TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

puntifex Archive

View 0 posts and 133 comments by puntifex on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

I'm late to the party but I like discussing ideas. I think you bring up some fair points, too which I'd respond as follows: 1) people probably do underestimate the increased likelihood of infidelity with doctor spouses. But people might be willing to overlook this for multiple reasons, namely the high prestige and often high salaries that also come with being doctors. Less rigorously, many doctors are men who may trophy wives. I think these women in turn maybe don't have undying fidelity as #1 o…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/21 04:09 PM
1

At this point, I have to conclude that you either don't know what you're talking about, or you're being willingly obtuse.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/20 05:33 PM
1

both of whom you'd find suitable excluding n-count. On what basis do you find them suitable? Surely, you mean measurable and/or observable things, correct? Of course, there are plenty of things that fit into this category, and can give you plenty of information. But as long as your information isn't perfect - it's not clear to me that you don't learn anything else from partner count. I agree on a theoretical level that if you had perfect information, then partner count might not mean anything. I…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/20 03:54 AM
2

Hilariously, women freely admit this, too. Depending on what it is they're trying to prove, casual sex is either powerful and fulfilling, or it's terrible, dangerous, degrading, and unsatisfying.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/20 11:29 PM
1

That's kinda the whole point. The data here fails to predict what your intervention causes. No, I think you are missing the point. Before I respond, though I want to confirm that the "intervention" you are talking about refers to your choosing to date her, correct?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/20 11:27 PM
2

Downvotes don't change facts, sweetie.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/20 09:14 PM
2

But the "intervention" isn't reliable, though. Your knowledge is incomplete. It's not like the ice cream example, where you can say "I know the actual explanatory variable is hot weather, so the fact that you've eating ice cream is irrelevant for increased drowning right now, because it's winter, it's freezing, and all the pools and beaches are closed. You can't do that nearly so reliably for promiscuity or infidelity. IF you had your own foolproof filter for infidelity, then yes, you might be c…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/20 09:13 PM
1

No, you're right. Most women don't organ from an average casual sex enxounter http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/women-find-orgasms-elusive-in-hookups/?_r=0
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/20 05:12 PM
1

Sure, but most people don't. He's talking about most women, not you specifically. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/women-find-orgasms-elusive-in-hookups/?_r=0
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/20 05:11 PM
1

I'm sure I don't agree with him for everything. But that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm disagreeing with you. You seem to think that knowing the correlation is insufficient, correct? In your view, while the relationship might hold generally, knowing that any given woman is promiscuous tells you roughly nothing about her likelihood to cheat, correct? I want to make sure I'm fairly representing your argument before I say why I disagree.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/20 05:02 PM
0

I did. I've been with my wife fifteen years. My point is that past actions tell you things about a person, and can still be informative to the present. Warning signs about infidelity are tarely super-obvious, so you should pay attention to the significant ones, like a history of promiscuity, even if she's not actively cheating on you now.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/20 04:58 PM
2

No... that's not true at all. This reply demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of statistics. It is possible that you might have additional information that overrides the generic probabilities from the data (i.e. - yes, she's had many partners, but all but 1 of them are from over 2 decades ago, she's undergone trauma and was using sex to cope, but she's since gotten a lot of help and has a healthy view of sex now) But it's incorrect to say that it gives you no information. In the ice cre…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/20 05:21 AM
1

It depends on the degree to which you can observe all the related factors. If there are, say, 200 different factors covering genetics, upbringing, personality, etc - and they gave you all the information about a person, then you could certainly identify some women who might be promiscuous and yet highly faithful, even if the 200 factors are generally correlated in a way that makes the two correlated. But you can't, in practice. It's generally hard to know someone well enough to know for sure tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/20 05:17 AM
1

They definitely did at the college I went to, and it was not a conservative college.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/18 10:09 PM
1

That's just such a self-centered viewpoint. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - I think that lying about things you know your life partner cares about is cowardly, unattractive, and pretty hard to justify. But I like your response in that it does show the world how a lot of people think, even while lying to their partner's face. It's a good lesson to learn. Carrying only about one's own self interest, at your partner's expense, makes one a shitty partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/17 11:36 PM
1

Just like people who would never lie about their sexual history until they find a partner who they like, who cares about it. I think we can agree that both men and women will lie to get into or stay in relationships, and that this is generally undesirable for their partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/17 10:48 PM
1

