TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

quantum_prostate Archive

View 0 posts and 50 comments by quantum_prostate 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)
1

What if you want a strictly homoeroetic society? "Women for breeding, boys for pleasure, but melons for sheer delight?" Problem solved.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/19 09:36 PM
2

There is no benefit in marrying at all unless whatever you marry is considerably wealthier than you. Has nothing to do with careers or old or young. Marriage is in the benefit of the poorer party in the union only and when both are of approximately equal wealth it's to the detriment of both because it increases the pool that has to be spent before you can default.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/19 07:15 PM
1

As I said in another comment. Arrange marriages are the norm in many places. All those things about dating strategy and shit don't mean anything when you're betrothed to another at childhood by your family having little to no say in the matter. Apart from that most of that shit doesn't even really have any relevance to where I live in North-West Europe—"dates" don't really exist here and in male-female romantic developments it's typically the female that's expected to take the lead.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/19 02:50 PM
1

So would you have sex with something that made a purity pledge to its parents thereby breaking that pledge thus hurting the parents that did not hurt you?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/19 01:19 PM
1

I don't think I'd be easily attracted to anything so invested in labels but let's assume that there's some individual that gets married with all the labels and sexual exclusivity stuff that I want to have sex with and that individual wants to have sex with me too then yeah I probably would but I wouldn't go out of my way to hide it either so you're on your own if that gets you into trouble: I don't care. Do you think you owe the woman any loyalty? Nope, absolutely not. I have very little respect…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/19 01:17 PM
7

I've only seen that opinion referenced when individuals are basically trying to cover their own arses. As in a infidelous member of sex X says that it's less bad for sex X to do so.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/19 07:15 PM
1

So you're a bachelor if you're living together with the love of your life and have been for decades but just aren't married? Then yes—my entire family is full of such bachelors.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/04/19 06:36 PM
0

I would like to put my considerable weight as a singleton redditor behind that statement. Yugh, Jason Momoa.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/19 11:08 PM
2

One need take only one good look at reddit to see the power these effects have on human beings...
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/19 11:44 AM
1

If that is so then how do "friends with benefits" work?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/19 12:03 AM
2

No it's pretty silly to say ḧumans have a need for sex" when 55% of humans do so. Makes about as much sense as saying "human beings live in Asia".
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/19 07:22 PM
1

ITT: the usual PPD "gender univeeralism" has now gone up to species universalism. How about the simple fucking answer that it's a need for some and not for others? There are some which' psychological health will severely deteriorate without sex and there are some for which no such thing shall happen. There are also those who are addicted to sex the same way an alcoholic is to alcohol and start displaying signs of physical withdrawal without it. Why does this sub find the simple answer of "yes fo…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/19 07:02 PM
1

Then this individual would be entitled, yes in this scenario.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/19 02:18 PM
1

I told you that she was angry at the man for rejecting her. I literally said that explicity. Ehh, what? you said this: How about a woman who gets rejected and becomes angry. Instead of being angry at the man, she gets angry at herself and self-harms. Would call her attitude and actions entitled? You explicitly said the opposite. So why is she angry at herself? She doesn't deserve him so why be angry at him and hurt herself? It's the same feeling as the man being feeling he deserved her. She just…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/19 02:13 PM
1

The woman is angry at another person not wanting to give something to her. She harms someone (herself) due to this. How does your story imply that this individual is angry at another person? Yes if you're angry at another person for not receiving it then you're entitled but I'm not sure how your story implies that. It's harming someone regardless of if it is yourself or others. If you harm someone because you were rejected, it is entitled behavior according to your definition. No if you harm the…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/19 02:04 PM
1

The woman gets rejected. She gets angry then self-harms. So how does that imply that one feels to have a right to something? If I bump my toe and get angry at it and frustrated does that imply I feel I had a right to not bump my toe? Of course if I get angry at another person there from not stopping me then I do feel that I had a right that that other person stopped me from bumping my toe somehow which is silly. A man gets rejected. He gets angry and harms others. And now you change "harms self"…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/19 01:47 PM
1

You reverse the arrow of implication: I never said that getting angry is the only way to be feel entitled. I just said that if you do get angry you feel entitled as in it's one of the possible ways. Simply put you feel entitled to something when you feel you have a right to it. Getting angry at another and believing that individual at fault for not providing it to you indeed necessarily implies a belief in one having such a right but one can feel entitled in other ways. In your particular scenar…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/19 01:41 PM
1

