. Makeup covers it up, giving an edge by concealing flaws. Same with contrast between facial skin and lips darkness and length of eyelashes, a natural versus feigned blush.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/20 06:56 AM
1

That may be the oddest rationalization I've come across. So any results of the deception that have not been part of the primary goal, are then not technically affected by deception? Do you have some unique category for such an event?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/20 09:23 PM
1

In competition with other make-up wearing women, attempting to draw the attention of a popular man, for sure. Your logic presupposes that only men lie for sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/20 01:04 PM
1

So if I say I'm a millionaire to feel good about myself, and a woman bones me, it wasn't deception?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/20 01:00 PM
1

Actually, there is an alternative hypothesis that the gene that codes for cooking is the same one that gives the mangay, so it is women with the cooking gene and their daughters who reproduce more, and gay men's cooking contribution is actually rather insignificant to their reproductive success.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/20 12:43 PM
2

essentially the concept was to a degree hijacked by men themselves later on in the 60s-ish. I'd have to doubt here. I can't say I've seen a hijacking by men, as much as the droning march of feminist perspective on acceptable discourse narrowing.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/20 12:26 PM
1

I'm sure, if the first game had established a tradition of Gears of War looking chunguses running around all over the place, the break in the established world logic would be far less jarring. But something being a video game doesn't invalidate anything. It would be jarring if characters started teleporting too... oh wait.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/20 11:14 AM
2

More talking about the level of muscle given a regular diet of burritos, and two arm days a week. People defend that too. People will defend anything if they see someone they don't like attacking it. Bashing Joel's skull in could have been all right as a story move, if it wasn't contrived and retarded in execution.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/20 07:01 AM
5

So which is it? Men are, under reasonable definitions, hornier. If women are NOT as horny as men, why are songs like "WAP" so endorsed by feminists? Because feminist believe in equality first, and reality second. Why is it so popular and why do women defend it? Popular things don't have to be good reflections of reality. They will defend the song but never admit to being as horny as men. I don't understand why. There is bound to be an overlap with the people defending Abby in tlou2 being a beefm…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/20 05:48 AM
3

So, you're saying it's possible to recognize beauty standards without subscribing to them? I believe we could call that individual variation in taste and call it a day. Even though most men prefer a woman with a low waist to hip ratio, that doesn't mean there aren't honest chubby chasers. Even though most women prefer tall and muscular builds, that doesn't mean there isn't a subset that has the lanky greasy emo boi as a favorite. I think one would have to be blinded by ideology to deny individua…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/20 06:34 AM
2

“You” are your personality, character, memories, experiences, brain functions and thought processes, not your body, possessions, job or externally-bestowed accomplishments. Why arbitrarily restrict it to a narrow set of mental characteristics? Sounds like what religious people would sum up as a soul.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/20 10:53 PM
3

That entirely depends on what you mean when you say naturally. If it is in the sense that men desire more variation in sex partner, more often initialize sexual encounter, lower standards for sexual partners, higher amount of sexual fantasies, stronger sex drive, lower regret after hooking up, higher incidence of extramarital affairs, and a higher incidence of purchasing sex, then I agree. Especially if the implication is that this comes through evolved psychological mechanisms. If you mean in t…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/20 06:53 AM
1

I don't think this contradicts what I've proposed.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/20 06:33 AM
1

A man could build his status and income, and date younger women when he has an income as a boon. don't need to be too attractive if he can show status and stability.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/20 10:18 PM
2

I'd say looks is pretty huge. Besides that, fertility on the short term, and higher reproductive potential on the long term.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/20 10:14 PM
4

Conclusions: Advanced paternal age combined with maternal age significantly influences the incidence of Down syndrome. This effect may represent a paradigm for other genetic abnormal- ities in children of older fathers. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=no&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=downs+syndrome+%22paternal+age%22&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DaAJPHozphxcJ
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/20 10:10 PM
1

I most certainly couldn't, I wouldn't know what she looks like. From the name Margot, my first thought is some female Danny Devito.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/20 06:30 PM
3

non conventionally attractive Ugly is a lot quicker to write Should all the non conventionally attractive people in the world just throw themselves in front of a speeding train? People can take steps to improve their attractiveness, a little effort can go a long way.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/20 05:41 PM
1

There was no distinction between "short" and "long" mating strategies then, the concept of private property didn't really exist and children were everyone's collective responsibility. Do you have any sources on this claim? So arguing that women select men based on their wealth or capability to take care of their children is completely absurd. It's also readily debunkable by the fact the poorest households usually have the most children. This mistakes something having been an adaptive response, f…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/20 10:35 AM
1

Why?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/20 09:08 AM
1

At this time, long term partner preferences is the subject. I've yet to see evidence regarding the prevalence of extra pair mating in either sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/20 07:44 AM
2

