TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

DashboardPilled Archive

View 0 posts and 1,040 comments by DashboardPilled on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,040 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Advice isn’t inherently condescending like calling someone an overly familiar pet name to belittle them deliberately like you did. No Personal Advice Posting is one of the rules when that can be used to report. Also, it's not real an "advice" and in the context can be interpreted as rudeness, too. You don't tell random people "not to have kids" as "advice", it is meant as an insult aka "don't reproduce because I don't like your opinion".
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 08:20 PM
1

Nothing rude about the words “sweety” and “hon” unless you are determined to be offended by them. Remember, you are the one who started giving me unwarranted recommendations and didn't back off when I told you I don't need those. Telling someone "don't have kids, bro" can be considering condescending, too but I didn't report you for that.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 07:53 PM
1

So funny to me that my message got removed because I used the word "sweety" once and only after you started giving me unwarranted recommendations. Would it be fair for me to report you for saying "grow up, kiddo"? Let's see how fair the mods actually are, lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 07:48 PM
–

Saying that "I don't support paying shitload of taxes that don't directly benefit me" doesn't necessarily imply that "If I do pay those taxes, I am expecting a bangmaid". That's not what I said, and you keep implying this. That's not how logic works. If I say "I don't support people getting robbed" that doesn't mean that "If I get robbed, I better rape someone else", lol. The fact that you don't understand this and keep putting words into my mouth shows that you are not interested in a genuine c…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 01:39 PM
–

So please tell me where you think I said this? There are a number of things people owe to each other: basic human decency, not committing crimes against them, taxes, paying back in to the society they extract from. You can't owe "human decency". Owing means I have to do it, otherwise the government will punish me. Not committing crimes, taxes are something we owe because the government will punish you for not complying. There is no mechanism for enforcing "human decency" because there is no clea…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 12:08 PM
1

Gotcha. You don’t care about civilization or the society you live in. You want to live in some dumb John Gault “every man for himself” greed-is-the-only-virtue, selfish take take take hellscape What I care for is consistency and fairness. If you actually believe in "nobody owes anyone anything" which is a very common take here when men complain about systematic issues that prevent them from entering into relationships, then you can't call me selfish when I am universally applying it to every asp…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 07:10 AM
1

I have already posted a study showing that men pay more in lifetime net taxes and women receive a higher share of lifetime transfers relative to the taxes they pay. Children are net drains on your taxes and do not put money in. They are total leeches on the system for nearly 2 decades at a minimum. Whose children? I don't support paying taxes for other people's children because remember that "nobody owes anything to anyone", right? What specific acts do you believe children owe you for taking yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 09:41 PM
2

The gender-based breakdown clearly shows that women, on average, benefit more from taxes than men. Are there exceptions? Sure. But, on average, women are the primary beneficiaries of this system. You can't hide behind "that's just old people".
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 09:36 PM
4

I am not sure how your question is relevant to what I said. Here is a study showing that men pay more in lifetime net taxes and women receive a higher share of lifetime transfers relative to the taxes they pay. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pbaf.12376?utm_source=chatgpt.com Men aged 40 and younger are projected to pay more than women in lifetime net taxes because of their greater labor force attachment and earnings during adulthood. Indeed, most women under age 30 are expected…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 07:37 PM
9

We agree on the principle, truly no one is entitled to another person's body.we just apply it unevenly You didn't have to go for a personal anecdote because then you will be met with the usual "I AM NOT LIKE THAT, ALL MY FRIENDS ARE NOT LIKE THAT, IF YOU HAVE FRIENDS LIKE THAT IT'S YOUR FAULT". The better example is taxes. Look at who the net tax payers are, who the primary beneficiaries of taxes are and you will realize that "bodily autonomy" and "nobody owes anything to anyone" is only brought…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 06:55 PM
1

Another point, I had 3 cute girls from work get interested in my in very blatant ways, as well as other coworkers touching my arm and being flirty at after work drinks. It can happen when they are drunk and tipsy. Drinking alcohol reduces inhibitions, so girls who actually like you might have more courage to approach you. Also, keep in mind, that if you reject their approach, they might take it personally and start spreading rumors (he is probably gay, etc) so that could work against you as well…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 03:14 PM
1

Are you on the spectrum? NT people can smell that based on your body language. Excessive looksmaxxing won't fix things if you are neurodivergent, you are probably good looking enough to get hookups from dating apps. Also, keep in mind that women will try to vet you through social media before meeting you. If they don't find any social media presence, they automatically assume you are a weirdo. Do you regularly post online? Do you travel? Do you have photos with other women? If no, it's a wrap.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 02:25 PM
3

Could be the fact that you mention your age and younger women don't want to date older guys. Could be that the location where you live has gone to shit. Could be the economy that keeps everyone stressed. I was watching a video of a girl having a breakdown over the fact that she has to work a dead-end 9-5. Do you think she is going to be interested in casual hookups that much? I don't know, man. Your circumstances are a bit unique, you have already had your fun and women in your age range are pro…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 02:18 PM
4

If I've clearly fallen off in success rate despite my appearance and everything else staying roughly the same. Highly doubt that your appearance is the same. Are you using old or new photos? Maybe you are using older photos and then they meet you in real life and feel catfished. And I wasn't smashing hotties btw, most of the girls were in the 4-5 range. If you want to "smash" girls in 4-5 range, you still need to be a 6 or a 7 at least (especially if you are using dating apps). You are probably …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 02:11 PM
3

Seems that you had a youthful look and were able to pull them through your looks (based on the fact that most hookups were from dating apps). You have probably started looking older, that's why the quality of women who want to match with you have gone down as well and they are not as pleasant to you because you don't look as young as you used to.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 02:08 PM
3

Buddy, then your post is a generalization from your own experience. Most men (especially the ones who are here) don't have a bodycount of 2 dozen in their 30s, lol. They will be lucky to get a date at all. Consider yourself lucky that you have fucked around in your youth. Most men are in the same situation as you when they reach their 30s but with no bodycount and relationship experience.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 02:06 PM
5

Were you spending more time in places where there were more single women? By the time people reach their 30s, they start looking older, their social circle isn't open to new people anymore, etc. How were you getting your hookups in your mid 20s?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 02:00 PM
1

A very common idea that gets around is that dating becomes a lot easier and more feasible for men as they get into their 30s provided they worked on themselves. This caught on primarily because women tend to lower their physical standards and start to focus more on building long term relationships/marriage/family etc in their 30s by going for stable normal men. I know that you don't believe this but the stated reason is already contradictory (watch the bold parts). If she is looking for someone …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/26 01:53 PM
–

I am more of an accelerationist, I want more women talking like this pushing men into the outskirts. Obviously, by the time her "Stacy" daughter realizes the consequences of average men checking out/leaving, it will be too late.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 03:32 PM
–

While men have no choice. Men have to take it and the very idea they have struggles with that ​is a sign ​of some sort of developmental failure. Right? Because women know it so​ well how to mentally deal with this stuff, about how threatening and daunting "very reasonable mild disgust that actually makes total sense" should be, and how it should feel. Men absolutely have a choice. Don't play a rigged game. The only reason why the average woman has an insufferable attitude towards an average man …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 09:49 AM
1

I have already said in other comments, it's fraud by omission, and yes, people with fiduciary responsibilities get convicted for omitting material facts all the time, no intend needs to be proved because it's obvious from their actions that they are benefitting by omitting key facts. Had your husband knew there was a chance a kid isn't his, he wouldn't have invested, so you are committing fraud by omitting key facts.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 06:02 AM
1

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/couple-allegedly-spent-120-000-deposited-account-bank-mistake-charged-n1052141 This is just so lazy, so much evidence that people get convicted for doing this.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 06:00 AM
–

The Council of Male Predators is pushing me to use AI to defend even more predators in Tiktok. Needless to say, my job is jeopardized, so I have to work harder. Once I meet my quarterly goals, I'll get back here and provide a response why this happens.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 10:36 PM
2

It's called fraud by omission. You are omitting material information that could have influenced your husband's decision to invest.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 09:30 PM
1

It's about the fact that proving fraud legally still require evidence of intent and evidence of knowledge. Deliberately omitting information that could prevent a financial liability is fraud by omission. Again, if she cheated with multiple people and wasn't sure whose child she is bearing, she was hiding information that could have prevented the husband from a liability. You don't even need to prove intent, it's self evident that the cheating wife omitted information to gain an unfair advantage.…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 09:29 PM
2

She is sleeping with her husband and having an affair, gets pregnant, and there is a chance it is the husband’s. Omitting information that can cause financial liabilities can be classified as fraud so the analogy works. There was a guy named Martin Shkreli who blew a hedge fund and kept sending mails to shareholders like nothing happened. Later, they sent him to jail for committing fraud. Did he lie? No, he just omitted information. Yes, if your actions can cause financial liabilities, as a "goo…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 08:31 PM
5

And you have to prove that she knew that he wasn't the father. If he could have been the father (aka paternity is in doubt), then legally she didn't have intent to deceive. In the US, if a bank sends you shitload of money by mistake and then you spend it, they can sue and press criminal charges. They don't need to prove that you didn't know that the money isn't yours. Any reasonable person who spends the money knows that it's not their, there is no need to prove this. Someone who reports this to…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 07:21 AM
2

Again, that won't fly in the court of law, spending a large sum of cash that didn't belong to you can result in a criminal charge. We are not talking about 50 bucks, we are talking about serious amounts that came from a bank account that you cannot recognize. Almost any lawyer would tell you that the right course of action is to contact the bank and not immediately spend it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 07:09 AM
5

Again, I don't see any relevant counterpoint to this statement that I made (pay attention to the part in bold) The "intent" here is with regards to you not disclosing the fact that you had a kid from someone other than your husband knowing full well that it's the case. If there is a high chance that the kid isn't from your husband (doesn't matter if you don't know 100% who is it from, as long as you know it's not from your actual husband) and you fail to disclose that, you are doing this intenti…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 07:07 AM
3

When you get a large sum of cash and spend it, you know that money isn't yours and you spend it, lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 05:15 AM
2

