TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

tubefox Archive

View 1 post and 329 comments by tubefox 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)
74

tubefox/r/MensRights15/10/12 09:01 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
11

I have seen one of my friends go to her engineering classes wearing a miniskirt and a shirt that said "I LIKE PAIN". Guess what happened? Nothing. This isn't a case of sexism. This is a case of "Most people who go into STEM fields are not the sort of people who pay all that close attention to their wardrobe."
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/14 05:47 AM
1

Calling me a bluepiller is a bit of an exaggeration. I agree with TRP in a very, very general sense, but I would not identify as a redpill simply because my beliefs tend to be a lot more moderate than most redpills'.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 05:14 AM
37

Because a lot of TRPers like to feel like they're classic gentleman who would totally settle down and get married if more women were amiable to the idea of getting married at a young age in modern society. They are, at least in their own minds, guys who want a traditional relationship but realize this will not work because of the way modern women behave. So instead they spin plates, in their minds taking advantage of the sluttiness of modern women, while simultaneously hating said sluttiness bec…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/14 03:53 PM
20

"Objectification" is a ridiculous concept that is nothing more than an attempt by feminists to demonize normal human behavior. The definition I've heard most often is that "objectification" is when you view someone else only in terms of what you want from them. But by that definition, I objectify the clerk at McDonald's: I'm only talking to him because I want a hamburger.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/14 02:37 PM
2

Let me get something straight: I find Cosmo to be basically perfectly analogous and exactly as bad as TRP, but Cosmo won't bicker with me. This is pretty much my view. TRP is basically Cosmo for men: maybe there's some occasional decent advice in there, but mostly it's just a bunch of psycho bullshit. The only difference is that TRP is relegated to the depths of the internet, whereas Cosmo is sold in check-out lines nationwide.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/14 02:58 PM
1

I've only heard it from 35-40+ women who apparently never bothered trying to build something lasting before age 30. There's that, although in that case there's a rather obvious answer: they either got married, or would prefer to be dating someone younger and probably more attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/14 07:55 AM
-3

Ironically, you could avoid all of that shit by talking with the other person like they know what they are doing. Actually, being condescending seems to get me laid, although this may be because the condescension is perceived as a sort of elementary-school-like flirting.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/14 09:25 AM
1

It's not the words, it's the arguments. In order for "harmful ideology" to spread, people have to see it's views and feel a connection with them. The words are a key that opens a lock, not what creates the lock to begin with.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/14 09:22 AM
7

No you don't. That's the worst STEMing I've seen in a long while What the hell? Did you just call expressing opinions based on anecdotal evidence "STEM"ing? That makes literally no sense whatsoever. What he did is the opposite of STEMing, basically.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/14 09:20 AM
5

Good things come to those who wait. Yeah, but they come to those who go out and look for them faster.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/14 09:17 AM
2

Agreed. I've never heard or read another woman ask "where have all the good men gone?!" I've heard some women say this. You may be suffering from selection bias: in my experience it's a complaint made by a specific type of woman. Namely, those that are still very much traditionally-minded, who want to get married in their early 20s and settle down.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/14 09:16 AM
5

Lying to my daughter to make her feel more secure? That's a new all-time low for people. This. I understand why some parents want to lie to their kid, and bullshit them into believing that they're really smart or pretty or whatever, but it's just not healthy - you can't hide them from the world forever. Sooner or later they're going to realize that guys always hit on their friends and not them, and they're going to realize that that may be related to the fact that their friends are thinner and b…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/14 05:24 PM
3

Out of curiosity is there also an explanation for the "Rape instruction manual" comment?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/14 05:16 PM
4

most of which is either quoted out of context or flat out wrongly attributed to her. [citation needed] Also please, let me know what context makes calling one of the most important works in the history of science a "rape instruction manual" a reasonable thing to do. your terper lords verbatim showing what kind of misogynistic fucks they are, it's all "whine whine whine You don't understand TRP whine whine TRP isn't like that whine whine Feminist Conspiracy" Are you seriously so completely retard…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/14 05:15 PM
5

Luce Irigaray is a Feminist philosopher noted for numerous insane remarks, including asserting that E=MC2 is a "sexed equation" because it privileges the speed of light above other speeds. Also once called Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica a "rape instruction manual" or something of the sort. There's also women like this one who are responsible for men's futures being hurt due to unfounded allegations investigated in sketchy college disciplinary meetings that do not ensure due process instead…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/14 10:11 AM
1

Well, to be fair, women WERE actually oppressed at one point in time. We have since corrected this, yet they're not quite ready to relinquish victim status. "Not quite ready"? They are showing no signs of relinquishing that status willingly.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/14 11:00 PM
1

I'm sorry, my experience has only been in (theoretical) prohibition country. Don't worry about it, mine too. I guess by "licensing", I basically just meant the tests and the age check and whatnot. I sort of figured you'd submit that stuff to some government office, then once it cleared they'd send you some confirmation that you were good to go. This would presumably take the form of a license or something similar, since that's generally how the government gives you the go-ahead for any sort of b…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/14 06:04 PM
1

This is a smaller problem in practice then you'd think. Many girls are involved with sex work only temporarily, some just for a few weeks. But if sex work were to be legalized, do you think it'd be worth it to go through the testing/licensing procedure if you're just doing it for a few weeks? Not to mention that presumably legalization would bring about legalized brothels. What employer is going to go through the hassle of getting the tests and the employment paperwork and yada yada yada for som…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/14 12:08 AM
1

Second, legalizing sex workers would allow them to formally organize to keep prices high, possibly leading to the creation of unions looking our for and lobbying for their interests. Oh, great, if we legalize it they can conspire to fix prices? That's really making me support legalization. The issue about what to do with a large group of untrained, middle aged women who can't work in the sex industry anymore is a non-unique criticism. We already have this problem with strippers, escorts/prostitu…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/14 12:06 AM
1

The CDC numbers are also mathematically impossible.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/14 12:03 AM
2

They really don't. The median number of partners for a woman is four. Are you referring to this study? While it's possible the men are exaggerating how many sex partners they've had, it's equally likely the women are underreporting. This is also more likely, in my experience, because I've noticed at least a handful of my female friends have at least one or two sexual partners that they insist "don't count" for one reason or another.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/14 04:16 PM
1

Letting it out into the open might change people's minds about how stereotyped and reviled sex workers currently are. Hold the fuck up. You point out that making sex work legal would make it cheaply available for others, and also seem to be hoping it will make the profession less reviled than it currently is. However, if there was no stigma about sex work, then more women would be inclined to pursue prostitution. This would explain why employing prostitutes would become cheap, but creates issues…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/14 04:11 PM
5

You know how much money my Gentleman spent before I had sex with him for the first time? $0 Thumbs up. I really dislike it when women expect me to pay for their food/drinks on a first date, because this seems to imply that they are not only a whore, but an unreliable whore - at least with a whore, I know she'll have sex with me if I spend money on her. Why would I spend money so that someone...may or may not have sex with me at some point in the future? The only exception to this rule is if I sa…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/14 08:30 PM
1

Enough statistical analysis to fulfil even the wildest dreams of any STEMlord. I'm not a STEMlord, it's just that, at least in America, there are at least a few fields in which doing post-grad research does not necessarily suggest you are reasonably intelligent. If someone has done post-grad research in most humanities fields, I'd be impressed. But not if that field is "critical film analysis" or some such thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/14 04:34 PM
1

Are validation and attention really the only reasons people, such as yourself, pursue interesting hobbies? Depends. I think a lot of people originally pick up a hobby in order to receive validation and attention, and then later it becomes a personal passion. I mean, how many talented rock musicians originally started playing to get laid?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/14 08:49 AM
1

I hold post graduate qualifications, so can be assumed to be reasonably intelligent That really depends on what field.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/14 08:46 AM
1

Seeing media constantly portraying women as homemakers can lead the consumer further into the belief that women are supposed to be homemakers. So? All you're really saying is that the media reenforces social norms.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/14 02:14 AM
3

Where is the pseudoscience? The terms describe patterns of behaviour. In wolves.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/14 02:08 AM
1

Also, just speaking in terms of alpha vs. beta is too unnuanced to be effective, but once you get into the more complicated classifications (with the sigma/gamma/lambda/omega/etc.), it starts to rapidly appear to be the sort of complicated system that could have only been concocted by a basement dweller with too much free time.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/14 02:07 AM
5

Seven and eight aren't really "fat" though - they're examples of the type of curves that men actually like. I think you're unnecessarily clouding this debate by equating curvy women and fat women.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/14 11:01 PM
1

Kind of like how I find certain women to have ridiculously self important, inflated views of themselves and what they're entitled to. Views that are in fact, worthy to be made sport of. This. It applies to men too - when someone has a severe case of unwarranted self-importance, mockery is warranted. In my opinion it does the person a favor in the long-term - grotesquely inflated self-esteem prevents self-improvement, because you have to accept that you need improvement in order to do so.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/14 07:46 AM
3

It's not a hard science, but it's also more scientific than you make it seem. Yeah, I suppose I was being a bit flippant about it. I suppose that I was thinking more of the evopsych cited by TRP, rather than the field in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/14 12:11 AM
5

Evo Psych is roughly as scientific as a good chunk of sociology. They look at trends, data, whatever, and come up with explanations that kinda sound like they could be true. I wouldn't call it a hard science, let me put it that way.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 02:07 PM
2

Also, gluttony. Eating disorders are not generally considered immoral or even sinful but rather unhealthy. I know a reasonable number of people who view obesity as immoral because it indicates the person overconsumes even more than the average westerner.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 06:45 AM
1

Key word is seemed. None of this is even remotely logical. It's just rationalization of selfish behavior. The first few parts do seem to be relatively logical - maybe replace "best looking girlfriend I could get" with "most attractive girlfriend I could get" - then it makes sense, since it would indeed make sense to find the partner you personally find most attractive. It seemed logical to want to receive more in a relationship than to give. While this is arguably douchey, it's not actually illo…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 06:18 AM
1

Science and logic can help you reach goals and satisfy success criteria. They can't help you set them though! Goals are philosophical and as anybody who read even the shortest history of philosophy knows the brightest minds of humanity struggled for thousands of years to agree on exactly zero topics. You're aware that philosophy is based on logic, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 06:14 AM
1

