TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

notevenathrowaway456 Archive

View 2 posts and 37 comments by notevenathrowaway456 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Only below average guys who rarely if ever set foot in a club believe this drivel, OP. The top 20% of guys can get laid pretty much at will any single weekend, most weekends without even approaching themselves. Not by hot girls obviously but Coolidge Effect is your friend. I highly doubt this effect is locality dependent in the West as I've witnessed it personally in places as disparate as the US East Coast, Central-Continental Europe, Southern Europe and Westernized Asia. Most actual club-goers…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/18 01:11 AM
1

This is not helping man. The OP does not say what you suggest it says. Literally the most voted reply in this thread is about a sleazy clownish guy, not a guy who doesn't give up after a couple of tries. I can into nuance very well, but this is not about nuance, what it is about is a huge motte&bailey argument that blues keep throwing around and that must stay down. Bailey: You must burn through 100s of rejections to get laid and this is somehow normal. Answer (with proof): No sexually adjusted …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/17 08:03 PM
3

Ok, then why should people care? Genuine question. All what this sounds like is "loser" mentality to me. All it sounds like is "I can't win so why should I bother trying?". Quite frankly that is fair. It is their life and you can do whatever you really want, but to act that most people don't get some kind of success in the long run with this approach is bollocks. It's depressing to note that the space of this discourse seems to be confined to a collection of 5-6 copouts that get repeated ad naus…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/17 12:13 AM
3

I've done quite a lot of martial arts training. In 100% of the cases when one of the guys is just taking hits (i.e. the exchange becomes too one-sided), any form of sparring is stopped, because it has (very) negative effects and every single trainer out there knows it. Training athletic skills works exactly in this way. Missing does not make you better at hitting. Hitting makes you better at hitting. Same way, approaching 10000 girls does not make you better at approaching, indeed it is virtuall…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/17 08:57 PM
1

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolefisher/2015/12/25/rejection-and-physical-pain-are-the-same-to-your-brain/
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/17 06:16 PM
2

Can you rephrase this sentence for me? I could not parse the meaning of this sentence; I didn't follow at all. I'll define "to be game" as "willingness to submit to the rules of courtship". Example: most men know that opening early with heavy handed black humor (like pogrom humor and dead children humor) is a big no-no for 99.9% of women (in b4 special snowflakes). Me and many friends of mine will still do that with variable frequency, because fuck it. In general most men need to massively censo…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/17 03:32 PM
1

I'm going to go and say it. I don't think this thing is a thing. In actual real life I see these distinct circumstances: 1) She gets close to you and you're uglier than expected. Disengage after "awkward" moment. 2) You say something completely off-the-wall and the conversation comes to an abrupt end. This is not lack of "smoothness" but rather lack of "game", i.e. 99% of men know what should not be said but some will choose to say it anyway from time to time because gaming women is boring and a…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/17 01:10 PM
1

1) Straw-man. Shallowness is commonly defined as caring almost exclusively about physical beauty. 2) "You can't separate love from this aspect of human nature"... Mmm... Yes you can ? This is patently false. Maybe you mean lust ? Erotic love ? 3) "denial that a beautiful face/body can provoke an emotional response as deep as anything else can in this world"... Mmm ... Just no ? Anyway if I had to pick a main reason, that would be that people grow old (and therefore, ugly), and much common sense …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/17 03:33 AM
1

Not American. Agreed up to a point. Nerdy girls will go for hot geeky boys as first choice but will drop the geeky requirement if such boys are not available.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/17 06:28 PM
2

Welp that was a fascinating read. Had a gut feeling that it was gonna be some seriously kinky stuff and I wasn't disappointed. :D
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/17 11:22 PM
1

That kinda piques my interest. I've seen conventionally attractive guys succeed consistently in "weird people" scenes quite removed from the mainstream, e.g. squatters&ravers (well, as long as they don't show up in a shirt, that is). I'm now dying to know just what your weird people scene is.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/17 09:58 PM
1

Going for =/= Paired with I've seen many a nerdy to lock down the jock first and got with the nerdy guy after failing. Also agreed that I used "jock" in an improper fashion. What I meant was more like "conventionally attractive conventional guy".
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/17 08:55 PM
2

Only religious people are, after high school. Religious people are a minority AFAIK. Also basically nonexistent in Europe, where I live.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/17 06:53 PM
8

Delusional on so many levels. Random thoughts: 1) The nerdy girl going for the random jock is so common that it is basically a trope. Why does your "shared interests" thing goes one-way only ? Because it has fuck all to do with shared interests. 2) League is an heuristic idea and is more related with "what kind of girl/guy you can consistently get with" than anything. Then fetishes, "local status" and random luck come in for the individual couple. 3) League is still important though, and it is b…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/17 06:34 PM
1

A bit exaggerated this one. If you have some kind of exotic bonus (which I presume the guy has if he's couchsurfing) + "cool kid" vibe, "open-minded" girl game is legit as long as you're just about average or barely above average.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/17 04:43 PM
1

I think it's safe to say that both group have huge and similar ingroup bias for socialization preferences, and I think it's observable. Can't be bothered to dig up studies TBH. :D
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/17 04:35 PM
1

Also wouldn't make sense to talk about this in a "sexually neutral" sense of the word "liking" because in that case it would be self evident that women don't like men, nor the other way around, lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/17 04:31 PM
1

White Knighting and Pink Knighting. Ehm Uh ... Welp that's an equivalence you wrote there... ? I'm taking we're using "liking" in a sexual sense here, we're talking about mating... ?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/17 04:28 PM
0

I don't see how an evolutionary justification of a fact (which I agree upon, BTW) changes the fact. So you say women are programmed to be attracted / be willing to mate with a fraction of men while men are programmed to feel the same towards most women. How do you think this does manifest at a conscious level? As you said yourself, attraction. Attraction = Liking = Wanting. Come on now, WKing is definitely a thing, I would go as far as saying that WKing is the default mode for the majority of ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/17 04:21 PM
-1

Which is exactly the same thing as saying that women on average don't want/like men as much as the other way around. Give a definition of "way more picky" that does not imply that. In b4 "but men only laik wymmynz for secks" or other patently false platitude.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/17 04:07 PM
0

And why do women tend to have way more options ? This is a circular argument if I've ever seen one. In b4 the useless "but on average everybody pairs up in the long run".
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/17 04:01 PM
1

Welp actually as you can see here: http://anepigone.blogspot.fr/2015/01/sex-partners-over-time-among-men-and.html 0-1 is actually ~25% and more than 10 is ~30%. That's according to self-reporting by men and the numbers are incompatible with those given by women by a factor 3-to-1, so if one was to reconcile them in the middle one could probably get somewhere quite close to to the 40% / 20% figures that were proposed.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/17 01:49 AM
1

That is not at all "above average", that is "top tier" / "extremely above average". By definition "above average" is 50% of the population on the right side of the bell curve, not some nonsensical minority defined on the basis of wherever you want to place the ruler of your apex fallacy. The fact that women only drool "men-like" on a very small minority of men has no implications for the definition of average / above average / below average men. Also not even very hot guys get away with waltzing…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/17 12:11 AM
1

I thought you had just read the abstract lol
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/17 11:47 PM
1

So you have a normal face and you're tall and you're a bit overweight ? You're probably above average. Moderate overweight for a male is the least penalizing "bad weight" and sure as hell it does not cancel out with height. Also you can get rid of it if you want. And your "waltz right in" bit is nonsense, you're exemplifying to the letter the misguided thinking that I described no more than 2 replies ago. You probably have seen some jock-from-hell or supreme pretty boy in action and you've seen …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/17 11:18 PM
1

So you're saying that your face is busted and/or your BMI is outside the normal range ? What does make you average or below average ? You're having a difficult time with women compared to whom ? And in what context ?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/17 10:34 PM
1

A 'run-of-the-mill video game aspie personality' can absolutely have very few attractive traits. I am using 'good personality' here to stand in for 'personality that is attractive,' i.e. 'personality that is fun.' At their worst, these people basically embody what I mean when I say 'nice=/=fun' as they are often chronically uninteresting to people who don't share their interests (and in some cases they're not even nice, just benign and bland.) I absolutely agree that video game aspie is a bad pe…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/17 10:25 PM
1

QED. "Ugly" <> "Around average and tall" If your face is average and you're tall you're actually above average. E.G.: I get 40 percentile attractiveness on my best photos on photofeeler and I'm 5"5'. By your definition of "ugly" I'm in the "bizarre submarine creature" category. And I know many significantly more disadvantaged than me. The problem is that there's this "thing" in masculine culture where we recognize apex cases of "pretty boys", just because women throw themselves at them so blatan…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/17 09:56 PM
1

I don't think it does. In fact you just restated the "autistic Chad" strawman. Attractive homeless people, even discounting the grooming, are exceedingly rare and practically always mentally fucked up at the chemical, neurological level by mental illness and/or heavy drug addiction. Never I ever have seen an attractive homeless guy with a simple "bad personality" (e.g. run-of-the-mill video game aspie personality). The availability of opportunities for the development of a "good personality" is …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/17 09:07 PM
1

This argument makes absolutely no sense because it fails to see how the development of those personality traits comes about. Socialization is not something you read about in a book and learn, is something you're drawn into by the fact of being around your peers and being recognized a someone who holds value. Even in aboriginal tribes in the butthole of nowhere the development of positive character traits such as extroversion etc. is directly correlated with cultural success, the latter being the…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/17 08:23 PM
3

50$ says you're an "ugly" guy and actually nowhere close to ugly.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/17 08:03 PM
1

How do I do that ? TFW retarded xD
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/17 07:09 PM
1

Sorry for not being there but apparently I suck very hard at Reddit, refreshed this thing for 30mins and nothing was showing so I figured out that it had been moderated and just kinda forgot about it...!
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/17 06:47 PM
1

Try harder. I stumbled upon it being used dismissively an awful lot of times just by randomly browsing the sub history.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/17 06:44 PM
1

See above for the first link. It's the review part that I wanted to call attention to, i.e. established scientific facts. The article itself is fancy and interesting, but the evidence for the effect they're claiming is far from being rock-solid. In fact, in the review part they cite some existing literature that goes in the opposite sense, but evidence seems to be overall very murky for long term relationships. The second link actually contains a link on the top right to download the full text I…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/17 06:44 PM
1

Nice game. How about we play another game. It's called "I gave an actual link with an actual review of actual scientific studies so you don't get to argue from thin air and you actually cite the other studies that your talking about (spoiler: they don't exist or they're flawed or beside the point of the OP)".
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/17 06:40 PM
1

That's what the article is about, and I stated myself, I quote, an "analysis trying to reconcile self-reported preferences with actual preferences by making appeal to self-reported marital satisfaction". But mating choices are not the same thing as marital satisfaction, and any research based on self-reported anything (included marital satisfaction) is inherently weak. For example I'd love to see the same studies repeated with actual divorce rates. I cited the article because it includes a very …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/17 06:38 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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