People who are having sex with more than one person at the same time still get pregnant accidentally, and they don't necessarily know who the father is. Though they may believe they know, or have a strong suspicion. (And they may be incorrect.) Orgies aren't as common during paternity frauds, why do you keep looking into these weird corner cases? It still doesn't make it less pathetic. If it did, for one thing, the crime should stand even if it later turned out to be the case that the bio dad wa…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 11:11 PM
2

No, spending funds you know do not belong to you elevates the act to a criminal offense like theft, larceny, or embezzlement. EDIT: I am laughing so hard at the downvotes, lol, I am literally saying how the law works. Downvotes with no counterarguments are just funny. "I got shitload of money from fuckknowswho and I spent it accidentally, pinky swear", good luck with that in the court of law.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 10:59 PM
2

People get pregnant through carelessness or negligence all the time. Yes, but they know who they got pregnant from. Unless you are implying that all accidental pregnancies happen during orgies. The "intent" here is with regards to you not disclosing the fact that you had a kid from someone other than your husband knowing full well that it's the case. If you "accidentally" get pregnant and then immediately disclose it to your husband, then it's not paternal fraud because you are not trying to hid…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 10:57 PM
6

No, it doesn't. If you get a large sum of cash accidentally and spend it, you can be sued for misappropriation.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 10:53 PM
4

They are acting as if getting pregnant is like catching a flu and you can't control who you get the flu from. It's a complex multi-step process and if you are willing to go through it, you absolutely have an intent, anyone with a functioning brain would recognize that there is intent. There is a woman here arguing with me that it's obviously wrong but for legal purposes you should provide "proof of intent", lol. So much mental gymnastics to avoid accountability.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 10:31 PM
3

Again this isn't about "accountability" It's about legality The whole point of the law is to enforce accountability, what are you talking about? It's like me saying "yes, stealing is bad and who steals is a bad person but there should be no law that bans stealing, legality is different". Paternity fraud isn't the same as getting a flu from someone nearby. She has to have unprotected sex, get pregnant and then deliberately hide this after the fact. There is nothing accidental about this. This is …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 10:12 PM
3

Cheating doesn't mean fraud...Otherwise you're just making having sex or cheating illegal Cheating by itself isn't fraud, knowingly hiding the fact that you had a kid from someone else and making your husband liable for the kid is fraud. If I got overpaid, didn't notice, and spent the money Keeping or spending funds you know do not belong to you—such as an accidental bank deposit—is legally treated as theft, embezzlement, or misappropriation. The law, at least in the US., requires you to act in …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 09:41 PM
1

So, 100K penalty for each year you didn't disclose sounds good? And if you don't pay, you go to jail.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/26 08:54 PM
1

You are the one coping if you think that entering a relationship means that there is mutual attraction between people. Plenty of men get settled down for. Go to the deadbedroom sub if you want examples of couples with no romantic chemistry between them who keep dragging their marriages/relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 07:15 PM
–

The difference is that he's basically throwing in the towel. Unlike women, if most men stop putting in effort, nothing is going to happen for them in dating. Unless they suddenly come into a lot of money or something drastically changes, opportunities generally aren't going to appear on their own. I don't consider it "giving up". Would you consider someone not chasing a professional sports career as "giving up"? The issue is people still assume that a romantic relationship with the opposite gend…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 01:21 AM
–

The logical conclusion from "it's harder" is that people need more effort, time, or a different approach. It doesn't logically become "it's effectively over." Those are two very different conclusions. The conclusions are made based on the ROI: is the juice worth the squeeze? By your own logic, almost any activity with a shitty ROI can be justified as "you are just lazy, just put more effort, bucko". Some things are just not worth having once you have to invest significant energy and resources. F…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/26 12:11 AM
–

I have set so many of my partner’s friends up on dates because they welcomed me with genuine friendship. Honestly, kudos to you. I know very few people (both men and women) who still set decent people up on dates. I understand that a couple of bad apples can create an unpleasant environment but I am not really convinced that the vast majority of nerds are acting like that. You have the right to distance yourself from these places but also saying that you'd rather deal with queers because some ne…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/26 09:28 PM
0

I befriended him not out pity but because we had so many topics in common that we could discuss. I guess I mask my neurodivergence better. Do they make fun of him behind his back? Or is it pity? It's a mix of both. The funny part is that he is very good connections in higher places and has helped me when I actually needed support. At the time, I had no idea, I befriended him not because of this but mostly because we were having really interesting conversations. But he never reveals that to other…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/26 11:47 AM
2

There are certain milestones that have to be met at certain ages. For example, if you haven't had a career for 40 years, and then suddenly decide to become a software engineer, it will be hard to impossible to get a job because there are younger people with more enthusiasm and knowledge applying for the same position. There is a snowball effect in play, the more you miss something, the harder it is to do it later. This applies to careers, romantic relationships, investing, etc. You can't tell a …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/26 11:40 AM
1

- Why are men undersocialized? - There are very few women in 3rd spaces. - Haha, that's because all of you are fucking creepy, get rekt. We would rather talk to queers than have a conversation with the opposite gender. Look at this entitled loser who wants to talk to a woman. So anyway, why don't you come out of your basement?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/26 11:35 AM
4

You basically confirmed what I said. Women would rather spend time with queers than deal with the unpleasant experience of being simped on by a bunch of nerds. How is this making it easy for the well-intentioned nerds who are there to socialize? The whole point of telling men to go socialize becomes pointless when women start actively avoiding third spaces. If I need to socialize with men, I can just hop on a gaming server and play games.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/26 11:32 AM
28

This is not just socialization: it's career and romantic relationships with women as well. If you are lagging behind, you will always have an abused dog mindset even if nothing on paper is preventing you from getting those experiences. It's honestly so depressing that success in life is mostly determined by what happens to you in your formative years when you don't have that much control and are at the mercy of your parents.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 02:26 PM
2

There are risks with all kinds of interactions. Stop creating this narrative that there's a 50:50 chance you will get harmed by some harmless dude if you reject them. Also, I kind of find it ironic that you say that "we are not a mind reader" and then at the same time imply that the guys who are being soft rejected should be able to read your mind. There are ways of soft rejecting that still keep the door open for future relationships, and most men are being told to be assertive and to go for it…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 02:22 PM
35

What would you consider an appropriate level of socialization? From my personal experience, there are very few third spaces that welcome single men. It's almost as if being a single man is considered a defect, you are in a position that you have to prove that you are not a creep whereas with women it's the complete opposite: she is wonderful unless proven otherwise. These are very well-documented biases that exist in our society. Even if you find a nerdy hobby like D&D or chess, the ratio of men…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 12:25 PM
6

Most "nice guys" are too weak and non-assertive to stick around and start arguing about why they got rejected. Again, these are mostly men with low self-esteem, probably raised by overprotective parents, they are not the argumentative types usually. When they get an explicit no, they usually move on. Some redpill PUA who gets rejected might do the things that you mention but these are not the "nice guys" that we are discussing.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 08:46 PM
4

You keep sending me these essays that have nothing to do with my point of contention. Most nice guys are not as harmful as you present them to be. Exceptions do exist, but pretending that the majority of nice guys will shoot up a school because they got explicitly rejected by their crush is just dishonest. Women should start rejecting them more explicitly which they are not doing right now.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 07:05 PM
4

Where did I suggest that she should give a chance? Go and read my comment again. We are talking about retaliation in response to rejection.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 05:39 PM
2

Agreed, I am in the same camp and waiting for most men to join the club.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 03:42 PM
9

So you agree that they are not harmful? Then all this line of reasoning about them harming a woman after getting a rejection is total BS. I don't usually categorize people into kind/evil so all this "being weak doesn't make him a good person" rhetoric doesn't really make sense to me because then you will have to define what a "good" person is.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 03:41 PM
4

There is a gray area between where the girl isn't sure but could change her mind under different circumstances. I personally agree that a "maybe" is a "no" but I consider myself fairly blackpilled on dating. Most normies who successfully end up in relationships are usually in the gray zone where they have to overinvest initially to prove their worth. Hence you get stories like "Initially, I didn't like my husband (aka his looks were not impressive) but as I got to know him, I started to like him…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 03:36 PM
4

I've already mentioned some women definitely take advantage of the situation. I have already said it's not some, in the majority of cases women are not explicit, they are giving conflicting signs that could be interpreted as either she is not interested or she could be interested under different circumstances had she spent enough time with him. I have known plenty of examples from my own life where women would act in a standoffish way and then after you find out that she was expecting you to pur…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 02:20 PM
5

You are basically saying "she is afraid to say no because this nice guy might harm her" but most of these "nice guy" types are not really that harmful. It's usually the well-mannered, nerdy meek types who won't hurt a fly, who were told by their mothers that they should be a "gentleman" to win over a woman's heart. You can tell them a no and they will vanish but throwing them a bone just in case he becomes useful after 30s is manipulative as fuck and if you think that it's acceptable to do this,…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 02:14 PM
23

Girl clearly expresses she isn't interested in him. Most girls are not "clearly" expressing this, they keep stringing them along because they like the attention. I have yet to see a scenario where a girl explicitly says "no" and the guy keeps chasing her. Most genz/zillenal men know that real life is not some rom-com where the good guy ends up getting the girl after chasing her. It's kind of funny that when redpillers/blackpillers tell men that if she is not explicitly showing signs of interest,…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 01:37 PM
3

I don't know in which world you live but women are not desperate to date men. So the whole "if she is desperate, it's good" is more of a hypothetical. Women pretty much hold all the cards both for sex and commitment and they are mostly choosing to be alone. On the men's side, desperation creates a race to the bottom. When 7s are so desperate not to end up alone that they start poaching 5s, that automatically forces 5s to date down and poach 3s. This is not healthy for the overall market. At some…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/26 03:16 PM
1

What's the difference between a stay at home mum and a wife?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 10:42 PM
0