Based on reading RP, they seem to value virginity (or at least relative chastity), faithfulness, and similar sort of old-school values.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 06:13 AM
3

Outdated Christian moral theory What's outdated about it, exactly? Is the newest moral theory automatically the most correct one?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 06:10 AM
4

I would say that redpillers think women should build character, even if they don't admit it. A lot of RP stuff, such as the view of adult women as overgrown children, appears to be a response to the feeling that women do not build character beyond a certain age.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 06:09 AM
2

It sounds like you're saying that the women helped you make connections with important men, who had come over to flirt with them. That doesn't seem to suggest they're valuable in any way other than a means to an end.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/14 06:55 PM
3

Did you pick the "nerd" trait? That replaces female characters' +10 to cooking and cleaning or male characters' +10 to strength and hand-eye coordination with a +15 intelligence bonus and -5 charisma penalty.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/14 06:53 PM
1

"AA" means "Asian-American" in your post, right? Not "African-American"? I'm like 90% sure it's the former based on context, but it is a bit unclear.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/14 09:56 PM
4

Obesity is a problem for both men and women He didn't say it wasn't a problem just for women. He said that the fat acceptance movement is just for women. Which, in my observation, is true - I've seen about a hundred times more fat women blogging/posting about fat acceptance than I have fat men.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/14 04:46 AM
3

"Location is not a basement" got me.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/14 04:45 AM
7

You're aware the media is part of real life, correct? Then again I suppose a smart cookie like you was able to avoid ever having your development shaped in any way by the media, at any age, at all, ever.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 04:02 PM
7

Or maybe women are used to being treated much better than men treat each other.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 03:57 PM
7

Yes, clearly anyone who disagrees with you is a moron.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 03:48 PM
2

Oh yeah, I did not mean to suggest relationship advice from men was universally good. I just think (heterosexual) men are more likely to give good dating advice to other (heterosexual) men since they have experience dealing with the situation from a similar perspective to yours, and therefore they have the most comparable experience.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 03:47 PM
5

I'd encourage him to treat women like normal people In my experience nothing will offend or alienate a woman faster than treating her like you treat everyone else.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 03:36 PM
2

There's a reason why psychopathy is such an idolized trait, because according to big names like IllimitableMan, it frees us from our conscience and in so doing, allows us to act with "the power of fearlessness." It also makes women find you more attractive, according to science. Aren't the guys who cultivate DT traits just looking at what women find attractive, and trying to develop those traits?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 03:35 PM
1

TRP doesn't think women give good advice to men about meeting women because they claim women always say, "be yourself" I'm a purple pill rather than red, but the main reason I don't think women give good advice about meeting/dating women is because I've had a lot of women give me advice about meeting/dating women and all of it was really bad.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 02:48 PM
2

"Feminism helps men too! We care about men's issues!" "Oh, really? Cool, because I'd like to talk about this men's issue for a moment..." "STOP INVADING OUR SPACES YOU FUCKING CHAUVINIST PIG!"
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 02:32 PM
10

Don't even mention the media, only idiots believe the media. You fail at arguing forever. I can do the same thing: "Anyone who believes anything except the media is an idiot, don't even mention anything other than the media as a possible source of information". You're simply denying the most obvious answer on, as far as I can tell, the moral opinion that it's okay to lie to idiots.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 02:29 PM
1

Once again, I cannot come up with a counterargument to an argument that has not been made. I'll be going now.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 02:17 PM
1

So what you're telling me is that I should go out of my way to find support for a baseless assertion made by some guy on the internet? Lol k.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 06:26 AM
3

A counter point to what? Your baseless assertion? I can't provide a counterpoint to a point that has not been made.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 03:42 AM
1

What do you think women do for their sons? Whatever the facts support.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 03:03 AM
3

Usually women find a father figure for their sons when they don't have one. [citation needed]
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 02:20 AM
1

I tell my female friends who bemoan "all my boyfriends cheat on me!" The same thing. Honey, you're the common denominator. Choose better men. To be honest, I do the same thing. However, at least in my experience, a lot of people often blame the male in the situation in either case. My objection was based solely on suspicion of hypocrisy, and so it is withdrawn.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 02:20 AM
3

Also the guy in the article is a chump. Sure, blame the victim. If you being nice means you expect attraction in return for a kind gesture, you're mistaken. I think the mistake a lot of people make is assuming Nice Guys expect sex from every woman they are nice to, which I don't think is usually the case. I believe their anger stems from the fact that they never get laid as a result of their behavior. This is very different from being angry because one specific person won't have sex with you eve…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 12:21 AM
1

I've found that being "nice" is a useless activity. People's expectations of you change based on your behavior. When someone's always nice, it loses any kind of meaning. But if you're a bit of a douche, and you decide to do something nice (take a friend who's had a really rough day out for a drink, or something), it seems to mean a lot more to the person than it would have if you did that sort of thing regularly.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 12:19 AM
16

Nice Guys is a term used to describe a set of men who were told that if they were nice, women would find them attractive. They then found out this was a lie, and that the behaviors they were told to adopt in order to attract women do not actually attract women. It turns out that when you lie to people, they get upset. Who could've possibly seen that coming? That doesn't mean they weren't really nice or that they were always being nice only to get laid. Bluepills often claim that redpill are assh…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 12:10 AM
1

The problem with studies about race is they seem to all want to conclude with either: Therefore, racism exists. or 2. Therefore, racism does not exist/is declining. Very few people look into these things in a truly unbiased manner, and thus all you get is a bunch of useless studies that prove only what the author set out to prove.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 12:05 AM
3

Look at your father. You mean that guy an increasing number of children grow up without?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/14 12:02 AM
7

Most redpills are not MGTOW, depending on the definition. A lot of MGTOW reject relationships with women. Given the whole point of /r/theredpill is getting laid, this means there is very little overlap between the two.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/14 06:02 PM
2

I don't think that's actually the goal of MGTOW so much as it is a side effect. MGOTW seem to just think they'll be happier doing what they want and not trying to fill their traditional role.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/14 05:59 PM
2

The problem in culture today is that there are too many men that do not know how to be man. Exactly how are you supposed to be a man? Our society has become opposed, at least in word, to traditional masculinity, and it has provided no real alternatives.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/14 05:56 PM
2

What? Yeah, the definition of "Asian-American" used in America (which is probably what OKCupid goes off of) includes Indians. Not Native American Indians. East Indians.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/14 05:37 PM
1

though I'm not sure how they considered the latter. OKCupid actually has an algorithm that determines someone's attractiveness based on other user's ratings of them. They then show the person potential matches with a similarly rated level of attractiveness. I would assume this is what the "attractiveness" in the study would be considered.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/14 05:29 PM
1

White men are more likely to have a decent paying job. If this is the case, shouldn't Asian and Jewish men have women lining up to fuck them? Because in my personal experience these two groups of men seem to have the most trouble getting laid.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/14 05:27 PM
1

As far as I know in the US Asians are the richest ethnic group Depends on whetheer or not you count Jews as an ethnic group. No, this is not meant to be a subtle "da j00z" post.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/14 05:25 PM
2

The OKCupid one seems to be referring to race. Hard to tell with the second link, as it includes the "Latino" option, but I don't know if that term is synonymous with "Hispanic" or if it has a more nuanced definition. Either way, that link doesn't appear to be taking into account white Hispanic vs. non-white Hispanic. EDIT: I just registered that "Asian" includes Indians. So no, this study is not even vaguely taking ethnicity into account.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/14 05:19 PM
1

White men get shamed for dating Asian girls too. Hell I'm dating an Indian atm and while I think she's gorgeous a lot of my friends have a "yea well she's no white girl.." Is it mostly the girls? In my experience, guys don't really remark on other guys' girlfriends (at least not to their face), except in cases where the relationship their male friend is in appears to be harmful to him in some way (girl is completely psycho, seems like a golddigger, etc.)
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/14 05:14 PM
1

And you don't stereotype defaults Plenty of people, both white and nonwhite, have stereotypes about white women.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/14 05:11 PM
1

except for Asian men who vastly prefer Latin women according to the claims Wat. Normally when statistics conflict with my personal experience, I try to get over it because the statistics are more likely to be correct than my personal experience. But I just don't believe this. I've never known an Asian guy who was dating a Latin woman. I'm not even sure I've ever seen an obvious Latin woman/Asian man couple walking around somewhere. Does this sound weird/wrong to anyone else?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/14 05:09 PM
1

Being into older women is a fetish and phase. While perhaps not a "phase", being into younger women is also a fetish, ephebephilia (This is sexual attraction to young-ish but non-pubescent partners, like in the 17-20 range)
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/14 05:04 PM
1

Well, the article argues that they should change their attitudes to increase the chances that they have children. I really hate how often people use "you should get a new opinion because if you don't no women will have sex with you" as an argument. I realize that you were not doing so, I just mean the article itself.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/14 02:17 PM
1

Yes, it is. No. It's not. You've made absolutely no argument whatsoever, either for your point or against mine. You've simply asserted that I have made a fallacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/14 02:20 AM
0

My mistake on the spelling. Go ahead, educate us all here. What does it mean and how does it not apply to your fallacious objection? It's not my job to explain why my argument isn't fallacious. You're welcome explain why it is fallacious, but at the moment you have done nothing except state that it is a fallacy. Assertions are not arguments.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/14 12:41 AM
3

That equates morality with legality.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/14 12:33 AM
2

Are you suggesting that murder is only immoral because it is illegal, and that no legal thing could ever be immoral? No. Next question.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/14 12:32 AM
1

non sequitur "Sequitor" I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/14 12:32 AM
4

Not a valid comparison. Murder is illegal, infidelity is not. The two are also not morally comparable.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/14 03:38 PM
2

I think that may be because some SJWs like to package those adjectives together alongside CIS and privileged though. I think so, too. I've seen some statements on TRP that are mildly homophobic, but aren't that bad overall ("You're gay? That's weird. Well, more women for me"). Overall trend seems to be toward indifference towards homosexuals.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/14 03:37 PM
3

Why does this dynamic exist? What purpose does it fulfill? It serves no useful purpose, but it's the easiest way to dismiss someone's opinions about sex and relationships. "Feminazis hate men because they're ugly and angry because no men will fuck them" "Redpills hate women because they're socially inept losers who women don't find attractive" "Male Feminists act like white knights because women don't find them attractive and they think white knighting will get them laid"
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/14 03:33 PM
3