I was obviously angry and felt played. Now she has the right to get out of this at any moment, and in your logic, this is entitlement from me to be angry. Yes, and as I said justifiably so. You were promised something and the other backed out. You are certainly justified in feeling entitled that others keep their word to you. And it's typically what happens most of the time, it's either men feeling played by women, men feeling played by society, men feeling like there's no hope and wish to have …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/19 01:39 PM
3

Like I said it's pretty simple: If you get angry at A when it did not give you B and feel that A should give you B then you believe you're entitled to B from A. Evidently in this case that's not the case so no.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/19 01:35 PM
2

They're angry, not at the woman for rejecting them, but at the situation. Then they're not entitled? What does this have to do with the user you responded to then that said: "what's wrong with women/society that women don't want to fuck me?" If they don't ask "what's wrong with women" then they're not entitled.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/19 01:33 PM
3

If you don't communicate that you're angry at another for not giving you something then you're still entitled; you just hide it better. There's a difference between being frustrated and angry at the other and believing it to be at fault for not giving you. If you believe another is at fault for not giving you X then you are feel entitled to X. And hey in some cases that feeling can be justified I feel such as with prostitution. If you paid 50 EUR in exchange for sex up front and you paid but did…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/19 01:00 PM
-1

One of the few things I encounter even less than these supposed individuals "entitled to sex" the internet tells me commonly exists is the strawman logic you came up with in your OP to be honest.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/19 12:36 PM
15

If you're frustrated and get angry at another not wanting to give something to you then yes you act like you are entitled to get it from that individual.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/19 12:35 PM
1

Men brought home other resources, and also were the first to die in defense of everyone if the saber tooth cat came calling. The women basically sat back and let the men take the hit. Yeah but there was no pair bonding and nuclear families; that shit only works with a system of liquid currency where you can actually have a single specialized job which gives you liquid currency wherefrom you can buy whatever else you need. "nuclear families" don't work without currency and they didn't exist. It w…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/19 09:06 AM
2

Sure, sure, human females are monogamous by nature with a reproductive system that is deliberately designed to obscure the identity of the biological paternal parent and provide plausible deniability for it... Pretty much all humans are polygamous by nature; humans in general want the best and the most of the best in all facets of life.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/19 09:01 AM
1

Everything wants the best possible deal everywhere. "hypergamy" is a buzzword that is clung on to and ever goal-posted shifted and redefined until it basically became a fancy word for "common sense" that applies to every facet of life wrapped in a fancy buzzword. All human beings want the best possible deal that they can get everywhere. I also want a salary that is way more than my abilities command; I want nicer friends than I deserve; I want a better house than I can afford; I want my food to …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/19 08:58 AM
1

There is no consistent way in either case; it depends on the individuals involved.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/19 01:21 AM
2

99% of TRP no longer has any relevance with arranged marriages decided very young by family members so no.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/19 05:04 PM
0

Also this whole "purple pill debate" shit in general makes me feel like it's 99% Americana—most of the shit discussed therein just doesn't apply outside of the US.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/19 04:04 PM
-1

I don't believe there is a single coherent "red pill theory" like it often goes with this. It's not as much a philosophy or theory as it is a social identity. It's just a label you stick on yourself like "I am red pill" but there seems to be quite a lot of internal disagreement all the same. Apart from that: I was a post-wall woman when I first read about red pill and was shocked, hurt and dismayed that my only worth to men had been my youth, beauty and fertility. I can't say it shocks me to kno…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/19 04:03 PM
1

Dude if the government collapses I'm more worried about anarchy, theft, and all the infrastructure no longer working than that. Your argument is seriously "wait till the government collapses"?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/19 12:03 AM
1

Chicks still depend on the men to take care of them in general, and men still have the instinct. It's almost like instinct is not the hallmark of the rational human being but rather that of the savage idiotic caveman. You can follow your instincts or you can follow your neocortex—wherewith do you think greatness is achieved? Maybe you're not familiar with alimony, child support, welfare, and betabuxx. Ah yes, marriage—that thing they did 50 years ago which sane individuals nowadays forgo. In any…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/19 11:55 PM
2

Okay, let's assume that's all "natural"? How are you still not a flying fool for being like "Well hmm; the way I see it I don't need to provide for another and can just keep my own money... but wait let's do it anyway and give my hard-earned money to another because muh masculinity." If that's natural for males to do then males are naturally retarded. Same with all the other crap. Apart from that I'm not seeing anything provide for me. Are you living in the 60s or something? Breadwinner/homemake…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/19 11:08 PM
0

"toxic masculinity" is yet again a bullshit term used for political game because gender sells even more than sex in politics so be sure to turn every problem possibly into a gender issue. 95% of what they call "toxic masculinity" could just as easily be called "toxic Americana" but that doesn't sell as much.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/19 11:06 PM
4

Masculinity and femininity aren't "artificial" things Of course it is; it's arbitrary bullshit grouped together that differs from culture to culture. Today pink is "feminine", 90 years back it was "masculine". it is natural for men to be masculine and women to be feminine. No it's not; whatever random shit is perceived as "masculine" or "feminine" cycles like every 50 years. It's just a bunch of arbitrary random shit grouped together and on top of that it also differs from individual to individu…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/19 10:22 PM
2

There is no "good example" of either "masculinity" or "femininity"; it's a useless limitation one can put upon oneself. You can try to be a better individual or you can try to constrain yourself with artificial arbitrary things like "masculine" and "feminine" because your fragile so-called "gender identity" is more important to you than being a better individual.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/19 09:45 PM
2

"masculine" is a useless buzzword that everything defines differently; that you can ask "what is it for you" already shows it's useless in communication. The usefulness of a term is of course conditioned upon the assumption that the listener and speaker have the same idea of what it means. It's not a term I ever unironically use as a consequence without prior definition and if I do use a prior definition it typically comes down to "any trait which is statistically more common in males than in fe…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/19 12:43 PM
2

till death do us part and all? Which is only part of the "traditional" vow in very few places and not legally required to get married in any of those nor legally binding. Nothing forces you to say "till death do us part" and it's meaningless anyway; you choose to say that for no other reason than being a sentimental fool. maybe I'm old fashioned though, I was born in the medieval 1994 after all.. and I'm also not too keen on legal documents stuff Marriage is a legal document. I just thought that…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/19 12:16 PM
1

What commitment? Where does it say that you do that? That's just something you made up that's in no legal document anywhere.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/19 11:34 AM
1

So why are you getting married then—what's the point?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/19 11:45 PM
1

There's a catch. Many people consider marriage to be a lifetime contract. They may consider it to be so but it just isn't. Apart from that anything that steps into such a "lifetime contract" for no reason is an absolute fool. There's a reason that few jurisdictions know these kind of "lifetime contracts"; what the future has in store is hard to predict and with changing circumstances comes a re-evaluation of arrangements. There's a reason that most jurisdictions are not even going to honour with…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/19 11:24 PM
2

I think it's weird to say that something "failed" just because eventually you divorce but had a happy marriage up till that point. I no longer enjoy playing StarCraft II that much but I had a great time when I did; I wouldn't call that a "failure".
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/19 09:58 PM
2

I'm proving both wrong; pills are bad and both are utterly ridiculous.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/19 08:24 PM
2

Therein lies the problem with the Anglic system of "age of consent": it uses hard age brackets and nothing more to determine things. That's not how the system works in most continental European places where typically "employing psychological pressure" or "undermining the minor's ability to make its own informed decision" are elements of the crime. It's not about hard ages and the clock of midnight being able to turn "rape" into "sex"; it's about the context and analysing whether it was the minor…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/19 02:33 PM
1

Doesn't matter that something's legal: doesn't make it right. Yeah, I'm saying it's right because nothing gets hurt and the Anglic perspective of teen sexuality is what is hurting and leading to high rates of teen pregnancy because this idea that human beings with fully functional reproductive organs that have hormones coursing through their body that tell them to fuck somehow "should not have sex" is an absurd one. Bullshit. If your daughter came home at 14 with a 42 year old man you'd reach fo…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/19 02:14 PM
2

It's entirely legal in most parts of Europe you know. I swear the Anglic world has some absolutely unhealthy view of teenage sexuality—there's nothing wrong with 15 year old children having sex and all this absurd culture of trying to tell 15 year old hormone-controlled teenagers that they shouldn't have sex is doing is leading to super high rates of teenage pregnancy compared to the places where the law and parents led teenagers have sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/19 01:55 PM
0

Well if "raping children" is the American way to say what in the rest of the world would just be called "having consensual sex with a 15 year old" then it's not that uncommon I feel to find a 15 year old attractive a couple of times in one's life. 8 year olds? Nahh, I don't think most do; obviously the onset of puberty plays a big role in determining sexual attraction.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/19 01:47 PM
2

One of the most common types individual humans often have in today's world would be gender eh.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/19 01:42 PM
1

Ehh, I am or one is? I struggle to connect your post to mine.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/19 01:42 PM
6

Then in the world of gender universalists you either don't exist or your entire sex is like that. There's no other way really: we are a species that comes in exactly two varieties who are all identical clones of each other with no individual variability as far as this sub is concerned.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/19 12:19 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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