A lot of men do not believe women as a whole should have bodily autonomy, which can be proven by a simply hypothetical.

TransmissionSigned · 2026-06-20T17:07:10+00:00

Today we learnt you can prove anything by making shit up.

Congratulations.

justsomething · 2026-06-20T12:33:21+00:00

Even in your hypothetical you described men respecting women's bodily autonomy. If they think that the women should not be forced, then they are respecting their bodily autonomy.

Being upset that the women aren't pairing up is not infringing on the women's rights. Just like being upset at what someone is saying isn't infringing on their free speech. Trying to use social pressure to get someone to behave differently isn't infringing on a right, it is one of the most basic functions of society, and you aren't going to get rid of that.

What you want is for women to be able to do whatever they like and not have men judge them for it, that's not a right and has nothing to do with bodily autonomy.

bluestjuice · 2026-06-20T16:20:01+00:00

Sorry, this hypothetical is strained and doesn't prove anything.

broooooskii · 2026-06-20T12:20:25+00:00

According to what are you basing your argument on? Saying “many men would say” isn’t a source or argument that carries any weight.

No women should be forced to pair with any men and no men should be forced to pair with any women.

NoDanaOnlyZuuI · 2026-06-20T13:13:19+00:00

If those men didn’t respect women’s autonomy, they wouldn’t just be angry about the situation, they’d believe they had the right to force those women into relationships. Being upset that someone doesn’t choose you isn’t the same thing as believing they don’t have the right to choose.

growframe · 2026-06-20T12:19:31+00:00

You can't prove things through a hypothetical that's just entirely conjecture.

RiceApprehensive483 · 2026-06-20T12:54:24+00:00

Honestly if men have that much of a problem with it, they aren’t even thinking about the women. They’re thinking of themselves and what they want.

Franpunpun · 2026-06-20T12:21:50+00:00

I think that if there were only twenty people left on earth, those people would have MUCH bigger problems than finding a partner lol

No_Locksmith_1739 · 2026-06-20T12:33:52+00:00

This is an INSANE take AND hypothetical situation that you have created in your head. Wow.

I’m not going to speak for anyone else, but if there were 20 people (10 men, 10 women), I sure as shit wouldn’t be worried about who I was having sex with. Again, I’m not going to speak for anyone else, but if there were 19 other people left on earth, odds are I wouldn’t get along with most of them, would go at things myself, and die within the month. And I’m totally at peace with that.

I’m being 100% sincere: I hope you are okay. That is legitimately an insane analogy and reflects deep hurt. I hope you find some peace.

ETA: I think it’s much more likely the men would kill and eat the women.

No-Rough-7390 · 2026-06-20T19:43:08+00:00

The problem here is that freedom, in general, is a privilege we are all so lucky to be inundated in that we cannot imagine true survival.

In your scenario, you assume that these folks will get old and die. You’re going to need offspring and as many as possible to care for the older aging parents and continue on whatever is established.

The overall point being, in order for human flourishing to occur you actually need humans.

If you believe in modern science and evolution, you’d know that a lot of reproduction (the majority actually) throughout history has been about survival and not convenience. You’re trying to circle a square by making a hypothetical regarding the former try to fit with the modernity and comfort of the latter. That ain’t reality. Reality also ain’t always pretty.

ClevelandSpigot · 2026-06-20T16:01:25+00:00

Your hypothetical is not realistic. Based on the data that we have, women as a whole find 80 percent of men unattractive. And, hypergamy exists. So, it would turn out more like 2 of the men would immediately be sought after by 8 of the women. Since the scenario is the end of the world, then those 8 women would probably be willing to share those 2 men.

The other 8 men and 2 women would start a D&D campaign.

anonymousppd123123 · 2026-06-20T21:37:24+00:00

You are saying the quiet part out loud that feminism is an extinction cult. You would rather roll the dice on an actual likely probability of extinction

Old-Opportunity-101 · 2026-06-20T12:32:31+00:00

Can’t speak for anyone else, but I’d be on the side of not coercing/shaming them

LoneElement · 2026-06-20T15:12:15+00:00

In your hypothetical, the literal survival of the species is at stake

In the real world, it isn’t. The global population is over 8 billion. It’s completely different

The situation isn’t transferable

Bulky_Analyst_9168 · 2026-06-20T13:18:01+00:00

This doesn't need any theoretical situation. We have very brutal real life examples everywhere.