Ok, so first of all, let's be clear that I'm not saying that people should care, or that everybody does care. Many people don't care, and I think that's totally fine. So let's agree that we're talking about people who DO care, for one reason or another. And you seem to be telling me that women KNOW that good guys who don't care are hard to find, but nonetheless plan on 1) doing the thing they know these guys won't like, and then 2) lying about it, this thing that they know they care about, even …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/17 10:10 PM
1

Hah, no worries. Some would argue that drunk Reddit is best Reddit
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/17 09:53 PM
1

I'm not sure how literally anything in your response addresses anything I mentioned.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/17 05:05 PM
2

What I don't understand is, if you're a person with a colorful sexual history, and you're not ashamed of it, why would you want to be with someone who doesn't accept your sexual history? Why be with someone who's "prefect, but he'd hate this truth about me so let's just keep lying about it and hiding it"? Isn't that a pretty uncomfortable way to live?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/17 05:46 AM
1

It is a nonsense book, and any time it is cited unironically as "proof" of anything, the level of discourse drops notably.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/17 05:39 AM
3

$5 says OP: doesn't like to cuddle doesn't like to lift weights likes competition for the sake of competition thinks he can dance decently is risk-seeking and etc. and etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/17 01:46 AM
1

I guess I'm not sure what to say, as arguing about anecdotes is generally unproductive but most of what you say you believe does not conform at all to what I see in my own life.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/17 01:16 AM
1

I am not red pill (happily married to a woman who basically doesn't exist according to them) so I agree with much of your list. However, I think you are misrepresenting a few points, where I don't completely agree with them but I can see where they are coming from. Of course, for any given thing, there's someone who believes it, so I'm not saying nobody believes this, rather that it's not what I understand most of them to think. "Women compartmentalize their attraction..." I don't think it's lit…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/17 02:54 PM
2

I may have (wrongly) assumed you were one of them. aww hell no. I believe both women and men are capable of having healthy, stable, loving relationships based on deeper connections than "what can you do for me". And both men and women can be shallow, materialistic, disloyal.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/17 01:49 AM
1

I mean, do you think women love unconditionally?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/17 10:53 PM
1

reductive strict Sure, but isn't it strange, then, to comment on men's love never being unconditional, when nobody's love SHOULD be unconditional?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/17 10:52 PM
1

I understand that you're agreeing with the highlighted part but the lack of mention of any part you disagree with implies you agree with the post. Didn't it seem strange, then, to say that "men never love unconditionally", when the statement "people never live unconditionally" is just as accurate?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/17 04:18 PM
1

There is literally no way you are being truthful, unless you are using a reductively strict definition of "unconditionally" ("he left because she cheated, therefore the love was not unconditional!")
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/17 04:12 PM
1

Are you actually agreeing with a commenter who casually states that he or she has never seen a man love unconditionally?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/17 04:05 PM
2

You're moving the goalposts. He did not say "it is tolerated when a woman cries constantly".
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/17 03:58 PM
3

Yea, i agree with you. Hypersensitivity about things that are distressing is a big part of it. I always thought a lot of it is timing and audience, which falls in the purview of "not being an asshole". If a girl's just gotten date raped at a sketchy frat party, and needs support, maybe don't tell her "well you shouldn't have gone to that sketchy frat party, where lots of women have complained about getting harassed!" right at that moment. But generally acknowledging that women shouldn't go to pa…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/17 11:40 AM
4

"Among the dead were women and children"
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/17 11:25 AM
3

Fyi your argument body is the opposite of your title
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/17 03:03 AM
1

The part where I said you contradicted yourself was a mis-reading by me, so apologies for that. I think I realized a lot of the discrepancy here - you might be talking about "extramarital sex" and I'm talking "lighter" physical cheating as well as strong emotional infidelity.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/17 12:26 AM
1

Well you said "over the course of a lifetime", which is directly contradicted by "currently married or cohabiting couples", especially given that infidelity leads to the dissolution of many marriages. Its further biased down because the set of people who have cheated on their current partner is a strict subset of the set of people who have ever cheated on a past partner" Which is why "10-20% of people cheat at some point in their life" seemed way too low.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/17 08:12 PM
1

I can't read the source right now but that's much lower than any other serious estimate I've ever heard, so I'm pretty sure there are some misunderstandings going on.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/17 06:38 PM
6

