Heterosexuality is not sustainable by red pill logic.

Logos1789 · 2025-02-08T14:07:43+00:00

Yes, and? Why does it seem to surprise you that RP doesn’t shoehorn a happy future society into their perspective? Sometimes reality is bleak.

fools_errand49 · 2025-02-07T21:26:12+00:00

First of all, by definition heterosexuality is the only sustainable system. No new people, no future system.

Secondly, if you want to appeal to our orignal status in nature then women didn't have the freedom from natural pressures that are enjoyed in modern civilization. They were extremely dependent on a social grouping whose survival was dependent on the men, ergo the men ruled and the women needed to ingratiate themselves in order to maintain the necessary social capital for the survival of themselves and their offspring.

ViolentShallot · 2025-02-08T00:47:49+00:00

You're making the massive, massive assumption that feminism "only" "advocates for women being able to vote, own property, work, and own land".

When red pill people say feminism hurt relationships in the west, they don't mean the right to vote.

lastoflast67 · 2025-02-07T22:09:37+00:00

They're basically saying heterosexuality only works (keeps marriage and families intact) when women are limited and don't have the same level of freedom men have.

Wrong, that claim is about monogamy not heterosexuality.

No_Sound_1149 · 2025-02-08T12:47:40+00:00

Who is 'they' in this situation? Heterosexuals? Men? Women?

Sharplove365 · 2025-02-09T07:00:28+00:00

This is by far the worst arguement I've ever heard on this subreddit.

Making women more masculine, and enabling men to become more effeminate, is as furthest away from heterosexuality as anything can get. Rather simple and basic.

aslfingerspell · 2025-02-07T22:12:02+00:00

I thought feminists also pointed out how a lot of women in the past only paired up because of massive economic or social pressure.

This seems like one of those things where people don't disagree on the facts but if they're a problem and what should be done about them. I mean, part of the whole point of making people to pair up was to increase fertility and maintain a huge labor/military pool of young people. They were harsh "solutions" to the "problem" that people don't naturally pair up as often as those in power would like.

I remember reading the old feminist text "Against Our Will" and how it talked about how criminalizing rape while maki g it legal among spouses was a way for men to have particular women for themselves. Modern liberals talk about "compulsory heterosexuality".

When I was in high school I learned about the 4 stage "demographic transition" model, which basically says modern healthcare and women's rights makes everyone transition to a low-death, low-birth society at the end.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

It's not exactly a conspiracy theory that the high birth and pairing rates of the past weren't exactly out of genuine sexual pleasure and romance.

Interesting-Gas4506 · 2025-02-10T14:59:51+00:00

Honestly this is one of the reasons I consider these bullshit views as black pill, not at all red pill.

If you believe the only way someone would choose to spend time with you and sleep with you is if you force them... You're most certainly black pilled

HTML_Novice · 2025-02-07T21:23:55+00:00

It’s more so that globalized hypergamy is unsustainable.

The reason every culture developed a form of marriage was to constrain hypergamy and add societal repercussions to prevent one man hoarding all the women.

It essentially made it so that “ok the top man can get the top woman, but he can’t get all of them” obviously it wasn’t a perfect system with cheating and all, but it worked well enough to keep civilization stable for 4k years.

Combine this with social media and dating apps, changing a village dating ecosystem to a global dating ecosystem, hypergamy was simply not made for this sort of structure, our nature is meeting modern tech and it’s collapsing

berichorbeburied · 2025-02-07T21:32:48+00:00

Makes no sense what you wrote

1. Women exist in the world beyond the west & SOME women in the west are not feminist and actually oppose it
1. Feminists have sex too. Misogynists have sex to. It really doesn’t matter what feminists advocate for or want. Most likely they still will have sex. Most likely they’ll still have sex with the men they say they hate. What they say doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things
1. Heterosexuality will always work. Women who hate men have sex. Poor women have sex to survive. Rich women have sex because they are bored. Women who want children have sex to procreate and etc and etc.