Everytime and everywhere when some catastrophe hits (war, natural disaster, anything) what destroys the law-based order in society, women get immediately raped. All humanitarian aid organizations have protocols for it because it always happens immediately, without exception. When there is no organized police or government executing laws, raping starts. Women are forced to pay for food and shelter by having sex. Only way for women to not be mass-raped and/or killed is to choose who they "let" to rape them in change of protection from others. Usually it doesn't work, but women are trafficked around and men are passing women each others to rape as a currency. Not only women, little kids too. Kind neighbour man might immediately turn out as a predator and demand sexual favors for any collaboration. These men don't even think themselves as a rapists, they think it's their fair right to get sex. They might hoard water and food and then feel themselves as a heroes for giving it to women and children while demanding sex for return. They think it's a small thing to ask and to take if necessary. That's why when humanitarian aid organizations deliver food and clean water somewhere they try to share it in a place where women can eat/drink it immediately. If they give lot of food for women to take with them, men will take everything and women have to "earn" it by letting men to rape them.

Last year in Congo there was a massive prison break. Male prisoners weren't running to the freedom, they immediately ran to women's section and raped and killed everyone they could. It was first thing they did. More than being free, they wanted to rape (and kill) women.

This is reality we are living in. If men are given chance to rape without risk of consequences, they will do it. Even some of those you never thought would. That's why bodily autonomy has to be so strong societal norm that we don't even ask if people think women should have it or not. It has to be solid and unquestionable.

wtknight · 2026-06-20T14:38:25+00:00

I don’t fully agree. If those three men had some kind of obvious issues, then that majority of paired up men would not have an issue with those men staying single.

Furthermore, men are naturally polygynous. A man who has no special liking for any of those single men would just want to monopolize extra women for himself rather than suggest that men whom they don’t really care for “deserve” women.

Most arguments for monogamy were about social stability rather than men caring about other men. Similarly, men supporting feminist principles such as women in the workforce is based similarly on selfish principles rather than men having actual empathy towards women as a whole.

Most people tend to just be selfish. I am sure that when conservative men start fully realizing that their policies make women not want to have sex with them, they will start becoming “nicer” to women and supporting more of their causes. Some men are smart enough to realize this and advocate this already.

Women don’t really support men’s issues all that much either, and men who aren’t whiny weaklings are just fine with this.

Gemini_zyx · 2026-06-20T14:21:13+00:00

I don't know how many men would see it as an injustice rather than a shame. Have you asked men this hypothetical and got answers or are you predicting how they would respond.

mommiesgoodboy67 · 2026-06-20T16:40:20+00:00

Not "a lot of men", incel losers believe women should have no bodily autonomy

Spicy_take · 2026-06-20T12:24:35+00:00

At 20 people left on earth, no one morally has autonomy. If the men were refusing the women, most pragmatists would say the same both ways.

BlackTransMaam2 · 2026-06-20T15:04:56+00:00

If we're down to catastrophic population levels like 20 people, NOBODY get's bodily autonomy. Everyone will quite literally have to make a baby with everyone else once just to try and prevent inbreeding.

Siegfried66 · 2026-06-20T12:18:17+00:00

Okay, let me know when we get to twenty people left alive on earth.

nbom · 2026-06-20T14:42:00+00:00

Still waiting for the simple hypothetical proof.

Lets write a story about Amazones who will coerce men to have sex with them so they can continue their civilization..

statsfodder · 2026-06-20T12:53:02+00:00

I'll be your huckleberry....

Let's flip it.. and say the 3 guys that are left don't want to pair the 3 women, and niether do any of the other 7 men, not even as a shag to share around... you'd be posting in here how that situation is misogyny..