They're adult enough to make their own decisions, and hold full moral culpability for cheating. At the same time, you're adult enough to make your own decisions, so you hold moral culpability for participating in the cheating. I disagree. Someone in a committed relationship has an obligation not to cheat on their partner. I do not have an obligation to actively prevent them from cheating. The cheating partner is the one violating their moral obligation, not the person they're cheating with.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/14 03:04 PM
2

You can't deny that many a red piller totally buys into that crap. I didn't deny that. I was pointing that out because it demonstrates how fucking retarded it is that they take that website seriously.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/14 02:44 PM
2

They just can't believe anyone can write that crap and actually mean it, even if they already know about red pillers. I'm like 99.999% sure that some of the stuff on that website is just meant to piss people off. I think that most of the writers actually are redpills/MRAs/PUAs/TLAs, but I think some of those articles are written pretty much entirely to piss off Feminists. They loosely reflect the authors' real opinions, but exaggerated to induce maximum rage. Tuthmosis is particularly notable, h…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/14 06:14 AM
1

Yep, Disney, a lot of romantic comedies, quite a few stories in various media dealing with nerdy guys who eventually get the girl due to their dedicated trying, etc., etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/14 03:04 AM
3

Pejorative or not, it's pretty common usage in America to describe a gay person as a fag/dyke. Pejorative or not, it's pretty common usage in America to describe a black/chinese/hispanic/middle eastern person as a nigger/gook/spic/raghead. Would you encourage the use of all slurs that degrade a person for a personal characteristic of theirs? The word "slut" degrades people for their choices, not for their inborn traits.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/14 03:03 AM
0

A self aware polyamorous person would be unlikely to put themselves in this scenario. While this is true, I interpreted the question as potential monogamous relationship partners. Stating that a self-aware polyamorous person would be unlikely to enter into one of these, this would mean that they are not potential monogamous relationship partners. Most dictionaries define promiscuity to basically be a long-term tendency to have promiscuous sex, which is a behavior. This is a completely different …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/14 02:59 AM
2

But doesn't this article justify having negative assumptions about someone based on their past? If someone has a genetic predisposition away from monogamy, wouldn't that suggest they would indeed be more likely to cheat? I realize I did say "based on things out of their control", which this admittedly does qualify as. However, a genetic predisposition for a behavior is not the same thing as an inherent trait like homosexuality or being black. While having gay sex itself obviously is a behavior, …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 06:01 PM
2

Dreaming that you can insist people get STI tests and show you a physical copy of the results without offending the vast majority of the population implies you live in a politically correct fantasy.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 03:01 PM
3

In one breath you want the woman who says yes to every guy who asks and in the other breath you don't. Exactly where did I say that? Women are propositioned for sexstarting at 11. He'll younger for some. And if you want me to respond you're going to need to rephrase this sentence because I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. The bolded bit.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 02:59 PM
12

The wording is mostly intended as a joke, but it does make the issue clear. Men got taught women like a set of behaviors that they don't actually like.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 02:57 PM
1

the only reason I'm tempted to call them lesser alphas is because they do have an uncanny ability to seduce women. I guess I always viewed those types' sexual success as more a product of retarded women than of their own personal traits.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 07:58 AM
10

There is literally nothing it is not okay to judge potential partners based on. There are some things it might be unfair to judge them based on, but when you get down to it it's your goddamn sex organs and you can refuse someone access to them for literally any reason you want. I can't believe how many BPers who would flip their shit if guys started demanding women provide justification for not sleeping with them demand explanation for why TRP doesn't want to have sex with promiscuous women.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 07:55 AM
0

Uh...are you saying that it's not okay to judge people based on these things? The thread asked for things that it's not okay to judge people on, but your post kind of sounds like what it's okay to judge people based on.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 07:53 AM
4

race, sexual orientation, gender, religious/political beliefs, culture, etcetc. All of these except religious and political beliefs are not choices. It's fucked up to judge people based on set traits they have no ability to change, like skin color or sexual orientation. It is not fucked up to judge people based on the decisions they make. And it's fucked up to make negative assumptions about someone's character based on their political beliefs? So it's wrong of me to assume a Neonazi might not b…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 07:49 AM
1

Ohh, okay, that makes sense. I believe I've seen that type referred to as "alpha negative" before. I personally view those types of guys as a separate category, because most of the time their "alpha traits" are more a product of them being too retarded to have behavior socialized into them, and/or compensation for their low self-esteem. Being an idiot with low self-esteem is not an alpha trait.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 07:45 AM
2

So you are ok starting a LTR with someone who doesn't want to get tested together and share the results? Yes. Not everyone lives in magical social justice la-la land.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 07:42 AM
2

I've run across a couple Tumblrs run by black women who fantasize about racist white men, so yeah, there's at least that one. I'm not sure they specified "in white capes", but close enough.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 07:31 AM
8

So he keeps busy building intellectual value that society needs So what you're saying is that betas do all of the significant work that goes into running society? That's odd, because "Alpha Male" implies leadership, and yet you appear to be saying that alpha males are basically just leeches who contribute literally nothing to society except fucking women.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 07:29 AM
22

Not to mention I can't blame them for feeling "entitled" to sex - not sex with any particular person, but sex in general. As far as they know, they're doing everything they should be to doing to attract a sexual partner. If you do everything that you've been led to believe will cause something to happen, you're going to be pissed off when it doesn't happen.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 07:27 AM
8

I often tell people that the reason why so many young men have so much trouble getting laid boils down to one thing: society attempted to redefine male behavior. They taught men that women wanted them to act this way. They forgot to teach women that they are supposed to like men who act that way.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 07:25 AM
1

But it's rare, so therefore it would be attractive. I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you somehow failed to realize that the above poster was talking about rare personality traits or achievements, not anything that is rare.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 07:23 AM
2

but experience is experience from where I'm standing. I don't think redpillers deny that a woman with 20 different sexual partners will probably be good in bed (although in my experience you pick up more sexual skill via multiple encounters with the same person, since the first time tends to be a bit limited by awkwardness, people hesitant to mention kinks initially, etc.). I think it's more a combination of STD risk and "ew" factor. Obviously the latter isn't a logical reason, but it's not like…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 05:11 AM
1

Right, but realistically, demanding virginity is like asking for someone who can't drive because you never know if they've behaved riskily in the past. Not really because there are risks to having someone who doesn't know how to drive driving. There are no risks to your health from having sex with a virgin over a more experienced woman. Also I meant more just avoiding women who have high numbers of sexual partners, not demanding solely virgins. That being said, "plates" is pretty much the same h…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 12:51 AM
1

Are you suggesting that I liked having my dick sucked the same way you like having your dick sucked? Probably. There are minor differences, but I really doubt each man's penis is a unique snowflake. So you're no better than TRP. Got it. I just stated the facts. I'm more on the red side then the blue side. Don't go George Bush on me here.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 12:21 AM
1

However when it comes to sex. All I care about is how you fuck me. Because what got her off may not be what gets me off. Well, yeah. I said that studies have shown a lot of women do that, I didn't say that actually makes sense. I assume it's some kind of leftover instinct thing rather than intentional behavior.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 12:18 AM
1

For example in transmission of HIV, eight concurrent fuck buddies would be a higher risk behaviour than eight fuck buddies in succession, seperated by a few month each When I say "fuck buddies", I mean "people whom she met up and had sex with regularly", e.g. all of them were her current fuckbuddies. That shit is very risky. Risky enough that it seems to suggest a deeper level of poor decision-making ability, which is not attractive in a partner. Sort of like how I also don't want to date women …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 12:15 AM
1

If you think sex is bad than it is bad. No pussyfooting around that. Hardly. That's like saying "if you think your life is bad it is bad". Some people are simply impossible to satisfy. Pump pump snooze was their idea of good sex...For them. Hell some of those men don't even know the basics. Like where the clit is or that a lot of women get off more from grinding than penetration. (I once "tribbed" with my boyfriend. We both came. Have to work on incorporating that into our regular sex life. ) Th…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 12:09 AM
2

Here you go. This admittedly doesn't show that promiscuity is correlated with cheating, but it does at the very least show that women with a greater number of sexual partners prior to marriage are more likely to get divorced. This study did not directly correlate promiscuity and cheating, although it did find that both of them appear to linked to the same gene Naturally this gene is probably not be the sole cause of cheating and promiscuity, but it does show at least some degree of connection be…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/14 11:50 PM
2

Personally, I avoid both sluts and virgins. I avoid sluts for most of the reasons people have mentioned elsewhere in this thread (disease, seem more likely to cheat, etc.) I avoid virgins because, frankly, a lot of virgin women are hesitant to have sex for the first time and I'd really like to not have to date a woman for six months before we have sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/14 11:48 PM
1

In fact there are plenty of religious women on the Relationships subreddit complaining about their unfortunate love life with their husband who happens to be their only lover. On a related note, I think virginity can also create the opposite problem: the woman has no basis of comparison, and so may simply think her boyfriend is bad in bed because she's never had sex with any other guy. Especially because I suspect a lot of people who wait until marriage to have sex end up with unrealistic expect…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/14 11:46 PM
2

This study seems to suggest it sort of matters. It's a bit iffy because they showed the women flaccid penises, and they topped out at 5 inches. Since people are usually talking about erect size when they're talking about dick size, I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Especially because erect length and flaccid length don't correlate very well. However, I recall seeing a study (which I can't find at the moment, sorry) in which women ranked their preferred penis size, and the most preferred pen…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/14 11:41 PM
1

I don't understand, you judge your risk of STD based on partner count and not with medical tests? The issue here is that you're assuming: Everyone gets tested for STDs regularly People never lie about test results/whether they've been tested and will not be offended if you ask them to show you their test results.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/14 11:29 PM
2

over inflate STI risk (thank you abstinence focused US sex ed!). You can hardly blame that on sex ed. This is just a fact. The more people you have sex with, the more at risk you are for STIs, simply because there are more possible ways to get infected. Think about this: I once knew a girl who had eight regular fuckbuddies. Any guy who had sex with her was exposing himself to any STIs any of her partners had picked up since the last time they fucked. Having sex with her put you at risk of any ST…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/14 11:27 PM
1

