~ archived since 2018 ~


February 18, 2023

there was an orangutan that was sold in a brothel in indonesia. and the men paid EXTRA so it wasn't even due to scarcity or being cheap.

i think men naturally crave novelty so much that even 10/10 stacy isn't good enough after some years because they get sick of the same. a smaller percentage resort to degeneracy such as beastiality, but most if not all crave novelty to the point of riskier sexual behavior than women on average.

rich men are a good indicator of what average income or decent income men would do if they could. they all cheat if they are married or they date a string of young stacies forever. and their sexual behavior is much more degenerate than the average male who can't afford to hire good lawyers and pr.

it is sad but liberating to think that happy monogamy is an illusion as a woman even if you are exceptionally beautiful.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/AllPillDebate.

/r/AllPillDebate archive

Download the post

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

Post Information
Title monkeypill
Author negrogenius
Upvotes 2
Comments 16
Date February 18, 2023 8:34 PM UTC (1 month ago)
Subreddit /r/AllPillDebate
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/AllPillDebate/monkeypill.1152175
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/AllPillDebate/comments/115pyzb/monkeypill/
Red Pill terms in post

[–]LainselBluePill 4 points5 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

one man does something

must mean all men want to do that too


[–]negrogenius[S] 2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

more like 99% of men who have the freedom to opt out of monogamy do so.

according to one study, men cum harder with new women.


this would probably explain why men are more likely to be porn addicts, since seeing new women all the time is so appealing to them as males.

[–]tired_hillbilly 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

The experiment involved the participation of 23 self-identified heterosexual men between the ages of 18 and 23 years old. Each subject provided seven ejaculate samples over the course of 15 days.

This is not a real study. This is some psych student's senior project. N = 23, and all N are college-age is a dead giveaway all the sample selection procedure was is "Stand around in the quad and offer guys $50 to watch porn and jerk off into a cup".

[–]negrogenius[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

it is a real study and is somewhat consistent with previous research.

Our results complement the findings of Koukounas and Over (2000) that penile circumference and self-reported arousal also increased upon exposure to a novel female stimulus after habituation to a different female stimulus. In addition to evidence for effects of novel female stimuli, other human studies have demonstrated ejaculate adjustment in response to perceived sperm competition risk (Baker and Bellis 1993; Kilgallon and Simmons 2005).

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-015-0022-8#:\~:text=However%2C ejaculate volume and total,in ejaculates with novel females.

this isn't undegrad stuff. i've read stuff from grad students with work similar in structure to this.

[–]tired_hillbilly 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

My point is it's pathetic to call it science. The sample size is awful, and they don't detail how they determined the sample is representative; but the fact that it's so small and such a narrow and young age group tells me they just searched one campus for a handful of bored guys.

The Koukounas study they cite is even worse. They had an even smaller testing sample and admit they found test subjects by posting an ad in their campus's newsletter.

23 guys jerking off 7 times each is not a study. There's no monitoring of diet; we know food can change ejaculate properties. There's no monitoring of sleep schedule; we know altering your sleep schedule can effect arousal. There's no monitoring of preferences; how do we know the guys produced more ejaculate with the new girl because she was new, and not because they liked her more? Maybe the new girl just matched their preferences better and had she been first, there would have been no increase after the switch?

[–]negrogenius[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

there may be some holes, but i wouldn't be surprised if the same results appeared in a study with better conditions. let's be real, the sentiment is constantly expressed by men online who wish they could do poly relationships, open relationships, and whine about having sex with one woman for the rest of their lives (their wives).

[–]no_bling_just_dingself-aware MSTOW / janitor 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

so you selected a few angry dudes online and extrapolated that to men in general

[–]negrogenius[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

not a few, thousands.

[–]puririnpa 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

it's mainstream to complain about dating your agematch among men

[–]puririnpa -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

men when one woman cheats

[–]no_bling_just_dingself-aware MSTOW / janitor 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

nah this isnt true a lot of men are able and willing to commit not because they're forced to

[–]debatelord_1 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah this is probably true. Just look at all the past kings etc.

[–]tired_hillbilly 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Selection bias. The kind of person most likely to become a king is also the kind of person most likely to be selfish and hedonistic.

[–]puririnpa 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

it's mainstream to complain about dating your agematch among men

[–]FightMeCthullu -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think posts like this are a little misleading because it assumes all people will act the same provided a/b/c happens, with no room for nuance or discussion.

I think that, if the world was very different and every man had the opportunity to commit a crime like beastiality with no consequences, AND every man had interest in beastiality, sure maybe then most men would try it. But if I had the ability to teleport and turn invisible I would be a great bank robber. But I don’t have those things. Like obviously, if everything was different people would act differently.

But we live in a world where things like beastiality are, by and large, frowned upon, and not everyone would engage in that even for novelty’s sake at the very least due to the possible repurcussions and without the attraction/fetish factor, well, just seems unlikely that it would be a done deal.

Expanding on your point - monogamy exists and is alive and well in the animal kingdom. You see it with many species. So if both monogamy and polygamy exists in animals, then we can’t say it’s impossible for humans. Like if we’re arguing that monogamy is an illusion….Swans and parrots beg to differ. Saying monogamy is an illusion when clear examples exist outside of humans feels like cherry picking imo but I could be wrong.

I dunno, I don’t find this to be a convincing argument. Monogamy works and doesn’t and more often that’s down to the people involved.

[–]negrogenius[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

i thought i made it clear i acknowledged most men aren't into beastiality.

monogamy is practiced in humans, but my concern is whether this is an ideal situation for men. given the amount of men that do "diet cheating" like flirt with coworkers or watch porn, i'm not too sure.

the reason i brought up rich men is because they're a good sample of males who can basically do what they want with little to no consequences.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter