TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

      • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead

      • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Suggestion: lets create a sticky post that aggregates all studies/articles relevant to PPD.

cxj
January 13, 2015
5 upvotes
/r/PurplePillDebate
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

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Suggestion: lets create a sticky post that aggregates all studies/articles relevant to PPD.
Author

cxj
Upvotes 5
Comments 37
Date January 13, 2015 12:54 AM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2s88c7/suggestion_lets_create_a_sticky_post_that/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/suggestion-lets-create-a-sticky-post-that.283819
https://theredarchive.com/post/283819
Top posts by cxj

Keanu Reeves hover hand photo with fans

220 upvotes
June 11, 2019
/r/PurplePillDebate

CMV: Average single women are usually not delusional about their "market value" (RMV), they have just decided that being single is better than what they can "afford" for a relationship.

116 upvotes
January 3, 2019
/r/PurplePillDebate

CMV: Insecurity is not inherently a character flaw

63 upvotes
March 15, 2019
/r/PurplePillDebate

Alpha males fuck lots of women, but also piss off and repulse lots of women, and some men.

52 upvotes
April 4, 2017
/r/PurplePillDebate

Tentative prediction: mass male suicides over the next few decades becoming a norm

50 upvotes
November 16, 2017
/r/PurplePillDebate

A Good Man is Getting Even Harder to Find

43 upvotes
October 9, 2019
/r/PurplePillDebate

The Not-So-Great Reason Divorce Rates Are Declining

41 upvotes
December 16, 2019
/r/PurplePillDebate

Avoid transactional thinking, focus on character.

40 upvotes
April 4, 2016
/r/RedPillWives

Comments

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Anyone else think this is a good idea? If not, will you state your reasons for being against it? I'm open to all manner of suggestions about how to implement it. We could have topics in alphabetical order with a list of studies under it, ie a DIVORCE section with lists of studies, articles etc relating to divorce. Maybe we could even tag the studies with labels like "peer reviewed" "opinion piece" "anecdote" etc. Maybe we could also tag them with whose side it supports, like red if its mostly cited as proof of TRP, blue if its mostly cited as proof against TRP, or purple if both cite it a lot. Perhaps the studies could also have attached links to PPD debate threads about that particular study? Im open to whatever, and any criticism of any of the above ideas or the entire idea altogether.

I think this could be really useful instead of having to google search all the damn time.

[–]CountDrama 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it'd be pretty useful and would definitely help in refining the content in this sub.

[–]setsfires3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Great idea. Though a thread with only studies/articles with the links, a short explanation, and tag (trp/bp/pp), otherwise no comments to keep it uncluttered, specifically state no arguing, or we'll have to dig.

[–]rackmerackyouevery weirdo in the world is on my wavelength1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Th big danger/problem that will probably arise is that everyone is going to argue over the validity and biases of studies, essays, etc. I imagine I that it would be quite difficult to find studies that everyone can agree on. Fo example: the findings of studies by serious academic bodies generally do not align with TRP beliefs. In addition, there is also a ton of disagreement on whether findings are indicative of cultural conditioning or some kind of "nature" that TRP talks about.

Having said that, I think your idea to categorize links by RP-cited and nonRP-cited would alleviate that issue. Otherwise, people will argue over what should be included. Also, when the mods ultimately get involved there will probably be a lot of whining about bias.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well we dont have to AGREE on whether their valid or not, thats the topic of this sub. I was just thinking of a compilation of evidence, like a massive post run by the mods. The links next to the evidence could be to the threads debating the study itself

[–]rackmerackyouevery weirdo in the world is on my wavelength2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I see what you are saying. I think the part where you lost me is by calling it "evidence" -- not to say that it necessarily isn't, but evidence (as far as I know) must necessarily be valid. Data being valid is what constitutes evidence.

Anyway, I was just wondering what happens when BPers or RPers submit things as "evidence" when the evidence in question is blatently not valid or just nonsensical. Do mods disregard it or is it included? I guess what I'm wondering is: if mods are running a thread tha acts as an aggregate of "evidence", is it possible that the bias of mods could influence what is considered "evidence"?

Do people comment on the thread debating whether or not something is really evidence (really valid)?

