TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

nihongonobenkyou Archive

View 1 post and 199 comments by nihongonobenkyou on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
22

Question For Mennihongonobenkyou/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/23 06:01 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Besides Reddit and short form video content, where do you hear a lot of narratives about women? (Friends, coworkers, church...) I'm a bit confused as to whether you mean "narratives about women" as in about the gender, or narratives in which women are the main focus. I guess in either case, I mostly hear them in long form content, specifically podcasts, though I have read a decent amount of evopsych literature (though that isn't really narrative driven). What was the last movie/book you saw with…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 09:35 PM
–

It's not exactly an analogy, more like a way to understand how perception works phenomenologically. Just as the material form matches a function, changing the material form changes the functions that form supports, and not in ways that are necessarily obvious (which is why making a hammer in order to support the function of driving nails also supports bludgeoning someone). When we say something is a "good" thing, or a "bad" thing, we are referring to how well the material organization of that th…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/26 07:13 PM
1

Sorry for the wait. Was about to get on a plane when I wrote that, and was shorter than I'd like to be. I didn't even notice I missed connecting those together to explain why I think it's a mistake. My bad. Also fair warning that this might get kinda heady, and I've never explicitly tried to make this argument, so if you notice any obvious mistakes or I miss something important, let me know and I'll try and correct that. Same thing with how intelligible it is. It's a very complex set of ideas, a…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/26 08:15 PM
1

Sex is not inherently good, because while it does serve a vital role in reproduction and pair-bonding (good), it can also be forced upon someone, used as a tool for coercion, or can otherwise harm the psyches of persons who shouldn't be engaging in it due to their current life circumstances, such as addicts or children. Sexual pleasure isn't inherently bad, because it is an enjoyable feeling that is inherent to the act of sex, helping to reinforce the good aspects mentioned above. Leaning only i…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/26 10:34 PM
1

To which part?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/26 01:36 AM
1

men need to start thinking of this as well Yes. and we need to start men shaming more and demonizing them for wanting sex more. Along with that pills should be made for men to not get any sexual desire No.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/26 01:35 AM
1

It's absolutely that deep. Sexual selection is a fundamental component in our evolution. The drive to reproduce is always in tension with mate selection, by necessity.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/26 10:49 PM
2

I see. So then, why do you favor some science while rejecting others when making decisions about your sex life? That's a legitimate question, by the way. I'm not implying that it's hypocritical to do so, as I think that sort of biasing is necessary, but I am curious why you believe it should be biased in that direction, while the other should be admonished.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/26 06:12 AM
1

Nah, man. You're talking crazy. I'm completely certain that the 60 years of reliable contraception we've had has completely nullified the 100+ million years of evolution as a direct result of the reproductive drive. Clearly it means nothing
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/26 05:26 AM
1

I can't imagine making decisions about my sex life because of someone's "research". Every time you've ever used contraception, you've made a decision about your sex life based on someone's research.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/26 05:19 AM
8

Fuckin ridiculous comment. There are women who get stoned to death for being sluts in some countries and yet they can also be raped with no legal consequences for the men raping them.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/26 05:16 AM
-4

Decoupling sex from the purpose of reproduction is a serious mistake. Sex is not inherently good. Sexual pleasure is not inherently bad. Leaning only into sexual pleasure is inherently bad, however.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/26 05:13 AM
9

I don't agree at all as someone who didn't start dating until their 20's. How late is 20s? There's a pretty big difference between starting during normal college years and starting when you're 28. Otherwise agree with the sentiment.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/25 10:23 PM
2

Two women I've been friends with both told me they no longer date virgins. Both had the same experience of the guy getting weird/clingy with them afterward.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/24 04:11 PM
1

I shill for evopsych a lot, but I like the phenomenological explanation for this. Essentially, love is participatory by nature. It's not a feeling, at least not beyond the basic feeling of desire. Rather, it's a way of being. If that participation begins to lack in some way, the love in that relationship begins to lack with it. That lack is what defines unrequited love. It's easiest to see this in the more extreme scenarios, such as an absent father who only comes around to see his daughter once…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/24 08:03 PM
0

Based and evopsych-pilled
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/24 05:09 PM
9

Given the environment, damn skippy I had my son circumcised. Imagine circumcising your child just due to the potential of maybe being bullied in school. You are a weak man, frankly.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/24 05:12 PM
8

It doesn't account for the total disparity, unfortunately. Genetic testing shows this has been true for as long as homosapien has been a thing, and it's constantly being reinforced in evopsych. To be clear, "hypergamy" isn't the term used (since it specifically implies marriage), but the phenomena is very real.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/24 11:08 PM
4

It makes me very happy to see at least one woman on this forum who acknowledges the biological reality of our species. Too often I am seeing people here making arguments implying that the previous millions of years of evolution somehow do not apply, due to the last hundred years of human prosperity. As if the most fundamental biological drive would ever change in such a short timeframe 😑 It's a very tough problem to solve, but I'm not sure how we can ever do so if people aren't willing to recogn…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/24 06:26 PM
12

Given that the gender ratio is roughly equal, whenever there’s a single man there’s also a single woman. But no one cares about her, do they? I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the hypergamous nature of human females. Mating never has, and likely never will be, a 1-1 pairing between the sexes. We all have twice as many female ancestors as we do male, averaging out to half of males leaving 2 offspring, and the other half leaving 0. It's not just a meme being spouted by angry incel …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/24 06:15 PM
–

I have other problems with EQ as a valid metric, but the joke here is that they both use the same statistical method for deriving their models, so it doesn't make sense to criticize either for that particular reason.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/24 11:29 PM
3

Because men don't marry data. They marry individual women. This borderline obsession with "data" is the most autistic thing on this sub. Right, but the data is made up of individual men marrying individual women. I don't know how that invalidates the use of real data for generalizing.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/24 06:48 PM
2

You're right, but it's difficult to even have a good faith discussion when this sub is run the way that it is. I try to always have some study at hand to reference before I comment, but I posted a reply to someone with data about height in relation to mating preferences, and it was removed without notice, just because it involved height. They're allowed to gaslight short men with generalizations that are factually incorrect, but attempting to correct that with actual data is apparently not "good…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/24 06:09 PM
9

What tipped me off to this on reddit is this recent fascination with "emotional intelligence". I've had people defend "EQ" as a valid metric, while rejecting the validity of IQ as a metric in the same fuckin comment.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/24 06:01 PM
4

Statistically, you are in the minority. I don't know why people on this sub refuse to acknowledge the data very clearly showing that women have a much lower libido than men, and that frequency of sex falls rapidly after marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/24 02:19 PM
29

People, especially redditors, tend to lump everything they dislike together as one thing, because nuance requires more thinking that they don't want to do.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/24 05:23 PM
–