So while many men may lack self-control, for most men, having promiscuous sex with lots of women isn't an option for them. So not that part Not to mention that it's impressive for a man to have a lot of sexual partners, because he's accomplished something difficult. It is not impressive for a woman to have a lot of sexual partners, because pretty much all a woman needs to do is ask a man to have sex with her.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/14 07:08 PM
1

What kind of man woman wants to have a serious relationship with a woman person who gratuitously pursues physical gratification, emotional fulfillment, and/or self-esteem through the dicks orifices of other men women? Actually, women tend to like men who do this. Well, sort of. They like men who other women are with, which leads to men who get laid a lot being viewed as more attractive. Here's a more academic source on the topic.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/14 07:06 PM
0

with gangrenous limbs are rare The issue here is the "gangrenous limbs". That would be physically unattractive to pretty much everyone. On the other hand, had you left it at "neonazi", then yeah, I'm sure there are women who love skinheads.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/14 06:59 PM
2

which seems to imply that penises - and presumably the men they are attached to - are basically a fungible commodity. Dude, what? Saying that sucking dick makes you better at sucking dick does not imply this in any way. And for that matter, TRP treats women exactly the same way.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/14 06:57 PM
2

It's a skill, it takes practice. I don't understand why people will shame sluts and then get frustrated with women who don't know how to have sex. Because practice doesn't require dozens of partners. You can have sex with one person multiple times, and you'll get better at it. It's probable that multiple partners might let you get more practice, but it's not like you have sex with someone one time and you magically learned everything you could learn from them.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/14 06:55 PM
1

In the sense that there will be a lot of strength difference between male and female top athletes but much, much less difference to the average untrained couch potato, male or female. Not necessarily. He's a Sports Illustrated article about a WNBA team that practices by playing against men who played basketball in high school or whatever. Not completely amateurs, but hardly as well-trained as a WNBA player (presumably) is.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/14 02:15 PM
1

I don't know, I think a lot of people assume that the argument is "people should be treated equally because people are equal". I know in school when we'd talk about blah blah blah equality this was heavily implied.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/14 07:09 AM
3

And in a great show of hypocrisy, of course I would want my partner to stay with me and love me unconditionally. Hey, at least you're honest about it. No one is able to avoid hypocrisy 100% of the time.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/14 07:06 AM
1

Basically, some people take the "women should be treated equally to men" thing, and turn it into "women are literally identical to men in every single way."
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/14 05:23 AM
2

Ah, okay. I used to see it used in that ironic sense, but I've also seen it used to dismiss statements like "most men are physically stronger than most women".
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/14 02:54 AM
10

fuck biotruths Fucking seriously? How do you guys consistently manage to outright reject biological facts? It's be one thing to object to the biotruths TRP specifically uses, since those are of questionable merit and are more like "evopsychtruths". But to just reject them out of hand? How can you possibly justify that?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/14 02:25 PM
1

I said that it's a subjective thing, and different individuals would have an easier or harder time fitting into different gender expectations. It's not a quantitative equality, but a state of equality that exists because it is unquantifiable. Everything.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/14 01:48 PM
1

My mother and sister, however, were constantly trying to get us to stop because they didn't really understand that we weren't trying to hurt each other, and we weren't doing it for no reason. Yeah, I remember as a teenager whenever one of my friends and I would wrestle/fight, all of our female friends/girlfriends who were present would freak out. And we're talking stuff that was even less serious than you and your stepdad - most of the time we wouldn't even end up bruised, we'd just go until one…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/14 06:33 AM
1

So basically what you're telling me is that you don't have to provide evidence because you are making a claim so totally vague that it is unfalsifiable?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/14 06:08 AM
2

...What? How can you be so completely confused as to how evidence works? "Men and women are equal" is just as positive a claim as "women have it better than men".
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/14 02:21 AM
8

I'm a bit confused here because your title suggests "male-dominated", but your post seems to just be referring to dominant partners in general. I'm going to just give a general answer regarding relationships where one partner is more dominant than the other. It seems like a dom/sub relationship that extends beyond the bedroom adds a lot of formality and pressure to a relationship with no added reward save for the ego gratification some get from power play. Depends. I'm guessing that most of them…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/14 12:48 AM
1

I will say that I occasionally see people trying to justify cheating with sex positivity, but it's always a case of "I did a shitty thing, let me figure out how I can twist this to make myself look good". If you're wondering, I've heard a handful of women complain that their boyfriend was trying to "control their body"...by being angry that they cheated.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/14 12:37 AM
6

You think being a woman is rougher, based on your posts above. Go be a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/14 03:19 PM
10

You'd rather die giving birth to a miscarried rape baby Oh yeah, because that happens in the first world all the time, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/14 03:18 PM
1

Anyone asking for a source for either of the claims mentioned above is deliberately being moronic. Demanding someone provide a citation for "the sky is blue" is a blatant attempt to waste that person's time, not an arguing tactic. And yes, I'm aware that the atmosphere is technically clear, but personally think that "sky" refers to the visual appearance of the upper part of the atmosphere alone, not its actual composition.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/14 03:13 PM
5

You have no right to sex. Period. Full stop. I have every right to have sex with a consenting partner, and if my partner is consistently refusing to consent, I have every right to dump them and find someone who will. And I have every right to ensure that she's aware of that situation, and, if anything, it would be inconsiderate of me to not give her advance warning.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/14 03:10 PM
14

Many people do not cheat on their significant other, and frankly this thread sounds suspiciously like you trying to convince yourself that it's normal to do so.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/14 03:04 PM
2

You do if someone asks you for a source. No, you don't. Anyone who asks for a source on either of those statements is being deliberately moronic.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/14 02:55 PM
1

Huh, interesting. Never mind then, I guess.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/14 02:53 PM
1

Actually that's pretty traditionalist, only the language has been updated. I mean, like half of the Malleus Maleficarum summarizes to "women are immoral harlots who are more prone to witchcraft because of their inherent lack of moral fiber". One of my friends has a psychology textbook from the '40s which even the most vitriolic redpill stuff pales in comparison to.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 05:34 PM
1

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the trouble is that the people with low self-esteem are rarely the ones who should have low self-esteem.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 05:30 PM
1

I think the main goal of TRP is to sort of "become the mask". Makes sense - I'm sure you know someone who, for example, used to tell racist jokes just to be "edgy" or whatever, but now not even they know for sure whether or not they're racist. Likewise, redpill is based on the assumption that if you behave like you're a really secure, high-value guy, eventually you will be.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 05:30 PM
0

Do you realize that hunter-gatherer tribes were egalitarian? Both sexes provided food--men hunted, and women gathered. By that logic men doing real work and women doing housework is an "egalitarian society". (Please don't jump down my throat about "real work", it's a poor choice of words but I'm tired, you know what I mean. Work done to make money)
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 05:05 PM
1

Women have a right to vote, just as men do In the present tense? I disagree. Men are required to register for selective service, women are not. Voting requires this registration. Women's right to vote depends only on age and citizenship. Thus men and women do not have identical rights to vote, and the women are clearly getting the better deal. Women have a right to control their own reproduction (via birth control, abortion, etc.) I do not disagree with this but I do favor the "male abortion", b…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 05:04 PM
1

Women are attracted to nice men they are attracted to. This is literally just a tautology, what is your point?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 04:57 PM
1

Women who obsess over those movies (adult women, obviously. Seven year old girls are welcome to obsess over those movies) sketch me out. I saw someone ranting somewhere online about how if a grown woman obsesses over those movies, this indicates she has warped expectations about relationships and expects to be treated literally like a princess at all times. As I read it, I got a strong feeling of recognition, as "expects to be treated like a princess" is actually a fairly good description of the…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 04:53 PM
0

Nothing. I don't know why anyone would be upset about that. I always thought these complaints were more directed at shows depicting the opposite, a socially awkward guy who manages to win the heart of a super-hot girl through his winning personality and great sense of humor or whatever.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 04:49 PM
17

Even if the study is more complex and there are multiple variables, the whole idea is simply "science confirms the obvious". Everyone knows that it's massively easier for women to get laid than men. EDIT: By the way, yes I do realize that I'm sort of committing Argumentum ad populum here. However, I'd argue that I'm not because I'm not arguing it's true because everyone thinks it's true. I'm arguing it's true because I'm pretty sure that virtually everyone's life experience confirms that it's tr…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 04:44 PM
1

Whoa, weird. Thanks for that, I was just guessing given Reddit's overall demographics and the surveys conducted by some other subs such as SRS, who are at least vaguely affiliated with TBP.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 04:25 PM
1

The best way to sum up the way I see the world is that you can do whatever the fuck you like as long as you don't harm others - but if someone does harm to you, you have every right to harm them back. I have a vaguely similar moral system based on the following argument: The golden rule is an easy to follow, solid moral system. The golden rule only works if everyone follows it. Follow the golden rule, and assume everyone else is following it too. So, if you're nice to me, I'm nice to you. If you…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 08:57 AM
1

I love virtue ethics, one of the few times in my life I read a philosophical view and felt like someone had plucked the thoughts right out of my head.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 08:55 AM
2

"Victimless crimes" might've been slightly more clear, as I'm assuming that's what you meant. It wasn't that unclear, he's being pedantic.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 08:52 AM
2

I don't know why you think world==first world. Because the modern Feminist movement is, as a group, far more concerned with ensuring that first world women are the most pampered group in the history of humanity. While there are Feminists who try to help actual oppressed women gain legal rights, the vast majority of them do not.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 08:51 AM
1

Only because you already said it. I'm not a redpill, but I lean more towards that side of things than the TBP side. I have virtually the same opinions as you except for the pacifist bit (I am not in favor of violence, but I believe that simply rejecting it is based on wishful thinking) That and I would not actually call myself a Feminist, because the term has been wrecked.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 08:50 AM
-1

Half of all adults over 15 are married. Which is a huge decrease from the 1960s. You're deliberately misrepresenting statistics. Not to mention that assuming "presently being married" translates into people's sex lives "working out" is patently ridiculous. According to this article, 15% of married couples have not had sex within six months to one year. I don't think you could say those marriages are "working out".
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 08:45 AM
2

the ironic conclusion that the way to deal with womens unreasonable expectations in men is to try and meet those expectations? What is the alternative? Complain about it and hope women magically realize their expectations are unreasonable?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 08:40 AM
1