Added on to this point what they are implying is that family structures will breakdown and society. Not sex.

1. I don’t understand this point
1. A man who hates a woman will still have sex with that woman. A man who has nothing in common with a woman will still have sex with that woman. This point makes no sense whatsoever

Your post on a whole doesn’t make logical sense

Maybe you make emotional/opinionated sense

And ofc people can debate emotions and opinions

But just logically and rationally it makes no observable sense

Nobodyz_Nikki · 2025-02-08T05:13:00+00:00

Women could own property, vote and work prior to the first wave of feminism.

Heterosexuality is not only sustainable but it's the reasons for the human species's existence since the inception of civilization.

Race/Ethnicity: The majority of reddit users are Asian followed by Hispanic/Latino Non-white then white and lastly Black. Gender of users: Males make up 61.2% and Females make up 37.8% US Reddit Users: 197.9 million Global Reddit Users (not including US): 317 million MILLIONS OF BOTS MAKING POSTS FOR CASH REWARDS AND TO CAUSE CHAOS

A-Queef-In-The-Night · 2025-02-07T21:42:14+00:00

Heterosexuality is literally the only type of relationship that is sustainable…..

Boniface222 · 2025-02-09T10:58:45+00:00

I think feminism also makes women unhappy. Men and women are both unhappy under feminism. So it's not hard to see what the problem is here.

rag3light · 2025-02-08T08:24:48+00:00

Yeah so you're equivocating all the waves of feminism...par for the liberal shill course, but let's go with it.

Newsflash: women are EVEN MORE UNHAPPY with freedom if research is to be believed. It actually has a name: the paradox of declining female happiness.

And the declining fertility rate certainly suggests that the current cultural climate is not so good for the future.

Old school patriarchy ensured that women were genuinely attracted to more or most men because institutional and social norms meant that women had inferior social (NOT JUST FINANCIAL) status to men. Hypergamy is what drives female attraction per red pill and black pill thinking.

By equalizing men and women, under this framework, you would predict women actually becoming less happy: which is correct

Grow_peace_in_Bedlam · 2025-02-07T21:51:07+00:00

Working may seem like freedom to women, since it was traditionally a choice they made against the grain. However, you're forced into the provider role, as men traditionally were and still are, work is definitely not freedom.

I don't advocate for going back to the fifties, but many traditional times really weren't more free than women, they were just shackled in different ways.

AutoModerator · 2025-02-07T21:15:19+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

AutoModerator · 2025-02-07T21:15:20+00:00

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

garden_speech · 2025-02-08T04:05:30+00:00

It’s bullet point 5 in your argument that red pillers would probably debate you on:

So feminism makes men unhappy, and not having freedom makes women unhappy. Someone is resentful either way.

They’d say that feminism does not make women happy, the lack of freedom doesn’t make them unhappy and claim women were happier before they had economic freedom (and responsibility).

_here_ok · 2025-02-08T07:00:28+00:00

Any enforcement or hyper specific view of heterosexuality is always unsustainable. We as individuals have different needs, desires and boundaries. This involves adaptation, flexibility, communication and effort.

Otherwise we'd be stagnant or doomed to a set fate.

AidsVictim · 2025-02-08T07:53:56+00:00

Heterosexuality isn't sustainable under modern conditions, that's correct. That's why birth rates have or will fall below replacement everywhere in the world.

However heterosexuality under traditional societal is the only sustainable system. It's the only system that produces children and above replacement TFR. Almost every other system fails this basic requirement (the other being heterosexuality under modern systems designed around family formation).

Homosexuality, transsexuality, or whatever else you seem to be hinting at in this thread is not even worth discussing because they're irrelevant.

xxTheMagicBulleT · 2025-02-08T20:34:22+00:00

Lol well no one said women don't deserve freedoms.

But is it weird to say feminist women that say that they hate normal gender norms. Don't deserve traditional outcomes?