Oh that's interesting. Wilson and sociobiology is mentioned within the book I'm reading at the moment, which is also written by Buss. It may have been the interview format, or any number of reasons why it wasn't featured.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 11:34 PM
2

Sexual selection is human behavior. A lot of evolutionary psychologists write about human sexual selection. Ah, I meant in addition to the "(notably natural selection)" note you made. It wasn't quite clear whether you spoke about natural selection inclusive of the sexual selection definition. This is very interesting though. I think the computational view makes sense, but then again, I'm primed in my career as a programmer when it comes to assessing complex systems as modules. I wouldn't quite s…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 10:28 PM
2

If you read the origin of the theory, you will find the the logic goes the opposite way of what you would expect, the discovery of the sex difference in jealousy follows the theoretical problems brought on by differing evolutionary pressures, rather than the evolutionary explanation coming from the observation of the difference. In this case, it goes from deducing a hypothesis, to evidence supporting it, to strengthening the hypothesis. This is very straight forward science. Furthermore, it has …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 10:10 PM
2

It happens whenever your theory (no matter how well it explains a limited set of data) has little validating proof. So the risk here is that the accusation is presented when the accuser has little overview of the validating evidence, or the underlying reasoning, would you agree? I'd be happy to look further into the sexy-son hypothesis and write a brief about it later if that would be of interest.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 09:57 PM
3

I'd add sexual selection, just to be sure it's explicitly included, seeing it's kind of a big thing. Which parts of evolutionary psychology do you primarily object to? And what do you consider innate in this case?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 04:08 PM
1

I see the accusation bandied around, though rarely see it given more elaboration than the generalized "just so" phrase, so I'd be interested in seeing concrete examples.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 04:00 PM
2

Men as a group did most of the hunting for the tribe. Not on an individual level for a woman, but as a group for the group. Women, children and the elderly typically did the food processing. Parts of this is debatable. While hunting does lend itself to having spoils shared between tribe members, it is also reasonable that in lean times, hunters will prioritize mates and close family. Both patterns of general sharing of hunting spoils, and prioritized sharing exist. Beyond that, gathering frequen…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 11:10 AM
5

Social desirability is indeed a factor in surveys, though it does not invalidate the construct entirely. Surely, it is far better than statements based on ideology. That's just hotness, attraction and love have zero to do with each other. It's very practical, then, that this specifically talks about love. Expressions of affection and romantic devotion. Extremely important in long term mating selection. You are of course, encouraged to provide some studies showing the worthlessness of dependabili…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 10:45 AM
2

I am doing my own research, that's part of the reason why I'm doubting your conclusions, my research has included a high focus on hunter-gatherer societies in evolutionary psychology.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 10:29 AM
3

I believe it's called backing up your statements. With as much as you've offered at the moment, we'd be on equal footing if I said something along the lines of: "No, Evolutionary psychology doesn't ignore how hunter-gatherer tribes actually functioned, in fact it is highly cognizant of the importance of such information." If you do have a degree in cultural anthropology, I'd be happy to hear more about it, but a single tribe, and historical literature doesn't quite meet the knowledge claim here.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 10:18 AM
3

Take sexual drive, evolutionarily speaking it was always a huge advantage for men to have a relatively high one as it's heavily correlated to how much they would end up reproducing. Oh, I'd absolutely agree. But if his sexual drive is too high, then extra-pair copulation rises in likelihood, and the risk of losing the long term partner to competition would increase as well. Women I think very much evolved to prefer ones with higher drives over lower drives for that simple reason alone. As short …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 10:05 AM
2

There are obviously no older studies on partner counts, but census data from early 20th century suggests that about 1/3rd of children were born within few months of marriage. That means they married because the girl got accidentally pregnant. The presented data doesn't support the exclusivity of the conclusion. So you are right, pre marital sex was far too common even before birth control came along. I'll note: I don't see pre-marital sex as too common. Not before, not now. I don't see a reason …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 09:58 AM
3

Okay, now you've said where you think the data is from, do you also have any academic sources where this information has been compiled and analyzed in a meaningful way?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 09:34 AM
3

What's an under simplification, she likes his "personality"? That in a rated approach to 18 characteristics, women express priorities, from most important, to least important, in roughly this order: Mutual Attraction - Love Dependable Character Emotional Stability and Maturity Pleasing Disposition Educational and Intelligence Sociability Good Health Desire for Home and Children Ambition and Industrious Refinement, Neatness Similar Education Good Financial Prospect Good Looks Favorable Social Sta…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 09:09 AM
1

So we agree that there is a positive correlation between physical attractiveness, symmetry, and health?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 08:43 AM
3