The nature of the world means the environment regularly shifts, and problems come and go accordingly. Whether or not women had it worse in the past is literally irrelevant to the problems of the moment. It's this sort of flat conceptualization of things that resulted in pushing men to the conservative side. It blinds you to the genuine issues of the day by allowing you to think that men's problems are irrelevant due to the sins of our fathers.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/24 01:54 AM
-1

You cant say that about a specific age group without people being disgusted with you. What age group? It's a fundamental driver and need for people once they've hit puberty. They would have covered this in your middle school public education. Studies typically show that masturbating has very similar effects. Similar effects to what? Engaging in pair bonding behavior, which definitionally includes sex? Most people are not fucking for procreation. If you don't see how the timescale of 100 years of…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/24 08:01 PM
0

Sex is a fundamental psychological need for normal people, actually. Really the love found in pair bonding is, but that behavior includes sex by virtue of all of evolutionary history up to this point. Never attaining that produces considerable negative emotion in people, specifically to drive you to correct whatever behaviors are preventing you from attaining that. "Do you have a romantic relationship?" is one of the first questions asked by a therapist during the initial intake session, specifi…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/24 07:37 PM
–

Pills are, but the mating behaviors that underly them are real and empirically measurable.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/24 01:26 PM
–

I never fell down the alt-right rabbit hole like Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro. Tangentially related, but I always find it comical when someone lumps an Orthodox Jew and the guy employed by said Jew in with the actual literal neo-Nazis that make up the alt-right.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/24 01:22 PM
2

You're unlikely to get many people who understand what you're talking about about, but 100% agree.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/24 10:46 PM
–

It's good intentioned, and I don't think it would hurt to implement the advice you've given, assuming one is looking to maximize their chances, but statistically it doesn't help. That's not because the advice is bad necessarily, rather that OLD has fundamental systemic flaws when it comes to presenting male attractiveness, which I elaborated on here: https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1ggd4n9/comment/lupz489
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/24 10:22 PM
1

Ah, especially if he's looking for a mature personality in a woman, that makes much more sense then. I appreciate you sharing. I was thinking he might be in his 30s because that type of profile projects reliability and stability more than you might think (I mistakenly said predictability and stability, before). Really, it displays good characteristics for a husband and father, so I was sort of going off the rising average age that people settle down and start families. But yeah, photos of partic…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/24 10:44 PM
1

Tbh, just because I would be expecting it for the rest of my life. I got jaded about it like 15 years ago, discovered reddit like 13 years ago, gained some hope back, and then watched it turn out the same with this shithole website around 2015. So, I don't think that for any actual logical reason lmfao. I just don't want to be angry about it all the time. They absolutely could moderate evenly, but there's no incentive for them to do that. Mods are unpaid internet janitors, so it only makes sense…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/24 09:30 PM
2

Look into evopsych. Well, look into studies done on online dating. Not all are done by evopsych guys, but they have the cleanest explanations in regards to attracting partners. Ever since OLD picked up, there's been numerous high quality studies with hard data you can use to objectively increase your chances. OP has good intentions, but most of this advice is legitimately useless.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/24 09:11 PM
2

They're unpaid internet janitors, man. I can't expect them to evenly moderate femcel content like they do with the incels. I spent a lot of time on the pre-smartphone internet, and jannies being bad at their job is one of the few things that never changed.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/24 09:05 PM
1

How old is your younger brother? I've noticed profiles like that do way better with women in their 30s and older, since it projects predictability and stability above all else.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/24 08:53 PM
3

And god help him if he's short, because that sort of thing is a quantitative metric that can be screened right out. I feel for the truly short kings of this world. I sort of knew they weren't seen as attractive, but when I started looking at the statistics it caused genuine pain in my chest for my close friends who are below 5'7. Unbelievably grateful to be just above that threshold.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/24 08:48 PM
2

Statistics are valuable to have when having discussions related to broad topics like gender relations. OP's numbers are somewhat arbitrary, but it at least provides a jumping off point for discussion, and allows this sub to be only mostly useless, instead of entirely.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/24 08:30 PM
1

The issues men have with online dating stem from the nature of online dating, not due to their profiles, or women's evaluations of them. I had my younger sister recommend me to use online dating apps, since she's had much success with them. She helped me build out my profile and to take some quality pictures (she's done professional photography work in the past). She couldn't understand why it wasn't working, and was only pulling 1-2 matches per month. When I started casually getting into evolut…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/24 04:47 PM
1

I'll give you my Chinese teabag for free you fucking internet janitor fuck
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/24 03:39 AM
1

You're delusional. A mod made a debate post where the title was something like "All men would be rapists if they could get away with it". To the team's credit, it did get removed like 12 hours later, but you're not doing a good job convincing people that this place is moderated without heavy bias towards femcel content.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/24 02:13 PM
2

If I'm forced to choose your definitions, then number 2. If I were to go with my personal understanding of tradwife, then tradwife, assuming my spouse is a tradhusband.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/24 01:48 PM
0

First off, just as a point of clarification, "hypergamy" isn't the term used, as it has connotations of marriage specifically, but colloquially it is used the same way. The only time people seem to hear that term is when incels are arguing on the internet, so wanted to make sure thats clarified, since searching "hypergamy" isn't likely to bring you to anything from evopsych. Anyway, the prevailing theory seems to be that it's due to the major differences in reproductive burden between the sexes.…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/24 10:43 PM
1

Males didn't evolve to be hypergamous. If your view isn't changed by understanding that evolution is real, it won't be changed.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/24 07:04 PM
2

Within this subreddit, generalizations are so insanely common (from both genders, about both genders) that I feel like there is rarely a valuable discussion to be had. This is why I like evolutionary psychology as much as I do. Its one of the only times where generalizing from evidence is valid. When people say, "men want X" or "most women are Y", you can often find some relevant study with actual numbers behind them.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/24 11:53 PM
13

The concept of submission is massively misunderstood by both men and women. The ambiguity you're noticing is a result of this. I'm very interested to see what people say here, as I don't think many will have a solid definition of the concept. In my personal understanding, submitting is something you do in relation to a situation, not exactly something you can just show by acting autonomously. Someone who is submissive is someone who regularly submits, so you have to ask what sorts of situations …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/24 05:29 PM
2

OP is correct statistically, but only if you can still function as one unit in your marriage. If the options are screaming matches and shit talking for the life of the child, or a divorce where they hardly talk at all, the divorce will end up better for the children. If you are able to still work as good parents, without undermining each other due to the issues you have, your child is more likely to have better outcomes in life.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/24 07:00 PM
2

I used to live in one of the few bad neighborhoods in Utah, and used to regularly buy tomales from an early 30s Latina women who literally went door to door selling them. Reasonably priced and decent quality. That's a level of hustle you don't often see, period. Nothing but respect for her
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/24 08:37 PM
2

Attack isn't the best term, which I can see now thanks to the one person whose engaged with some civility, but I'm yet to find a proper term that captures the odd nuance and ambiguity present in rejection. "Judgement" comes close, and I think that's what I'll use for now, but the personal attack aspect seems to emerge as a result of multiple rejections, oddly. As an example, calling someone "ugly" is a personal attack, while any one rejection on the basis of physical characteristics is simply "n…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/24 04:17 PM
0

Not sure what is unclear. They may think it's rude, but I'm not going to continue allowing my speech to be curtailed just to keep up with everchanging definitions, just to satisfy the ego of those offended people. I have the examples I gave for that reason. If they take it with offense, even after I've said my intentions are neutral, then it is on them at that point.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/24 04:07 PM
1

Why would that be primitive? It wouldn't have anything to do with biology. Intelligence is attractive, and that doesn't go away, even if it's lessened as a result of modern amenities.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/24 12:08 AM
1

You're totally right about the term "ugly" being loaded. There's certainly a degree of ambiguity present in a rejection, which is likely better understood with, "not attractive enough". "Ugly" does contain connotations of general unattractiveness, and that isn't actually present in any given rejection. It'd only be after a large number of them that they could reasonably assume that it's "not attractive enough for nearly anyone", compared to just "not attractive enough for me specifically". As fo…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/24 11:54 PM
1

Right. Again, none of this I would disagree with other than the idea that it isn't a value judgement. You are judging their value as a partner, by definition. For example, the last person I rejected, it was first and foremost because he wanted to have children asap. Which still carries the implication that he is unsuitable as your mate as a result of a personal characteristic (personality). And to be clear, it's not some sort of moral wrong to reject someone. Even someone who understands everyth…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/24 11:12 PM
1

Sure, but that's on them. "Prostitute" is a specific term that doesn't necessarily apply to all sex workers in the way that "whore" can.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/24 10:39 PM
1

You're arguing exactly what I'm arguing, but you're drawing entirely different conclusions, and I don't understand how. Genetics were always a factor, but intelligence IS genetic.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/24 10:01 PM
1

Sure, but that doesn't turn it off. Exceptions do not make the rule.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/24 09:55 PM
2

That doesn't turn off biology. The drive to have sex IS the drive to have kids. So, control over sexual reproduction, to answer your questions, but even with that control, the vast majority of people have children at some point in their lives. The exception does not make the rule, especially not an exception that only came into existence in the last 100 years.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/24 09:55 PM
3

Not sure what doesn't make sense. You've not said anything I would disagree with. It's the judgement of one person about another person.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/24 09:19 PM
1

I'm not sure I can think of a better phrase to use that accurately captures this. The issue is that people tend to equate an attack with an aggressive action, when rejection is not necessarily an act of aggression. The only functional difference between calling someone ugly, and rejecting them based on their physical characteristics is the words being spoken. That's why I say it's implicit, and that there's no aggression behind a rejection. It still ends up being a personal attack, though. What …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/24 09:15 PM
2

Physical traits are definitely not primary for older humans. We are tool using creatures, making intelligence far more important for the survival of our ancestors. You're right that humans in highly developed societies treat physical attractiveness as primary, but that's a result of modern infrastructure and technology, and only loads on that when intelligence isn't valuable, not because of some fundamental change in perception. We just don't have to deal with mortality in the same way we did be…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/24 09:00 PM
1

It's not about those who haven't dated you. It's specifically only applicable to direct rejection, which is why I mentioned that being rejected by those already in relationships may not actually be reflective of any insufficiencies.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/24 08:50 PM
5

I'm not sure why people still insist that rejection isn't a personal attack (outside of already being in a relationship). It's an implicit attack, but it is still an attack on a person's characteristics, fundamentally. It's a judgement that lets that person know they are insufficient, based on their personal characteristics. Though, that's not to imply that rejecting people is a bad thing to do, nor that the person being rejected would be in the right to take it as an act of aggression. Ironical…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/24 06:58 PM
0

I wish that were the case, but it's certainly not. There's not a single other biological drive that is as fundamental as the drive for reproduction. It has been present since the simplest of life forms, and it will not go away. You're not going to turn that off by hanging with the bros
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/24 06:25 PM
0

It doesn't have to be an insult, as much as it is just an acknowledgement of what it is. It's like a lot of other words that have become taboo, where they were originally just a neutral term, but due to social stigma, there's a continual attempt to rebrand. The old term picks up too many negative connotations, and is replaced by a new one, which then picks up too many negative connotations. Rinse repeat. And I do not like that sort of thing. So, they're whores. Simple as. And again, it doesn't n…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/24 04:13 PM
3

Not that guy, but I personally dislike when people refer to a sexually promiscuous woman as a whore. That term should be reserved for sex workers. Maybe a promiscuous woman is a slut, but she's no whore.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/24 10:35 PM
1

I wouldn't take the body analogy too literally. It is a body the way an organization is a body, with a head that leads. In this analogy, the head just makes decisions. The woman turns the head to draw attention to issues she thinks are important, and the head looks and then decides if something must be done about it, if anything at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/24 01:13 PM
5

Not that strange, given our biological makeup.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/24 08:01 PM
1

While most men (especially the traditional type) like to see themselves as being above women in some way, in reality these men are under the control of women. I think it is somewhat both simultaneously. There is a saying for this. I cannot remember who it is from, as I heard it secondhand. "The husband may be the head of the family, but the wife is the neck."
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/24 07:59 PM
3

The comparison is neither compassionate nor reasonable.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/24 07:55 PM
0

Yeah, that's certainly not a definition I would use, despite the fact that all of those characteristics are desirable in a woman. It's just entirely too surface level for me. The why for each of those characteristics matters immensely. Ironically, just like the men who think that's what makes up a good wife, I also see a lot of women who are hopping on the social media tradwife trend thinking that wearing long floral dresses and not having a job constitutes "traditional".
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/24 10:35 PM
0

I'm sure the terms I use for this definition will get misinterpreted as well, but there aren't more accurate ones IMO. I think the desire to sublimate sex to the higher unity of marriage is foremost. Desires family, community, and the flourishment of both. How those conditions get met in a relationship will necessarily differ from the shallow image of a wife certain redpillers and insecure women present as "trad", but these values were more prevalent in the past, and the image of a wife of a giv…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/24 10:16 PM
-1

Trad in what way? People will intentionally warp that definition to mean something like, "confined to the home, zero independence, and greets me at the door with whiskey and a blowjob". Personally, I don't give a fuck about sex, and I would consider myself to want a "trad" wife, but not in the common definition I see insecure women here using.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/10/24 08:20 PM
14

