~ archived since 2018 ~

Promiscuity in America

ex_red_black_piller

July 26, 2020

11 upvotes

Archived from /r/PurplePillDebate

r/PurplePillDebate is a neutral community to discuss sex and gender issues, specifically those pertaining to /r/TheBluePill and /r/TheRedPill.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Promiscuity in America
Author	ex_red_black_piller
Upvotes	11
Comments	59
Date	July 26, 2020 5:33 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/hyayoi/promiscuity_in_america/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/promiscuity-in-america.719518 https://theredarchive.com/post/719518

Comments

[–]acenosk21 points22 points23 points 6 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hotdancer1138Red Pill Man12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]akaeancuts himself shaving with Occam's razor7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Has it ever occurred to you that it only matters because of societal double standards, and maybe those societal double standards are wrong / should be challenged, etc? That those societal double standards are in fact being challenged and weakneing?

Women's n-count matters significantly less than it did 20 years ago, I would imagine that it will matter even less as we barrel into the future and we will reach a point where women won't feel pressured to lie about their n-count and they won't be unfairly stigmatized for it. (TBF, I also hope that in the future there is no stigma attached to men with low n-counts either, but that is neither here nor there).

It must be terrifying to be a hate filled reactionary and watching the world change around you, all while being powerless to stop it and helplessly virtue signaling to other reactionaries about how women are hypergamous and bad.

[–]hotdancer1138Red Pill Man7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]akaeancuts himself shaving with Occam's razor4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Oh no... you are one of those people who claim that "the west is dying... because of feminism..." Before I know it, you'll be floundering on about how Marxism is somehow not western. Get out of here with those shitty alt right talking points.

It matters due to biology and hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary psychology.

There are a lot of problems with evolutionary psychology, at least how it is used by... well mostly bigots... Here is a good article in Scientific American talking about some of the common fallacies of "pop evolutionary psychology" I would recommend reading it, it goes into why scientists are hesitant to use "evolutionary psychology" as an explanation of things like mating choices.

Basically, evolutionary psychology is screwed as a real science because its nearly impossible to find evidence for it, and people exploit this lack of evidence to propose completely unsubstantiated claims and just put the "evolutionary psychology" label on it for a veneer of legitimacy.

Cultures where it doesn't matter don't survive.

What proof could you possibly have for this. Moreover, how are you establishing that something else didn't cause those cultures to not survive? Do you really believe that... lets say the Aztec Empire, which is understood to have collapsed due to disease brought by the Spanish such as smallpox, ackchually collapsed because of how they treated women's reproductive rights? Do you even know anything about Aztec culture to be able to make that claim?

Do you honestly believe that Ancient Egypt declined not because the location of their empire on the Nile didn't have sufficient access to iron which caused them to be increasingly irrelevant after the bronze age... but rather it was how they treated women? Do you honestly believe that Rome fell because of how women's sexuality was treated?

What cultures are you pointing to?

The west is dying due to low fertility brought on by feminism, so this panacea you dream of will never materialize

Here you go talking about "the west" and how it is dying. But what is this "west"? What evidence do you have that "the west" is dying? What metric are you using when you say the west is dying? Are you talking about the United States, Canada, and the EU (and the UK)?

Cultures that frown on female promiscuity will be the only ones that continue.

Again... can you point to cultures that are "declining" and can you point to cultures that are "ascending"... and you can establish its because of whether they frown or smile on female promiscuity?

[–]statusincorporated2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hotdancer1138Red Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Every great society only lasts around 10 generations. It's the old adage "Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times. Repeat." There's a natural cycle, and it's biological. For a more thorough human analysis, see here.

"The West" is comprised of several different societies, but most are in the stage of weak men creating hard times. Feminism is only a byproduct of that, as feminism can only exist during good times. There's no feminists during wartime or famine.

The fall of the Aztecs and the Egyptians could likely have been deterred were there stronger men to resiliently adapt to the adversities you mention, and perhaps the role of women was increased during those final generations. Who knows. The Roman Empire fell for similar reason (weak men), and the rise of feminism during it's waning years is well documented.

Any country below 2.1 on this list is declining. It's biology. You can replace a population through immigration, but those immigrants are unlikely to share the values and culture of the host. Only countries and cultures with patriarchy and without feminism maintain a fertility above replacement, and only these cultures will continue to exist. Well, until they themselves create "good times" and abundance, and the circle continues! :-)

[–]akaeancuts himself shaving with Occam's razor4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is some really poor understanding of history and society. You should read some books about history and come to a better understanding of the world. I am concerned that you are getting your historical knowledge from people like Stephen Molyneux or Sargon of Akkad, which is a horrible idea. There is a wealth of knowledge and information about Rome or other ancient empires that you can read about and get an idea.

Part of how I know you don't really know history, is because you have boiled everything down to the adage, hard times, weak men, etc etc etc. But this... its a gross generalization of how societies have been in the world.

Every great society only lasts around 10 generations.

This is just... well its patently untrue.

10 generations is only approximately 400 years. The Roman Empire, for instance, lasted from 27 BCE until the fall of Constantinople in the 1400s.

Ancient Egypt was a preminent power off and on for over 2000 years.

The fall of the Aztecs and the Egyptians could likely have been deterred were there stronger men to resiliently adapt to the adversities you mention, and perhaps the role of women was increased during those final generations. Who knows.

This hurts my soul. Are you serious right now? This is probably the dumbest hot take I have heard in my life. Did you have a stroke or did you seriously imply that if the Aztecs had been manlier man men they would have been fine after losing 40% of their population in a single year to a disease they had no antibodies against?

There's no feminists during wartime or famine.

Except... you know... this is dumb too... and not true. Feminism has been used to mobilize the female population expressly for military strength. Just as recently as World War Two, Rosie the Riveter was invented as part of a government propaganda move to encourage women to work in factories due to a shortage of male labor due to overseas deployment. Or did you... you know... conveniently forget about that?

What about the Soviet Union allowing women to volunteer in armed service? In fact, the Soviet Union was the first country to allow women to serve as pilots in their air force.

Well then... looks like at least two examples of feminism gaining ground during extreme stress brought about by war.

The Roman Empire fell for similar reason (weak men), and the rise of feminism during it's waning years is well documented.

No. It didn't. This is an incredibly shallow understanding of Roman History, and I'm almost certain that you are writing off the Eastern Roman Empire centered in Greece and Constantinople for no reason at all, which lasted as the dominant military power in Europe for almost a 1000s years after the Western Roman Empire fell. And in fact, the Eastern Roman Empire did reclaim Italy and Rome for a period of time, although it left the capitol in Constantinople.

Rome fell for a variety of reasons, but if you say it was because of "weak men" in a serious scholarly debate you will get laughed out of the room for good reason.

[–]hotdancer1138Red Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

10 generations is only approximately 400 years.

A generation is about 25 years, so 250 years per empire. But whatever.

The Roman Empire, for instance, lasted from 27 BCE until the fall of Constantinople in the 1400s.

Dunno if you can consider the Byzantine Empire that great. When the centuries of your rule are called the "dark ages" it isn't so flattering.

Ancient Egypt was a [preeminent] power off and on for over 2000 years.

Off and on.

did you seriously imply that if the Aztecs had been manlier man men they would have been fine after losing 40% of their population in a single year to a disease

Kill the invading Spanish when they landed on shore. No smallpox.

Feminism has been used to mobilize the female population expressly for military strength.

Industrial mobilization during wars not fought on the homefront. Not the same. Would you be in favor of the American female population being included in the draft?

Rome fell for a variety of reasons, but if you say it was because of "weak men" in a serious scholarly debate you will get laughed out of the room

Yes the specifics are more complex, but ultimately the culture was weak leading to inefficiencies and incompetence of its leadership. An earthquake didn't just send Rome into the Mediterranean.

