Why are bluepillers so aggressive?

Affinity4186 · 2023-07-24T15:58:39+00:00

Most of them can't make arguments on this sub without throwing personal attacks and subtle jabs at blackpillers....

[–]infinitofluxo 27 points28 points29 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]nuwio4 -13 points-12 points-11 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 3 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dapper_Level2915 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Specific_Praline_362 -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]AlastorSitri -8 points-7 points-6 points 3 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]platinirismsBlackPill 17 points18 points19 points 3 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[+]AlastorSitri -7 points-6 points-5 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]platinirismsBlackPill 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlastorSitri -5 points-4 points-3 points 3 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]platinirismsBlackPill 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlastorSitri -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]platinirismsBlackPill 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlastorSitri 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]EugeneCezanne 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]platinirismsBlackPill 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EugeneCezanne 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ace52387 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]le_blackpill 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]No-Vermicelli1103 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]le_blackpill 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]No-Vermicelli1103 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Idk what ad hominem is but usually black pill says if they not the race height and looks a girl wants then they won’t get no dates but that’s just cap otherwise every women on earth would date the same dude but in a different body and usually this look height and stuff is like 6 ft plus and white so everyone not that can’t get no date which is false cus if u actually went outside lots of different types of ppl are getting married but then if u say this a black piller says cope

Then also 99% of men and women are average the below average are like obese balding discord mod type ppl that don’t go outside so u don’t even know they exist then the above average is like celebrities and ppl with plastic surgery so average guys can easily get dates cus every normal guy is average even if he’s 6ft cus u can easily be 6ft but broke or 5’9 but rich so it evens out to average

[–]le_blackpill 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

A lot of blackpillers don’t actually understand the blackpill and are just nihilistic for nihilism sake. The blackpill is mainly 3 ideas. The first one is that looks is the main determining factor of dating success for men. This is backed up by countless studies and pretty much impossible to refute. Personality and game don’t matter nearly as much as most people believe. The second one being that women are hypergamous, which means they date up. For example if a woman isn’t attached to you then there is a high probability she’ll leave you for someone better looking or with more money if she has the opportunity. The third one being that it is generally hard for men to improve their standing in the dating game. You are either born with good looks or you aren’t. There is wiggle room if you are fat or just completely unkempt. Those are the main three, but a lot of blackpillers also take race into account. White and black men being the most attractive. Hispanic is in the middle and East Asians, Arabs, and Indian/Pakistani are at the bottom. These factors just make it harder in the west to date, especially if you are average to below average in looks. Race doesn’t very much matter if you are very good looking though. There’s some shit that blackpillers say that is pretty dumb like if you are sub-8 it’s over and whatnot. That’s just not true at all lol. There are always exceptions. You do occasionally see unattractive men with attractive women but it is pretty rare and doesn’t disprove that looks is the most important quality a woman looks for in a man.

[–]nuwio4 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]No-Vermicelli1103 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but then u could be the best looking guy ever but be retarded and like racist or something and nobody gonna date u

Yeah most women probably ain’t gonna date a broke guy with no job or ambition but rarely are they gonna just up and leave for the next man after like a 10 year marriage unless they were actually a horrible person who can lie for years on end

The last part part 3 is true tho I guess to an extent cus it’s not like u can change ur entire appearance unless u get surgery but then again most ppl are just normal looking like it’s rare to look like deformed obese and balding all at once

Yeah the sub 8 thing is dumb but the race part could be true tho cus I rarely see Asians and Indians dating outside their race so it’s either everyone think they ugly or they just don’t do that as much as other races

[–]le_blackpill 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]No-Vermicelli1103 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]le_blackpill 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]No-Vermicelli1103 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmolPPAcceptance 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ToxapexHisuiBluePill 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ItoshiSae10 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MistyMaisel -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It's cuz I think you're all poopy heads. And it becomes increasingly difficult not to say that with each response.