You've never seen men jump to the defense of a woman without having any context as to the situation?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/24 10:15 PM
3

The intelligence quotient doesn't tell you anything about intelligence? I mean, I don't know where he's getting "wide band intelligence" from, since IQ is a measure of general cognitive ability in the first place, but it's not uncommon for persons a standard deviation below or two standard deviations above to have difficulties with socialization and communication.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/24 01:01 PM
3

Certainly so, but if he only ever loses, then it's unreasonable to call him a winner. I'd likely reject the idea that "loser" and "winner" are valid states of being in their entirety. A better framing of his situation might be that failing (at some point) is a necessary prerequisite for future success, but if the only thing he's doing is losing, acknowledging that is still valid, just as long as it comes with an understanding that it doesn't necessarily indicate that he is guaranteed to lose in …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/24 01:10 AM
7

Literally the only reasonable response I've seen in this thread. Everyone saying, "You set a specific goal and did not achieve it, but it's not a failure because reasons" is just setting the dude up for more failures.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/24 06:58 PM
6

The internet is full of real people, my friend. What you're arguing is that it's better to pretend that the internet isn't full of real people with real opinions. If that's the case, why do you feel the need to reply at all? It's not serious.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/24 11:07 AM
10

I'm sure the American medical industry will struggle very hard with that hit to their super small profit margins. Sarcasm aside, I don't think it would be as logistically difficult as you're making it out to be. Other lab tests do not have these logistical issues (or not enough to make an impact, at least), and there's more lab testing being done each day than there are births each day, I assume due to the fact that humans can't push out a ton of kids that quickly.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/24 12:10 PM
4

Oh, I've got no issues flirting. I just wanted to mention that it's certainly an emotional investment. Depending upon the person, it might be higher than you think, as even unreciprocated flirting is a rejection in itself.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/24 11:41 AM
6

It certainly is an investment, particularly an emotional one.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/24 09:06 PM
2

No, and honestly, I don't think any self-respecting man should, even if it was only for sexual gratification.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/24 09:02 PM
1

I don't think the people who were raised in poverty would agree with the notion that the meaning in their life is a platitude, a mere result of parents who weren't smart enough to see through said platitudes. Some things are more important than money.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 10:32 PM
0

I think that's a common mistake people make, though undoubtedly understandable, especially in the modern culture, but I don't think the people who live meaningful lives despite impoverishment would agree with the sentiment that their birth wouldn't have happened if their parents were better people.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 10:30 PM
1

Makes sense. As men get older, being single takes more and more of a toll, so I could see their standards broadening, with a mix of a bit of desperation.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/24 06:44 PM
0

I think family is worth more than any dollar amount you could come up with. There are families who live on an average of a dollar a day who seem to be far richer than many billionaires seem to be. Doesn't seem like a hard choice to me, personally.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/24 10:33 PM
9

You claimed men need to learn to be happy alone, but neither men nor women can learn as such. Nobody mentioned whatever shit you're on about
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 04:04 PM
16

Good luck overriding millions of years of evolution.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/24 12:31 PM
8

"I am approaching you with romantic intent"
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/24 10:12 PM
1

Maybe get some blood work done, and talk to a doctor to see if they can get you some answers. If not a doctor, there are third party labs that are pretty cheap out of pocket, which explicitly test for the various metrics revolving around athletic health. I take exogenous testosterone, and I barely clear 800 or so. Natty I was 118 ng/dL. At 1000+, you should definitely not struggle to put on weight or build muscle, assuming enough calorie and protein intake.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/24 04:15 PM
0

Sure, and I agree with that. Stewing over it isn't a very good strategy. I'm just saying, rejection does indicate something is wrong with you. There's a reason rejection hurts universally, across all people, in all cultures. The only reason anyone has been able to get away from that is due to modern sized societies making it possible to never have to see someone before or after a rejection.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/24 04:02 PM
1

Low IQ response :^)
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/24 03:54 PM
-2

There is something fundamentally wrong, in the eyes of that person. It's not fundamental in the sense that it can be generalized to all people in all interactions, but it is fundamental to both parties in this specific interaction. You can't change that part of yourself, and conversely, she cannot change what is attractive to her. Edit: The only reason people can get beyond the negative feeling of being rejected is a direct consequence of modern sized societies making it possible to never have t…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/24 11:12 PM
1

How long ago was that, and what about your free testosterone, and/or other related blood markers? Sometimes testosterone doesn't get metabolized correctly, leading to high levels in the blood, but low effect throughout the body.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/24 04:59 PM
1

Sure, though it's just so common for people to conflate intelligence with education/moral values, to the degree where it becomes pretty obvious what they actually mean.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/24 04:57 PM
2

Maybe she means education, rather than intelligence.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/24 03:42 PM
3

What's your levels like, and when was the last time you got them checked? After starting T, I built like 10lbs of muscle without changing anything about my diet or exercise routine. It'd be particularly rare for someone to have super high test while not being able to gain weight/build muscle.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/24 03:35 PM
16

my husband is 6'9" and I did not notice him at first If this is bait, it's genius-tier gold, and I look forward to reading the angry replies.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/24 10:31 PM
0

Youth and sexual attractiveness are highly correlated.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/24 08:52 PM
1

OP is entirely correct about this, though I like the evolutionary lens when framing fundamental differences between male and female sexual selection strategies. A lot of people see posts like these and either assume that women are hypocritical with their stated desires versus actual desires, or assume that posts like OP are calling them as such. It's just fundamental differences between the sexes. It's not a moral issue. People point to the modern shift in relationship dynamics as a counter argu…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/24 01:38 PM
–

That's not how divorce works, though. It's extremely rare for one person to keep everything while the other gets nothing. All I am saying, is that the new conception is not some kind of indication that he secretly believed it was only his money the whole time. It doesn't become his in a legal or even moral sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/24 12:38 AM
–

There's no evidence that's true. There's an absurd amount of evidence that's true. What do you mean? Infants aren't blank slates. They don't have a conscious articulated conception of "mother" the way we do. What they have is a biologically inbuilt conception. Yes, in the modern day, both parents can have careers, and both parents have to he caretakers regardless. It's the standard honestly, but, that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to generate the best outcomes for that child in an absolute…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/24 11:21 PM
–

That's what happens during a divorce, though. I don't think this indicates what you think it does, because there's a fundamental separation of categories that doesn't happen beforehand. There is no longer an "our" in a divorce, which is why children also get split between the two parents, if custody is even split at all. Neither parent would say "our child" when talking to their friends. After that divorce, they both say "my child". Same applies to money.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/24 09:03 PM
–

Because human children take an absurdly long time to develop. Someone has to place their focus primarily on care. Even in the modern day, where women can be the primary securer of resources, and child rearing can be outsourced, they will still develop better when their biological mother is the primary caretaker during the first 1-2 years.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/24 04:28 PM
–

Power imbalances don't matter in a decent relationship, because the power is just another shared asset. Very good take. Your comment gets to why I dislike the conception of relationships as a power dynamic at all. Roles exist for a reason, and what the most appropriate role is for a person varies based on themselves and their environment. Marriage is considered sacred for a reason (at least, it used to be), and that's largely due to both people giving or taking "power" at different times in serv…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/24 04:16 PM
1

Any group that survives would, yeah. Mammalian social groups always have some level of intergroup violence. If the question is whether or not they'd be able to adapt without any sort of violence, that seems unlikely. If it's not to remove some fundamentally incompatible member, it's some sort of dominance challenge in an attempt to restructure. It doesn't have to be direct physical volence, either. Outcasting someone from their tribe could mean death for that outcast, as an example. Or, it could…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/24 04:17 AM
1

Infighting is how hierarchy gets established and how it adapts to the ever changing environment, which is a necessity for solving complex problems.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/08/24 09:06 PM
13

Honestly, I reject the implication that the ideal partner is one who is the most sexually attractive, rather than who is the most attractive in general. Morality is hyper attractive to me, because I value it highly. The vast majority of women are sexually attractive enough to me that sexual attraction is always secondary.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/08/24 04:18 PM
3

Males are the violent ones Uhhhhhh, I'm not sure that's a detriment to their success here.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/24 07:23 PM
2

As it's reality TV, it was scripted for the women to fail In regards to that point, reality TV competitions aren't actually scripted in the manner you think. They are scripted, certainly, but the competition itself and the outcomes are not. Any show involving a prize of any kind is highly regulated, to the degree that there are positions in media companies specifically dedicated to ensuring fairness and compliance in these shows.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/24 07:21 PM
1

It actually just means "not guilty". The issue is that half of the public that hears that thinks it means "innocent", and the other half thinks it means "did it but covered his tracks well enough to avoid jail". In reality, both takes are fallacious. The court verdict doesn't determine either of those things, rather it just determines whether they're "guilty" or "not guilty".
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/24 07:05 PM
2

Clubs are explicitly for socialization, though. Nearly every concert has music and booze.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/24 05:28 PM
–

Domestic abuse from men doesn't necessarily indicate a personality disorder in those men, compared to just being particularly low in agreeableness. There's a reason domestic violence committed by men has dropped over time, and it's not because there's less psychopathology, compared to 50 years ago. The men who do have personality disorders are almost always lifetime criminals. These hormonal factors are the body parts thing I put a disclaimer for So, you understand those hormones directly affect…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/24 06:33 PM
1

Physically violent females are nigh guaranteed to have a cluster B personality disorder that will not be solved with either of those approaches. Females who experience a stillbirth have hormonal factors that play into the depression that males physically do not have. You can also take the 20 other examples people have given you in this thread, as well. I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse about this, or if you genuinely do not understand.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/24 03:45 AM
2

I never said the methods have to be entirely different, but they do have to be different in some substantial way, in some cases. That was sneaky. By definition, any program which is designed to solve a problem for both genders, which only solves it for one, needs a different approach for the other. It is a direct indication of some fundamental difference between men and women. If you want a simple to understand example, let's use domestic violence programs. Even when those programs are inclusive…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 09:47 PM
1

You're still missing the point. There's nothing about a given program that wouldn't be applicable to both genders, but seeking best outcomes means it should be tailored to that gender. This goes for women's programs as well. If a program is designed to solve X problem, what makes you think the cause of that problem is the same for both genders?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 06:53 PM
1

Because men and women are different, and therefore have different needs. Not sure why this is so complicated for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 06:27 PM
–

It would be easier to express interest in women, though. You don't get exposed to the same rhetoric that you would in the past, and that's largely due to a lack of social media. The other part being that pairing up was easier when your community was more localized. There's not fear of expressing interest, specifically because that's how it was done. It was expected that people would approach you, because you weren't going to find people online or something.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 04:16 PM
–

Honestly, I don't think you've taken this far enough, and saying it is so ''simple" is highly reductionist. I don't really have any investment in this particular argument, but I dislike reductionist thinking immensely, so I just want to ask a couple questions. simply because they feel comfortable in it Why do they feel more comfortable in it? Often do it simply cause they want to reach a standard they themselves set. What is the criteria for generating that standard? Why is it one standard inste…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 04:10 PM
–

This seems correct to me. In large part, this is another reason why historically, casual sex was massively frowned upon, while marriage was promoted.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 03:36 PM
–

Probably substantially easier just due to the fact that there isn't social media, and everyone is in smaller groups.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 03:32 PM
–

I'd argue the opposite, but from an evolutionary lens, due to the dimorphism in human sexual attraction. We too often forget that the biology we've evolved is so much older than birth control. So, in a casual encounter, the only thing she has to go off of is physical appearance, but the primary driver for female sexual selection has always been incumbent on the ability of a given male to provide, both materially and socially. Seeing a man who is tall, fit, and who speaks confidently, are all pro…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/24 06:57 PM
0

I fear that other guy's aggression and implied negativity about it will have you reject that point, but women do indeed spread the word about men and particularly the men around them, so that they can go in relative lockstep in regards to those relationships. It's an evolutionary necessity, though, not a moral failing by women, or some conscious conspiracy against any specific individual. If a woman knows a man is dubious, it makes perfect sense why she should tell others about that. And other w…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/24 07:13 PM
6

I think you're missing what this guy is saying, so maybe I can help. All humans need to emulate another to learn. This is why you can't verbally teach dating skills to people. They have to first have it modeled, and then they have to abstract that model in a way that it can be applied to their own situation. None of this process is necessarily conscious, either, which is why it's borderline impossible to teach someone social skills through language. And that still applies to dating. He's not act…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/24 06:56 PM
2

Certainly not at the rate men do, but I'm a degenerate, so trust me when I tell you that female on male rape fantasy is extremely common in femdom.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/24 06:38 PM
1

They use the term as an ethical indictment against women and pretend that women are never content but always looking to upgrade. Its existence as a weapon has nothing to do with whether or not that science is solid, though. If incel types want to misuse it, that's on them.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/24 02:57 AM
0

They literally do that in femdom subs, actually. That's part of the play.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/24 02:52 AM
2

You know why most women who say they're ready do so? Because they've quite literally been there. How many women do you know have had to kill a child in wartime? How many women do you know who would stay with their partner with their extreme emotional distress, on top of knowing they killed a child? There are women who are ready for that, yeah, but very few. That's an extreme example, but it illustrates the point that there are experiences which few are ready for, and even fewer when its naive 20…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/24 11:05 PM
7