Evo psych is a classic example of "Just because you have a Ph.D., doesn't mean you're right".
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 08:39 AM
1

And to prove, you proceed to project onto all blue pillers. Half of which are men. Probably the majority. EDIT: Apparently not the majority.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 08:37 AM
1

He asked a question, I answered it. You didn't like the answer, now you're complaining. I don't have any failure to contribute to distract from. Meanwhile, all you've managed to do is post complaints.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 07:26 AM
5

Meanwhile the child support component is usually resolved by swabbing the inside of you and the kid's mouth. If only. The woman has a right to refuse the man a paternity test. The man can seek a court order, but the court can decide to refuse a paternity test. In fact, here's a case where paternity wasn't even disputed, the mother fully admitted that the child was someone else's, and they ordered the other guy to pay child support anyways. Here's some other stories about men forced to pay child …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 07:03 AM
4

I'm assuming that's related to your ex being a reasonable human being who didn't want to steal everything you own. Unfortunately, a lot of guys don't have that luxury.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 06:55 AM
14

I believe this is called "victim-blaming".
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 06:54 AM
1

No, because men don't feel "entitled" to anything except for not subsidizing the lives of some woman they don't particularly care for and who doesn't appreciate them. There's a huge difference between feeling "entitled" to support yourself and no one else, and feeling entitled to someone else's support.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 06:53 AM
2

Actually, I have heard of this fallacy. I direct you to rules #1 and #6 in the sidebar.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 06:50 AM
2

She's straight down the center of feminism I would define that as "wingnut" territory.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 06:47 AM
2

It does matter to the person you may have possibly raped by not obtaining what she felt to be Enthusiastic Vocal Consent. You're joking, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 06:44 AM
2

Is "white knighting" acceptable, used as a verb? It is really convenient shorthand for the type of behavior it describes.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 06:36 AM
1

I don't know, immediately after sex the vagina can get a bit looser, depending on how tight it was to begin with. Obviously it doesn't get massively looser, and it returns to normal proportions shortly. Obviously it's a lot of hyperbole, but it's still hyperbole. Besides, whether it is "laughably, demonstrably false" is irrelevant, because almost no one saying that means it literally.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 06:34 AM
1

I'm not a TRPer. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I agree with the other side. I don't really see how TRP manipulates people for personal gain any more than any other method of flirting. It's just slightly more honest about what it's doing.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 06:32 AM
1

That's my point. I was remarking that the idea of art being expressive is a view held by many people in modern society, and this idea is very much a product of advances in science. Before a few hundred years ago, the vast majority of artists painted for patrons, not for their own personal expression. Which is why the other guy probably said: I think it's because you live comfortably because of advances in science are the reason you are able to do art. He was thinking of "art" as a personally exp…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 06:31 AM
1

Sure, but he simply asked for a reason why that might be true, in a tone that implies that it is somehow implausible for there to be a single difference between men and women.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 06:27 AM
1

You just completely misread my post. If the Michelin man is not art (WHAT IS 1900-1950AD ANYONE?) then pyramid inscriptions are not art either. That's the entire point of my post.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 04:06 AM
2

It's not a question of intellect, it's a question of possibility. At some point, there's going to be some resource that's limited. Even if that resource is something like how many electrons there are in the entire universe or something.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 04:04 AM
1

I'm aware. Why do you care so much? I'd like some explanation as to why you think this is an issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 03:59 AM
3

You won't get to post-scarcity ever. Something will always be scarce.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 03:58 AM
1

Really? Cuz there was art in Roman times, art in Egyptian times, art in prehistoric times. Yeah, but at those times what "art" actually was was quite a bit different. It was more about commercial/government interests and not about "expression". Most people nowadays think of "art" as being something personal and expressive. Nobody thinks of the Michelin Man as being a "work of art", and a lot of the art from those cultures were that era's version of the Michelin Man.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 03:57 AM
0

Why do you care so much?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 03:50 AM
15

Dude, you really think that something that can fit a fucking baby through it is going to be permanently stretched by dicks?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 03:48 AM
-1

Possibly because men and women are not psychologically identical in every single way.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 03:44 AM
1

You've totally misinterpreted this. The point is that she should've found someone while she was attractive. If you're already in a relationship with someone, and you both get older, not quite as big of a problem. But if you're single, why would you want to go after the less attractive women?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 03:42 AM
1

Hyperbole, then?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 03:40 AM
2

I actually thought that for a bit longer than was really okay (like until 11th grade), but mostly because the one time I had sex with a really slutty girl she actually did have a really loose vagina. I realize now that this is a coincidence, but at the time it was enough to delay me realizing that that was bullshit. ...Then again I'm guessing your ex is quite a ways past 11th grade, lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 03:39 AM
1

Nope. I have heard women admit that they sometimes say "no" but want the guy to be pushy about it, because they really mean "yes". Thus you are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/14 04:54 PM
3

Oh, no, I haven't heard anyone say that teachers are prone to prostitution or pornography. However, there does seem to be a stereotype (at least among people I know) of education majors as slutty drunks. A stereotype which, presumably, exists for a reason.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/14 06:14 AM
3

But that's clearly not true. I know for a fact that some women say "no" when they really mean "yes". While I'm certainly not going to advocate assuming that "no" means "yes", the fact that some women do do this proves you wrong. You're ignoring reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/14 02:48 AM
4

Just by putting that out there he's making you think a HIGH number of female teachers are sluts. He is not exactly the first person I have heard say that. It is probably not true, but I know several people in real life who have made this claim about education majors. Especially elementary education majors.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/14 02:44 AM
6

TRP is dangerous in the way that it GENERATES anger and hatred towards women. I am almost certain that TRP is not the source of the rage towards women you might feel is present on that subreddit.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/14 02:43 AM
4

And yet most of the people crying foul on TRP are tripping over themselves to complain the second a double standard is not beneficial to women.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/14 02:42 AM
3

Yes, I disagree with you, therefore I must be a red pill. This is how logic works, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/14 02:41 AM
8

All of this may be true, but can you come up with any reason why it's more dangerous than, for example, Glamour magazine? Because the dating advice offered in that magazine is about ten times more psychotic than anything I've ever seen on TRP. The main thing that bugs me about the criticism of TRP is that sociopathic dating advice for women is sold in checkout lines nationwide, and nobody says much beyond occasionally making fun of it, but if sociopathic dating advice for men gets posted on the …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/14 03:32 PM
1

Why? The logic for gay marriage is to provide the same economic advantage to every citizen, as what every democracy based upon egality towards the law and the government should tend to. So, why would this logic be applied in the same way about polygamy? I'm going to assume he means the "right to marry who you love" argument, which would justify polygamy if someone were to love more than one person. However, that argument is itself nothing but an appeal to emotion, so basically he's claiming that…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/14 05:40 AM
5

Thank you. While using a logical fallacy doesn't make you wrong, it does make your argument invalid and you should come back when you have a valid one. And if you can't think of a valid one, even after a great deal of trying, you may want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/14 05:38 AM
0

Couldn't any attempt to get someone to have sex with you be viewed as "manipulating" them? Besides, nobody ever has the full picture when they consent to sex with a new person. If a woman has, say, borderline personality disorder, and I have sex with her without realizing she's nuts, has she manipulated me by failing to disclose this information?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/14 04:20 AM
0

Why would someone try to 'sell' you on the benefits of not being sexist? Because someone else is trying to sell me on the benefit of being sexist. Especially since those guys have research that backs up their claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/14 03:51 AM
2

I'm here to argue that TRP is misogynistic and anyone who subscribes to RP beliefs is complicit in the promotion of misogynistic ideals. Yeah, but if TRP gets me laid, and you don't, I'm gonna go with TRP.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/14 03:40 AM
1

When you walk around in the city it seems much lower than that. That's because it's the city. In the city, people are less likely to own or regularly drive cars. This leads to people walking more, which makes people less fat. There are also other factors, but that's probably the most obvious one.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/14 12:16 AM
1

Yeah, me too. But when I visit my family in the midwest, I am often shocked by how fat everyone is in the small town where I get off the train. Especially the women. I think it's because the guys are more likely to play sports or detassel corn during the summer or other things that burn a lot of calories.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/14 12:14 AM
1

In my group of friends in my hometown the only person we ever slut-shamed was a guy. We started referring to his girlfriends by alphanumeric designations (e.g. "A-17") instead of their names because we "didn't want to get attached", since they'd soon be gone.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/14 03:04 PM
1

He said "most".
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/14 02:37 PM
10

This whole article rallies around the fact that he has a frat house to lure girls into for partying. Yeah, this is pretty much useless for anyone who lives in a small place/doesn't want to risk their place getting trashed/getting the cops called/etc. Not to mention this entire article basically summarizes to "get her drunk and fuck her". Such a brilliant tactic! How has no one ever thought of this before? Thank god he saw fit to enlighten us!
/r/seduction30/03/14 05:58 AM
0

self-proclaimed feminist whose statements reveal her more justly as a misandrist NAFALT!
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 04:33 PM
1

The first article you linked is by (1) not a feminist and (2) a professor of philosophy, not gender studies or sociology. Who describes herself as a "Feminist philosopher". Betty Friedan is highly respected by Feminist academia and so counting her as part of it is not unreasonable. You're just trying to slither out of this.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 02:15 PM
1

it's just that it's variable depending on the instance, and it's also used as an insult. It's so variable that it is effectively meaningless. It basically means "I didn't like that".
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 05:51 AM
1

They clearly look down on that choice: 1 2 3 Especially good quote: “...women who 'adjust' as housewives, who grow up wanting to be 'just a housewife,' are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps...they ate suffering a slow death of mind and spirit.” 4
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 05:50 AM
0

I find that easy to believe. The problem is it only takes one or two experiences at a young age with a girl who uses "creepy" far more liberally, and who is far more hellbent on informing everyone she knows of how creepy it was, to make a guy shy about approaching women for years.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 05:49 AM
1

Are you kidding me?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 05:46 AM
1