If providing in money is inherently "more valuable" than being a housewife, why should a woman be a housewife? Because it makes your life easier? You don't have the burden of performance and you are taken care of financially (we are still discussing this within the context of my hypothetical where you are guaranteed to be taken care of). Not everyone wants to be a wageslave till their 50s for some company that can easily lay you off with no regard for your loyalty. You are arguing as if there ar…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 10:37 PM
1

So you're telling me that a SAHP dynamic can never be equal? It's by definition not equal unless you are implying that doing housework with all modern conveniences has the same complexity as earning money for a full household in modern economy. I've seen SAHP dynamics where the provider treats his wife as an equal decision making partner and values her contributions to the household equally. He will, in fact, tell everyone that he thinks she workers harder than him and contributes more than him …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 08:10 PM
1

Men die. Then what? In my hypothetical, you won't end up without money even if the man dies. The version of taken care of that I want is a man who is emotionally intelligent, doesn't raise his voice, always values my contributions as equal to his no matter what, treats me as a fully equal decision making partner etc. That's not "taking care", that's equal partnership, taking care implies that there is a party that is being taken care of (like in the parent-child relationship). In the setup that …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 07:49 PM
-5

Hypothetically speaking, if I could guarantee that your husband would take care of you, protect and love you, would you still choose being a stay at home wife?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 06:15 PM
1

What does your reply have to do with my comment? I was specifically referring to people who believe that "personality" and "bare minimum effort" is enough to compensate for the lack of physical attractiveness which is not true. This is not as common sense as you claim it is, plenty of bluepillers/purplepillers disagree with this. Otherwise, they wouldn't be telling men to cultivate interesting personality.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 06:13 PM
4

I am tired of waiting, too. If you want it to happen faster, stop gaslighting men that all they need is just "good personality" and "bare minimum effort". Start being very vocal about the fact that most men are dogshit and no amount of "self-improvement" can fix that.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 03:54 PM
20

I am personally of the opinion that most women haven't historically liked/loved most men. I don't buy the whole yin/yang BS, I don't like the standard fence sitting arguments stating that "this is just social media bubbles dividing people, in reality, both men and women are willing to be together, it's just the media". There is nothing preventing women from doing trad marriages nowadays and coupling with "good/kind men". They have all the cards. Almost any woman can find a nice, well-put betabux…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/26 01:54 PM
–

I didn’t say it was the average, but you did ask for one man My bad, next time I will never phrase my question like this. I thought we are arguing good faith here and this should have been interpreted more like "this is not a common sentiment here". I almost never use Lilith or LemonGhecko as an example of what "women here commonly say". If I go outside and interact with my social circles, I have never seen that sentiment expressed and I likely never will. I wasn't even talking about social circ…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 07:47 PM
2

that's not how men talk There's a guy saying if his gf swallowed 30 guys she should swallow his too
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 07:35 PM
2

Dont say "if you dont do X, I am going to leave you!" If you are saying this, then you are not really leaving so the man who actually decided to leave won't say this. Just say "i am sorry. But we are sexually incompatible. I don't want ylu to feel pressured into preforming acts you're not into just to try and keep me around. I will always be aware you don't like those acts and I wouldn't be able to get over that" The last part about "me not being able to get over that" is completely unnecessary.…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 07:18 PM
2

Whats your point Men are allowed to leave their partners who don't meet their expectations and there is nothing wrong with that. If you have an issue with me leaving you because you think my standards are "unreasonable", you are the one expecting me to do things that I don't want to.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 06:28 PM
1

No, you are wrong. They never ever address the underlying issue which is feeling insecure. A healthy couple would not break up over a sex act. There is nothing wrong about changing your preferences and realizing that you want more. There is nothing unhealthy about breaking up if your current needs aren't met. It's so ironic that there are plenty of women that will agree with me who are in the deadberooms sub. In fact my usual answer to this topic is "fine, leave if you don't feel your partner de…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 06:26 PM
3

OK, so now we have come full circle and you admit that it's about force and not expectations? Then, go read my original response.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 06:22 PM
2

You opened your first comment saying “where do men say it’s ok to force women into sex act?” but the OP is not talking about force whether it’s physical/emotionally manipulative/coerceive, she described harassment. I don't understand the difference between emotionally trying to manipulate someone to do something vs harassment. To me, both are almost the same thing. And if they are not, is the difference so crucial that it completely invalidates my point? Red pill does not directly tell men it’s …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 06:17 PM
2

My wants and needs can change, and if you don't meet them, I don't have to stay with you. There is nothing manipulative about me leaving a relationship that doesn't satisfy my current needs.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 05:54 PM
0

Yes, and? You keep saying "it's not physical force" and I never said it is. The quote you posted says "it is closed to physical force".
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 05:52 PM
0

<“ I am not getting the same sentiment from the post, she never used the word “ask”, uses language like “repeatedly pushing someone into uncomfortable sexual experiences” which is the opposite of asking and is closer to PHYSICALLY FORCING someone to do something “ closer to doesn't mean it's exactly physically forcing, lol. Obviously, it's on the spectrum from "just asking" to "actually applying physical force" and it's closer to the latter but not exactly that.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 05:50 PM
4

This is from your post. As far as I am concerned, repeateadly pushing women into uncomfortable experiences is forcing them to do it. Force doesn't have to be physical.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 05:48 PM
3

Harassment is usually only verbal, but idk why you’re making a big point of the semantics You are the one who brought up harassment and started questioning the choice of my words, so it's very rich of you to accuse me of talking about semantics. I don't understand the point of telling me "but she didn't mean physical force". Yes, I didn't even imply that. Quote the part that implied that I meant physical force. And to your point, red pill teaches men that it’s manly to push women’s boundaries be…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 05:43 PM
1

OK, and you should be fine with me leaving too. But this post of yours suggests that you are not. It's because they are getting the women to commit to them and not being honest about their sexual expectations before hand
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 05:34 PM
0

Me neither. You are the one saying "it's not physical force" but I never even argued that it was physical. And you still keep bringing it up.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 05:33 PM
1

Is he allowed to change his preference during the relationship? Or only women are allowed to do that?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 05:31 PM
4

As long as no one is being forced to do anything, I don't understand why do you care if some men who express this sentiment talk about their preferences.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 05:27 PM
1

You expect a contract listing all possible acts that can happen in a relationship? OK, and I am expecting the exact number of partners that you had and all types of things that you did with them before I provide the contract. You can contact my lawyer for more details.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 05:26 PM
0

Sure but in her post she didn’t describe manipulating or coercion, she described harassment. How is this supporting your point? As far as I am concerned, harassment is way worse than nagging and manipulating, and my original point still stands: most men here don't believe that women should be harassed to do things that they do not want to do. The point of the argument is that this isn’t a clear indicator that a woman doesn’t desire someone, not whether a man is allowed to be unreasonable. The fi…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 05:22 PM
2

Where did I suggest that anyone is being forced to do anything? Yes, these men should wake up and leave. They don't even owe an explanation but when the explanation is provided, you are the one whining about "unreasonable expectations".
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 05:12 PM
0

Nowhere in the OP did she talk about actual force or SA’ing your partner against their will, but repeatedly asking and verbally pressuring for something after someone said no, is harassment I didn't mention physical force here but manipulating someone to do something is forcing. But anyway, she’s talking about the expectation that women should behave the exact same way as they ever have in her dating lives, for no reason other than “raw attraction” (?). Something that’s not reasonable to expect …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 05:06 PM
3

not "forcing" the general sentiment here on this forum is that if she's not willing to repeat the act she did with a previous partner they take as a personal insult ("If I was hot she'd do it") and in that case the general concensus between men here is that he should leave That's a misrepresentation of the general consensus here. Men will tell if you are unhappy, wake up, leave and find someone who will do these things with you. Most men here aren't suggesting that she should have done it agains…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 05:02 PM
-1

Where did I suggest physical force? You are the one mentioning it.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 04:58 PM
3

The conversation is just on the idea of "expectation" and not the actions that follow from the man if they are not met Then why are you saying this? Wouldn’t repeatedly pushing someone into uncomfortable sexual experiences eventually make them start to dislike sex altogether? If sex becomes associated with pressure, discomfort, or enduring things for someone else’s benefit, it seems logical that they would begin avoiding it entirely. This is literally from your post. Also, a man is allowed to ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 04:48 PM
8

OK, and? Your response has nothing to do with OPs point. She is basically arguing that men are forcing women to do things against their will. This quote from the post suggests that she thinks that these men are pushing hard to get what they want with no regard for women's feelings Wouldn’t repeatedly pushing someone into uncomfortable sexual experiences eventually make them start to dislike sex altogether? If sex becomes associated with pressure, discomfort, or enduring things for someone else’s…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 04:44 PM
6

Sounds like she is saying men are asking women to do it, not physically forcing them. She is saying men ask women to do things and even if she doesn’t want to, they still want her to. I think that’s extremely weird, but many men have said here (and an ex has told me the same thing) that women doing unwanted sex acts for their boyfriend “shows how much she loves him”. I am not getting the same sentiment from the post, she never used the word "ask", uses language like "repeatedly pushing someone i…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 04:42 PM
–

I don't think anyone takes that guy seriously, he is like the Lilith of redpill. Do you really believe that this guy's opinion is a good representation of the male audience here? Because I certainly don't think that Lilith is a good representation of women here.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 04:36 PM
2

Men aren't saying anything about forcing the woman to do anything So the whole premise of your post is wrong. I can quote multiple sentences from your post suggesting that your believe that they do want to force things and now you are denying it. But expecting the women do things they did in the past they are currently saying no to. Which of course is 99% of the time due to disliking the sexual act itself Men are allowed to have preferences. If as a man, I decide that I want a kinky partner or a…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 04:34 PM
10

Yeh there are men here who claim they want one-to-one exact fairness (or advantage), like down to the sexual act and number of times those sex acts were performed. There is a difference between "I want one thing in a relationship but if I don't get it, I am gonna find someone else who gives me that" vs "I want one thing in a relationship but if I don't get it, I am gonna force you to do it because I am entitled to it". The former is ok regardless of how ridiculous the requirement is (because we …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 04:32 PM
29