I also find the data many black-pillers use and their understanding of how science and rationality works to be so bad that it would often require like....essays upon essay length posts to explain to them that the entire presuppositions are wrong, the data-set doesn't say what they think, the scientists don't agree with their conclusion, the data-set isn't large enough, the factors accounted for aren't numerous enough, and so forth. Put bluntly, data is only as the understanding people have of it. And trying to explain how to interpret data to someone is often extremely difficult. And often, I am lazy and would rather just tell them they're stupid because they are and I also don't really think my essays will change their mind because it isn't really about the data in the first place.

It's also that, and I say this with love, most black pillers are incredibly rude in tone and come off quite poorly in such a way that sort of makes you want to throw a jab back because they start out with the jabs and then do this debate bro cry-bully game of , "why are you ad homineming me, let's be rational".

[–]pop442 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MistyMaisel 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I dunno, outside these reddits I'm mostly reading cooking stuff and those communities are super kind and pleasant to each other.

Here, yes, I agree. That's what gathering a bunch of insecure men who aren't good with directness and aggression really will get you. It's not a surprise, it just gets old quick. Makes me feel like an old man shaking my fists and the kids on the lawn.

I've never really been there. I'd take your word for it. I don't think it's really a debate community tho is it? Isn't it just like a pussy hat hug box for wine moms to share big fish stories? Kinda different tone than a debate community where you'd think people could do a little better.

Never been there. Have no issue with um. Wine moms need a rage vent. If black pill stayed in hell or whatever they call it now and red pill was on red pill, I'd leave off. I frequent the debate places. If I were on their land, I'd probably even be a little gentle just as a calming tactic before I slap um in irons and drag them here for a good whipping.

[–]pop442 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Meh...

Reddit is still largely a pro-feminist/left leaning website all the way through.

There's no way in hell 80% of the stuff posted here would get approved by the mods in most mainstream Reddit sub.

There was a whole Red Pill sub at one point and it got banned. There was also an incel sub and that got banned too. Granted, it was probably for the better that the incel sub got banned but even PPD explicitly bans Black pilled or Incel content via their own guidelines.

Even r/MensRights cuts down on Black Pilled content and try hard to be a moderate pro-Male sub with only a few radicals here and there.

Also, I disagree that Reddit is largely positive outside this sub. Tons of topics on Reddit surrounding politics, race/culture, social issues, wealth inequality, environmentalism, immigration, religion, dating woes, music, sports, etc. have resulted in some very awful discourse, tense arguments, and people getting banned/suspended. You just overlook it.

Getting back to r/TwoXChromosomes and r/FemaleDatingStrategy, both subs have a ton of female posters who make awful generalizations about men based on stereotypes and negative experiences all the time. In fact, there's a common theme where they literally accuse women who say #NotAllMen of having internalized misogyny. I could post endless links showcasing this if you want to.

If Black Pillers are evil for generalizing women based on their limited experiences and distrusting them then you should be giving that same energy to women in other subs who do the same exact thing but with the genders reversed.

If you need me to post links where this happens, let me know. I'll post them and you can give the women there the same advice as Black Pillers. After all, we're all equal and only a true misogynist would hold men to a higher moral standard than women.

[–]MistyMaisel 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I said my reddit was positive. I didn't say reddit was positive itself. You get to arrange your own experience. If I want contentious prodding, I go to places like this. If I want a hug box of harmony and passion, I go to cooking reddits. You get to choose your own adventures. I'm not over-looking, I'm ignoring. I recommend this to everyone. You can't fight on every hill.

As for reddit cutting down on potentially dangerous hate-fests where men are increasingly hinting that if something isn't done about their lack of sex and relationships they'll become violent...I understand from a business perspective why they won't allow this. It's bad for business to platform potentially violent hate mobs. The last thing you want is someone to get raped and murdered and the next day it is on CNN that they had their mind poisoned on a reddit sub. I don't see this as pro feminist or leftist so much as pro dollar dollar bills. The issue therein is simply that a lot of the subs you mention lean more violent than their "leftist pro feminist" counter-parts.

***

I don't really need you to, like I said, I believe these wine mom fests would be pretty much what you said. Importantly, they don't seem to be turning violent, they're just insulated complaining which is largely, I would think, a healthy outlet for frustrations. I also have no issue with them yelling at women who say not all men as being pick me internalized woman haters. That's probably the truth in a lot of cases. You don't show up to the slumber party of a girl who just got divorced to say some men are pretty cool. It's not a neutral debate space. Those subs are not neutral debate spaces. Here and PPD are. Which is why if you wanna say not all women or not all men, I say make it happen.