I honestly think we need more male therapists. Or a coalition of wise men. Ideally both, but I've never met a truly wise man in my life. I can be vulnerable with the homies, but there are times I simply cannot explain certain things to them, just due to the depth of thought on certain topics. A close friend (of the homies too) took his own life awhile ago, and I essentially got my therapist to agree with me that myself and everyone else who claimed to love him but did not enact that love were pa…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/24 10:06 PM
3

Christ man. For me, I tried talking to people well before it ever became a serious issue, but nobody could understand the words I said, and often outright refused to even be a person to bounce thoughts off of. The fact that I have to pay someone to provide me with that support is a joke, even though he does a great job. Try to maintain your composure when you're in the middle of telling someone how you were raped continuously growing up. Try telling veterans who've had to shoot children to hold …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/24 09:43 PM
2

They literally do, wtf? Femdom isn't a new thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/24 07:23 PM
1

In a vacuum, maybe, assuming that vacuum also removes everything from me besides the animal itself. If I'm still conscious, then there is no such thing as having a vacuum with "no consequences". Love is transcendental, and it's not worth jeopardizing that by cheating. Even if I was single, flings do not afford the love I seek, and neither do they find me a life partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/24 07:04 PM
1

Holy shit man, thank you for the term. I've been trying to think of a concise way to describe the fundamental differences in mate selection, and hypergamy is already an established term for females, but I couldn't think of a good one to describe males. I think it just never entered my head because I only ever hear it used in the context of "open relationships".
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/24 06:54 PM
1

Is that even disputed by people? We've got an insanely large body of knowledge on sexual selection, both in animals and in humans. Women pay a disproportionately large biological cost to having children, and have a disproportionately limited timeframe to do so. We would not have survived as a species if women weren't the primary selectors, nor would we have survived if they weren't hypergamous. It is the likely reason for our superior intelligence as a species. For whatever reason, men seem to b…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/24 06:47 PM
–

I often think about this around the fact that your biology doesn't know what a "year" is. It's an arbitrarily defined unit of time. Nobody is attracted to an arbitrarily defined unit of time.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/24 06:09 PM
–

I think it's more of a way to talk about it generally. Generalization is often a given when it comes to psychological development. We don't all develop at the same rate, and besides your birth and inevitable death, the stages of life aren't actually linear. So, it means generalization is a necessity to even talk about it at all. Otherwise, there's no real way to get a full grasp on it. We do the same thing with age of majority and age of consent laws. People develop at different rates, and so th…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/24 05:58 PM
–

I don't get why people assume it's internet theorizing. I thought it was well established that women prefer men around 3 years older than them on average, which holds true cross culturally and across time, no? Unless something has changed, that is a preference for older men, just as on average, men prefer a woman younger than them.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/24 05:44 PM
1

What makes you think that it's an economic problem? We're the richest country on the planet, and we consistently trend towards it being easier and easier to have and raise kids. Also, the world could definitely use a little depopulation. You know that's straight genocide talk, yeah?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/24 03:42 AM
1

If you think they're even sort of equivalent, you should take a closer look at those country's work cultures.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/24 03:29 AM
1

I would hope that's a rhetorical question, because it should be obvious why you should engage with the core arguments, instead of providing a post hoc justification for ignoring them in favor of an easy "dunk", accomplishing nothing beyond some mental masturbation.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/24 01:35 PM
1

That's some tasty irony haha. If you actually believed it were merely subjective, you wouldn't have taken issue with OP calling 7 the average, as that'd be just as valid as 5. The point of assigning a scale is to reduce subjectivity. Any scale would be useless if it were merely subjective. Furthermore, how we rate humans on this scale may be subjective, but human attractiveness itself is an objective phenomena. This constant is part of the reason sex can be studied scientifically at all, as you …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/24 09:24 PM
1

I don't understand why people still don't understand why 5 is a bad choice for the average, if the scale is 1-10. The middle of a scale isn't the average. It's just the middle. The whole point of a ranking scale is to rank a given data set. Your choice of data set is arbitrary, so there's nothing that precludes all data points ranking exactly the same. So, if it's meant to rate the attractiveness of humans, then by definition, every single human must fall on that scale. You can't have someone mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/24 05:56 PM
1

I'd never say more attractive people are higher risk on an absolute basis, however, its been my experience that extremely attractive women tend to have an overinflated view of themselves as a result of a lifetime of free and constant attention. That's not really the case with girls who are pretty attractive, but have to put in substantial work into developing their personality, and maintaining their appearance. The entire social media depression phenomenon for young women is based on this fact. …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/24 01:25 PM
1

He's right, though. It's wrong to call it a "wiring", because it's not an absolute, but it is pretty basic evolution. Everybody on this fuckin' sub wants to argue about hypocrisy, but nobody wants to talk about the fact that males and females have fundamentally different sexual drives. Of course they want some to protect and provide. Why would our ancestors pick a mate who can't secure food, or drive away predators?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/24 10:47 PM
1

I notice many men severely misunderstand why women are attracted to money. It's made worse by women not understanding what makes a man attractive either, leading to an insistence that money has nothing to do with it. I think people tend to project their respective sexualities onto their opposites, leading to a lot of this belief that either or are hypocritical in their mate selection. The sexuality of males is primarily geared towards the visual, while the sexuality of females is primarily geare…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/24 07:17 PM
1

I mean, it would be a rare 14 year old who would be, but it misses why it's a problem in the first place. People have a severely skewed idea of what the typical CSA case looks like, as they seem to think that the victims are severely traumatized from the event, when the vast majority of those cases only become traumatic when recontextualized as an adult. These crimes are most often committed by people the victim trusts, and are committed without the threat or use of violence. They don't have the…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/24 04:23 PM
–

Stop using the term "alpha" as pronouns It rolls off the tongue better than "highly desirable and physically attractive male with the capacity for aggression".
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/24 08:24 PM
–

I really don't think people understand that the few decades we've had reliable birth control isn't enough to override a few hundred million years of evolution. The desire to mate is directly tied to the production of offspring, and the unfortunate reality of female biology is that fertility drops rapidly in their 30s.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/24 08:17 PM
1

Should be inverted. The goal as a parent should always be to help facilitate the development needed for the child to become the best version of themselves. That has nothing at all to do with happiness, and I'd argue that parenting oriented towards making the child "happy" leads to infantilization.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/24 08:20 PM
3

I'm not really sure that's the case, though. Trust isn't binary, and so it must be developed, as there are degrees of trust. Because of that, you cannot develop trust before you've already formed a relationship with someone. There's also the problem of betrayal still existing, meaning you must discriminate as to who you trust and when. You shouldn’t have to “guard” yourself to be in a relationship with anyone like that. I'm saying there's far less control over that "guarding" than you think. It'…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/24 10:40 PM
3