Genuinely curious, can you at least post one comment from a man claiming that they would be fine forcing their girlfrien do kinky things against their will? What most of these men say is that they don't like that they are not getting the same treatment and will probably leave a relationship because of sexual incompatibility but I have never seen a comment saying that they will absolutely force their girlfriends to do things that they don't like with no regard for how she feels about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 04:25 PM
3

Getting a good job makes LIFE easy, being healthy makes LIFE easier Forgot to add "transitioning to female also makes life easy" (judging from your flair). these things do not mean you GET women What does "getting a woman" even mean in this current modern environment? I wish people stopped using this outdated term that was relevant when patriarchy was around. Nobody gets a woman, you get to be in a temporary relationship up until the point where any of the parties (usually women) can just unilat…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 04:01 PM
17

It's evident in how angry men get when a man who is "undeserving" of sex gets it. When a pretty girl sleeps with some unemployed drug addicted lowlife. Only men who moralize sexuality get angry. In other words, if you think that good, kind people are automatically owed sex, then, yes, you will get angry. On the other hand, if you are blackpilled, you will realize that your ability to get easy casual sex is based mostly on your genetics and factors outside of your control (looks, upbringing, neur…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/26 12:33 PM
12

As an older zillenial, I really hope that Gen Z and Gen Alpha won't end up being the "happy wife, happy life", betebuxx-offie-doofie-deluxe generation.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/26 08:10 AM
4

His wife is probably in this sub trying to convince younger men that sex isn't that important when you are lucky to have a platonic friendship with your wife. And if you think otherwise, you are acting like an entitled sex obsessed freak.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/26 08:06 AM
–

"You inkwells have to go outside and touch grass. I know a guy who is fat, short and bald. He isn't very rich and still found a younger beautiful wife. They have 2 wonderful kids." Meanwhile, the guy in question.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/26 07:28 AM
4

Earlier you said that you don't think if the majority of lonely men getting pushback talk like that, now you admit that you actually think so. LOL. What's the point of this back and forth if you are going to deny one thing and then admit it 2-3 messages down the thread? Also, you haven't provided an explanation of how this is a motte and bailey fallacy. I know that throwing logical fallacy names around is considered cool nowadays but it's even more pathetic when you can't explain it yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/26 03:00 PM
9

OK, if you don't think it's true, why does the last paragraph here matter to the discussion? You are basically saying "men who are mysoginists will get a pushback" which is true but that doesn't disqualify OP's point unless you think that most men who get a pushback talk like that. If you don't know whether most men do it or not, why are you posting this exaggerated opinion as if it proves anything?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/26 01:33 AM
10

LOL, I am asking whether you think it's true. Why are you avoiding to answer this question?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/26 01:26 AM
8

OK, and is it the majority of lonely men who think like that?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/26 01:12 AM
12

Also, you didn't respond to this part Which part of it is the bailey and which one is the motte?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/26 01:10 AM
10

I have already explained to you here If the majority of lonely men don't have this opinion, why would you bother posting this overly exaggerated incelish rant? Yes, the statement itself can be ridiculed but if it can't be attributed to the majority of lonely men, then why would you bother posting this? Posting this only makes sense if you believe that only a very small minority of lonely men who have this opinion are getting a pushback which is not true. Society in general assumes that lonely me…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/26 01:09 AM
19

No, this is a very tired and lame motte and bailey fallacy. Which part of it is the bailey and which one is the motte? "Dating is really hard and I'm lonely because women have delusional standards and only want the top 20% chads and ride the cock carousel until they hit the wall and get alpha widowed and settle for an average guy to beta bucks him" is moon man talk that deserves to be ridiculed as entitled, insecure, and misogynistic. Pretending that the majority of lonely men think like this is…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/26 01:01 AM
3

Where have I suggested that men should whine about it? Another made up scenario in your head.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/26 03:29 PM
1

No one is manipulating anyone, you find out that you are incompatible, then leave and provide the reason why.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/26 03:24 PM
2

Making threats of what, lol? I have already reported you for breaking the rules of this sub, anyone who reads this thread will either conclude that you are trolling or hyperbolizing. That's not in the spirit of this debate sub (unless it's Lilith).
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/26 03:23 PM
2

What issues? I don't see any issues with leaving an unsatisfying relationship and providing my reasons for doing that. I don't care if some lunatics frame it as to toxic and manipulative.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/26 03:21 PM
3

So me leaving a relationship and stating the reason why it doesn't meet my needs is manipulative and toxic? Lol. shame on me that I got trolled. I guess I have to report you for trolling then.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/26 03:19 PM
1

No, it's not coercion if that's the reason that I give for breaking up with you. If I don't provide any reasons, that would be considered ghosting. Essentially, you have put me in a "damned if you, damned if you don't" situation. If you communicate your needs, you are coercing, if you don't, you just have to learn to communicate more.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/26 03:15 PM
4

It's toxic to try and guilt or manipulate a woman into sex acts by saying they have done it before so she should try it again. It's just going to lead to resentment if you keep pressuring her to try things she doesn't like or want to do. Nobody in his sane mind suggests that you should force/manipulate your girlfirend into doing something that she doesn't want, that's the literally the definition of SA/rape. At the same time, if a man thinks that there is no sexual compatibility in the relations…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/26 02:01 PM
1

Since women are the gatekeepers of sex (generally speaking), it's their responsibility to make sure that they are not fucking the wrong dudes This part implies that it's your responsibility to clarify the situation, not to avoid every single possible scam. Of course, it is impossible to know for sure, but it's your responsibility to initiate the conversation. If you don't do it, then don't expect a certain outcome.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 08:52 PM
1

They were responding to your horrible last paragraph not whole point The paragraph is the whole point. You can't cherry pick some sentences out of it without all of the context. Just to be clear, if a woman communicates and gets lied to, she has the right to accuse a man of "using her". Otherwise, if she didn't even bother to clarify the situation, then the accusation doesn't hold any weight absent any other justifications.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 08:49 PM
2

Have you read the part in bold? Since women are the gatekeepers of sex (generally speaking), it's their responsibility to make sure that they are not fucking the wrong dudes. Can they clarify and still get lied to? Sure, but then their accusations hold more weight as opposed to scenarios when no discussion was had, and now she doesn't like the end result.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 08:44 PM
3

"It's not the same thing because my argument sucks and I don't like what you said". All these hoops you’re jumping through, and all this digging to avoid communicating. Think about this. Again putting responsibility on men, lol. No u. Instead of complaining about men using them, women should start communicating more.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 04:31 PM
3

I was arguing on behalf of men who were accused of using other women, I wasn't talking about me specifically. Your points are getting more and more illogical. The last paragraph is the equivalent of telling SA victims that they should act more responsibly if they don't want to perceived in a certain way.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 04:28 PM
3

You are implying that it's my responsibility to do it otherwise I will be disliked. And I am saying it doesn't have to be like that because it doesn't align with equality. If both parties are responsible, then you can't put the blame on men only. Would you at least agree that both parties should be blamed for not communicating enough?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 04:13 PM
3

The second part isn't adding anything new, you are just asserting that there are very few women who lie about being used but most women never do unless there is a "reason". The fact of the matter is you can never know whether you have been actually used or not unless the guy tells it to your face. Most men reserve the right not to communicate explicitly and if you don't do that as well, then you can't accuse them of using you.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 04:08 PM
3

“He used me” doesn’t happen after a series of hookups or a situationship though Holy shit, so all women who say that "he used me" are assumed to be telling the truth? What if I say that men never say "she used me" after paying for dates unless they have actually been used?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 04:02 PM
7

If it isn't the man's responsibility then don't say "just do X to be a better person". The point is if both parties fail to communicate, then any "he used me" sort of accusations towards men after consensual sex do not hold any weight.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 03:57 PM
5

This is a clear example of how progressives are on paper for equality but in practice still assume that men should be the "bigger people".
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 03:37 PM
5

Imo (and yes, this 1000% applies to every genre), if you lack the emotional forthcomingness to even ask “so am I seeing you again?” At the bare minimum, you flat out should not be sleeping around or dating until you get the courage to ask it. This applies to women as well, I am saying this very clearly cause I know you’ll ask “but what about women?” The question is more about whether the guy can be accused of being deceitful after the fact if both parties failed to communicate.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 03:33 PM
2

Don’t do it, don’t communicate, just don’t be surprised if people do the same with you lol Just to be clear, I am consistent on this issue across the board. If a guy goes to a date, pays for the whole date and doesn't get anything after the fact, him complaining about "being used" would be ridiculous because no one is owed sex/relationships. Now, if I tell women who went on a date with him to initially communicate about their intentions, that would be ridiculous too because she could have been a…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 03:31 PM
5

It isn’t a contradiction, because what I am saying is “if nobody else brought it up, why not bring it up?” And this is regardless of gender. If the thought is on your mind, bring it up. I genuinely don’t know what else to tell you. Why should I bring it up and not her? That's the question that you are avoiding to answer. If me not bringing it up initially allows you to accuse me after the fact, it means that the burden is on me to communicate properly, not on both parties. If both parties are eq…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 03:23 PM
5

I didn’t say it was the responsibility of the man, but also, if she hasn’t brought it up at all, don’t you think the appropriate thing to do is bring it up? This is a contradiction. You can't say it's not my responsibility but you have to do it because it's the right thing to do. You are still blaming me for not doing something that I was supposed to do but it wasn't my responsibility to do which is very ironic. Also, women bring it up frequently. Who do you think often starts the “so what are w…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 03:13 PM
2

I hate the whole “gatekeepers of sex” bs because it takes 2 to tango, both want things out of it and believe it or not men have the power to attract women or say yes or no to a partner. Of course, there are many ways to communicate non-autistically but why should it be men's responsibility to initiate the communication if it takes two to tango? You are putting all the burden on the man in this situation without even realizing it. Is there a scenario where a woman not initiating the communication…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 03:07 PM
3

This is totally fine, but also, just make sure you’re both on the same page, whether it be “this is just a fuck”, “lets see how we connect intimately” or “I want a relationship”. This is literally all that’s being asked of you and yes, mistakes will be made along the way. How does "making sure" work in a concrete example? Of course, if I am asked whether this is just a hookup and I lie, I am an asshole, no questions there. But most scenarios aren't as clear cut. Women usually don't clarify the s…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/26 02:56 PM
9