Cause if there so against gender normas but push gender norms the hardest on men. While they try and unsolved them off all the responsibility of it them selfs.

And i don't think its so weird of you say gender roles are bad and at the same time push all gender norms on the other side at the same time.

If you want to be free of gender norms that completely fine. But why are so many feminist so God damn surprised they don't get gender norms back in turn. And the demands they have for men. And obsolve all responsibility on there side.

If you want to be free and have no responsibilities don't be so god damn surprised that you get the same minimal effort you put in people and relationships in return.

Cause red pill is literally the effort you put in me il put back in to you. So if you want traditional outcomes you beter be traditional your self or why should anyone put any gender based roles.

So women wants to be in relationships but act like they single. Well geas the guy does not have to pay for dates. Ow hear a noise downstairs at night. You go girl you got this show how strong and independent you are if someone robs the house.

But tell me again how heterosexual is not sustainable by feminist or red pill logic.

Is it not playing the same game feminists are pick and chooseing like women are cause they deserve or demanding all kinds of things.

Red pill mostly just gives what women give. If it's very little they get very little.

Its literally playing the game feminists have been playing with guys. And that the funny thing most women don't even see that most red pill men just give back based on how much women are willing to give back.

Why more traditional women get more traditional men and more traditional outcomes from red pill men.

So please do tell how red pill is unfair. When feminists have been devalue relationships for years and years. The i am the table the yelling 30 things men must be and do and feel like and act like to be "seen as a men" but ow no men can't have any standards them self ow else he is a sexist pig. Well lists of demands like shopping lists are common.

But il tell you how people and relationships work. If you go out trying to gain as much as possible from someone and someone knows what your doing. They will play you just as much as your trying to play him. Why relationships don't level up past physical. Why hookups or friends with benefits and shit are more common.

The more you use people the more people use you in return. Its not all that hard.

So if you refuse to invest in people don't be surprised people don't invest in you.

People think only men play games with women or People think only women play games with men no no the game is played on both sides. And play and use people. Based on there lack of investments.

Why there has always been a slower vetting process for relationships. We're you slowly from meeting and having a family would be at least 5 years. Where before you even have sex you would meet each other family and friends. To show your commitment. Sex used to not be a first or 2nd date thing.

And each level of vetting and investments your partner had to meet your level of investment in turn.

But that is seen as sexist and seen as putting women down. So you know forget it.

But anything you demand and not willing to give the same respect the other side you become unworthy of. So if yea want equality that's fine. You take the whole thing. And don't dare demand any traditional roles of men at all then. Cause the same way men can't demand anything traditional or get told sexist.

And thags the thing people want to demand things they them self are unwilling to give equal in kind so in time people don't find you deserving of it at all.

And that cuts both ways. So if a women thinks she should be treated for dates and have there bills paid. Or have protection or all the things women demand. Just know if you don't give anything back for the privileges you have don't be surprised you lose those privileges completely in time.

So tell me again heterosexual relationships is not sustainable with red pill logic. At its base logic it's the most fair of all. Why should I give or do anything for you you won't do for me?

giveuporfindaway · 2025-02-09T04:04:14+00:00

The red pill is usually morally agnostic and does not specifically endorse trad-con stuff. The most famous redpillers (RoushV) valued a decayed society that allowed men bypass traditional barriers to sex.

analt223 · 2025-02-09T20:28:33+00:00

both hetero and homo society is doomed. We have no more major frontiers to keep it all propped up.

insert_dead_memes · 2025-02-11T13:44:14+00:00

They're basically saying heterosexuality only works (keeps marriage and families intact) when women are limited and don't have the same level of freedom men have.

Yes, because women didn't evolve to have as much freedom as men, it's inherently unnatural. Of course it would fuck things up. This isn't to say that it shouldn't be the case, but it clearly comes with consequences.