Altruistic_Look_7868 · 2026-06-20T12:18:19+00:00

If these 3 women were completely unattractive, I don't think they would give a fuck.

And alot of the men complaining here are more the exception, not the norm. They have to come here to express their otherwise socially unacceptable views on women and dating.

Podlubnyi · 2026-06-20T13:41:51+00:00

The last 10 men are all gay and happily hang out with and screw each other, ignoring the women.

The women complain that men not wanting to date/marry/procreate with them is patriarchy and misogyny and demand laws be passed to stop it.

Just-Path-5838 · 2026-06-20T13:43:07+00:00

If you flip the genders would this be different? The 3 men in the hypothetical want to pair up, of course they'll be upset.

Women fly off the handle when rejected, just like men do. Women are just generally less interested in men than men are in women. That's just a fact, i don't know why we're framing it as a virtue.

What do you think the result would be if the 3 remaining woman wanted to pair up, but the 3 remaining men didn't. Would those women not be shaming them and calling them gay or something? Would it not be fair for men to do the same?

Icy_Golf2703 · 2026-06-20T13:25:41+00:00

This isn't comparable to the "80-20" or unjust dating rule you are saying men complain about.

The problem is women refuse to "check their privilege" when it comes to the massive social, financial, and Psychological advantages they have over men because their advantages dating.

The same advantages they do acknowledge when it comes to telling LGBT they aren't allowed to marry or women "just dont have sex" if you don't want to get pregnant and banning abortion. They consider these things completely unacceptable yet act like straight men not having relationships is not a big deal.

When you adjust for relationship status, most women outperform most men. They are the more privileged group when you account for their life being subsidized by their boyfriends.

In your scenario, would you acknowledge the 3 men, if all things are equal have worse lives then the women in relationships by simply having no access to sex?

AutoModerator · 2026-06-20T12:15:18+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 · 2026-06-20T12:15:18+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.

r2k398 · 2026-06-20T16:33:29+00:00

The men that think this are the ones who can’t get a partner. For the rest of us, I don’t think we would even care if someone else can’t get a partner.

PrecisionHat · 2026-06-21T12:52:14+00:00

I don't agree that a significant amount of men would be outraged about those 3 women going their own way. You seem to think men are largely incels or something.

ImmaDrainOnSociety · 2026-06-21T16:10:24+00:00

Your hypothetical is silly.

If the consequence is the extinction of the human race, of course I don't believe in bodily autonomy. You would be insane to.

I would also force those 3 men to breed, even if they're gay.

Organic-Mud-8728 · 2026-06-22T23:47:29+00:00

Women do not support bodily autonomy for men

RandHomman · 2026-06-20T14:11:55+00:00

In this hypothetical there are a lot of factors that would make things different than how they are right now. One of those factors is choice in abondance vs choice in scarcity. Another one is proximity influence. Some of you may believe women and men are perfectly fine being alone but that's only because you can spend all your time on internet, you can watch porn, you can drive yourself to places that are secure, you get buying power through money and most societies are safe from dangers like naimals, diseases, weather and so on. Without all that, suddenly, people's princess criterias go down the drain real fast.

Sure at first either the men or women that don't want to pair with the other would refuse to pair up but down the line we have absolutely no idea how things would go. Without technology, without groceries, without transport, without the security and entertainment people get closer and try to survive the best they can. We are so sheltered we forget we weren't born to live appart from one another like we "fancy" today. We want to be appart from one another specifically because we live like we do today, we wouldn't think this way if we didn't have this abundance of choice in everything.

Santa-Teresa · 2026-06-20T14:24:59+00:00

I will say what I always say when this comes up: many women decrying men’s pleas for women to widen their boundaries do support policies obviously violating the immediate interests of others, with the gender quotas in employment being the prime example.

I actually also support those policies, as they help women show their actual capabilities which they otherwise couldn’t, especially since companies say they actually appreciate qualifications. But you can’t do that and then claim going to a few dates with men you don’t like after spending half a minute with them is rape when you claim personality is the most important thing for you.