So my first question is what is wife material? Wife material is a woman who is genuinely sexually attracted to you (not in a "he is a nice guy but I don't like having sex with him but will pity fuck him because he is the best that I can get commitment-wise" way) AND has many shared/common values with you making her someone that you would want to share your life with. Hookup material is someone that you don't mind hooking up with but can't build a long-term relationship with because there is a mi…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/26 02:27 PM
1

Someone decides that it is better to stick together and start to gather what is needed to build a shelter. What are you doing? I will cooperate with the group to survive. How is this related to your original question? Why would I need to help her specifically? If you wanted to create a gotcha question, you could have posed a more specific scenario like "she is in danger and you are the only one who can help her but if you don't, she won't survive but no one else would find out". This is a classi…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/26 11:02 PM
0

I believe that masculine and feminine are defined by physical characteristics. Which physical characteristics are you referring to?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 04:00 PM
1

How do you draw the line between masculine and feminine? If you are in the camp that believes that masculinity and femininity are outdated concepts and shouldn't be used to define/judge people, I agree but you can't also say that "all those people's definitions are wrong, mine is right!". There is no clear way to draw the line so you either have to defer to the "traditional" definitions or drop them altogether. You don't seem to be in either of these camps judging from your post.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 02:55 PM
2

If a man meets a woman and admits he just wants sex. Not a relationship. Just NSA sex ideally. And the woman says she wants something more serious. That is not a case of her “not being able to handle the truth.” That’s a case of them wanting different things and her deciding that situation isn’t for her. It’s a clear cut case of incompatibility. The kind of men who want to string women along are not going to admit explicitly that they just want sex. They are going to use the carrot and stick met…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/05/26 12:54 PM
6

There’s that AI generated pic going around where a man is walking down the street with a robot woman laughing and holding hands while a (human) woman sits on the street like a homeless person crying about being “replaced.” That's a ragebait meme. Do men who want these “robot gfs” or really think a robot gf will make women jealous think through this logistically? If you have a robot gf, you’re really going out on dates together? Posting together on Instagram? Bringing her to the work holiday part…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/26 12:33 AM
4

I don't see that IRL at all. The women still young enough to wear them in my wife's crowd, all wear slinky LBD's to functions with husbands standing by proud that she looks good. In my crowd, fuck, they often ride around rallies like Sturgis with their women naked on the back. The naked women ARE the highlight of every rally I've ever been to. Do you know what happens behind closed doors? These people could be in open marriages/relationships or deadbedrooms. The issue is that all couples look id…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/26 11:12 PM
2

This used to be the common theme going back 5-6 years: bluepill - you just need to touch grass, make friends and the right person will come along, you don't need to be a giga-Chad to get a relationship, I know a guy who is 5'3 and he is in a happy relationship, just change your mindset and treat women like people and you will get a relationship. redpill - women are hypergamous and you need to level up to start getting attention. Go to the gym, dress well, improve your financial situation. Anyone…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/26 02:01 PM
1

My original point was that by choosing a bluepill flair, you are claiming that you are against the manoshphere at large but all the points that you have listed are largely acceptable by most manosphereans (excluding some snake-oil salesmen).
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/26 03:00 AM
2

Just like there are some blueps who claim that personality is the only thing preventing men from getting into relationships. You can't generalize the whole pill based on the claims of some people. In fact, I am 100% sure that most blueps don't agree with at least 2 of the points that you have posted.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/26 11:55 PM
7

Black pill = appearance is the only thing that matters and optionally women are terrible human beings. I disagree with these points as well You disagree with a caricature strawmany definition of the blackpill, not the actual position. Appearance is treated as a first level filter, if you are not passing an acceptable threshold, than anything else doesn't matter (which is something that blueps also agree with). Nobody is claiming it's the end all be all.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/26 06:52 PM
9

You have basically summarized the blackpill position on dating without all the "Chad/beta" jargon. At this point, if bluepillers really believe these things, would it be fair to say that the bluepill and the blackpill are the same thing, just presented using different words?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 11:04 PM
2

I am not quiet, I making sad noises right now.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/26 01:02 AM
1

Even in the event of smaller groups led by men, a commonly accepted social will led the group to form in the first place. What is this mythical magical "social will" you are referring to? Isn't it the threat of violence? If this group of men aren't capable of inflicting violence and cannot impose their will, does it matter? The fact that we didn’t blow each other up means there was an accepted implicit contract. MAD is an implicit contract. It's ironic you accuse me of circular reasoning while y…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/26 08:21 PM
1

Logically, for men to come together to enact force they need to ultimately come together. Not all men need to come together as history shows. Why you keep ignoring real-life events and instead appealing to some hypotheticals? . If it only came down to force, it would lead to an unstoppable cycle of violence where the strongest will inherit the Earth. Falling asleep is a death sentence as your men could easily just kill you. And then the killer would be the next victim on the list. This reduces y…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/26 06:02 PM
1

Go get a real education instead of watching garbage slop influencers. OK, where am I supposed to get redpill-certified? Send me the links to the courses. No MGTOW/blackpill content, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/26 04:03 PM
1

Even in the examples you bring up about Iran and Afghanistan, regardless of your comment’s purported historical accuracy, it doesn’t change the fact that a social will was logically prior to the enactment of force This is all semantics. At the end of the day, it all comes down to force. If the enforcers and the "social will" are not in agreement, these are the scenarios that happen: - Men who agree with the "social will" overpower enforcers and become the new enforcers; - Men who agree with the …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/26 04:02 PM
5

Men having a "Monopoly on Force" requires them to act as one, by way of some kind of social will Wrong. Look at Afghanistan or Iran. They don't need the cooperation of every single male to limit the rights of women. The social will is the engine that makes organized force possible; therefore, the collectivized will is logically prior to the doctrine of force. Women are ultimately appealing to the “collective” before they are appealing to the force of the men. The social will should still be some…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/26 01:19 AM
1

Are we talking about the present or the past? I consider most of the modern redpill influencers as controlled opposition. They might have been cancelled in the past but, right now, they are doing what they are supposed to do: guiding the next generation of young men to the plantation.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/26 01:04 AM
7

I don't really see the censorship that you are talking about. Myron Gaines was doing seminars in universities literally saying things like "women deserve less". The modern redpill isn't the counter-movement that it used to be. It's in the government's interest to brainwash youngsters into endless self-improvement which requires earning and spending money and contributing to the simp economy. Isn't this what the redpill preaches? Blackpilled MGTOWs are the ones who are being removed from mainstre…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/26 12:13 AM
–

Are you asking why men aren't approaching you and asking out for dates? While men are usually the ones explicitly asking women out, the first non-explicit sign is given by a woman, throwing the handkerchief, so to speak. Are you even signaling that you want to be approached? Do you go to 3rd spaces alone? If a man sees you in the company of your friends, he is not going to approach. If you are alone, do you wear earphones and stare at your phone? That's definitely something that will prevent men…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/26 01:13 AM
–

I believe firmly that men need a mission, a goal, a mountain to climb. Continuing to evolve and improve for ones own sake, is the purest form of self love / care that one can have. Self-improvement in this context means that meme-ish redpill, "just go to the gym, get a haircut and buy an expensive car" type of self-improvement to primarily appeal to women, not the one where you genuinely like something and do it for the sake of it. For example, most of these redpill alpha dude bros will tell you…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/26 11:19 PM
8

What’s keeping the red pill alive? Male ego and willingness to find a step-by-step, algorithmic solution to any problem in your life. If you have been in the manosphere and you have reached the point when you realize that most of your success (in dating or in life in general) is genetic and comes down to luck: congrats! Now it's time for you to take the white pill, stop pedestalizing women and move on to other endeavors. You keep arguing in the comments that the need for companionship is a need,…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/26 05:27 PM
1

How old are you? When was the last time you were "running game"? Nowadays, it's pretty much OLD/social media or nothing. If you are past college age, where are those single women that you are meeting?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/26 11:20 AM
2

If her self perception is warped by that much by a bit of attention, she’s probably not the one for you lol. I don't care about "finding the one", it's not even about dating per se, it's more about the attitude. You are automatically assumed to be a lesser person who has to prove his worth. Most women who get so much attention are going to develop narcissistic tendencies, not saying all women are going to do that but most of them will. Hell, if as a man, had I received so much attention, I would…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/26 11:17 AM
4

I don't think I have ever agreed with the whole "lack of 3rd spaces" argument. People who use this argument pretend that real life and the online world are somehow separate from each other and don't affect people's perceptions. In the past, most men were successful not because of the existence of 3rd spaces, but because of the lack of options that women had due to the fact social media wasn't around. Nowadays, any woman who has some moderate social media presence is going to be bombarded with en…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 11:58 PM
1

I keep hearing that “boys are the way they are” and “men are they way they are” or “boys are turning to Andrew Tate and the like” because they don’t have good male role models, despite them having a whole father at home. I am hearing this mostly from moderate centrists who don't want to acknowledge the deeper issues and are trying to explain the popularity of the manosphere by appealing to the lack of "real fatherhood". Both center-left (like let's say Bill Maher) or the center right (aka DailyW…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 03:46 PM
2

If she is sufficiently attracted to him, it won't matter. Also, we are not talking about extremely feminine behaviors. The icks that OP posts are very minor things that are only considered when the woman has not made up her mind about the guy.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 01:54 PM
2

I have no idea which one you are referring to. If it's a clear answer to my question, you will be able to find it and send it. Otherwise, you are just a backtracking coward.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 03:36 AM
2

Send the link then. Or keep dodging like a coward.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 03:33 AM
2

The "scope" argument doesn't make sense. Why does the combination of this sub + bad personality is more of a decisive factor than bad personality in general? If you have to resort to copouts like this, your argument is really weak.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 03:26 AM
2