I agree with you overall, but I would step it back just a tit, and say that the term "vulnerability" is indeed the most accurate descriptor. Conceptually speaking, vulnerability is an inherent property of any configured system, independent of that system's strength. The reliability of a system (interpersonally, this is "trust") also plays a role in whether or not a vulnerability is exploited. Vulnerability is not necessarily weakness because of the relativistic nature of strength as a concept. J…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/24 09:10 PM
–

Wish I'd gotten in on this thread earlier, but I'll attempt to articulate my thoughts anyway. I'm sure someone has said something similar, but I don't want to soft through the bottom to find them. I don't think people understand the difference between kindness, and harmlessness. You need to be capable of being aggressive, if you want kindness to actually mean anything. It's a relative term, and without the term to relate to, it's meaningless. You need to be capable of aggression, both intellectu…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/24 07:32 PM
2

Does living in a foreign country, with a partner that is happy to do housework over holding an actual job, seem that unreasonable to you?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/24 06:06 PM
–

Ironically, this is the same rationale for why a lengthy sexual history matters, too. Really, it's just that sexual history matters as a whole, irrespective of what that history might be. It's not ever 100% indicative of anything, but it acts as a strong indicator of certain aspects of personality.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/24 08:24 PM
–

I agree with the sentiment, and it's largely why I disagree with the fools who claim that any person is culpable for the crimes of their ancestors. That said, I don't think you're conceptualizing it accurately. A lengthy sexual history is not some kind of betrayal. If you find it out later, then, sure. It's a betrayal. But, that betrayal is from the lie, and not what the lie was about. The past, is relevant to informing our future decision making. They're inseparably linked, cognitively speaking…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/24 08:17 PM
-2

Truly over? Never. But in terms of difficulty? I think highschool/college age is the easiest, with it steadily ramping up in difficulty as you get older. Sharpest increase around age 30.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/24 08:00 PM
1

Still yes. Saying "nah" doesn't make lying not wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/23 11:57 PM
0

Yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/23 01:20 PM
1

The one you mentioned, showing women score higher on these measures? The MSCEIT is just a model...
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/23 09:00 PM
1

Do you happen to have the particular study you're referencing, as well? I chose to do some research on this model, and it does not appear to produce consistent results, nor have much predictive validity, which are problems for hopefully obvious reasons. I'm not inclined to call any study utilizing it particularly good science, but I also don't know the methodology of the particular study you're talking about, so I don't want to say that for sure. Something like IQ, while a good model on paper, t…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/23 04:49 PM
2

You perchance have a link to that? I've done a decent amount of research into intelligence, and it leads me to believe that "emotional intelligence" wouldn't even be an intelligible and measurable thing, due to the inherently subjective nature of expression and interpretation. The only reason we can even measure intelligence is due to the ability to standardize the tests, and I'm not sure how you'd design a test like that for emotion. The vast majority of people don't even realize that "love" is…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/23 10:05 PM
1

All lying is immoral, and a lie of omission is a lie nonetheless.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/23 08:39 PM
–

Yeah, that's where I think OP has gone wrong in his analysis. It's silly to assume that it's because of jealousy, when it's statistically proven that the vast majority of women prefer to date men that are 2-5 years older than them. That holds true regardless of where you live or how old you are (to an extent, cause I believe that gap preference vanishes when the parties are middle aged). Obviously there's something going on deeper than every woman simultaneously being jealous over getting old, o…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/23 11:24 PM
–

I believe he's saying that explanation doesn't make sense, since statistically speaking, cross culturally and across time, criminal behavior decreases with age. Meaning that regardless of where you live, since we've begun collecting data on crime, you are statistically safer in a relationship with an older man than a younger one. If it were a "predatory" aspect of the sexuality of older males that was the true problem, then you wouldn't see an inverse correlation.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/23 10:13 PM
–

Very understandable feelings, but that sounds like a projection problem then, no? I think the point is that it's an irrational response in the context of relationships between two consenting adults.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/23 10:05 PM
1

I use the mobile website exclusively, so I'm not super familiar with the bugs on other platforms. I did have a similar problem before, but simply refreshing the page and making sure it wasn't a post reply or direct message has fixed it every time. If that doesn't help, I unfortunately don't know how to help you beyond that
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/23 10:51 PM
1

For sure. I'm not at all suggesting he shouldn't be focused on growing in the present, but I am suggesting that "you're still young", and "there's still time", are both antithetical to that goal. I'd go as far as to say that positing those two things actually draws attention to the worst case scenarios, rather than actions that can be taken in the present to better the future. Guy needs good information and practical advice structured around that, basically.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/23 10:13 PM
2

It's a misunderstanding of what "yourself" constitutes. You can't really fake it, and most of your personality is immutable, as far as we can tell, but you can change yourself to where your default mode is that of a desirable mate. Like, say you love arguing about politics, and your natural inclination is to argue about it whenever it comes up. Now, you could be at Thanksgiving dinner, and immediately create conflict. However, if you're developed enough, you can recognize that you'd rather have …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/23 09:25 PM
1

He literally said he can’t sleep at night and he feels like he’s “going insane”. If you think that’s healthy then maybe you ought to see a professional too. It’s not healthy. So, I agree with the sentiment, that a professional would be very beneficial, but I can't see that as unhealthy. Defining mental health is extraordinarily difficult, and it's not at all clear-cut. Two people with the exact same symptoms and cause of symptoms can have one diagnosed as mentally ill, and another as not, merely…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/23 07:48 PM
2

I am glad people here are being supportive of the OP, but I cannot tell you how much I despise the "You're still young! There's still time!" shtick. It will never feel like anything more than an easily parrotable platitude, unfortunately, and IMO, it's not the best way to frame advice for people like OP. Everyone has time, until they don't. OP recognizes the unfortunate reality that there will be people who live their entire lives alone, or who die before they could achieve their dreams. You can…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/23 07:22 PM
–

orientation towards truth literally that's it As long as that is maintained, everything else will be subordinate to it. In a long term relationship, everything falls into place. In all other scenarios, you waste minimal time with incompatible people, since both parties either know what they want, or actively seek to understand what they want.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/23 05:29 PM
12

It's only shit advice because nobody mentions the massive caveat that "yourself" should be a desirable mate. It's not an easy thing to do, because you have to balance changing who you are with the immutable portions of your personality.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/23 05:09 PM
1

Yes, because it spreads throughout the day. And again, how you choose to use it matters, which you should know if you read my post body. This vague disdain and lack of basic reading comprehension is pathetic, frankly. Sorry to hear this thread offends you.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/23 04:29 AM
1

Incorrect. I limit my time spent on reddit in a day. I also pointed out how you use social media is a factor. Again, please read the post body before being hateful. Thank you.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/23 04:02 AM
1