Lysa_Bell · 2026-06-20T12:37:32+00:00

I think it would be more like 1 guy would say that women shouldn't have rights, 2 would kind of agree with him but wouldn't say it out loud themselves, 4 would just say nothing, 2 would grumble something how thats probably not cool to say and 1 would absolutely lay into him what a horrible person he is.

There is a bell curve of morality. Not just for men but also for women. Technically there is a bell curve for basically everything and most people would be in the middle and average. Which in this context sadly means just not saying anything. We see that in politics too.

JarJarNudes · 2026-06-20T14:35:03+00:00

Here's a hypothetical for men:

You and an attractive woman are the last two people on earth. Society is gone. She, for whatever reason, let's you know that she will not, ever, have sex with you, no matter what you do. Would you rape her?

I think most men know the answer (whatever it is) in their head. They don't gotta say, just aknowledge it.

BobtheArcher2018 · 2026-06-20T15:49:44+00:00

Rights, such as bodily autonomy, are not absolute and exist downstream of a society that can provide them. Societies have needs that the mating system must meet. Ideally, things are as voluntary as possible on the individual level and the aggregate results fall within an acceptable range. The ideal pairing rate is not necessarily 100%--the North West European mating pattern of the past few hundred years saw ~20-25% of women not marry, for example. And the NW Euros surged ahead of everyone in development. That said, there was still social enforcement of monogamy for both genders. Carrot and stick. No functional society has ever been able to avoid that.

Ask yourself why every society has exerted so much pressure on both genders to pair, reproduce, and stay together? This has created countless individual tragedies for both genders, though probably more for women given innate differences. But what is the alternative? It's worse for everyone, men and women alike.

Barely-moral · 2026-06-20T12:25:52+00:00

The thing with freedom and autonomy is that you can use those to make other's lives worse and you can't blame them for reacting.

rrp123 · 2026-06-20T14:38:19+00:00

Hey OP! Great post actually, I love hypotheticals, although one must be careful not to apply them too rigorously to real life.

I think your hypothetical is really speaking to the moral quandary of balancing individual rights with the wellbeing of the community.

In your hypothetical, I would absolutely agree with you that those three women should never be forced or shamed to partake in anything they don't want to do, but mainly because of the stipulation that there are only those 20 people on Earth.

If this took place in the real world, then it becomes more complicated because human tribes did not exist in isolation to each other, they were in constant conflict for territory and resources. The size of your tribe was of course a key contributor to each tribe members survival.

So in the real world case, if you had a group of women who refused to pair up with any of the men and remain celibate for life (and I would point out that this could be true if all of the men decided to remain celibate for life as well), then they would be placing the tribe in severe jeopardy. It is likely that those three women and the rest of the tribe would be killed when a rival tribe decided they were weak enough to conquer due to their low population and perhaps lack of youthfulness due to fewer children being born.

That is likely why it was extremely taboo for both men and women not to partake in reproduction.

Of course, we live in a modern world now and though I fundamentally believe that the same pressures and conflicts exist within humanity, our technology and hopefully greater wisdom might lessen the need for humans to take part in reproduction as we can overcome much of those impulses.

In any case that is the question, to what extent should individual rights precede the rights and wellbeing of the community at large, especially if the decisions of a small group can lead to the deaths of the rest?

I'm curious to hear from you though, if in another hypothetical, every single man or women in the world today decided unilaterally to remain celibate for life and refuse to have children, should they be able to make that decision without consulting other people, even though it would lead to the deaths of both themselves and the human race?

And note that in this example, it's not that all men or women have got together and decided to as a group refrain from having children (that would be impossible), but rather they have all individually decided not to, but still want other people to have children, just not themselves.

Food for thought!

Title	A lot of men do not believe women as a whole should have bodily autonomy, which can be proven by a simply hypothetical.
Author	TheHypocrisy97
Upvotes	0
Comments	190
Date	June 20, 2026 12:15 PM UTC (1 month ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1uav5dk/a_lot_of_men_do_not_believe_women_as_a_whole/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/a-lot-of-men-do-not-believe-women-as-a-whole.1583224 https://theredarchive.com/post/1583224

Comments