I clearly did, and then you claimed to have even extracted the answer to your question from that before immediately misrepresenting what I said. Where is the answer to that question then? If it is so clear, it wouldn't be difficult for you to quote it and make a fool out of me. Remember, the question was "do you personally believe that bad personality prevents men from getting into relationships"
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 03:16 AM
2

Keep lying. You haven't clearly responded to the question whether you believe that men's bad personality is the main reason why they are not getting into relationships. If it's that clear, show me the response to that question.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 03:12 AM
3

I specifically said many of the men on this sub who struggle with dating. I didn't say anything about men as a whole. Many of the men in this sub who have bad personality are going to have issues getting into relationships but men with bad personalities that are not in this sub aren't? LOL. Why does being in this sub matter. Dude, your dodging skills are shit, this just doesn't make sense at all. Gotta learn to dodge properly when you are cornered and your worldview is crumbling.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 03:07 AM
1

I am literally saying here https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1r4ufnj/comment/o5fvvla/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button "Show me the response and make me look like a fool, otherwise you are going to look like a backtracking clown" And you are quoting something unrelated to my question? Really? Are you going to pretend you didn't understand my question and was responding to something else, lol? Anyone who read this thread has a…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 03:02 AM
3

Liar liar, pants on fire. https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1r4ufnj/comment/o5fw9ij/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Then why did you quote this as an answer to my question about whether you personally believe this?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 02:55 AM
3

Buddy, go to the top of the thread here https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1r4ufnj/comment/o5fvvla/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button I am challenging you to quote the answer to the question whether you think that bad personality prevents men from getting into relationships. You are proudly showing me a quote calling me a liar and confirming that you agree that bad personality is preventing men from getting into relationships. …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 02:54 AM
6

He keeps dodging, changing his answers, pretending that he didn't answer things and then accuses me of not arguing in good faith lol. Typical bluepill debate tactics. I mean look at this thread lol https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1r4ufnj/comment/o5fuv3y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 02:46 AM
3

This is your quote Oh for sure, tons of men on this sub who struggle with dating have horrendous personalities. It's practically a prerequisite for red pill ideology. You claimed that this is your answer to my question about whether men's bad personality is the main reason why they don't get into relationships. If this is your answer and you agree with those men, then you are essentially claiming that bad personality is preventing them from getting into relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 02:35 AM
1

You don't know if you’re actually doomed until you’ve exhausted every possible opportunity Why doesn't the same logic apply to dating? If someone has exhausted all of the opportunities, got rejected left and right, wouldn't it be possible for him to know that he is in the "doomed" group?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 02:32 AM
2

If you are in the group that is not going to succeed anyway, does it matter? Or now you are going to backtrack and say that those people don't exist?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 02:23 AM
3

Now, that we have established that you believe this (that bad personality prevents men from getting into relationships), explain to me why does having bad personality matter so much if women have so many varied preferences as you have initially said? If personality actually matters as much as you say it does, then the preferences aren't as random and you should be able to boldly claim that it's the main factor when it comes to success.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 02:18 AM
3

What question, lol? Your "question" was get to your point. I already gave you my point based on your answer.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 02:14 AM
2

There always gonna be people who think they are losers, but people might just adjust their mindset. And people in this losers section hop in and out of this section all the time, it's not predetermined and permanent, so it's not fatalism. If anyone can hop out of being unemployed and they don't do it, they are choosing not do it, lol. Why is it so hard to understand this? Abandoning doomerism gives more chances How? If you are not going to acquire the skills and not going to get the offers, how …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 02:13 AM
3

The way you responded didn't automatically mean that you personally think that the main reason they are struggling is their personality. The fact you tried to confirm this initially shows me that you didn't want to give a straight answer to this. Now, that we have established that you believe this, explain to me why does personality matter so much if women have so many varied preferences as you have initially said? If personality actually matters as much as you say it does, then the preferences …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 02:11 AM
4

You haven't answered shit, lol. I straight up asked you whether you think personality is the main reason why they are being rejected. Show me the response and make me look like a fool, otherwise you are going to look like a backtracking clown.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 02:03 AM
2

If you admit that there are people who are going to be unemployed because of circumstances that are outside of their control, why does it matter if they are doomeristic? If being doomeristic isn't going to change their circumstances, why does it matter if they are doomeristic or not? You are just saying "there are always going to be losers" which is fatalism. That's why they need to heal from anxiety and depression and work on mindset which my top comment was about, you got that finally Healing …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 01:59 AM
5

It's a simple yes or no question, why are you afraid to answer this one? Or maybe you know that you will get trapped anyway?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 01:56 AM
2

Acquiring skills requires mental resources that someone in survival mode might not have. They aren't "choosing" to be unemployed. You can't say that unemployed people just need to acquire skills or not reject offers not to be unemployed and then claim that they don't have a choice. This is a contradiction. If the only thing that they need is to acquire skills or not to reject offers, and they don't do it, then they are making a choice. If they are not making a choice, then clearly having skills …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 01:30 AM
7

They get to make their choice. They just need to know that choices come with responsibility. Young men are already making choices based on the existing incentives and the choice seems to be "I'd rather do nothing and play video games then interact with the modern environment". If you chose to go negative, don't be shocked when doors don't open. That's what happens. Another just world fallacy bullshit, lol. "Just be positive", bro. Easy to positive when you have inherent advantages compared to ot…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 01:25 AM
9

tons of men on this sub who struggle with dating have horrendous personalities. But is their personality the main reason why they are struggling with dating?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 01:20 AM
7

I've never seen anyone arguing that anyone struggling with dating is solely because of their bad personality. That's not what I said, I said that they by default assume it's bad personality form the get go. Nobody just assumes that you could be average/ugly looking. I've seen plenty of people argue that many of the men who post here are struggling with dating because of their bad personality because they have a bad personality. Do you agree with those people?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 01:01 AM
9

Yes, if men come to the conclusion that they are going to do nothing with their lives they are going to destroy something rather than take personal responsibly for their actions. Young men don't owe anything to society. If they choose not to participate in society in any meaningful way or choose to change the law system in a way that benefits them, I don't see it as avoiding responsibility, that's what I would call taking responsibility. Just like men who have spent hours in anti female online s…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 12:47 AM
4

So would I, someone who has working in advertising and who knows how scams work, have those ads work on me the same way? Congrats, you are the exception, most people don't work in advertising, though. Because even the people making and using those ads know that they don't work on everyone. They work on a sub section of the population and have zero effect on others They don't need to be right 100% of the time to make a profit. The fact that you use this as some kind of a gotcha shows that you are…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 12:41 AM
2

Cause there are countries that guarantee safety, universal healthcare, free education and opportunities. People are innately worthy and deserving of basics. What do countries have to do with my argument, lol? Welfare doesn't matter here. Poor/unemployed people exist everywhere. According to your logic, any unemployed person can just acquire necessary skills or accept offers to not be unemployed. If you believe anyone can do this, then people who don't do this are choosing not to do this, thus th…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 12:34 AM
6

Nobody deserves to be poor, you are twisting words where they aren't. Why though? If it's just a matter of hard work and you are not doing it, then you are lazy and you deserve it. Unless there are other factors that you won't acknowledge because it destroys your "everyone can succeed" just world fallacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 12:24 AM
5

If enough young men feel that they are disenfranchised, they will eventually cause chaos unless they find other copes. This is why most of these men were sent to do missions overseas and to fight wars in the past when there were no virtual copes available. They were they guy who drank alone in a bar and then went home and never took a risk. Which timeframe are we talking about? I am not talking about the modern West where you can get your dopamine hits in a virtual world or through drinking.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/26 12:16 AM
7

Cause they don't have necessary skill or reject presented offers OK, so all unemployed poor people deserve to be poor and unemployed, right? That's essentially what you are saying because it's just so easy to acquire necessary skills or not to reject presented offers. There shouldn't be any other reasons for being unemployed.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/26 11:52 PM
5

Like unemployment. There will always be unemployed, but different people at different time with people constantly changing their status from unemployed to working Is unemployment happening because they have a doomeristic mindset and don't work hard enough?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/26 11:45 PM
5

Cause catastrophic views are caused by depression, anxiety and wrong mindset. That's what excludes them from relationships, but they can change that. If anyone can just change their mindset and end up in a relationship, then you can't also say this There will always be a section of society excluded from relationship experiences. If you accept that there are always going to be losers no matter how hard they try, that's fatalism.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/26 11:35 PM
7

If everything matters and preferences vary wildly, why do I see plenty of bluepillers argue that if a man is struggling in dating, it's due to having a bad personality? That's the point that OP is making. Somehow, the first default assumption is that the man is a disgusting pig who doesn't shower.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/26 11:07 PM
1

Feminism on the other hand, has a track record of being quite egalitarian. For example, feminist advocacy groups helped push the FBI to update its official crime-statistics definition of rape, which had been gendered and excluded many male-victim cases. And there are many other historic cases of feminists standing for mens rights Hard disagree on this one, these are quotes from the founding mothers of feminism “We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men, and if we were free and developed, heal…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/26 10:50 PM
13

I disagree because OP clings to the good old "women want masculine men" thing which I don't necessarily agree with. As long as the man is attractive, all these supposedly feminine behaviors shouldn't be an issue for her.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/26 10:37 PM
20

Yes, that's how plausible deniability works, lol. She has to justify her decision in the public court by calling someone disgusting. If someone is disgusting, she is completely justified in rejecting him because he was creepy, duuuh. But if she said that he was balding or short or didn't have an attractive face, then she would be called shallow.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/26 10:30 PM
8

Humans are all different and it’s ludicrous to try pretend you can control what large groups of people can or will do There is a whole field of marketing that completely disagrees with you. Pretending that all people are unique snowflakes is outright dishonest. Also, by the same logic, we should be rejecting all studies unless they examine each and every person on the planet Earth.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/26 10:21 PM
8

Those types of men have existed for hundreds of thousands of years and will for hundreds of thousands of years to come. Those men were historically sent to fight and die in wars. Otherwise, they were causing disruption and revolutions. There will always be a section of society excluded from relationship experiences. If you believe that there will always be men excluded from relationship experience, why is your flair "blue"? That's more aligned with the "blackpill fatalism" rather than the bluepi…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/26 10:15 PM
2