The choice thing is an excellent point. I think it's not just the availability of choices, but also the lowered transaction costs of switching partners. Choice is definitely a great thing on one end. If you're from a small town, expanding your dating pool to the few towns nearby can be a godsend. But I agree, at some point it becomes too much for most people. I think low transaction costs are a separate but equally important point. It's not just that so many options are available (which might ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/17 05:48 PM
1

Would you like the pistachio almond flavor or the pistachio almond crumble flavor?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/17 05:32 PM
1

How Can Morals Be Real If The Real World Isn't Real?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/17 05:19 PM
1

10 to 20% - what? That feels way too low to be over the course of a lifetime but too high to be any given year.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/17 04:03 PM
1

The thousands? You fucking Muppet, so you know how of us there are? Think bigger or go home.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/17 06:47 PM
2

As I understand it, the claim is "women initiate divorce more, because divorce tends to be more expensive for men, due to the courts". That non-marital breakups, which generally involve no courts, are initiated by both genders roughly equally seems to support that claim. Note that this needn't be because courts are inherently sexist (though I think they often are in regards to children, but let's just ignore this). It could be that courts tend to overvalue domestic work compared to the market, a…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/17 07:52 PM
3

Aren't breakups an excellent proxy for this? There are fewer children involved, and income disparity does not matter as there is no court- mandated transfer.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/17 06:53 PM
1

lips sealed
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/17 10:52 PM
2

Would you mind summarizing, as I'm not going to pay that for that article? Also, how do they define "committed"? You could imagine (in an extreme, and I don't think they do this) them defining "committed" as "not having cheated", in which case the article becomes kinda silly. On a more serious note, if sociosexually unrestricted people generally cheat more, but not once you control for commitment, then it necessarily follows that sociosexually unrestricted people commit less. So how they define …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/17 10:07 PM
8

I'm a guy. I have a high sex drive. I have an awesome relationship with my wife, together about 15 years, married about half of that. I see lots of hot women on the street, and I can appreciate it, but I wouldn't want to have sex with another woman even if my wife were ok with it. I do enjoy porn on the odd night my wife is too tired, or away, but actual sex is personal and intimate to me, and I only want it with my wife. Doesn't hurt that she's horny all the fucking time, is tremendous fun, and…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/17 08:39 PM
1

I'd be in seeing the work behind this. Is this what's hidden behind the paywall?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/17 08:28 PM
1

If you think a person who says "women are naturally more nurturing and empathetic than men" would get nearly the amount of blowback as men who have made much more nuanced arguments (see: Summers, Lawrence; Damore, James), you are hilariously mistaken. Trying to cite a reddit thread as a stand-in for society at large is just as absurd.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/17 11:55 PM
1

You're absolutely right that people of both genders care (the word here is "sociosexual orientation", and it's pretty interesting). But I think part of his point is that MORE men care than women, not that NO women care. Would you argue that the percentage of men who would avoid dating a promiscuous woman, is the same as the percentage of women who would avoid dating a promiscuous man?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/17 11:12 PM
1

Yes, this thread is comparable to the outrage that broke out over the Google letter. It's not playing victim to suggest that your double standards are transparent and kinda sad.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/17 11:01 PM
1

Well I don't see armies of people fighting against statements like yours, whereas even a much more nuanced, hedged statement like "men are naturally overrepresented among the top scientists and engineers, due to higher variance in intelligence, even if means are the same" - well, you know how that turns out.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/17 09:13 PM
1

I love how it's only socially acceptable to suggest that one gender is better at some (non-physical) thing in one direction
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/17 07:44 PM
5

It's amazing to me how little the following gets mentioned - how so few people who leave a cheating spouse end up regretting it. That should be a core consideration! If you are standing in the position of the betrayed spouse, you have a choice to make - do you reconcile, or do you beak the relationship? And not only is "chance of reconcile" an important consideration, but so is "chance of being happier if I leave", roughly equivalent to "not regretting leaving". And while it's true that reconcil…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/17 10:47 PM
1

Well, you know what they say about people for whom no amount of new information would change their minds. Bayes is sadly shaking his head
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/17 06:27 PM
1

What, if anything, would it take to change your opinion on this?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/17 05:44 PM
1

The question is "what is something both sides can agree on". That is what you are responding to, no? If so, I disagree that both sides enthusiastically believe what you are claiming they believe.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/17 06:13 PM
1

I don't like making fun if them in principle. But then I see some posts and realize that a lot of these people aren't just having a hard time, they're fucking sociopathic monsters.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/17 03:59 PM
1