OtPayOkerSmay · 2025-02-13T03:47:29+00:00

Of course it's not sustainable, even by logic other than red pill logic.

Women's unfettered mating preferences select for the most dominant male. It's not sustainable because it goes against the monogamy model that has been a bedrock of more modern civilizations.

It's a culture shock, and the red pill simply helps with putting these thoughts and experiences into words that echo with other men - so a guy can see that he is not crazy, and that things are different to what we were sold growing up.

Typical-Ticket2934 · 2025-02-13T15:29:35+00:00

Nothing makes women happy, and they are less happy now they are 'liberated'. We should do what is sustainable for society, not whatever it is that women say they want based on their made-up assumptions that somehow men have it better than them.

PuffStyle · 2025-02-07T21:24:50+00:00

Homo/hetero sexuality isn't a choice so that doesn't really mean anything for the short term. In the long-term, it's already been theorized that homosexuality, decreased libido in men, or changes in women could be a long-term evolutionary adaptation. It could also go the other way... making men more competitive, violent, or surreptitious in mating stragies. Just none of us will be alive to see it.

WillyDonDilly69 · 2025-02-08T00:23:33+00:00

Yep, you got your definition of red pill from muslim guruos instead of taking it from the real community aka subreddit which doesn't describe it like you did.

It's not the problem that women have freedom but that they are not hold accountable for anything and feminism tells them they are perfect while demonising men.

Former_Range_1730 · 2025-02-08T03:00:56+00:00

You are VERY preceptive! And very correct.

What the RedPill folks fail to understand, is that there are two kinds of women. #1 Women who like men. #2 Women who hate men. They have the idea that all women are #2, which is irrational. And it's not manly to think irrationally, no matter how much they think believing in fantasy is manly.

awakening_7600 · 2025-02-07T21:24:37+00:00

You're falsely equating freedom to monogamy. Doesn't work like that. It's choices.

We limit our own freedoms to the choices we make. Daily. Why do you work? What if you didn't show up? Then what do you do when your bank account is empty? Why do you come home at night?

Get my drift? We restrict ourselves via choices and discipline.

Same happens with relationships. You could fuck any brawd walking down the street. Why do you choose one? What keeps you with someone whenever you have a fight or argument?

The red pill doesn't have a problem with what feminism achieved for women. It's that women, often times with the feminist doctrine, believe in this false sense of freedom often accompanied with a lack of discipline that makes them poor choices for partners. Especially considering that a lot of the lingo around women's self improvement is to "never settle for less", suddenly we have a problem. Cause now we are dealing with women who have mismatched expectations and a lack of discipline to power through a relationship.

And the data shows it. When it comes to the person who files for divorce first, 80% of the time it's the wife.

treadmarks · 2025-02-07T21:47:56+00:00

Heterosexuality doesn't require relationships. Red pill advocates not having relationships, it doesn't advocate not having sex. You make this weird and funny bait and switch from saying red pill claims feminism ruins relationships to saying feminism ruins heterosexuality. These are not the same thing.

It's not just red pill claiming this. Reality is too because progressivism correlates with low marriage and fertility rates in countries. This problem will eventually self-correct when feminists are breeded out of existence. Feminism is a doomed self-defeating philosophy. Just look at the 4B movement. Feminism is against having children so their kind will slowly disappear and feminist cultures will collapse and be taken over by patriarchal ones.

TutorHelpful4783 · 2025-02-07T23:00:14+00:00

You just made the case of why feminism is not sustainable

leosandlattes · 2025-02-07T21:28:31+00:00

Mmmm so red pill doesn’t actually advocate for removal of rights or limitation of women. In Red Pill Women the general advice is to achieve what you want to achieve in life, look for a man whose goals and life vision match your own. That you do not need to limit yourself to be in a LTR or marriage. But this is not a prerequisite to heterosexuality “working.”

Going by TRP though, it doesn’t actually prove that heterosexuality is not sustainable. They do view feminism as the cause of relationship break down in the West, but they don’t advocate to stay away from women. In fact one of the biggest pieces of advice is to “enjoy the decline” - you can be a misogynist and still fuck women and want to have sex with them. Being straight would still give you the most access to women because that’s the just the way human sexuality works. People won’t stop fucking just because they have a dislike for men. One of my past coworkers is a self-identified misandrist; she still feels the urge to fuck them, lol.

InitialPaths989 · 2025-02-07T21:42:21+00:00

Red pill is saying it’s not sustainable, based on historical observations of an increasingly imbalanced society. As society splits more between the haves and have nots with the destruction of middle class. Women chasing the men with the haves of attractiveness or financially comfortable. Add to that women have full rights and don’t need men. Now you have too many women seeing men as either entertainment or lifestyle enhancers.

Now we gave women the internet and smartphones. Women that are fit and fertile fighting for a much smaller percentage of men that make sense for them to be with. Women have too many options to potentially satisfy their hypergamy or gain super easy sexual access to desirable men online, but not near enough desirable men supply for most women to have one man in monogamy.

Then we have birth rates in many countries below replacement. Men left out on romantic options without motivation to provide for a wife and family to keep society progressing in a positive direction. Most red pill guys seem to be in agreeing that if we keep going how we’re going it’s going to lead to a grand society instability and declining population, which capitalist markets don’t like because you can’t grow the economy with less people. Also, more and more lonely and unhappy men that aren’t playing nice to subordinate societal rules because they can’t get the family they want that makes it all worth it. If average men are pushed too far then you have a revolution to reset it again.

abaxeron · 2025-02-08T00:19:55+00:00

"Feminism" is not "freedom". "Feminism" is "free shite, own the chuds, invade, desecrate, cackle, tell them it's their own fault, and demand more".

For the rest, agreed for the wrong reason. For the species to survive, you don't need men and women to form families, love each other, agree on stuff, or feel anything positive about each other at all; the only thing you need is for them to tolerate each other roughly for 1500 minutes total (in pre-modern times, assuming 5 children per woman, 30 intercourses per conception, and 10 minutes per intercourse). If you have antibiotics and vaccines, divide by 2.5. Basically one full-time shift.

It's human nature to not want to be left out.

Up until, like, last summer, women had two separate Olympic disciplines where men were not allowed, and you know what men did? Firebombed stadiums? Threatened the heads of those disciplines with assassination? - No, they started their own federations separate from the Olympics. It's almost like... men are not petty vindictive crybullies, or something.

RadiantRadicalist · 2025-02-07T22:05:10+00:00

Feminists advocated for women being able to vote, own property, work, and own land. It gave women more options

I've been looking into history and generally speaking in most places from 1699-1980 (under assumption the woman wasn't married.) she had these rights due to legal loopholes and no one wanting to fix them because that takes effort.

They're basically saying heterosexuality only works (keeps marriage and families intact) when women are limited and don't have the same level of freedom men have.

You missed something about the RP and that's the fact of the matter is how most of the men that follow it are radically patriarchal the ones which are gay are not open about it and tend to hide it away so ultimately long story short.

There slaves.

The slaveman wants to marry a slavewoman not a noble who can control him.

But he cannot do that if every woman is a noble now can he?.

It's human nature to crave freedom. Everyone wants more options. There will always be tension between men and women when men can do things that women can't do because women are human. It's human nature to not want to be left out.

Just like Intelligence No one knows what Human nature "truly" is most people say that most people want freedom however if you look at human history you end up realizing that most people don't want freedom they want a eternal guardian specifically ensuring that they succeed and get the happy ending while everyone else doesn't.

There is no such thing as "human" "Nature" just the indomitable human spirit to do...

Something.

So feminism makes men unhappy, and not having freedom makes women unhappy. Someone is resentful either way.

Modern Feminism makes men unhappy due to it's radically misandristic stance, constant blunders and the fact it hype fixates on what men are doing and not why women aren't succeeding.

Follow this up with the fact how it (For whatever reason.) abandoned the intersectionality that allowed it to succeed in the first place.

Suffragettes took over the movement and now look where we are.

But i agree with your statement that being a slave sucks.

So yeah, their own logic seems to point to the conclusion that heterosexuality isn't sustainable or optimal on a large scale.

Generally speaking Heterosexuality is the only sustainable system primarily because it ensures the creation of a "Next" hetero is synonymous with different, homo is synonymous with "same" i believe.

No children?.

No Future.

No Future?.

Extinction.

G a m e O v e r .

beleidigtewurst · 2025-02-07T21:20:12+00:00

Feminists advocated for women being able to vote, own property, work, and own land.

Yeah, nah. F-s claimed to have delivered it, which is an obvious lie.

3 looks like a strawman.

Ludens0 · 2025-02-07T21:22:59+00:00

"Feminists advocated for women being able to vote, own property, work, and own land. It gave women more options."

Meanwhile, feminism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/4B_movement

Haej07 · 2025-02-08T04:13:56+00:00

Did I just read a 5-point strawman with the conclusion “Redpillz is geigh” that’s quite hilarious if this was intentional trolling

Dull-Laugh-4037 · 2025-02-08T04:15:52+00:00

The reason heterosexuality may seem unsustainable is because modern women have all the leverage but with it choose terrible partners. In general, they give the most value to a type of men with charachteristics that don't necessarily equate to a good marriage partner. They value traits such as being tall, humurous, clever, experienced, wealthy, fun to be around, generally good with talking to women, etc. Yet, the guys who fit these descriptions may just be dirtbags, or manipulatirs, etc.

Wheras, when men had all the leverage they historically desired conservative traits in a marriage partner. They valued traits such as modesty, selflessness, gentleness, humility, nuturing, loving, caring, understanding, etc. These traits directly resulted in a great mother, wife, and marriage partner.

So is women's freedom to blame? I'd say it is one of many contributing factors to them having more leverage in the dating marketplace, but it has nothing to do with women using that leverage to then picking and valuing poor relationship partners in terms of marriage quality.

Flash_4_Crab · 2025-02-08T07:13:48+00:00

WTF did i just read?

Dertross · 2025-02-08T14:50:20+00:00

It's hilarious how you conclude that heterosexuality isn't sustainable despite it existing for billions of years.
As opposed to saying that feminism, equality, or modern western society isn't sustainable, which has only really existed for a couple of decades.

People already understand that the concept of "rights" isn't entirely sacrosanct, and I feel that as the quality of life worsens, people won't demand so many rights. Especially when some of those rights aren't theirs to take advantage of but to give other demographics an advantage over them.

onetimeuseaccc · 2025-02-08T20:05:06+00:00

Well you seem to be forgetting that for the last say 300,000 years humanity has been sexually dimorphic. Every successful and widespread culture has been patriarchal to a significant degree. I'm not saying women should be slaves and need to have their rights stripped, but you have to acknowledge that some things are the way they are because of inherent human nature. Men have phyisological characteristics that make them lean toward being dominant providers and women have physiological characteristics that make them lean toward being subservient.

It is one of the biggest questions of the modern world. If we want to be humane to women and give them freedoms but then they choose to not propagate the species, what can we do? And no it isn't economic factors, European economic paradises have the same birth rate problem.

Outside_Memory5703 · 2025-02-07T21:55:22+00:00

Heterosexuality doesn’t have to be voluntary, as history clearly shows

Title	Heterosexuality is not sustainable by red pill logic.
Author	whitegrayblack5
Upvotes	39
Comments	217
Date	February 7, 2025 9:15 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1ik5x90/heterosexuality_is_not_sustainable_by_red_pill/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/heterosexuality-is-not-sustainable-by-red-pill.1543248 https://theredarchive.com/post/1543248

Comments