Physical attractiveness is sometimes treated as secondary, as long as the man has the right personality traits. Just curious, if you think this is a lie, then what would be the truth? Also, how is the truth aligned with your flair?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/26 10:11 PM
43

Nah, hard disagree. It's just a plausibly deniable way of saying "I don't find the dude attractive". Of course, they won't say it to your face or to the public because it will make them look shallow but will blame it on some hypothetical ick that they would easily ignore had they been sufficiently attracted to the man.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/26 06:09 PM
3

But its not as big a deal as we've been conditioned to think it is. It's one of those things that is not a big deal once you start experiencing it, just like eating a well-cooked pizza isn't a big deal, but, somehow, if most people around you have access to the pizza and you don't, you might feel like something important is missing from your life. I think women generally understand this I disagree that women understand this because they think that sex in itself is not a big deal. If you can easi…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/26 03:47 PM
–

There is natural selection, and there is sexual selection. Simply put, for most of human history, women didn't have the luxury to exercise sexual selection. Saying that the evil patriarchs were forcing them to marry men they were not attracted to is wrong: the natural conditions were so bad that they had to eventually pair up with some of the available men (or become part of a harem) simply to survive. If you think about it, humans have conquered nature very recently (if you include all of homo …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/26 12:42 PM
3

What is "bluepill", specifically? It's not a coherent value system, they are not asserting anything. It's more like "I don't like bald guys with beards selling pro-masculinity courses talking about hypergamy". They don't assert anything. In fact, some of the blueps here are more blackpilled than the redpillers. Lilith, for example, has a blue flair and claims that if you are not getting immediate sexual attention, then you are not special (the standard 80/20 rule that has been widely discussed i…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/26 02:18 PM
1

I already don't do it, lol. I said I am not a tradcon. I was explaining the incentives. If you don't have anything else to offer other than "just don't do it", then there is nothing to discuss here. You are not providing a moral or logical argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/26 03:28 PM
3

You keep missing the point. Even if marriage isn't there, why would I commit to you had I known that you could leave whenever it suits you? Why would I have kids with you? Why would I make long-term plans with you? The incentives to make long-term plans aren't just there.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/26 03:12 PM
3

Why are you shifting the discussion back to marriage? I have already explained that even if marriage is outside of the equation, you won't have people fully committing to each other which means more and more situationships. I am pretty sure there have been studies showing that children are more positioned to be successful when they are raised in two parent households. You can't have stable 2 parent households when most people treat their relationships as temporary situationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/26 03:03 PM
3

Just like you technically "don't have to" help someone on the street when they are being robbed/attacked. If you are nihilistic and don't care about the general wellbeing of society, you could argue that no one has to do anything, and that's it. In that case, I don't see any point in discussing this further because there is no argument to be made here. At least, you are being honest that you don't care.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/26 02:53 PM
–

It's not just about signing a contract. Assuming I haven't married someone on paper, why would I be fully committed to them and make long-term plans if they can leave at any point?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/26 02:38 PM
–

divorce is always an option It makes the whole point of committing to someone pointless if the divorce can happen for arbitrary reasons. Why should I fully commit to someone if I know that they can leave at any point?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/26 02:34 PM
6

and yet if you live in society you know social norms. That's the modern time decency and people can easily navigate it and understand what's it about. You're being obtuse. The social norms can change, and you are the one being obtuse pretending that they are fixed. Situationships and polyamory weren't normal 20-30 years ago, and yet nowadays they are being normalized. When it comes to male/female relationships, there have never been universally accepted social norms across all countries, even st…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/26 02:33 PM
–

I am not a tradcon and don't believe in marriage, especially in the modern environment, but this is how I understand their reasoning. Most men commit to marriage not just financially, but also emotionally. It's not the kind of investment that immediately gives any benefits, because the benefits are usually reaped when you are older. If you agree with this perspective, then it should be obvious why some men want to have guarantees that it won't fail in the future because of some arbitrary reasons…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/26 02:30 PM
–

"do you really want to live in a society where people in general employ "nobody owes anything to anyone" mantra?" well i wouldn't say nothing, we still owe decent behavior etc. The definition of "decency" is subjective. It can be argued that if you have made vows to be together for life, you are not decent if you are breaking those vows because you got bored. But it's funny how i basically say that men are not owed relationship and that's what you jump to. So the opposite of that "mantra" would …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/26 02:22 PM
–

The real question is do you really want to live in a society where people in general employ "nobody owes anything to anyone" mantra? I don't personally believe that women owe men relationships/sex, but this is more of a special case of "nobody owes anything to anyone". And yet, the same people who will agree that no one owes anyone relationships/sex will also create exceptions for very specific situations like healthcare, housing, DEI laws, etc. I could argue in the same way that nobody owes any…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/26 02:16 PM
1

Registered nurse Plenty of job security Lol, I wish I had your confidence. Given how the current administration "prioritizes" the healthcare sector, I wouldn't be so sure about job security. I am pretty much semi-FIREd right now and have worked in the corporate pretty much all my life to see smug people who thought that they were somehow untouchable get laid off and absolutely destroyed. No amount of overtime is going to save you. The middle class trap is a real thing. Job security in general is…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/26 10:29 PM
1

it will be much harder to replace someone for a role that requires more expertise and experience like an HR manager or business liaison HR managers are hard to replace? Lol, tell me what your job is without telling me what your job is. The level of smugness that most of these paper-pushing middle managers/bureaucrats have is insane lol. Most of you are trapped in a middle-class trap and are one layoff away from applying to food stamps. Keep coping about your expertise and job security, lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/26 08:11 PM
1

There are very few positions that need to be filled immediately, especially in big corporations. Most people are replaceable. No matter how you try to spin it, the employer always has the upper hand: they have more resources and more time to handle the transition. Most employees, on the other hand, have their savings tied in illiquid instruments (401Ks, their house, etc). They don't have the luxury to wait for 2-3 years before landing a new job.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/26 06:39 PM
1

It’s hard for both the company and the person trying to find a job but both are hard in different ways. It's not the same level of hard, lol. It's way stressful as an employee who has to put food on the table vs employers who can potentially wait for years without hiring anyone and not get their business destroyed. This whole "we are both in the same boat" is pure gaslighting, it's like a first-worlder telling an African kid "well, I don't have ice cream every day like you, so I guess it's hard …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/26 05:22 PM
2

No matter how you try to slice it, it is exponentially harder for the applicant compared to the employer. The party that has the options and can basically wait indefinitely is going to have an advantage. That's the point that I am making. If the companies were only limited to the local market, they wouldn't have had the same options, and it would have been easier for the applicants to pass the screening. If you are arguing "no one is entitled to things", that's a completely different discussion.…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/26 12:12 PM
0

You have conveniently removed this part that literally answers your post. These are just a few of the acts that you can do to manifest your femininity, but they must be part of a genuine desire and willingness to be his complement. You cannot negotiate desire. This primarily applies to sex, but the resentment that comes from obligation also flows over into other aspects of your relationship. You have to want to be feminine. Just as men eventually need to internalize the Red Pill and make that aw…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/26 12:05 PM
4

From the employer's perspective, they have a buffet of options. They could choose a more or less competent candidate out of 100s of candidates, but if they keep focusing on finding the "absolute best", they will never hire anyone. If they can't pick one single candidate out of 100s, it says more about them rather than the people who apply. From the employee's perspective, it's way harder because most of the time, you are being rejected even before you reach the interview due to the sheer number …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/26 10:39 AM
5

It sounds much easier to be the person who can rapid fire the same resume to 100 different companies from the comfort of his/her home and wait for them to offer an interview. Doesn't make it easier if your goal is to secure a job, though. The paradox of choice is a real thing. When thousands of people are applying to the same job with the same meme college degrees, you have to be incredibly exceptional to land it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/26 09:21 AM
2

Wartime affects dating and employment the same way. Fewer men in the workplace, more demand for workers, lower standards for potential employees. Fewer men dating because of wartime, more demand for men, women have to lower their standards for potential suitors. The context that you have provided doesn't add anything to the discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 08:37 PM
5

Dude, you keep responding in a way as if you disagree with my original point, but it seems that we are in agreement. I guess I should have added /s for very autistic people to avoid unnecessary back and forths.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 08:30 PM
4

OK, and? The same men who were drafted were out of the dating marketplace, too. I fail to see how this invalidates my point.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 08:24 PM
51

It's easier to get a job nowadays, just hear me out. In the 1960s, there was no internet. Applying to multiple jobs at the same time was far more difficult than today. Nowadays, it's waaay easier to apply for hundreds of jobs from the comfort of your house. If you speak to the average employer, they get hundreds of unprofessional applicants, so it should be way easier for the average person to secure a job as long as they have a properly formatted CV and the relevant experience. What am I missin…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/26 07:30 PM
1

TLDR: Briffault's Law.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/26 10:00 PM
1

It's a crab in the bucket mentality. Most normies who barely get any attention will simp really hard for the first woman who gives them very small attention. Deep down, they know that there is a power imbalance, and if the woman decides she can leave at any point, he will have to stay single for a very long time before he finds another woman interested in him. But they want their simping to be acknowledged, as if it is some kind of an achievement, and want to feel above all those men who choose …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/26 07:09 PM
1

People who have intellectual curiosity always move on from the grifter types. Most content creators that I watch regularly have very few subscribers, are regular working-class people who are not trying to sell shit, and are talking about issues that I can sympathize with. Although I have learned some things from Rollo, Fresh and Fit, I don't watch them regularly because their content is very repetitive. I don't regret getting into the pillosphere. It gave clarity in terms of where I stand, what …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/26 01:04 PM
2

But the majority of guys I know would never say shit like that because that's a given that they want someone to care about them as a person and want to be desired. It's mainly online guys and they usually have underling problems they're hiding. Most socially calibrated people (even the ones that are into pillosphere content), are not going to have "gender-war" style debate with you in real life, even if they disagree with you. That's why there are spaces like this where people can easily express…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/26 02:55 PM
–

not obese is NOT average lol EDIT: Also, by specifying not married, you are already removing half of men, on top of that if you filter by being not obese, it's not suprising that you are getting a number that is close to 10%.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/25 09:58 PM
1