I'm unsure you are properly comprehending my post. I'd recommend rereading it before throwing hate around haphazardly. It's unrealistic to expect zero social media use from people, and I mentioned that, as well as the fact that reddit is also social media.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/23 01:10 AM
0

reddit is social media and is included in this post. Please read the post body.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/23 12:42 AM
2

Essentially the conventional wisdom I was talking about, yeah. That sort of oversimplification works in the vast majority of cases, though if you're looking to maximize on any one aspect, you'll be going pretty deep into it. But again, lot of complexity even in the aspects you're talking about. Not all protein sources have the same bioavailability, as an example. Some protein powders are outright deceptive in their marketing, advertising outrageous levels of protein per serving. They do have tho…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/23 11:24 PM
7

Mostly agree it's not weight training related, but I'd have to massively disagree about it being self-explanatory. There's a shitload of complexity behind "eating lean" that isn't covered by the oversimplified explanations you get from fit people and forums like reddit. The body exists as an integrated system. There's literally nothing that operates in isolation. The biggest layer the public is finally picking up on is the role of hormones in metabolism. An easy example relevant to men is testos…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/23 10:41 PM
3

Not necessarily agreeing with that guy, but a 5 minute trip outside is purely illusory. Sexual selection has been this way since prehistory. Females have always selected for the best mates, and so averaged over time, you have twice as many female ancestors as you do male. Highly recommend this Wikipedia article. It's surprisingly detailed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection_in_humans
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/23 04:25 PM
1

Individualism is important. I agree wholeheartedly that there's entirely too much generalizing that goes on in these debates. That said, there is still utility in doing so, as long as its understood to be a generalization. Preferably, any generalizations made would be statistical in nature, as that can serve as a useful indicator of a broader problem. I do often see that here as well, don't get me wrong. There does seem to be a lot more gender war bullshit here than I'd like, but credit where cr…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/23 04:13 PM
1

Yes, they are dominant currently, but again, that's currently. OP is asking about projections for the future, and I've not seen a single researcher or developer make a case for why it won't become extremely cheap in terms of performance.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/23 02:36 PM
1

Not powerful enough to be running GPT, but that's as it stands currently (ignoring the fact that OpenAI is deliberately trying to corner the market). Performance will improve over time. I mean, even the OpenAI CEO talks about local hardware being able to run this sort of thing down the line. There are also open source models that have a better performance ratio that you can run on your machine right now.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/23 01:31 PM
3

Language models aren't expected to be so, as time goes on. You can run them locally now. The limitations are with training data, but again, as the tech progresses, that gets easier and easier for modern consumers. I've never seen anyone talk about a future that doesn't end with everyone having a personal AI due to this. Even the CEO of OpenAI, though I don't think they will maintain market dominance with their current philosophy of artificially manipulating the system and refusing any sort of op…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/23 01:26 PM
3

Only for now
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/23 12:04 PM
4

You sure about that? They'd have to control all AI to do so, which seems extraordinarily unlikely given the general openness of the technology. While OpenAI took the greed route, tons of other models exist, and they won't remain behind for long. They have their source code and training data publicly available for you to download and use on your PC right now. There's also the issue of piracy, and you can bet that if tech like this existed everyone and their mom would be using it. You would not be…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/23 04:24 AM
3

If it's powered by a language model, it could very likely be run locally on your machine, meaning you'd really just be paying the price of the electricity needed to run it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/23 04:08 AM
6

Sounds more like a personal problem, rather than actual contribution to this discussion
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/23 04:02 AM
1

Probably wouldn't be, considering the differences between modern societies and the small tribes we came from. I could 100% see that being the case. I'd be interested in reading about it, if you've got some resources on it that you like.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/23 03:10 PM
2

So hypergamy only refers to social status? And the OPs post suggests physical appearance is factored in as well. It refers to any social hierarchy. That can be social status, such as a tribal governance structure, but it also means genetically, in both intelligence and physical make-up. They interplay as well, meaning the status can outweigh the genetic (and some genetics outweighing others), and vise versa. The reason it is a social phenomena is because it's relative to the other males around. …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/23 02:54 PM
0

Hypergamy as a phenomena is older than written language. You have twice as many female ancestors as male. That fact seems to trip people up quite a bit, but you can work the math out quite easily, and it's pretty close to accurate when averaged across time. Each woman leaves one child. Half of males leave two children, the other half leave zero. Not sure what argument you're trying to make using the term. Also want to point out that the things you're talking about are prevalent cross culturally.…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/23 01:37 PM
4

Hypergamy is a very real thing. As a term it's often coopted by the redpill guys, but women dating across and up social hierarchy is a well understood phenomena in the study of human evolution. It's not just a meme when people point out that you have twice as many female ancestors as you do male. That's actually true. Hypergamy is currently the most plausible explanation behind the rapid growth of our brains throughout our recent evolution. Women, as the sexual selectors, created a feedback loop…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/23 01:26 PM
1

Mixed signals is that. You are misreading what I've written. The same person can use the same signal to mean two different things, which I mentioned. That is a "mixed signal".
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/23 08:22 PM
6

Right, that's what constitutes "mixed signals", though, which the person I replied to was asking about, as they don't seem to understand what that means.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/23 07:29 PM
13

Literally, yes, but that's not a bad thing. Communication is mind reading. To elaborate: When someone speaks, you don't just magically receive their conscious thought. Rather, you receive a representation of it, in the form of language. You can then, take that representation, and abstract the meaning from it. What makes it complex, is that we also interface with each other in nonverbal ways, and those nonverbal ways directly interact with the verbal. So, we're not perfect at generating the repre…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/23 07:09 PM
16

It is for other people, though, and sometimes the same behaviors will mean different things depending upon who is talking to them. While a coy smile may be just an expression of awkward feeling, the same smile can also be an expression of nervous excitement towards someone you're attracted to. There's inconsistency in what behaviors mean, and how they are received, on a person-to-person basis. That's the point being made.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/23 06:46 PM
2

Sure, and I'd say it's often used that way. It's a very common for modern language to water down existing words to mere synonyms for other words, but I would argue its better to recognize arrogance as being the mismatch of confidence to competence, as it avoids this issue, giving a word to the phenomena, while separating it from things like the narcissistic boastful egoism that it's commonly parroted as. As an example of this utility: imagine you are the heavyweight world champion of mosy popula…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/23 08:40 PM
1

You're thinking of narcissism, egoism, etc. If you are sure of your abilities/qualities, when you don't actually hold said abilities/qualities, then you are being arrogant, believing yourself to be better than you are. If you are as good as you believe yourself to be, you are confident instead. Neither involve comparisons to other people, only whether or not your belief in yourself can be backed up by genuine competence.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/23 07:25 PM
3

Competence is a requirement for confidence by definition. Otherwise it's arrogance.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/23 07:14 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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