Not all men would pick up the feminine traits unless someone told them to do so, same with women picking up masculine traits. The natural question is then if this is a good thing. That depends entirely on what traits they're picking up. For instance, I think that more women (and men) using logic to make decisions instead of emotion is good, because making logical decisions is obviously better than doing what you feel like doing even if it doesn't make sense. The problem is I see many people pick…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 06:17 PM
1

John Von Neumann, mathematician and physicist who laid out much of the foundations of modern computer science, quantum physics, game theory, and numerous other topics, was noted for his womanizing tendencies and penchant for driving expensive sports cars at very high speeds. Now think of your vision of an alpha male. Do the two line up? Depends on how we define alpha. If we mean a musclebound moron, the way some TRPers do, then no. If we mean someone who is confident and competent, then yes. At …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 06:12 PM
1

Academic feminists ultimately advocate free choice (if you want to be a house wife, you should be a house wife), which is something TRPers completely miss. They don't "miss" it, so much as they ignore it because a lot of academic Feminists have shown time and time again that they do not really support free choice and look down their noses at people who choose to be housewives.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 06:07 PM
5

This, and you can add: Women don't like the way young men have been raised to behave Even if you don't agree with TRP about what women do like, the plague of "Nice Guys" and cool guys who inexplicably can't get laid really confirms this. The men who are in their late teens or early twenties have been raised receiving messages like "it's sexual harassment to flirt with a girl" and/or it's "creepy" (a word which means virtually nothing).
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 06:02 PM
3

Ho-o-o-o-ly shit, this is bad even for them. she continues to tell me a little bit more, if I wrote out all the details I could have written a book about it all. It's so strange, I don't want her to think I am judging her. I want her to know no matter what she tells me I'll accept her. Yeah, I can see why. After all, what kind of unreasonably asshole would dare to judge a woman just for fucking her dog for years? /s
/r/TheRedPill17/12/13 04:54 PM
8

Home problems are just like computer problems: 90% of them can be solved with Google searches.
/r/TheRedPill17/12/13 04:45 PM
5

Between those sick fucks in r/sex saying a chick fucking her dog for years is A-OK Jesus fucking Christ, do you have a link to this?
/r/TheRedPill17/12/13 04:29 PM
3

No, no, you misunderstand. There are Feminists who critique the very idea of logic: not a particular framework of logic. Literally the idea that there is a method of inference which allows you to make conclusions which are more likely to be correct than not using such a system would allow. Basically, their criticisms are based on the idea that logic is misogynistic. Because...women aren't good at logic. Yet another case of radical Feminists making arguments based on the very same stereotypes of …
/r/TheRedPill17/12/13 04:04 AM
1

I worded it like that somewhat facetiously.
/r/TheRedPill16/12/13 03:52 PM
1

Again, I wrote that in jest to point out that SRS's derision of those guys doesn't mean it isn't example of RP. Well, yeah, I wouldn't even blame you for saying that in seriousness - its the absolute truth. I sadly can't find it now, but I saw some article on a Feminist blog a few weeks back whose central topic summarized to "omg why are feminist men such pussies?" A ton of BP stuff that focuses way too much on the relationship and often ends up turning people into footstools who've never learne…
/r/TheRedPill16/12/13 07:42 AM
41

I am currently exploring feminist critiques of logic The fact that "feminist critiques of logic" exist is, in my opinion, the single most damning fact about Feminism. A "critique of logic" is everything that is wrong about Feminism, boiled down into the purest form possible.
/r/TheRedPill16/12/13 06:42 AM
8

You mean, even SRS looks down on those footstools? The difference is people like SRS are responsible for those footstools. The trouble with modern society is that men have been told to act this way so that women will like them, and meanwhile women have not been informed that this is what they're supposed to like.
/r/TheRedPill16/12/13 06:38 AM
3

Please stop pretending to understand genetics. You're confusing phenotype with genotype. Just because a trait is not visibly displayed in the offspring does not mean that those genes are not passed on. In addition, please stop trying to cloak your ignorance in a facade of logic by using incoherent mathematical metaphors.
/r/TheRedPill16/12/13 06:34 AM
2

Kind of. Adding someone as your "friend" is basically like subscribing to them: you just see posts they make in a "friends" tab. It doesn't require any permission on their part, and you're not actually told you friended them so its not really like facebook friends or anything.
/r/TheRedPill16/12/13 06:32 AM
5

Those Asian women are the winners in those match ups. They are passing on more of their own genes(than the paternal party), You get half your genes from your mother, and half your genes from your father. So no, they are not passing on more of their own genes than the paternal party is.
/r/TheRedPill16/12/13 01:25 AM
3

They are the people who run and mold our country. Based on the way things are going right now, I'd say that's evidence against those degrees being useful.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 01:47 PM
1

Pay women more for jobs that don't require college so that we have more compelling alternatives to it like you do. So, basically, your solution is "overpay women"? I don't think that really helps create equality.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 01:45 PM
0

This is just a buzzword until you explain what you mean. Basically being somewhat deferential towards women, not making overly direct advances, etc., etc. Don't have to be part of a group to be projecting. ;) True, but asking if I'm projecting (which is, in and of itself, a Glenn Beck-style personal attack phrased as a question) is a pointless red herring as even if I was projecting, it'd have no bearing on my argument. I'm not projecting, by the way.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/13 09:52 PM
-2

Such as? The Feminist-approved way. Is this projecting? No, I'm not a Redpill. I'm just assuming this is the motivation for a lot of Redpills.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/13 08:36 PM
0

Well, I think a large portion of the problem is that the way our society now tells men to behave does not correlate with what women find attractive. Once a guy figures out that the way our society socializes men to behave is not even remotely in line with what women prefer, the guy will probably begin to resent women and may eventually decide to start using sociopathic strategies in order to have sex with them. It does indeed seem like it would be easier to try to change the way our society soci…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/13 05:42 PM
-1

Did you bother to reply at all to the evidence he posted that TRP is not homophobic, or did you just decide to start ignoring it since it contradicted your preconceived notions of what TRP is?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/13 05:28 PM
-1

You don't think there are ideas that are harmful enough to justify suppressing them? Technically "no" is a valid answer to your original question.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/13 03:36 PM
0

When you have an entire segment of the population with getting laid as their be-all-end-all goal in life, and unable or unwilling to analyze their own morality because it gets in the way of getting laid, then I would argue these sorts of individuals should be isolated entirely from society. They are taking a sociopathic approach to interactions and sociopaths can be dangerous. Wouldn't it be easier to try to make it so that people wouldn't find sociopathic behavior attractive and therefore this …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/13 03:34 PM
1

I think he interpreted this thread's central claim as a "for all" statement, i.e. "for all relationships, women are the gatekeepers of sex and men are the gatekeepers of commitment". So I think he was trying to say you had disproven the original statement.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/13 01:47 PM
3

their head mods believe things like spousal rape shouldn't be illegal and they get supported for their arguments, and popular members suggest that feminism is evil because it increased the number of rapes by making spousal rape illegal Ah, Jesus, I didn't know they were that fucking nutso when I said the above. That would seem to justify taking it in a less innocuous way, yeah. Looks like they've deleted the thread, but luckily we have screen caps. Awesome quote from the upvoted and supported po…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/13 06:36 AM
1

Doesn't seem to encourage rape. This admittedly glorifies rape at the very least, but doesn't explicitly suggest committing rape. Unpleasantly close, though. Eugh. This post has 14 upvotes and 11 downvotes, which means that the Redpills are definitely mixed on this point. In context, this doesn't really seem to be advocating rape - the OP of that thread is asking how to spice up his marriage, ANAL_PRO_LAPS (stay classy) is suggesting he go ahead and spice it up without asking - the interpretatio…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/13 01:09 AM
5

I understand that, the problem is just that the position that TRP takes is utterly ridiculous and is really just an attempt to justify sexual harassment and rape. That sounds like it might be a bit of an overstatement, given that I don't think that one of the recommended courses of action is "grab woman and have sex with her regardless of what she says".
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/13 11:13 PM
1

I was going to transpose this a step and a half down, but was told I could go to jail for doing so.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/13 06:09 PM
2

Why is interpretation required? Why do we have to imagine implausible scenarios where it's stated for 'deniability'? As a completely radical thought, maybe women say no and, more often than not, mean no. The trouble is sometimes they really don't mean no. I've known a few women who I expressed interest in, they said they weren't interested, so I stopped pursuing them. Then later (like, months or years) they'd tell me (usually while drunk) that they would've gone for me if I'd kept trying and tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/13 02:09 PM
0

Not sleeping with someone is not a "negative" experience. Depends on the circumstances. Let me give you something you could maybe understand: I was raped by a man. Would it now make sense for me to hate all men? I didn't say it "made sense". I'm just saying people do this. So while no, it would not make sense for you to hate all men, there certainly are women who responded to their rape by hating all men.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/13 07:14 AM
2

(And just so TRP can hate me more - I've performed in it twice. We raised over $2,000 for charity each time. Holla.) Actually, this sounds pretty much exactly like a female version of the Red Pill: In "The Little Coochie Snorcher that Could", an underage girl (thirteen in earlier performances, sixteen in the revised version) recounts being given alcohol and then having sex with an adult woman; the incident is recalled fondly by the grown girl, who in the original version of the play calls it "a …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/13 01:51 AM
0

But that guy's pretending not getting laid made him a shitty person. Sexual frustration doesn't change your personality. The problem is him. You're joking, right? You're claiming that negative experiences with other people don't affect people's perception of those people?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/13 01:46 AM
1

Nonetheless, I'm convinced that in spite of those behaviors, a fetus (and indeed a baby even after it's born) is not a conscious person. The mother's rights therefore supersede the fetus' Does that imply you support the right to infanticide? I'm not accusing you of supporting infanticide, by the way. I'm just saying that's what this sentence kind of sounds like.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/13 08:15 AM
2

Or is your suggestion that anything an expert claims is a boldfaced lie if you don't like the implications? Are you suggesting that a professor, doctor, and author of a college textbook for psychology is an expert on every field because he's an expert on one?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/13 07:04 AM
2

Which goes back to what I said in my last post about war rape. Ghengis Khan might have been a total badass in his day, but I highly doubt his sexual strategy would fly in modern civilized culture. DAMMIT! I wish you'd told me this before I wrote 100 pages of theory and started a blog.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/13 07:03 AM
4

She manipulated herself to look better to me than she otherwise would. Yeah, but if you exclude the clothing, that's how she actually looks now. in reality the diamond earrings are cubic zirconia I don't see why on earth you would care about this, given that purchasing diamonds proves nothing except that someone is ignorant of the fact that diamonds are commonplace and their value is only derived from a monopoly which artificially controls the supply in order to fix the price.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/13 06:48 AM
3

Well, not really. But it is equating something like physical appearance with personality traits. A more apt comparison might be the following argument: 1) Suppose that most people like the same music. 2) Then surely they also have similar taste in paintings. 3) Because reasons QED
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/13 06:45 AM
2

But then again, when they're manipulating girls nearly half their age with the RP techniques, that's something I believe deserves to be shamed. I'm just now twenty, and even fairly mature for my age, but I can say that being led that way by an older man during such formative years would have actually been damaging to me. Logically though, aren't a lot of dating-related behaviors manipulative? It's not like women and non-redpill men don't use strategies of one kind or another in order to "get" th…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/13 06:43 AM
4

Disclaimer: While I've posted a couple times in /r/thebluepill lately, I am mostly neutral in the Redpill/Bluepill debate. As such this response is not from a Redpill standpoint. If it in fact does happen, why would this benefit women? Logically, solipsism benefits someone (of either gender) by allowing them to: Boost their self-esteem. Thinking about every situation like you're the center of it presumably makes it easy to view yourself as more important than others around you. Make life seem mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/13 03:59 AM
1

I find it amusing you think your stupidity has generated anything other than bemusement for me.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 03:16 AM
1

It worked, but it doesn't quite say what I think you think it says. Take a look: A custodial parent may seek a termination of parental rights for a child who no longer has a relationship with a non-custodial parent. "A custodial parent" has to be the one seeking the termination of parental rights and responsibilities. The other parent can't just sign away their rights and responsibilities.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 03:15 AM
1

Really? This is not the case in America. You can sign away your parental rights, but you can still be forced to pay child support, thus getting you the worst of both worlds. Do you have a link to an article about that law? Some quick googling didn't bring it up for me.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 08:41 PM
1

Birth control isn't 100% effective, the risk is present unless you completely abstain from sex. Therefore, not risking this situation requires 100% abstinence. And the one who wants kids should respect their partner's right to not have kids. If they want kids, they should find a new partner, not force their partner into a situation they don't want to be in simply because whatever birth control being used failed, or worse yet, deceive their partner into thinking they're on birth control when they…
/r/MensRights11/07/13 08:04 PM
1

If this was an issue of the rights of the potential child who the man is refusing to pay for, abortion would be illegal, something which I personally do not favor.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 08:01 PM
1

Why don't you respond to the argument in a manner that isn't an assertion?
/r/MensRights11/07/13 07:59 PM
1

I know, but that doesn't mean such behavior is excusable.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 07:59 PM
1

You're ignoring the fact that this is a legal inequality - women are permitted to back out of the arrangement, men are not.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 07:58 PM
0

That's retarded.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 12:23 PM
1

I just don't see how you can argue that the man is the one without any rights The man has one opportunity to not have sex. The woman can have sex and then change her mind 5 months later. Explain to me how this is not a rights issue.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 05:25 AM
1

Okay, why are men expected to not have sex if they don't want kids, but it's appalling to suggest the same of women?
/r/MensRights11/07/13 05:24 AM
1

the couple brings to a notary and each sign and then have copies notarized. It wouldn't be too expensive and would be a fair solution. The only drawback being the frustrating aspect of getting it signed and notarized prior to the pregnancy. That's insane, do you really expect anyone to go drop by a notary before they engage in sex under any circumstances? Even just a casual one-night stand?
/r/MensRights11/07/13 05:24 AM
0

I can think of a few possible things like, what if a woman doesn't even realize she's pregnant for several months and by then the man is gone and has no chance to sigh away his rights (the "one night in Vegas" scenario) but she later finds him and goes after him? That screws the man, potentially. I said "within a month of him being informed of the pregnancy". If the kid's already born, he should still have the option to sign away his rights - it's not his fault he didn't know about it before the…
/r/MensRights11/07/13 05:22 AM
1

Because I shouldn't have to give up sex in order to avoid having my money stolen.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 05:17 AM
1

I'm just looking at it in the child's point of view. If they implement something that strips the father of all financial responsibility then there has to be something in place to make sure the kid is taken care of fully. I just don't want to see a child suffer because one of the parents doesn't want to be a parent. I don't want to see a child suffer because one of their parents didn't give enough of a shit about them to ensure they'd be adequately taken care of before they were born. I'd say we …
/r/MensRights10/07/13 09:37 PM
3

I don't know, why didn't she take birth control?
/r/MensRights10/07/13 09:33 PM
1

I don't really think this is a question of feminism. This situation is about responsibility. If you are a man and you do not want children, then be responsible, either wrap it up or abstain. You can't expect someone else to be responsible for what you do. Everyone knows how babies are made and it takes two to create a life Why are men the ones expected to abstain if they don't want kids? Why are women given six months to change their mind, and men aren't? Sure, the fact women can terminate pregn…
/r/MensRights10/07/13 09:30 PM
4

Fuck off. I don't think it's ethical to force men to pay for children they don't want, but I also think it's indescribably unethical to expect someone else to carry a child for nine months because you want it. People like you are the reason I dislike associating myself with MRAs almost as much as I dislike associating myself with Feminists.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 09:27 PM
0

It's still pretty bad. While obviously stopping domestic violence and rape are good things, this movement contributes strongly to the whole "women are the victims, men are the victimizers" stereotype.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 09:25 PM
3

It also is when Radical Feminism began to emerge as a movement. Second-wave Feminism also brought us Political Lesbianism Not that the second wave didn't accomplish some positive things, but man, that shit went downhill really fast.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 09:21 PM
8

The child may or may not get sufficient financial support. 19 year-old high school dropouts aren't the only people who end up being single mothers (I know you know this, but I thought I'd point it out for the record). If the mother can't provide sufficient financial support for the child, why is she having it? Basically she appears to be making a threat - "take his money and give it to me to pay for what I want and he doesn't or else I will raise my children in abject poverty".
/r/MensRights10/07/13 09:13 PM
9

two way street...men have the control not to put it in. That's not a "two-way street". That's a one-way street with a bicycle lane.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 09:08 PM
3

It's bad enough that if the man wants the baby he absolutely can't compel the women to have it and give it up to him, but that's another story and, having been through pregnancy a few times, i can't see a good answer there. Forcing women to be incubators is bad. Forcing men to be wallets is bad. What would we do? Make a baby-nup? Have the man sign away his rights and the woman agree to full parenting responsibilities during the pregnancy? This is reasonable. I'd say the woman should get a form t…
/r/MensRights10/07/13 09:06 PM
8

Well, when you decide to have sex with a woman, you know you are taking the risk of having a baby. When a woman has sex with a man, she knows she's taking the risk of getting pregnant. Except she's not at risk of having a baby. Because the system gives her an opportunity to opt out of the situation. Not so with men.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 08:58 PM
6

You appear to know what you're talking about so I'm going to ask in this comment thread: Is there a source for the claim that NOW fought against this? I googled around a bit and couldn't find anything other than other MR blogs saying that NOW fought against it, nothing like a press release from NOW or anything of that nature. Not that I find it implausible, I just want to make sure this is actually true and I'm not just suffering from confirmation bias.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 10:49 PM
25

Remember: It's misogyny to like it when women wear skimpy clothes, and it's slut-shaming to dislike it when women wear skimpy clothes. Any questions?
/r/MensRights06/07/13 10:43 PM
4

Except not at all like LGBT, I have never heard "MGTOW" before, whereas I have heard LGBT plenty of times. EDIT: It seems to stand for "Men going their own way", which, to be honest, the complainer could've found with a quick google search. However, yeah, not at all a common acronym - I've never even heard the unabbreviated term before.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 06:35 PM
9

(And it's not completely irrational either. People generally like attention from people they like, and dislike attention from people they dislike. Both men and women are this way.) "Dislike" is reasonable, but some women act like it's borderline sexual assault, which isn't really reasonable.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 12:31 AM
2

“No” is just as wrong as “Yes”. "Yo dawg hand me dat lighter, I'ma get this blunt rolling, this shit's dank yo. Also turn up dat Snoop Dogg man, fucking love Snoop Dogg." -Leonardo Da Vinci Is it really just as wrong to say that this isn't true as it is to say it is true?
/r/MensRights09/01/13 01:17 PM
6

CONVICTED SERIAL RAPIST AND WIFE-BEATER
/r/MensRights07/01/13 07:37 PM
5

Do you really think that the guy was inviting a woman for coffee at 2:00 in the morning in a conference hotel elevator? Well, given that it was 2 in the morning, in a hotel elevator, and he asked her to get coffee, I'd say that yes, that's exactly what he was doing. While it is obviously unusual to ask someone to go get coffee at 2AM, there are plenty of night owls who would gladly do such a thing.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 07:25 PM
10

We should introduce segregated elevators, in fact, we should segregate any kind of small area in our society. Any kind of small area? What's the matter misogynist? Think that women deserve to be raped if they go into large areas? (This is sarcasm, just so we're totally clear.)
/r/MensRights07/01/13 07:21 PM
2

She has already threatened to make false accusations of rape and assault without him touching her. If he can get a recording of her threatening to make false accusations, then that accusation will probably not stick.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 08:44 PM
1

This means in most states a legal eviction has to be seen through I am incredibly skeptical of this. Suppose some Jehovah's witnesses knock on my door, and I invite them in to talk to me. I told them they could enter my house - are they tenants now?
/r/MensRights21/12/12 08:43 PM
3

Well, if you own a car for 7 years, I'm guessing the odds of you being killed in a car accident in those seven years are still less than 75%.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 11:42 PM
12

George Carlin once said something like "Maybe if you need sensitivity training to understand it's not okay to ram a lamp up somebody's ass, you're just too fucked up to be a cop." I'd say a similar idea applies in this case. If you need to be trained to understand that two male paramedics driving an ambulance trying to take a kid to the hospital are probably not deranged pedophiles, maybe you're just too fucked up to be a child safety officer.
/r/MensRights09/09/12 06:33 AM
2