(Not rp at all here, but) I don't think this idea is nearly as universal as you think. "My girlfriend was much more sexually adventurous with her ex whom she dated last year, and her libido was much higher. I'm concerned she's not as sexually attracted to me but she claims she is more attracted to me". The responses are often "stop being insecure, she says she's attracted to you!"
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/17 03:56 PM
4

Albert Einstein's beauty And Marilyn Monroe's brains
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/17 01:29 AM
1

Thankfully I'm pretty sure the FT is much more respectable than the NYT at this point.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/17 05:36 AM
1

Find a girl who treats you like the most important thing in the world, and treat her like the most important thing in the world.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/17 08:39 PM
10

And half the people probably tell him "she chose you! You won! Stop being insecure!"
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/17 02:57 PM
2

Again, nobody is saying that girls think "oh that guy's hideous, let's husband him up!" What most people are saying is that of course life has tradeoffs, and women generally sexually settle more than men do, and more than they are willing to admit, especially to their partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/17 02:55 PM
3

Pretending that the leader of the Euro Zone's second largest economy (without whose participation the Euro Zone could not exist) doesn't matter strongly suggests that you are very ignorant about current affairs.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/17 10:45 PM
2

I do not agree with OP's idea that most women would have a hard time not sleeping with the president, but I find your point odd. Are you claiming that only physical attributes matter? Do you not think that women are not also attracted to signs of intelligence? For example, wit? Artistic and musical talent? Is the ability to gain and hold political power not a sign of some kind of intelligence?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/17 11:22 PM
1

Strongly agreed with you that "shitty people do shitty things", and that most people of both genders don't do that shit, and could be perfectly fine partners. But, I think that due to a combination of social and natural factors, shitty guys tend to do different shitty things from shitty girls. For example, I think girls are more likely to sexually settle for their partners. As much as I disagree with trp in general, I will strongly agree with the idea that a strong sexual chemistry is very impor…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/17 01:52 AM
1

As you said I think that clearly follows and didn't merit explicitly pointing out. I used "wanting variety/needing valuation" as another example of a generally negative attribute correlated to either high or low partner counts. My point was "there are traits (generally perceived as negative in long-term partners) correlated to being either high and low partner counts. If we are willing to accept one set we should be willing to admit the other"
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 07:22 PM
1

I don't think I'm arguing against that.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 07:17 PM
1

I didn't say anything to the contrary. I agree with you, I think it clearly logically follows. I'm curious why I suggested otherwise? Again, this is no guarantee, just positive correlations.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 06:35 PM
2

I often find myself arguing against both sides because I think the correlations are real, but they don't tell the whole story, and individual differences matter. Too many people insist that either there are no relationships (there is no difference between an average promiscuous woman and an average non-promiscuous woman) or that they completely determine everything (every promiscuous woman is the same untrustworthy slut).
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 04:17 PM
3

Low count is correlated with low sex drive. This is NOT to say that all low count girls are less sexual, but it is correlated. But I know at least one woman who has a count of 1 but who is basically insatiable when she's not extremely busy. A high count is correlated to needing or desiring variety or validation. Again, not to say that all high number count people are like this, but it is correlated (because such people are likely to have higher counts). If we acknowledge the former it seems fair…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 03:56 PM
3

JM Bailey's study on genetic vs environmental influence on sociosexuality suggests that there is a significant genetic component. If you Google for "sociosexuality and genetics", it should be one of the first things to show up. Edit - to be clear I'm not agreeing with most of what he's saying, I just think that in both genders sociosexual orientation is largely genetic.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 03:26 PM
1

Nowhere do I say or suggest people should "give red pill guys what they want". I certainly wouldn't describe refraining from bragging about infidelity as such. In terms of trying to change people's minds - do you think a non-red pill guy treats women the same way as a slightly red pill guy, and that they treat women the same way as a very red pill guy? Do you think all the guys with these negative views of women are so obvious about it in real life? "By the way, toots, I know you're gonna ditch …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 02:50 PM
6

You got all your rights? Tell that to the "more women in STEM" and "down with the patriarchy!" and "women get paid less for the same work" crowds. I mean, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but a ton of your peers do. So just understand that your attitude is not exactly helping whatever cause people might feel they have. And I agree most people do not have extreme views. But that means they should also be more amenable to having these views changed. Suppose a guy is racist. He doesn't think …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 12:58 PM
2

It's definitely correlated with certain things, for example a higher degree of sociability, more spontaneity/impulsiveness, more liberal attitudes, especially about social issues, having an easier time separating sex from love, etc. These are not inherently bad or good things, and it comes down to preferences. One person might think another is too impulsive and reckless, while the second person finds the first too boring and non-spontaneous. I think it's fair to be more attracted to either more …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 12:28 PM
6

That's surprising, I would've thought most people would rather hope to show (slightly) sexist/racist/whatever-ist people that they don't need to be so full of hate, rather than merely loudly shooting at them to shut up. Because the latter definitely works, right? If we tell those we disagree with to just shut up, eventually they'll listen and quietly retreat, and certainly not continue to spread their poisonous way of thinking, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 12:20 PM
4

That's extremely surprising. You don't know any men who are themselves not promiscuous, and want partners who have similar attitudes to sex as themselves? Seems unlikely. I suppose it depends on your definition of "care". If by "people who care" you mean the type that loudly make it known that they care, i.e. vocally bashing sluts and talking about how broken they are, and how they'd never may a slut - yea, I can see what you're saying. But if you mean "care" as in it just affects their personal…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 12:13 PM
6

1) Anecdotes are not very compelling data. If you think we should dismiss "my girlfriend did this, therefore x is totally right!" claims, don't expect people to put much weight on "I did this, so x is totally right!" claims, either. 2) Everything is probabilistic. Congratulations for cheating on your first boyfriend. That doesn't say anything about an average person being more or less pair-bonded to subsequent partners. 3) Pair-bonding is separate from, and involves much more than, simply not be…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 11:41 AM
2

Exactly. Entrepreneurs may or may not be sexist, but they are certainly more profit-loving than sexist.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/17 11:00 PM
2

Don't try harder.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/17 10:03 PM
3

I'm calling troll. There's no way you're this dense.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/17 07:37 PM
1

Not necessarily. People mutually assortativrly mate on all sorts of things, but it doesn't mean that those groups are discriminated against at all. Two examples of this are religion and common interests. Ideally sexuality should be another example, though unequal group sizes and resulting supply/demand mismatch probably prevents it from being like that.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/17 04:00 PM
1

I feel you are moving the goalposts, but perhaps I misunderstood you earlier. So let me start again - I think being aware of some things some women tend to do is good, but you should not overweight it, not should you be worried a partner will do that if she is a good, trustworthy partner. Do you agree with this? If you think 20% or even 50% of women behave this way, then it's a shitty thing to treat women in a way that implies that they all do that. Do you agree with this? If so, I disagree that…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/17 06:45 PM
1

Ok but again, if your argument is "many women act this way" then fine. I completely agree that women tend to do certain shitty things more than men, which is why i like aging against the rabid bluepillers as well. And yes, this would imply some kind of rough strategy for some sunset of women. But the rhetoric is completely different from that. It's like radfems who talk about "all men are privileged, guilty rapists! Don't trust any men!", and then when pressed they say "oh what we really mean is…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/17 05:15 PM
1

I don't disagree with that - of course it's based on percentages. I never said anything to the contrary. My point is you don't at all have a good idea of what those percentages actually are. You're not going to convince me that you KNOW that it's 25, or 69, or 90. So again, I think being aware that "hey some women do this, be careful of it" is a perfectly valid message. I don't think "you can assume the vast majority of women are like this" is a useful or accurate message.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/17 08:28 PM
1

Oh, gotcha. I do agree with you that many people DO think that guys are successful BECAUSE they are assholes, and I don't agree with that. I think OP's question was not that, and it could've been better phrased like: "Girls like hot guys. If a guy is hot and a good guy - awesome! But sometimes, the guy is hot, but is an asshole. If so many girls claim to hate these types of guys so much, why don't they give each other more grief when other girls are with guys like this? Why are hot asshole guys …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/17 03:39 PM
2

Ok I'm not sure what OP is saying, but I never implied that sexually attractive = asshole. At all. In fact nothing I said contradicts any of what you said, so I'm confused why you put any of that there. I explicitly broke it up into cases where the guy is attractive, but is or is not an asshole. I agree that women who gave sex with assholes aren't necessarily rewarding them FOR being assholes. But if they ARE assholes but they're hot, and women sleep with them, it is STILL ACCURATE to say "they …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/17 02:52 PM
6