I don't think most black-pillers are evil. I think they're at least temporarily stupid, lazy, and rude. I wouldn't have them to tea, but I wouldn't say I think they're satan or satan adjacent. I think they stand a chance to become evil if they don't cast off the parasite infecting them, but even that is unlikely. I don't have an issue with them generalizing (as you can see, I just generalized them quite easily).

Also, let's be honest, it is fucking retarded to say that because I have energy to call people here stupid, I should have energy to call anyone anywhere else being stupid that. I get to pick the circus I wanna go to. It is not a sign of inconsistency that I don't have the energy for every single fight available. I can say I like movies without having to see all movies ever. Some movies appeal to me more than others to go see.

I'm not holding anyone to a higher moral standard. Someone asked why I call people here stupid rather than explaining why they're stupid in detail every single time, I've given an answer. I don't have to go hunt down people just as stupid as you on another part of the internet. Go tell them that they're stupid yourselves if you like.

[–]pop442 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I said my reddit was positive. I didn't say reddit was positive itself. You get to arrange your own experience. If I want contentious prodding, I go to places like this. If I want a hug box of harmony and passion, I go to cooking reddits. You get to choose your own adventures. I'm not over-looking, I'm ignoring. I recommend this to everyone. You can't fight on every hill.

Yeah. I didn't disagree with that. I said that it depends on the subs you frequent.

As for reddit cutting down on potentially dangerous hate-fests where men are increasingly hinting that if something isn't done about their lack of sex and relationships they'll become violent...I understand from a business perspective why they won't allow this. It's bad for business to platform potentially violent hate mobs. The last thing you want is someone to get raped and murdered and the next day it is on CNN that they had their mind poisoned on a reddit sub. I don't see this as pro feminist or leftist so much as pro dollar dollar bills. The issue therein is simply that a lot of the subs you mention lean more violent than their "leftist pro feminist" counter-parts.

I never lurked the pre-banned incel sub before but the Red Pill sub absolutely condemned violence and hate speech. It was literally a part of their guidelines. Granted, there were hot takes and polarizing opinions on dating and what have you there but it was very rare for violence or hate speech to be condoned there. It was no different from their female equivalent sub, r/FemaleDatingStrategy.

I don't really need you to, like I said, I believe these wine mom fests would be pretty much what you said. Importantly, they don't seem to be turning violent, they're just insulated complaining which is largely, I would think, a healthy outlet for frustrations. I also have no issue with them yelling at women who say not all men as being pick me internalized woman haters. That's probably the truth in a lot of cases. You don't show up to the slumber party of a girl who just got divorced to say some men are pretty cool. It's not a neutral debate space. Those subs are not neutral debate spaces. Here and PPD are. Which is why if you wanna say not all women or not all men, I say make it happen.

The vast majority of people on this sub never advocate for violence or terorrism against women. If it were a common thing, I wouldn't be on here since I don't condone that at all. If someone were to make a thread on here saying that women deserve rape and violence, the mods would ban it ASAP and that would be my last time on here.

I think you're exaggerating how different this sub is from the "wine mom fests" you're giving passes too. The majority of threads on here are just men venting about dating, dealing with women, and being a man in society. Those female subs pretty much talk about a lot of the same shit, especially r/FemaleDatingStrategy. If women can vent about men in their spaces without condoning violence, I don't see why men should be held to a higher moral standard. Sounds like misogyny to do that in a nutshell.

I don't think most black-pillers are evil. I think they're at least temporarily stupid, lazy, and rude. I wouldn't have them to tea, but I wouldn't say I think they're satan or satan adjacent. I think they stand a chance to become evil if they don't cast off the parasite infecting them, but even that is unlikely. I don't have an issue with them generalizing (as you can see, I just generalized them quite easily).

You sort of implied just that though: that Black Pillers are inherently evil. If you truly believed that it depended on the individual then you would simply call out the specific radicals and accept that they vary a lot. But you didn't do that, did you?

Also, let's be honest, it is fucking retarded to say that because I have energy to call people here stupid, I should have energy to call anyone anywhere else being stupid that. I get to pick the circus I wanna go to. It is not a sign of inconsistency that I don't have the energy for every single fight available. I can say I like movies without having to see all movies ever. Some movies appeal to me more than others to go see. I'm not holding anyone to a higher moral standard. Someone asked why I call people here stupid rather than explaining why they're stupid in detail every single time, I've given an answer. I don't have to go hunt down people just as stupid as you on another part of the internet. Go tell them that they're stupid yourselves if you like.

But see....the reason you feel this way is because you sympathize with women venting about, negatively generalizing, and harboring resentment towards men than vice versa.

There's tons of threads I lurked on female subs that are flat out hateful towards men, calling us all trash, claiming no good men exist, blaming all of us for the actions made by the Supreme Court, blaming us for systemic oppression, claiming that they don't trust any men, being bitter towards men over limited experiences, complaining that men treat ugly women badly, etc.

I could link them too. They're not uncommon. It's just that, as a woman, you get more offended when certain men do the same exact thing to women. And that's understandable.

I lurk tons of subs on Reddit. What gets said on this sub from men is honestly not any more toxic than some of the things that get said about men on certain female subs. Threats of violence and condoning terrorism against women on here is VERY rare. And the mods here don't condone that shit at all.

Like I said, both sides should be held to the same moral standard. If men can't vent about dating or women in their own spaces then women shouldn't be able to do it either. That's what true egalitarianism is. Holding men accountable for the same shit that women are given passes too is ironically misogynistic because it holds men to a higher moral standard than women.

[–]KayRay1994 -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electronic_Leave_477 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FixDifficult752 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KayRay1994 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Over_Beat8672 -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]RopeorDope1 -12 points-11 points-10 points 3 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]Agreeable_Dust2855 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]RopeorDope1 -4 points-3 points-2 points 3 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]platinirismsBlackPill 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]RopeorDope1 -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]platinirismsBlackPill 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Being altruistic made low attractive men more desirable but only for LT relationships

I like how your first study literally helps prove the Blackpill right, altruism had literally no effect on unattractive men for short term relationships. Aka the kind of relationships women jump in just to have a good fuck. But she’ll get into a long term relationship with him. Alpha fucks, beta bucks.

The more times a man tries to be funny and the more a woman laughs at those attempts, the more likely it is for the woman to be interested in dating. However, an even better indicator of romantic connection is if the two are spotted laughing together.

Counter study, Attractive men are funny, funny men are not attractive - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886912005028

When you’re attractive, women are more open to laughing at your jokes. If you’re unattractive she’s less receptive to your jokes. Thus if she’s laughing, it’s a good sign and is actually an indicator of interest.

Your last paragraph isn’t really relevant to the Blackpill, the Blackpill is the philosophy that believes looks is the biggest factor in a man’s dating success. The fact the average man is indeed sleeping with women doesn’t really disprove that.

[–]wagoncirclermike -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]platinirismsBlackPill 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]nuwio4 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RopeorDope1 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]platinirismsBlackPill 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wagoncirclermike -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nuwio4 -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Counter study, Attractive men are funny, funny men are not attractive - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886912005028

When you’re attractive, women are more open to laughing at your jokes. If you’re unattractive she’s less receptive to your jokes. Thus if she’s laughing, it’s a good sign and is actually an indicator of interest.

Perfect example of the shoddiness of so-called "black pill science". They supposedly found support for the idea that physical attractiveness influences the attractiveness of humor, not that "Attractive men are funny, funny men are not attractive" (whatever tf that even means).

Blackpill is the philosophy that believes looks is the biggest factor in a man’s dating success.

How big? What's "dating success"? What's the upshot? The blackpill is reductive, melodramatic, & incoherent nonsense constructed to turn possibly understandable grievances into a victimhood complex.

[–]ItoshiSae10 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]platinirismsBlackPill 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

They found an attractiveness halo-effect for funniness, not that "Attractive men are funny, funny men are not attractive".