"It's not our son that's doing this. It's you, isn't it?" Wut. No, seriously. What kind of insane conclusion is that?
/r/MensRights07/09/12 12:17 PM
1

Well, yeah, but wouldn't any man considering/working towards a STEM career object to this?
/r/MensRights12/07/12 01:30 AM
2

Meh, most of them don't really mean anything. If the head of the ACLU says something about the "War on Freedom," it means something very different than when Ron Paul says it. Same with the head of NORML vs. the head of the DEA, one thinking "putting harmless pot smokers in jail" and the other one thinking "putting deranged junkie rapists in jail."
/r/MensRights11/07/12 08:54 PM
1

Did you mean women? Because "men do not care about men, only about themselves" doesn't really make sense. I'm a man. Therefore if somebody's fucking over men, I'm getting fucked over. So I'd care regardless, right?
/r/MensRights11/07/12 08:50 PM
2

Okay, so I can't find a single source for these claims that isn't a blog. And I can't even find a lot of blogs claiming this. I can't even confirm the quote from Obama. Can anyone else provide me with an objective source supporting these claims? EDIT: Alright, I at least found the Newweek op-ed. I have no idea why it didn't come up the first time I googled. http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/23/obama-reflects-on-being-a-dad-in-title-ix-tribute/
/r/MensRights11/07/12 05:32 PM
1

War on Christmas, war on drugs, war on poverty, class warfare, war on freedom, war on family values, war on gays, etc.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 05:27 PM
1

a liberal war on science is really, really pathetic. Fine, it's part of a general war on science.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 05:26 PM
1

I doubt it. I think it's about equal.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 06:30 AM
1

Yes. Hence why this board exists. Oh, btw, even if he later managed to get a sample of the kid's hair or something and get it tested, and it turned out he wasn't the father, the fact that he was paying child support can be used to argue that he's now functionally the father, and has to keep paying child support. Yeah...
/r/MensRights30/04/12 05:29 PM
1

No, legally speaking, you don't have any such right.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 11:50 AM
5

Also, he could've gotten a paternity test. Somebody hasn't looked into the actual law on this, have they?
/r/MensRights29/04/12 11:33 PM
9

I'm guessing it started off only posting legitimately bigoted comments, but went downhill quickly. People tend to become more radical when circlejerking.
/r/MensRights29/04/12 11:32 PM
0

And who are we supposed to trust for an honest look at early feminism? Feminists, who have a long history of misrepresenting the truth? It at least makes sense to see what the other side was saying. Or you could look for unbiased sources, which is not the hardest thing possible. The trouble with the website is that the feminism it opposes is not the radical, female supremacist type, but the type that thinks women deserve equal right.s
/r/MensRights27/04/12 06:46 PM
0

...You're fucking kidding me, right? A document about history is entirely influenced by it's context. I wouldn't trust the KKK to provide accurate information about the role of blacks in American history.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 05:56 PM
4

I thought this too. And, frankly, I think it's the truth. Given the statistics on which gender commits domestic violence more often, it seems like the VAWA is just designed to make abused men even less likely to defend themselves at all.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 05:26 AM
1

The second link, uh, that website also contains this lovely article: Man Superior to Woman; OR, A V I N D I C A T I O N OF MAN's Natural Right OF Sovereign AUTHORITY O V E R T H E W O M A N http://www.newmenstime.com/index148.html Generally speaking, I don't view flaming misogynists as acceptable sources for feminist history.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 05:22 AM
2

I have read some criticism of the early feminist movement, and right from the very beginning feminists were campaigning for lower sentences for women who were tried for crimes and increasing the benefits of the female gender role. I hate to be that guy, but where did you read this? Links?
/r/MensRights27/04/12 12:27 AM
1

Yes. They HAVE as much access. They didn't used to. I was speaking past tense.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 12:27 AM
4

Believe it or not, "Chauvinist" is also acceptable. Dictionary definition doesn't specify male supremacy.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 12:34 PM
4

Men essentially said "yes dear" and let women have what they wanted within the span of a decade in the 60s and early 70s. Is there some kind of problem with women wanting to be paid as much as men for doing the same work? Or to have access to birth control? Or anything like that? The early waves of feminism, including that one (mostly) all have extremely valid points.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 12:31 PM
-9

TheAmazingAtheist is a dipshit, and it's people like him who are why so many people think that men's rights movement is a bunch of whiny misogynistic asshole neckbeards.
/r/MensRights22/04/12 05:18 PM
13

Would you prefer idiot? Or imbecile? Or cretin? Or any of the numerous other insults that are nothing but old-timey words for "retard?"
/r/MensRights22/04/12 05:16 PM
16

Can you do anything about if if they spend it on inappropriate items?
/r/MensRights10/04/12 03:52 AM
1

all first person shooters being sold had the characters changed to robots Out of curiosity, did they actually change the character designs, or did they just do the sort of lazy-but-effective method of just having a character say "And, also we are robots" randomly?
/r/MensRights08/04/12 10:07 AM
4

Really, "as soon as possible" isn't even necessary. If you try to slowly reveal someone is totally evil without having them do something like rape, murder, slavery, etc., they're going to be seen as being in the "asshole" range of evil, not the "complete monster" range.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 09:07 AM
1

No, but for unrelated reasons.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 09:06 AM
1

Obviously, you're not going to change your mind, and I've given this quite a bit of thought in the past, and I believe my opinion is the best one, and as such continuing this debate is pointless. Good day.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 09:05 AM
2

This is an absurd argument. If the law says you have to have sex with children once a week, is failing to have sex with a child "not okay?" And, no, this isn't a strawman argument at all. Your argument is "just because a law is stupid and horrible doesn't mean it's okay to break it." This is where we disagree. I think that only sensible laws should be followed, and the law has never stopped me from doing something I thought was reasonable - I've smoked shitloads of weed, even though that's illeg…
/r/MensRights08/04/12 08:33 AM
2

Using civil disobedience. Which is when you disobey the law in order to make a point.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 08:26 AM
2

I believe the same can be said about you, good sir.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 07:50 AM
1

From what I understand, here's the line: "It would be good if you died." - legal "I'm going to kill you" -illegal "Someone should kill you" - legal-ish "I will give fifty dollars to whoever kills you" - illegal
/r/MensRights08/04/12 07:42 AM
2

is the law wrong? Arguably. Should he have broken it because he thought the law was wrong? No. Martin Luther King and Gandhi might disagree with you. Although I really wish I didn't have to point that out when the law-breaking in question is really racist. Well, Gandhi would still be down with it, but not MLK.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 07:41 AM
5

There is no difference. Freedom of speech includes offensive speech. You don't NEED laws to protect speech that isn't offensive, because people won't be offended. Just like you can't walk up to a guy and say you're going to kill him, since that's against the law as well, but nobody seems to have a problem with that. You fucking fail at comparisons. So hard. The difference is that this example is a THREAT, whereas "go and pick some cotton" is not a threat, just really fucking insulting and asshol…
/r/MensRights08/04/12 07:39 AM
1

But, whatever, take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm pretty Right-Wing, so I'm biased. At least you admit you're biased, rather than insisting your opinions are facts like people on both sides tend to do.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 07:37 AM
3

I take it you haven't read about the extent of censorship in Germany? Like metal? Be sure to throw out Cannibal Corpse's first three albums and Reign In Blood before you move, 'cause they're illegal in Germany.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 07:36 AM
11

Both are cliche. Really, any way of showing someone is really, really goddamn evil is cliche. There's only so many horrifically vile acts.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 07:28 AM
9

Your point is somewhat valid, and I do agree with a lot of what you're saying. Except for: This is why rape claims are bullshit. Rape happens, asshole. Stop making everyone who posts on here look like misogynistic pricks, and stop making absurd generalizations. I support justice, but I don't support declaring open season on nonconsensual sex with whoever.
/r/MensRights07/04/12 04:24 AM
0

Don't do it man. Really not that much better. Look at the UK quickly heading towards 1984 territory, or Sweden's "smoking dope is the worst thing you can possibly do" criminal system.
/r/MensRights07/04/12 04:22 AM
1

Conscription. Often called "the draft."
/r/MensRights22/03/12 03:24 AM
8

I think he was trying to make a point, not seriously expressing that view. Or at least I hope he wasn't. Men have to sign up for the selective service if they want to vote (Well, they're supposed to already but you HAVE to do it to register to vote.) That effectively means that men have less of a right to vote than women. When a woman turns 18, she can vote. Bam. Right there, go register, no other conditions. Not so for men. But if he was seriously saying women shouldn't have the right to vote, …
/r/MensRights21/03/12 11:57 PM
2

He could probably just not mention it. IIRC your employer is only legally allowed to check to see if you're a felon.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 04:29 AM
4

Why is it that anyone outside a movement always seems to think that the most prominent members are chosen by democracy? I don't choose to have that douchenugget who runs The Anti-Feminist "represent" men's rights any more than, I don't know, an atheist chose Richard Dawkins to "represent" atheism.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 08:25 PM
58

There isn't really a legal definition of disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct is just a "we don't like what you're doing" sort of thing. It covers things like: -People getting in fights in public areas. (I got charged with disorderly conduct when I was 14 because some jackass gangster kid started a fight [I.E. punched me in the face] with me in the middle of science class. I didn't do anything other than defend myself, hence why I got charged with "disorderly conduct." Well, that's why I didn'…
/r/MensRights17/03/12 07:58 PM
5

This argument is stupid. It's like me telling a feminist that she needs to somehow magically "stop" all the radical feminists (the ones who think all sex is rape, that porn causes rape, etc.) from supporting the same movement. Yeah, I don't like the fact that there's a lot of neckbearded, misogynistic douchebags who bitch about age of consent laws in a way that suggests they think that the only reason a guy would ever have sex with a girl over the age of 14 is because he'll be thrown in jail if …
/r/MensRights17/03/12 07:27 PM
0

Misogyny is hard to spell? Wow, women are dumb. Sorry, I couldn't resist. That's such a dumb slogan. Moving on, I will never understand why people get so offended about family guy. Partially because Family Guy isn't exactly viewed as amazing, artistic television, I'm pretty sure that no one (okay, almost no one) views any of the male characters except possibly Brian as a role model, and I'm pretty sure most people understand that the show is funny primarily because all of its characters are horr…
/r/MensRights15/03/12 12:08 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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