Oh come on. Standard caveat that I'm not red pill, but semantic arguments like this are so disingenuous. "To reward someone with something" often just means "to give someone something that they want". If I said "my hard work and preparation paid off and the firm rewarded me with a job offer", would you vigorously protest that the firm (or a given manager) didn't have to give me a job offer, that the firm didn't exist just to give me a job offer, that the firm didn't "reward" me with a job, but g…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/17 12:43 PM
5

Is a woman who wants to be a stay-at-home mom, but who under no circumstances wants to marry a stay-at-home dad, also guilty of "bullshit hypocrisy"? Is a short girl who's not attracted to short guys guilty of this? Anyways, you're free to not like those guys. Honestly, in your position, I probably wouldn't, either. But most guys who don't want promiscuous partners are themselves not that promiscuous. Your comment started by equating not wanting to date a promiscuous girl with "keeping women dow…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/17 12:36 AM
8

Is this for real? My wife is not promiscuous. Most of my friends aren't promiscuous. They are NOT "submissive shells of human beings who live to please others". You do realize that you can have an awesome life as a leader, a doer, and a general badass without an extensive sexual history, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/17 10:42 PM
3

GREETINGS EARTHLING. I AM QUEE, FROM THE PLANET VAGIA.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/17 08:35 PM
2

Semantic arguments are the last refuge of those who have already lost the debate. Or the first thing pointed out by people who believe that common words and phrases should be used like they are intended to. The word you are looking for is just "significant". People who use "statistically significant" in this context do not understand what that phrase means. What exactly do you think I am arguing against? If your point is just "a significant number of girls behave in this way", I'd actually agree…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/17 02:53 AM
2

Fucking YES. Exactly! My 5 second summary of a lot of the debates here: Red pill: "all women do this shit. Literally (or almost literally) no woman is to be trusted" Blue pill: "(basically) no woman does this shit. If you think anyone does, you are an asshole misogynist". It seems like the most obvious thing in the world that SOME women do this, but for the most part both sides just like to pretend that the middle could not possibly exist. Like you could argue whether 15% or 50% or 85% of women …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/17 09:01 PM
3

No, what I did was not a straw man fallacy, but I'm not going to get into that, as there are more pressing issues with your other arguments. It's disappointing, because I really did like the links you posted. If you are trying to convince me that the percentage of women who act like TRP describes is similar to the percentage of humans who cannot be electrocuted, I will call bullshit. Every time. So the analogy is garbage. You're effectively saying "99.999% is close enough to 1, for practical mat…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/17 06:41 PM
2

Except most rpers treat it like the latter, and a casual viewer to that subreddit could be forgiven for thinking that was the default belief - because that's exactly how it's presented. When people say "yea, some women do this, but how can you say women aren't humans with the ability to reason and choose?", the responses strongly indicate that most of TRP DOES believe in literal awalt. What do you believe? Of course it's a gradient, but what percentage of women do you think are generally incapab…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/17 06:05 PM
3

As a person who likes your post here, how the hell do you go from "there is significant evidence that some women behave in these ways" to "it is axiomatic that all women are like this"? Because saying "no woman will ever love you" is much closer to the latter than the former".
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/17 04:44 PM
3

(Edit - to the extent that your issue is specifically with the word "prove", and that you agree that this is evidence supporting some of the theory - I do agree with you there) think there is a significant "some vs. all" issue here. I am not red pill. My own experience with women (tldr - amazing15 year marriage) has shown me pretty clearly that NOT all women are like that. My friends are generally in very happy relationships. But I agree with some of the CONCERNS that TRP brings up. I think both…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/03/17 03:37 PM
1

(1), (2), and (3) are all huge. I would add another: being desired - genuinely, powerfully desired - is hot
/r/PurplePillDebate02/03/17 01:02 AM
1

Same. Casual sex has no appeal to me, but wifey and I fuck everyday, sometimes more than once a day. Though it's possible that in general guys who don't like casual sex generally have lower sex drives.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/17 09:14 PM
2

I'm not saying you have to care. I'm saying some people care, and that's totally fine and reasonable.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/17 11:28 PM
3

Don't forget the lying to the partner's face and actively working to deceive them. I strongly disagree with the mentality of "the cheating doesn't matter, they still love you!" for either gender.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/17 08:41 PM
1

Maybe they are talking about people who will sleep with others on the first date, but not with you?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/17 08:05 PM
3