I don’t know how you messed up reading that, it’s written clear as day right in the introduction.

“attractive individuals were rated as funnier in video clips than less attractive individuals.”

“The effects of attractiveness on humour judgement may also be explained by an association with flirtation as flirting may be most enjoyable when directed by attractive individuals.”

How big? What's "dating success"? What's the upshot? The blackpill is reductive, melodramatic, & incoherent nonsense constructed to turn possibly understandable grievances into a victimhood complex.

I like how you didn’t even wait for a reply, you asked a question then immediately went into defence mode and starting insulting us. Meanwhile

How big

I’d say 80% of your success in dating can be solely attributed to looking attractive, you need it for OLD, you need it for short term environments like clubs and festivals, you need it for short term relationships. Looks opens the door and lets you start something with a woman, if she doesn’t find you attractive, you can’t convince her with your wonderful personality that you are, in fact, attractive, because you’re not.

Look at how people are treated before and after losing weight for example - https://www.reddit.com/r/loseit/comments/jqk8op/how_do_people_treat_you_after_weight_loss/

Everybody says people are so much nicer to them after losing weight. It’s the same thing with going from ugly to attractive.

What’s ‘dating success’

Your ability to attract women and go on successful dates with them. Are you able to do it easily? You’re successful. Can’t get a single date? You’re unsuccessful.

What’s the upshot

If you’re struggling to date women, focus on becoming more attractive, lose weight, start exercising, eat healthy, build muscle, sleep well, style and groom regularly, regular haircuts, dress in good quality fitted clothes, etc.

[–]nuwio4 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I don’t know how you messed up reading that, it’s written clear as day right in the introduction.

“attractive individuals were rated as funnier in video clips than less attractive individuals.”

Lmao, such an ironic response. How tf does this demonstrate "Attractive men are funny, funny men are not attractive"? ~~Plus, this is the full quote:~~

Relative to their rated funniness in the audio-only condition... attractive individuals were rated as funnier in video clips than less attractive individuals.

And what do you base this 80% on?

Lastly, you're presenting a laughably watered-down version of "blackpill" that's basically just redpill or even conventional men's improvement advice. You're not really saying anything more than 'looking nice is good'. When so-called "bluepillers" talk about personality, game, etc. that's in response to seeing countless dudes who are around average – or even above average – who get deluded by ridiculous incel/blackpill ideologly (i.e. distorted paraphrasings of studies, like yours) into believing that they'll never experience being genuinely desired or loved by a woman.

[–]platinirismsBlackPill 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

how does this demonstrate attractive men are funny, funny men are not attractive.

Because if you actually read the study, the researches themselves came to that conclusion, “the Interest Indicator model predicts humour might be attractive only when the listener is interested in them as a mate.”.

Plus, this the full quote: Relative to their rated funniness in the audio-only condition... attractive individuals were rated as funnier in video clips than less attractive individuals.

I don’t know why you pointed out the full quote

“Relative to their rates funniness in the audio-only condition” means the attractive men were not rated to be as funny in the audio only sections compared to the video only. Aka attractive men were not seen as funnier than unattractive men during the audio only sections.

That’s basically just Redpill or even conventional dating advice

Redpill is all about game, push pull, abundance mentality, passing shit tests, dread game, negging, etc. It argues you can be a 4/10 and pull 9/10 with amazing game, and if you failed it’s just because you wasn’t alpha enough.

Conventional male dating advice isn’t to Looksmax, I just googled “dating advice for men” and “how to get a date as a man” and I get “Put yourself out there”, “don’t overthink things”, “hang at a bar/club”, “ask lots of questions”, “be honest!”, “it’s not rocket science, just meet up and have fun”, “be a good listener”, “Take it easy”. “Laugh together”. Etc etc.

Literally nothing here is related to improving yourself, never mind improving specifically your looks.

[–]RopeorDope1 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I see, we're already shifting goalposts? Reread, what you wrote. You said you wanted proof of women dating and having sex with men. A long-term relationship entails both of those.

You can argue the betabux thing all you want, but where's the evidence for it? You're looking very silly right now with the amount of assumptions and absolutely no proof to back it up.