I think it's a good idea btw.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

OK try and view it this way: lets say we're the police at a crime scene. We take all the shit from the scene that could possibly be admitted as evidence and take it to the police station. Later on, prosecution takes what they think they can use in court, which isn't everything, and even that might not be allowed due to the judge, narrowing it down further, and even after that some of it might not convince the jury. But that's not our problem IN THIS SPECIFIC STICKY I am suggesting. In this sticky, we are merely compiling studies/articles for quick reference and organizing/tagging them. The debates happen in other threads about said articles, and can be possibly linked to them in the sticky.

[–]yaseedog will hunt5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

This is a great idea! I'll contribute two that I've linked before:

On the 80/20 rule

(TLDR: CDC stats showing around 85% of women and 76% of men have reproduced by age 40)

On appearances & online dating

(TLDR: okcupid stats showing that women rate 80% of men as lower than average attractiveness-wise while messaging them anyway; "men pursuing the all but unattainable")

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

On the 80/20 rule[1] (TLDR: CDC stats showing around 85% of women and 76% of men have reproduced by age 40)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The 80/20 rule isn't that 20% of the men have fathered 80% of the children.

On appearances & online dating[2]

(TLDR: okcupid stats showing that women rate 80% of men as lower than average attractiveness-wise while messaging them anyway; "men pursuing the all but unattainable")

How do you conclude that men are pursuing that all but unattainable? Yes, the blog concluded that, but I think they only said that because they didn't look at the curve closely enough. Quite honestly, if you broke down women and men into percentiles, I'd say that they look pretty similar. In other words: what percentage of women are rated a "5" and what percentage of messages did they receive?

It looks to me like about 6% of the women were rated as a "5", and they received about 17% of the messages - in other words about 2.8x more messages than the average woman. The line for men rated a "5" is too small to evaluate, but when we look at men rated at "4.5" they are about 1% of the men and they received about 4% of the messages - in other words about 4x more messages than the average male. The conclusion that men are going after unattainable women at a higher rate than women are going after unattainable men seems speculative.

It's also worth mentioning that women rarely message men in the first place. This study shows that women receive, on average, 17x more messages from men than men receive from women. http://www.zdnet.com/article/ten-fake-profiles-one-okcupid-experiment-okcupid-on-trial/ The messaging pattern looks to me like women don't really have to do anything except field messages from lots of men who are attracted to her, meanwhile, men have to pursue women because there's not very many women who are going to send a first message. The messages sent: http://zdnet3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2014/10/03/2f3d3638-4b1e-11e4-b6a0-d4ae52e95e57/resize/770x578/169f64898ff1d57b3f6430b317a46104/okcupidfake.jpeg

[–]yaseedog will hunt0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

The 80/20 rule isn't that 20% of the men have fathered 80% of the children

Check We_Are_Legion's comment above; the fact that 80% of women who ever lived reproduced while around 40% of men did is often brought up in the context of the 80/20 rule (you can search my history for more examples). The CDC data points out that the pattern has changed pretty drastically

Edit to address okcupid stuff: When you look at this graph it seems like attractiveness ratings have a significantly larger effect on quantity of messages received for women than for men; when the author colloquially says that men "pursue the unattainable", I imagine that's what they're trying to convey. You're definitely right that women seem to send far less messages overall though; if this sticky post thing ever happens, that article should definitely be included.

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The 80/20 rule isn't that 20% of the men have fathered 80% of the children

Check We_Are_Legion's comment above; the fact that 80% of women who ever lived reproduced while around 40% of men did is often brought up in the context of the 80/20 rule (you can search my history for more examples). The CDC data points out that the pattern has changed pretty drastically

They're still two separate issues.

The 80/20 rule should be disputed based on the contemporary studies of number of sexual partners.

[–]yaseedog will hunt-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you really not think it ties in at all, though? There's a clear (not infallible) connection between number of sexual partners and the likelihood of reproducing

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

that okcupid rating data is worthless because if you rate anyone a 4 or 5 they get a notice saying you are interested, which is likely why women rated men so low. this hot or not rating data shows men had higher average ratings than women https://math.dartmouth.edu/archive/m50w06/public_html/m50_Chetan_Seth.pdf

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well the point with the idea of THIS thread is to aggregate all data, not dispute it. Yours can be in there too :)

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

the whole utility of that okcupid study/data (for most) is that women scored men low, the premise being that women are harder raters than men, i.e. don't find most men attractive. but that's not true, the results are totally skewed because of the 4-5 rating message issue, making the study kind of worthless. because you can't post an unlimited number of articles/studies, you should at least filter out, omit ones with huge design/methodology flaws that render the results deceptive and/or worthless.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, because that opens up the door to massive endless debates about what can and cannot be included in the list, and thats not the purpose of the list. The debates ABOUT the list items happen in their own threads outside the sticky. The sticky JUST contains links and MAYBE some tags.