Are you going to address the failure to maintain a replacement fertility rate? How do you continue a culture if there's no progeny to carry the torch?

[–]akaeancuts himself shaving with Occam's razor2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Dunno if you can consider the Byzantine Empire that great. When the centuries of your rule are called the "dark ages" it isn't so flattering.

I blame a poor education system for ignorant statements like this. It shows a really profound lack of understanding of what the Byzantine Empire was. First, the word Byzantine itself was only used starting in the 19th century. What you refer to as the Byzantine Empire was referred to as Rome by themselves, continuously, for its entire history and the capitol Constantinople was founded by Constantine I... in the 300s AD, well before the fall of the Western Empire.

During the reign of Justinian I (r. 527–565), the empire reached its greatest extent, after reconquering much of the historically Roman western Mediterranean coast, including North Africa, Italy and Rome, which it held for two more centuries.

100 years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire reclaimed significantly all of those lands, and held them for another 200 years.

by the 12th century Constantinople was the largest and wealthiest European city.

Just because you are poorly educated about the History of the Roman Empire, doesn't make it not "that great" and it doesn't mean you should ignore the history of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire.

Would you be in favor of the American female population being included in the draft?

No. I would not be in favor of the American female population being included in the draft because I am anti-draft. I personally think that military service should be strictly voluntary. My opinion is pretty mainstream as the last time the US implemented a draft was in the Vietnam war. If a draft was necessary, however, I believe that men and women should be included.

And to take a card of your own book. I couldn't help but notice you completely ignored Soviet female military participation...

Are you going to address the failure to maintain a replacement fertility rate? How do you continue a culture if there's no progeny to carry the torch?

You... haven't made a point here. I don't think the Republic of the Niger or Somalia are on anybody's short list of becoming global super powers. Yet, by the only measure you provided, those have the highest birth rate. An America or Europe with a lower population isn't any less American or European, and you haven't posted any evidence that the population won't stabilize in the future.

All you have are irrational alt right talking points designed to try to scare uneducated people into being bigots.

[–]robot3000_011 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hotdancer1138Red Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hotdancer1138Red Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MerryVegetableGardenPost-TRP1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Any man who is well aware of the risk of infidelity or divorce would steer clear:

[T]here was a correlation between female pre-marital promiscuity and higher rates of divorce. The research, conducted by Jay Teachman, found that women with 16 or more sexual partners prior to marriage had an 80% rate of subsequent divorce.

Wikipedia contributors. (2020, June 20). Female promiscuity. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 12:06, July 27, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Female_promiscuity&oldid=963578370

This research brief shows that the relationship between divorce and the number of sexual partners women have prior to marriage is complex. I explore this relationship using data from the three most recent waves of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) collected in 2002, 2006-2010, and 2011-2013. For women marrying since the start of the new millennium:

Women with 10 or more partners were the most likely to divorce, but this only became true in recent years;

Women with 3-9 partners were less likely to divorce than women with 2 partners; and,

Women with 0-1 partners were the least likely to divorce.

Wolfinger, N. H. (2016, June 6). Counterintuitive Trends in the Link Between Premarital Sex and Marital Stability. Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability

For all three cohorts, women who married as virgins had the lowest divorce rates by far. Eleven percent of virgin marriages (on the part of the woman, at least) in the 1980s dissolved within five years. This number fell to 8 percent in the 1990s, then fell again to 6 percent in the 2000s. For all three decades, the women with the second lowest five-year divorce rates are those who had only one partner prior to marriage.

The highest five-year divorce rates of all are associated with marrying in the 2000s and having ten or more premarital sex partners: 33 percent.

University of Utah. (2016, June 6). More sex partners before marriage doesn't necessarily lead to divorce. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 27, 2020 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160606082607.htm

Further, for women, having had fewer sexual partners before marriage was also related to higher marital quality. This doesn’t mean that sex before marriage will doom a marriage, but sex with many different partners may be risky if you’re looking for a high-quality marriage.