It repeatedly ignores how hunter gatherer tribes actually functioned. I'm very curious about your sources here. Women were the gatekeeper of the rites of passage. If women didn’t think the man provided value (especially protection) to the tribe, they made sure he did not pass the rites. To be clear, you're stating this dynamic is the dominant tribal structure in hunter-gatherer societies for the majority of humanity?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 08:42 AM
3

Ah, great. That's more like the questioning I am interested in seeing. What is your current understanding of evolutionary psychology?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 08:39 AM
1

Adapting to the mate chosen for her by the family patriarch for most of human history. Oh yes, problems in pairing do pop up when it comes to the chapter of conflict between the sexes. On the other hand though, indications point towards women's choices having been a significant factor in our evolutionary history.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 08:38 AM
2

I think it's important to remember these are general predictive trends. That is, they are the most common preferences. Absolutely, there are variations in preferences, some get locked into an abnormal 'type.'
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 08:36 AM
2

Short term mating strategies become redundant if every sexual encounter can result in pregnancy. That is my point. That doesn't eliminate short term mating. It's part of the basis for psychological adaptations for short term mating strategies. How many women even today will be ok with sleeping around with random men, without protection or birth control? Men selected for short term mating aren't random. Given female choosiness on the field, they are rather thoroughly vetted. It's availability of …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 08:32 AM
2

Let's see. Intelligence would be a marker of good financial prospects. Sexual drive would probably go under finding a mate who is compatible, seeing as I assume you don't want a partner with a drive that is much higher or lower than yours? And cooperative ability would probably be related to social status. Though yes, I'd say it seems to hold true, and a lot of this seems to be very much in the camp of "duh, we knew that." Some of these are exceptionally obvious, but it's nice to have it in a th…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 08:20 AM
1

It does, though that pops up as a part of the short-term mating chapter. It also mention how this can be a part of extra-pair mating, seeing that being able to benefit from paternal confusion would be beneficial in gaining resources for the raising of a child with a long term partner, while benefiting from the good genes of a short term partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 08:14 AM
2

It's not quite that they want the entire list. Or rather, it would be advantageous if every man was like that, but seeing that they are not, there is a distribution of more desirable men, and a distribution of more desirable women as well. Part of the limitation we see when talking about who pairs up with who, is that they often have similar "value" in the sexual marketplace. It adds a piece of security to know that your husband couldn't do much better than yourself, and isn't likely to abandon …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/20 08:07 AM
6

I mention parental investment briefly. While it is true that women have the highest minimum investment, it is also true that men also tend to support children in long term partnerships. In this case, engaging in reproduction would be ill advised before a certain confidence that the man will stick around has been achieved. With the existence of short term mating strategies, and non-monogamous pairings, I wouldn't say monogamy is uniquely deeply rooted in our psychology.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/08/20 09:19 PM
8

Not quite, when looking for long term mates, dependability and parental ability also plays a role for example, as well as professions of love, and kindness. Short term preferences would be adjusted of course.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/08/20 08:55 PM
4

Preferences are generally context dependent, in part, homogamy helps limit aspirations from rising too high.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/08/20 08:52 PM
1

Of course, it's not like these preferences need be conscious in order for them to exist and affect partner choice. I think that given the facets of emotional and social aptitude presented, it may be overly general to apply a preference of EQ alone.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/08/20 08:25 PM
1

I'd say that could probably be connected with a few of the different preferences: Social status Dependability and stability Love and commitment cues Emotional stability Kindness For example. Or do you mean that it would be related to a different adaptive problem?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/08/20 08:02 PM
4

You may want to work on the phrasing here. Saying that promiscuous women cheat more because of their genetically determined sociosexual orientation steps over the line from precise language, to unhelpful misapplication of the science in question.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/20 09:19 AM
1

It is not the necessity of the display that is bemoaned. It is the reaction to the display.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/20 10:05 PM
1

"don't really have" is an overstatement.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/20 09:56 PM
1

I don't see your point. Is it not inconsistent to display wealth, and complain about how your status is recognized through that display?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/20 09:55 PM
1

It may be rarer, though I wouldn't say not really having it is a good representation of the frequency.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/20 08:47 PM
4

Sounds like that would be more analogous to "if women hate having sex so much, why do they dress provocatively" I'd rather go with "If men hate having their status recognized, why do they wear expensive accessories and drive expensive cars." Which, I'd say calls out a rather valid inconsistency.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/20 07:51 PM
1

Emotional fulfillment really doesn't seem to be the reason men seek greater variety in sexual encounters.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/20 06:28 PM
2

That doesn't sound like any man I know. For bad sex, you generally have the saying doesn't matter, had sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/20 06:20 PM
2

Would no man brag about banging a model?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/20 04:57 PM
6

I don't believe promiscuous behavior needs moral justification. Nor do I believe an appeal to nature provides moral justification.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/20 04:00 PM
1