There is no limit to the evidence sticky, it can have alphabetized sections IE "DIVORCE" with all related articles used in PPD.

[–]yaseedog will hunt0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

if you rate anyone a 4 or 5 they get a notice saying you are interested

I didn't know that, thanks for pointing it out

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

(TLDR: CDC stats showing around 85% of women and 76% of men have reproduced by age 40)

Genetic studies suggesting that people have twice as many unique female ancestors as male ancestors. And from that, an estimate by Baumeister that about 80% of women who ever lived reproduced, while around 40% of men did.

And its a pretty interesting that more women than men reproduced here too. I would expect in a sexual market restricted to largely monogamy, and marked by widespread access to birth control and sex education, women would deliberately reproduce with the beta bucks more often. Maybe its the small sample size, yeah?

(TLDR: okcupid stats showing that women rate 80% of men as lower than average attractiveness-wise while messaging them anyway; "men pursuing the all but unattainable")

Of course not. Looks aren't the whole package for women as it is for men. Women require looks, status, and game. If looks were the whole package, dating wouldn't exist as it does. People could qualify each other by looks alone. As it is, men are compelled by a woman's looks to pursue her. Women aren't, and enforce a qualification period before access to sex, because it takes exceptional looks for everything else to be irrelevant.

Its also worth noting the quantity at women message partners.

[–]luxo42 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Genetic studies suggesting that people have twice as many unique female ancestors as male ancestors. And from that, an estimate by Baumeister that about 80% of women who ever lived reproduced, while around 40% of men did.

Couldn't this only be evidence of hypergamy if historically women were able to freely choose their own mates?

[–]Vornnash0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Beta bucks didn't exist for most of human history in which we were simply hunters and gatherers. Such primitive societies in the wild today share resources within the group. That's why women are always pining for more socialism, as it supports their sexual strategy. Having to depend on a man for support is a hindrance because she has to sacrifice desire for practicality and economic safety.

[–]luxo42 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

So you are saying that women were freely able to choose their own mates during the hunter-gatherer period of human history?

[–]Vornnash0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

For the most part. Plus weaker men died. It was alpha fucks, beta no fucks.

[–]luxo42 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Isn't this just conjecture though? It seems strange to me that pre-agricultural societies would have such modern mating practices. I mean it could be possible, but without further evidence I don't see how we could make this claim.

[–]Vornnash1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

We still have monogamy because it's economically advantageous to couple with a beta for security, it's just that betas have lost ground in the last 40 years.

[–]luxo42 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Does that answer my question?

[–]Vornnash2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The evidence is clear enough, genetic testing done on humans proves that the majority of men who have ever lived never reproduced. And that only means two things, they either died before reproducing or they got shut out by alphas with mini harems. It's probably a mix of both, but moreso alphas I believe. Simple logic.

[–]yaseedog will hunt0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Genetic studies suggesting that people have twice as many unique female ancestors as male ancestors

I know :) that's exactly why I've linked this study in the past.

Looks aren't the whole package for women as it is for men

That was pretty much my takeaway as well: physical appearance plays a different role in attraction for women than it does for men.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

See this is how i imagine the sticky thread - people posting studies in the comments and the mods adding them in under the correct category in the post itself.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Would really love mods opinions on this too.

[–]CountDrama 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Try tagging this post so that the mods can notice it.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Cool what should i tag it with?

[–]CountDrama 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think there's a For Mods tag but I could be wrong. If not you can just message them.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Done ! Thx for the idea :)

I hope it gets their attention and I hope more people comment on this thread.

[–]TomHicksAntifeminist sans pills1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a great idea!

[–]ABCYZSpoiled Princess0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

u know?

[–]reginaldtato 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh great, a list of bullshit "observational studies" for everyone to confuse correlation and causation with.

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

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter