~ archived since 2018 ~

Would you support adjusting the demographics to fewer men and more women

October 16, 2022
2 upvotes

It's sort of funny that despite people's claims to sex being "for fun," this shows that there is some conscious intent by women to want to be impregnated by men who are attractive enough.
A study by Eleftheriou et al. (2019) found that:

  • The more facially attractive a man was judged to be, the more likely it was that participants were willing to have sex with him (r = 0.987, p < 0.001).
  • The more facially attractive a man was judged to be, the less likely women were to intend to use a condom during sex (r = -0.552, p = 0.007).
  • The average perceived STD likelihood for a man had no significant association with his average perceived attractiveness or with participants’ average willingness to have sex with him.
  • The more attractive a participant judged herself to be, the more she believed that, overall, men are likely to have a STI.
  • Women showed significantly higher condom use intentions with men who they rated as less attractive (p < 0.0005), men who they rated as less likely to carry or transmit an STI (p < 0.0005), men with whom they were less interested in having sex (p < 0.0005), and when they estimated that fewer of their peers would also have condomless sex with him (p < 0.0005).
  • Women with a higher lifetime sexual partner count were more likely to have employed a "condom resistance tactic" ("Since the age of 14, how many times have you successfully avoided using a condom with a man who wanted to use one?").
  • Women with a higher lifetime sexual partner count were more likely to have had a STI.

EDIT: Just filler to get around the gay mod filters

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 This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/PurplePillDebate.

/r/PurplePillDebate 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 Would you support adjusting the demographics to fewer men and more women
Author spinky_bum9451
Upvotes 2
Comments 12
Date October 16, 2022 7:13 AM UTC (3 months ago)
Subreddit /r/PurplePillDebate
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/would-you-support-adjusting-the-demographics-to.1135440
https://theredarchive.com/post/1135440
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/y5abbp/would_you_support_adjusting_the_demographics_to/
Comments

[–]HazyMemory7They hated me because I spoke the truth[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children) | Copy Link

Removed for incel content. Your idea requires aborting male fetuses or some sort of obscure eugenics that violate body autonomy.

Your thread was also removed previously 2 days ago. Please do not re-post it again.

[–]AquaChipChad Catcher 2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

No. We need worker bees and cannon fodder. If anything we should adjust demographics to make it so there’s more hot, mentally stable and competent men.

[–]caption291 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't tell if you're making a joke or you're actually being pro-eugenics.

[–]spinky_bum9451[S] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

FINALLY an honest woman I need to screencap this asap

If anything we should adjust demographics to make it so there’s more hot, mentally stable and competent men.

sorry that level of technology hasn't been reached yet. It's either adjust the gender ratio or keep it the same but can't magically change mental stability and competence like that

[–]AquaChipChad Catcher 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

sorry that level of technology hasn't been reached yet.

Why are you concerned about the level of technology in a hypothetical situation? The level of technology also doesn’t exist the make 70% of men suddenly disappear.

[–]spinky_bum9451[S] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

because I'm the one presenting the hypothetical situation, not you

also you suck at math

[–]AquaChipChad Catcher 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

because I'm making up the hypothetical situation, not you

This doesn’t make sense but sure.

[–]Censoredv2 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Automation + diplomacy solves both those issues 🤯

[–]AquaChipChad Catcher 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Pipe dream.

[–]AutoModerator[M] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" 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.

[–]caption291 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The simple answer is that you have now created a class of men that have a ton of leverage over women, know it and have little to no incentive to police eachother.
I could go on for hours about all the things that wouldn't work the way you think...but to keep it simple : You are assuming women are wonderful but women aren't nearly as wonderful as you think.
I'll give a small example. On the women's end you have essentially forced women into jobs they don't want. Yeah you can train a woman to be anything but there are only so many women that actually want to do those jobs. The impact on womens quality of life will be much more serious than you think and forcing a group of women to do jobs they don't want is going to generate a lot of conflict.

[–]caption291 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The simple answer is that you have now created a class of men that have a ton of leverage over women, know it and have little to no incentive to police eachother.

I could go on for hours about all the things that wouldn't work the way you think...but to keep it simple : You are assuming women are wonderful but women aren't nearly as wonderful as you think.

I'll give a small example. On the women's end you have essentially forced women into jobs they don't want. Yeah you can train a woman to be anything but there are only so many women that actually want to do those jobs. The impact on womens quality of life will be much more serious than you think and forcing a group of women to do jobs they don't want is going to generate a lot of conflict.

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

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