Rhoades, G. K., & Stanley, S. M. (2014). Before “I Do” What Do Premarital Experiences Have to Do with Marital Quality Among Today’s Young Adults? (p. 5, Rep.). Charlottesville, Virginia: The National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]akaeancuts himself shaving with Occam's razor1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]akaeancuts himself shaving with Occam's razor0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Aztec more because they were conquered they folded faster than any plains Indian groups because they were infact more decadent sex and blood cultists

Its hot takes like this that make it very difficult to take you seriously.

The Aztec empire folded faster because they were a more traditional opponent. Their population was more centralized into cities, which means it was more densely packed. As a result they were more vulnerable to disease than more nomadic tribes who were more isolated from each other. While smallpox was used against Native Americans in what is now North America and Canada, the impact of such disease warfare was more limited in scope.

Tenochtitlan had a population of an estimated 200,000. For reference, the population of Madrid in the 1500s was roughly 100,000 when Phillip II moved the royal court to Madrid. Just for reference.

Its also worth mentioning that the Aztec's were a much more traditional opponent than the Native Americans in North America. As in they had a centralized capital city, Tenochtitlan and a standing army protecting it. This means that the Spanish were able to concur the Aztec Empire by defeating it on the field of battle and capturing the capitol city which destroyed the Aztec power structure. Losing Tenochtitlan was an equivalent blow to something like the English losing London, or the French losing Paris. It was a decisive blow that more decentralized northern tribes were simply not capable of suffering.

because they were infact more decadent sex and blood cultists

This is just you being a fool and buying into colonialist propaganda meant to justify colonialism.

It is well documented that the idea of Christianity was weaponized to make normal citizens approve of colonization and support the process. It let colonizers maintain a moral high ground while oppressing and enslaving other cultures because they were "bringing enlightenment to the barbarians".

It is a natural outgrowth from there to exaggerate or fabricate native customs or cultures that they were into things like "decadent sex and blood cultists" in order to further justify both that they were destined by god to fall, and to justify the Spanish troops for murdering them in mass.

Human sacrifices were a part of Aztec religion. Without getting into the morality of that issue, however, it is irrelevant to why their empire was defeated at the hands of the Spanish and the resulting smallpox epidemic. That would have happened regardless of what their religion was due to their population density and power structure no matter what their religion was.

Your "decadent sex" thing is pure propaganda through and through however... and Aztec society at least in terms of gender relationships would have been a trad cons wet dream.

Aztecs married at a later age, during their late teens and early twenties, whereas in Mayan culture it was not unusual for marriages to be arranged by parents for a son and daughter who were still children. Aztec marriages were initiated by the parents of the potential groom. After consulting with the extended kinship group, the parents would approach a professional matchmaker (Classical Nahuatl: ah atanzah), who would approach the potential bride's family. The parents of the young woman would advise the matchmaker whether or not they accepted the proposal. Brides were expected to be virgins before marriage, although young people of both sex were advised to be celibate.

So maybe try a little harder than to just be a worthless stooge for alt right and colonialist propaganda and actually do the very bare minimum of research before spouting terrible hot takes about why a culture might have fallen.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]akaeancuts himself shaving with Occam's razor0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grave_Heresy2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sir_manalot0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grave_Heresy1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Expensive-Guitar36092 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NupNupNupNupYep1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mobrowncheeks6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crime_Dawg0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mobrowncheeks1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crime_Dawg0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mobrowncheeks4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crime_Dawg1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mobrowncheeks1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Crime_Dawg0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mobrowncheeks0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]M4sterDis4sterMediterranean4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Suck-Less2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hoopy2238 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ex_red_black_piller[S] 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]majani1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NodoxxintoxinSmall feet, no labia unicorn1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGirlGetter9000Did anyone think TGG9000 would be BP?0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Expensive-Guitar36090 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SeemedGood0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SeemedGood1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]reluctantly_red0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NupNupNupNupYep0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HankBillDaleJeff0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to MRS_DRgree[M] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link