I've always thought their cautionary advice was very applicable to some set of women, who would generally make shitty partners anyways. Extending that to ALL women is an impressive feat of mental gymnastics. (I will say I do agree with some PARTS of it - make yourself physically attractive. Do NOT be with a girl who is sexually settling for you. Sexual history is not meaningless.)
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/17 07:55 PM
1

What? So your definition of "oligarchy" includes societies where one must be a free male (who, later, needed to have completed his military service)? I'm not saying this was a free or equal society, but saying it's oligarchic because one needed to be a free male to vote makes no sense. If you're saying that it's oligarchic because some people ended up with more power and influence, well, what do you want exactly? If you have average Joe the Greek and Pericles the Orator, and they start off with …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/17 04:00 PM
1

It wasn't a real question, it was a rhetorical question to the guy who said that women leaving nursing to be doctors leaves the nursing profession to the "dregs", which didn't make sense to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 07:59 PM
1

I think that's basically true in many places in the developed world now. As I said, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with STEM being more men than women. I don't think that has always been true, though, and my argument is just that when it's NOT true (which may not be the case today), society in general is mis-allocating talent.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 07:56 PM
2

That doesn't make sense. Men can't be good nurses? Unlike most feminists, I'm not claiming the numbers would be equal. So I don't think there's anything inherently wrong if 65% of people in STEM were men, provides that everyone had the opportunity. But if you introduce barriers other than merit, you get a suboptimal allocation of talent that's easy to fix. This isn't even gender studies, this is econ 101.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 03:07 PM
3

Ok, I'm trying to reach across the aisle. It's his or her right to decline and not want the attention.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 07:49 AM
1

Ah I see. That's pretty interesting. Thanks!
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 06:31 AM
1

Oh gotcha. Just seems a little weird to me that a topic like calculus wouldn't get a whole semester or something, there's a good amount to cover.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 06:09 AM
3

Oh and that's totally your right, don't get me wrong. And of course if you're in a place where you don't expect to get hit on, that can be annoying as fuck. But should two people who both want this with each other not be allowed to have it? Why is it sociopathic? And why is it fake? There are no pretenses. There's no implied continued relationship or other kind of exchange. If they are being completely honest, isn't that the exact opposite of "fake"? I want to say that this is interesting becaus…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 05:58 AM
3

OK, I missed that, my apologies. Do you agree that by your definition the US isn't a patriarchy? Neither are many western countries. Assuming OP lives in one of those, isn't his question moot for your definition of patriarchy?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 05:54 AM
1

Hm I think you have rather a narrow view of math in the US. It's not all SATs haha
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 05:40 AM
8

I say this as a happily married, totally monogamous guy: While I would not want a partner like that, I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with it, and it certainly doesn't mean they're sociopaths. If a person goes up to someone they're interested in, and honestly tells them "hey, I think you're really hot, I'm not looking for anything serious, but do you want to come to my place and have some fun?" (with more style points and more game than that, of course), is that really hurting so…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 05:38 AM
1

I think that's a bit similar, but this is a specific name for a specific phenomenon as relates to sex, and the need for emotional closeness with one's sex partners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociosexual_orientation
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 05:28 AM
3

Sociosexually unrestricted (i.e. easily separates sex from love) Impulsive/risk-taking Extroverted
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 05:24 AM
3

I don't know to what extent you're talking about women's rights, but in general societies tend to do best when they use their human capital most effectively. Wouldn't you rather your smart women be doctors, engineers, inventors, etc.?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 05:20 AM
1

Yea that's fair. Once you get to a certain level it's much more about applying things than memorizing them. Our advanced physics 1 class in college did not have that many formulas to memorize - but you can use them in so many ways! Do you mind my asking what it was you learned in high school? Discrete math? Calculus? Analysis?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 05:19 AM
2

Many people who live in undeveloped societies live in patriarchies that are not at all oligarchies - be they, say tribal villagers in Papua New Guinea, the Amazon, etc., or people who live in the steppes of Central Asia. As for the developed world, the definitions of "patriarchy" and "oligarchy" can be quite slippery. What is "patriarchy"? Is it when the sexes aren't exactly equal? If you find me one example of women having fewer rights in a country, can you say "therefore this country is a patr…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 05:12 AM
1

I was legit shocked at how easy the SATs were (I'm not American) in terms of maths. I can tell you're not American, from your use of "maths". I'm guessing British? American high school math is a complete joke. If you are good at math at all, you will learn some stuff in your AP calc classes, but the real metric for problem solving is in things like the AMC/AIME/USAMO math contests. Combinatorics, probability, (advanced) geometry - those are things that generally require much more creative proble…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 02:12 AM
4

Yea but his question does not equate patriarchy with oligarchy (as it shouldn't). Your answer makes it seem like they are inextricably linked, and I think that's not true at all. You literally say: is there a society in earth that's one of those things but not the other? I can't think of one. with patriarchy comes chiefdom and serfdom. So yes. The answer is yes. Those are not nearly the same things and equating them is lazy and dishonest. Edit - and many feminists would disagree that patriarchy …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 01:18 AM
1

The math section was insanely easy... though so was the verbal haha. But seriously it's possible the distributions of scores differ in a way that a high verbal score tells you more than a high math score. I'd like to say that in general math takes much more critical thinking, though that's probably only true for math harder than SAT
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 01:11 AM
10

I don't like this trick of defining things as you please to make a point. 'Patriarchy', as Merriam-Webster, Wikipedia, and most people, including presumably OP, is about males holding power and excluding women from doing so. So ancient Greece, for example, was a patriarchy and not an oligarchy. Native American tribes were patriarchal but quite egalitarian. I'm not trying to argue that patriarchy is good, but your argument that patriarchy is oligarchy is just severely lacking.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/17 12:55 AM
1

Interesting study. One question though - is the math section not generally considered to be the more correlated with reasoning ability and future success?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/17 11:59 PM
20

Don't bother. A cursory glance at the post history of the person you responded to strongly suggests that you are wasting your time. It is hard to imagine a productive conversation with anybody who believes that Men have been oppressing women since prehistory, since men cannot do useful work themselves and thus resorted to making things to oppress women. Men are actually inferior to women in every way, and because of this, they have been oppressing women all this time. This is all from a single c…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/17 12:32 AM
3

Right, but hopefully you understand that while it's totally possible, the generally much safer thing is to do it earlier.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/17 02:56 AM
3

OK I don't even believe in the red pill but this argument is really, really weak. Nobody says "women post-30 cannot marry". The actual claim is merely that it is harder compared to when you are younger. I mean do you also disbelieve that older women generally have a harder time having children because "what's-her-name's mother totally had her when she was like, 42!"
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/17 02:14 AM
1

the only STD that it's a crime to lie about is HIV/AIDS. lying about, say, herpes isn't criminal but you could try to sue that person in civil court. I don't think this is true for all states. From https://www.stdcheck.com/blog/stds-and-the-law/ California’s law, as in other states like Florida, makes it a misdemeanor (resulting in a few months in jail, a fine or both) if the STD is something other than HIV/AIDS. (It is a felony if the disease in question is AIDS) Re: pulling out. I agree that t…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/17 01:21 AM
1

You must have a different definition of "quite effective" from me. Even looking at your source, it says the failure rate is estimated at 4%/year if always done perfectly. Of course if you mean "in conjunction with other methods it can help" then sure, but that's not what I meant when I said it was ineffective. I was talking about pulling out by itself, which many people seem to think is enough. at 19 no, I didn't know all of that from school, but I damn sure googled it. That's very responsible o…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/17 04:07 AM
1

Sure - you knew sex made babies. Did you know that pulling out was a completely terrible way to avoid pregnancy? Did you know that birth control could fail, and were you sure enough of this that if a girl had said "It's ok, I'm on birth control", you would've not listened to her? (I'm guessing you're actually a girl, but you know what I mean). Did you know what your legal obligations were if you got pregnant? Did you know that condoms had some nonzero failure rate? Do you claim that every 19 yea…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/17 03:07 AM
1

I think in an ideal world guys would be smarter about this, but a crucial component of this is that everybody would be educated. There is a lot of misinformation out there - people of both genders thinking that pulling out is effective birth control, for instance. Or guys being unaware of the exacty consequences of pregnancies (the extent of their obligations, for example). I'm curious why you are so comfortable condemning people for ignorance when the knowledge isn't always offered to them. If …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/17 01:07 AM
4

Can I answer a related version of this, namely "I'm neither red pill nor blue pill, what good do I see in either?" The answer to your question is, naturally, a part of that. For simplicity, I'm focusing on heterosexual relationships. OK, so call me idealistic, but I believe most people generally want relationships for the right reasons, and we're mostly richer for them. I'm in my mid-thirties and I have a LOT of friends who are really happy with their partners. So that's my starting point. BUT, …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/17 02:38 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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