As for your counter study, I think there's more at play. Different sample sizes and groups can have different conclusions. If anything, I think there needs to be more research on the subject.

I've heard that plenty of blackpillers bring up the infamous 80/20% ratio. The study proves that isn't true and the most attractive guys have been having the same amount of sex for decades. Which also disproves the infamous "tinder ruined dating for me" complaint.

[–]platinirismsBlackPill 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You said you wanted proof of women dating and having sex with men

Did you reply to the wrong person? Because I literally never said that.

Where’s the evidence for it

I will admit, there is none. It’s more of a concept than an actual studied phenomenon, but I’ll ask you a question, like that study you linked earlier, why would a woman not want to sleep with a guy for a short term relationship but would date the same guy for a long term relationship?

Bring up the infamous 80/20 study.

The study is shows what women find physically attractive. It’s still relevant to this day, tinder stats show us women only swipe right on only 5% of men, with the vast majority of those swipes are going to the top 20% of men.

Women do not find the the average man attractive, but will still chat to them and get into relationships with them regardless.

[–]RopeorDope1 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Nope, this was your own words: "I have never once seen someone use a study to prove women date and sleep with men based on their good personality for example."

Nowhere in that did you specify short term. You are shifting the goalposts when your initial premise is proven wrong.

I agree, the concept is "trust me bro, my fears are a reflection of reality." That's all. In reality, go ahead and look at education attainment by gender. Plenty of women are doing very well for themselves. They have no need to do what you're thinking. You're not even close to being as valuable as you think. Relax and be realistic. As for your question, im sure there are those that prefer short term. But there are also women that find more value in the long term and prefer that.

Again, you're hiding the full picture. That's twice now that you've done that. Are you okay?

Let's look at the full context. Gender ration for tinder: 21.9% women and 78.1 men. How do you expect matches to work based on this? Also, I have another question for you. Do you think 21.9% of women using tinder is enough to conflate how women outside of tinder think and view men? In the real world, is there 21.9% of women in the US and 78.1% of men in the country?

Now let's look at data on men's swiping habits on okcupid. Let's keep in mind that gender ratio, where men dominate these apps, shall we?

"The “most attractive” women receive five times as many messages as the average female does, with 2/3 of all male messages going to the top 1/3 of women. And women tend to favor the most attractive men, though the ratio is less extreme"

Now, let me use your own logic. Based on this, the average man clearly only wants the top 1/3 of women. Right?

https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/

[–]platinirismsBlackPill 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I at that point had never once seen someone use a study to prove women date and sleep with men based on their good personality.

You were literally the first person to do that, and even then the study still had flaws.

Go ahead and look at the education attainment by gender

Meanwhile the gender pay gap that still exists and men are still attaining 74% of all STEM degrees.

Combine that with the growing cost of living crisis we’re going through and how rent is skyrocketing. It’s only makes sense people want to move in with a roommate of some sort to help pay the bills.

How do you expect matches to work based on this

The gender imbalance by itself doesn’t explain why majority of women’s swipes go towards the top 20% of men. Women are specifically only swiping only on the attractive men. Thus proving, at least on OLD, how important physical appearance matters when it comes to who women want to match with.

If looks weren’t important, the spread of likes would be distributed across all men evenly.

This video explains the stats behind it https://youtu.be/x3lypVnJ0HM

Now, let me use your own logic. Based on this, the average man clearly only wants the top 1/3 of women. Right?

My logic was based on the fact that women literally voted 80% of men unattractive, it was not based on who they messaged.

Plus, I’m not sure what your point is, you’re saying men like attractive women… yes I agree with you?
My whole argument has always been that attractive people are more successful in dating.

[–]Agreeable_Dust2855 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RopeorDope1 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Agreeable_Dust2855 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Why are bluepillers so aggressive?
Author	Affinity4186
Upvotes	34
Comments	72
Date	July 24, 2023 3:58 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/AllPillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/AllPillDebate/comments/158enhy/why_are_bluepillers_so_aggressive/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/AllPillDebate/why-are-bluepillers-so-aggressive.1226331 https://theredarchive.com/post/1226331

Comments