So you are asserting that previously learned behaviors would be replaced with new learned behaviors learned for the body they popped into for a day. Wouldn't the conclusion then be rooted in the impossiblity of instantaneous magical physical transformation?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/20 03:53 PM
1

Differences in life history strategy. Generally men and women differ in sociosexuality, but there's inevitable overlap in normal distributions.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/20 03:47 PM
3

I'd fuck them myself, but looks like the majority are straight.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/20 11:09 PM
6

Please, OP. You don't need an entire argument in your title.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/05/20 10:55 AM
2

I'm not sure it's necessarily an emotional thing. If someone has gone through a series of relationships with a short lifetime for each, it is reasonable to expect not to be an exception. In that case, if one were to desire a long term relationship, such a person would be an unlikely success, and the resources invested into such a pairing would likely be spent with minimal payoff. They can be faithful as can be, but if it's likely to only be a couple months of fun, why bother?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/20 12:07 PM
3

People use past behavior as a predictor of future behavior. If you're with someone who has had a frequent change of sex partners, people tend to assume that this is a trait in the person, rather than an effect of their circumstances.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/20 11:10 AM
9

I think that who has it worse is difficult to quantify, and the answer is going to have little value. I also think that those who offer the answer with confidence are going to be unable to show the work. Finally. If someone feels dissuaded from male advocacy because of disagreement on that question, I think they weren't principally in support of it to begin with.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/05/20 10:53 AM
2

Probably best to consider what honor was in reaction to. A honor culture doesn't just pop up because a bunch of guys feel like they should be violent. Honor culture is actually quite well linked to how much one stands to lose if one isn't vigilant for infractions.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/20 08:36 PM
1

I'm not sure how you imagine this working. Mate choice (and the greater choosiness of females in a number of species, humans among them) is one of the main ways evolution occurs. Do you mean that mate choice is not a thing in general, or that humans are a novel exception?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/20 08:17 PM
1

I think that may be overly pessimistic, and would be surprised if more than a token minority of women believed this.
/r/MensRights13/01/20 12:35 PM
-2

How have you arrived at these findings?
/r/MensRights13/01/20 12:21 PM
2

I think it is a useful illustration of the effect of implementing an explicitly sexist rule.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/12/19 05:43 PM
4

Terrible way to phrase a question
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/11/19 10:59 PM
3

idk why they're called TERFs. I don't understand the "Radical" part because they're right-wing reactionaries. I don't think that calling them right-wing is in any way accurate. If you look at their other views, they are keenly in line with radical feminism. Though the conclusion about trans identity veers in a different direction. This is due to how these groups view sex and gender. It's part of the reason I see it as much more descriptive to call them gender critical, because that's what a lot …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/10/19 08:59 AM
1

Nah, useless. Lacking insight, or considerable predictive value. But it's easy to understand, and that seems to help its popularity.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/19 03:00 PM
5

Discovered the whole thing through exposure to BP. Found it to be the saltiest subreddit I had seen. Subsequently looked at RP which seemed a bit up its own ass. I think there is a core of interesting discussion that could be had about the subject of gender differences in psychology and mating dynamics. But I also think the best attempt at this so far looks more like petty trench warfare. Also, given some of the offered social context, it seems inapplicable to most non-US societies.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/19 04:09 PM
1

I would say LPS would probably be one of those. As to how strictly children should be a personal or a community responsibility, and how one would handle a child with less than two legal parents.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/07/19 07:28 PM
1

Given this logic, men and women are dangerous. Seems useless.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/19 11:59 AM
1

Ah, the interpolitical groups I've discussed this in have generally been supportive, and I'm including the most SJW types they have among that support (with the exception of one male feminist, but they can't show that they like having rights I think.) I didn't throw this into the political party as my first move, I did check the temperature in the water before getting in. But I seriously believe that this isn't a step by step approach, rather multiple possible approaches that can coexist. Taking…
/r/MensRights17/03/16 10:07 PM
1

Step one for advocacy is advocating. Step two: see step one. I think we're doing it differently. You seem to have a waterfall model, where you complete one phase of the project before moving on to the next phase. I'm more of an iterative development person. As for parental surrender, the bit I'm focusing on right now, there's no need to disrupt feminism, or change the narrative, the fundament is laid, it's just that the idea needs popularity and attention. Giving a political party the carrot of …
/r/MensRights17/03/16 09:35 PM
2

That's great, You do Australia, I'll do Norway, we can meet in the middle somewhere.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 12:13 PM
3

Small party, they might actually do that. Plus, I thought it was MR Advocate, not MR Apathy. I know I may be shouting into the wind, and if I don't see any movement on that front on the next party program, I'll start showing up to meetings and keep on. If they don't want to hear me, I'll find someone else who will. It's all well and good to take the piss and vent about stuff, but we're thousands of people who can enact change.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 12:13 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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