Her biggest limiting factors are pretty much obesity and financial stability. So many women who work with tech bros and know about their salaries assume that's the new "average".
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/25 11:52 AM
6

men who are kind, considerate, funny, financially stable, monogamously oriented, sociable, generous, fun to be with, for instance, are a minority of men That's quite a definition for a "good man", lol. The qualities that you list literally describe a high-value man who is in the top 1%. You are omitting the looks requirements because even if the man has all of these things, he will have to be at least slightly above average attractiveness to get his foot in the door. Now, assuming he somehow pas…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/25 01:53 AM
2

I disagree that people giving generic advice have a malicious gate-keeping intent. It mostly comes out of ignorance. Asking for generic dating advice from people has always been counterintuitive to me. It's like asking a successful athlete what his secret for becoming successful is. The reality is most people who are successful in certain areas rarely attribute their success to being genetically gifted/being at the right place/time. They will emphasize that it's all about hard work, but almost n…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/25 10:02 PM
1

She doesn't think men are humans, judging from how much she shits on men generally.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/25 01:25 AM
2

Lilith, you are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 10:30 PM
1

OK, if that's the case then you are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 09:11 PM
1

What did I notice about guys who say shit like that, they despise relationships. They see other guys as beta bucks, especially if they don’t revolve their relationships around sex. However, it’s not really about that. It’s about one-sided validation OK, so from this part I can only assume that you think yes. Is that correct?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 09:08 PM
3

I see that post went over your end when I said mutual relationship. As in a mutually beneficial relationship. A bond. You know, someone gives a fuck about you and compromises for you and you do the same for them. Not sure where I suggested that I am against it. How does a man who expects sexual desire somehow contradict this? You realize I'm just going to keep copying and pasting my post until you address it, right? Because there is a reason the mods force people write in the body. I asked a sim…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 09:05 PM
3

What did I notice about guys who say shit like that, they despise relationships So, all the men who say that they want to be truly desired despise relationships and want to be worshipped, all of them? That's literally what your title says. When they talk about how they dont want to be wanted for what they provide, they mean, they don’t want to be wanted because they actually enter mutual relationship with people When they say "I dont want to be wanted for what I provide", what they mean is that …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 08:43 PM
4

Discarding the analogy, it's not really about sex. It's about wanting to be worshipped Because it totally destroys your "worshipping" narrative. Just because I won't buy a house that doesn't have a toilet, doesn't mean that I am a "toilet worshipper".
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 08:38 PM
8

if people call you out for only caring about the toilet, that must mean they dont care about toilets? Nobody only cares about the toilet just like nobody only cares about sex. The men who only care about sex can just go and pay for it. Why would they bother with dating and complaining on forums if they can easily pay for it? But just like the toilet is a prerequisite for a well-functioning house, a partner that is sexually attracted to you is also a prerequisite for a well-functioning relationsh…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 08:32 PM
12

TLDR: If you won't buy/rent a house without a toilet, it means that you are a toilet-obsessed freak who only cares about toilets and thinks that the toilet is the most important part of the house.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 07:49 PM
2

This is her logic btw. If you won't buy/rent a house without a toilet, it means that you are a toilet-obsessed freak that only cares about a toilet and thinks that the toilet is the most important part of the house.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 07:47 PM
9

"it's weird to sexualize kissing." LilithOfBabylon, 2025 AC
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 05:55 PM
7

Lol, it's so funny that you keep doubling down on this. You go girl!
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 05:54 PM
8

So what you are saying....
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 05:50 PM
9

She is literally arguing with me that kissing isn't sexual right now.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 05:31 PM
1

Are you from a culture where people usually kiss each other on the peck when greeting them?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 05:22 PM
1

Kissing and making out not the same thing Never said that they are the same thing, but in that context, when they are used together they are describing a passionate romantic kiss.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 05:19 PM
1

But theyre not the same thing. Why do you think theyre the same thing? Is English your native language? When someone says "Bob and Alice kissed", do you understand it as they kissed on the lips or they had a platonic kiss? When you are referring to platonic kisses, you have to clarify that. Otherwise, when you see "kiss/make out" it should be obvious that it's a romantic kiss. Why not just say passionate kiss or just leave it at making out? Seems like when you think of kissing, you immediately t…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 05:13 PM
1

The "/making out" part is added to clarify that it's not just a kiss, it's a passionate kiss on the lips. Stop pretending that I am doing something that I am not doing. Passionate kissing is sexual. Why do you think I would deduce that a woman is sexually interested in me just because she kissed me on a cheek?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 05:04 PM
1

Stop pretending that "kissing/making out" in that context can be understood anything else but passionate kissing. Why would I understand a peck on a cheek as a romantic gesture?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 04:57 PM
1

Why are you deliberately ignoring the "/making out" part? Look, I have all the patience in the world. We can go through this together. If you think you can ragebait me, think twice.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 04:55 PM
1

Because it's not there. The "make out" part that you conveniently removed to ragebait me is added right next to it to clarify that it is romantic. This is the whole quote If you don't kiss/make out within the first 2-3 dates, it's a wrap. That's my standard. I will keep responding to clarify this because I think you haven't finished high school with this kind of reading comprehension. Don't worry, it's a slow process but we will get through this.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 04:54 PM
1

I said "kissing/making out" at the top, go and reread my comment before lying to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 04:40 PM
1

I said this If you don't kiss/make out within the first 2-3 dates, it's a wrap. That's my standard. People who have a reading comprehension and understand the context of our discussion, understood that we are talking about romantic kisses, not platonic "peck on a cheek" kisses.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 04:40 PM
1

I used the word "provide" in a loose sense that can also mean companionship in general, doesn't necessarily mean financial providing. If you read my response, I have used it once. they don't want to be wanted only for what they provide, they want to be sexually desired and wanted because of other commitments that they make Most men want to be validated for sex and other qualities they bring to the table together What does wanting to be a provider have to do with my point? Men want to be sexually…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 04:28 PM
1

Labelling kissing as sexual is fucking weird So, passionately kissing someone on the lips isn't sexual? Are you trolling?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 04:23 PM
1

Most people already do that. How do you know that? Labelling kissing as sexual is fucking weird. You do realize people kiss platonically, right? What platonic kisses are we talking about here, lol? A peck on a cheek? I am talking about passionate kissing, using lips. Lips are those two things below your nose that you use to suck on things. Occasionally, they can also be used to kiss someone if you are really attracted to them.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 04:21 PM
1

I said you have no place to correct OP if you're not, because all your correction was that men actually want to provide but be valued for more and you've tried to call out OP when the statement was true. The statement is incorrect. There are men who want to be providers and want to be valued sexually. This is true. I am allowed to correct, if she is wrong, even if she is wrong with respect to people that I don't agree with.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 04:16 PM
2

If you don't kiss/make out within the first 2-3 dates, it's a wrap. That's my standard.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 04:14 PM
1

And with you OP was right, you don't want to be provider at all. Why should I be a provider, lol? You are not entitled to my providership. You should learn to pull yourself up by your own pantyhose and pay for your half of the date, just like the founding mothers of feminism intended.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 04:06 PM
1

You're correcting OP, when you're not even the one who represents providers without any knowledge of what makes them providers (as we seen by your failure to answer my question about their motives, and thank you for admitting that instead of spinning some bs by the way). Providers pay for the first date because that's how traditional gender roles work (according to their understanding of their roles). Just because I don't subscribe to those roles, doesn't mean that I don't understand what drives…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 03:59 PM
1

No, I don't subscribe to traditional gender roles, but it doesn't make my argument weak. Elaborate why it is moot.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 03:48 PM
1

Ask them. I am not one of those guys who pays for dates.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 03:46 PM
0

And yet too many men want to for you to dismiss it so easily. Where are you where men here argue about how they want sexual favors for food? Most men who pay for dates out of their volition aren't throwing tamper tantrums because they don't get sex. Go touch grass.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 03:40 PM
3

that's why men throw a tantrum over latte, and demand sexual payment for it? Sure Yes all men, without exceptions, demand sex for a latte, sure.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 03:26 PM
7

When they talk about how they dont want to be wanted for what they provide, they mean, they don’t want to be wanted because they actually enter mutual relationship with people Strawmanning again, they don't want to be wanted only for what they provide, they want to be sexually desired and wanted because of other commitments that they make. Two things can be true at the same time. Why do you assume that wanting sexual desire automatically means that you want to be worshipped? When you press them …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 03:19 PM
1

The stigma has been largely removed, at least in moderate circles. For men, it is still there. People will call unpaired, uneducated men with no job losers. Give me one context where calling a woman a loser is acceptable in modern society.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/25 10:25 AM
1

You don't need "real time", something that is more recent than 2015, lol. You recognize 2015 was a decade ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 05:17 PM
–

Question to women who have had pregnancies without any complications. Would you describe your pregnancy as "a traumatic event" under normal circumstances?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 04:20 PM
1

NOT what I said. So no, there was no goal post moving. This was about wanting instant sexual gratification and you guys not admitting it. Here you go https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1pvythq/comment/nw046ve/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Here you said this Most men are fucking. The average guy is alright in terms of dating. We have already established that you fucked up the first part, the evidence suggest that most men a…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 04:11 PM
1

Have you read till the end? I am literally suggesting to create a poll to ask women whether they think their pregnancies can be considered a traumatic event. At this point, you are trolling and not arguing in good faith. I am not going to engage anymore.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 04:07 PM
1

Lol, go ahead.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 04:03 PM
1

Literally go ahead and read what I wrote. You said average men are doing well (at the start of the thread). I am asking what your standard of doing well is? Are you dense?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 03:47 PM
1

Except that it's not a person's natural state, is it? How would you define your "natural state"? I never brought it up. If you are already expecting a child, you are expected to birth a child unless you abort the fetus. Under normal pregnancy- related circumstances, if you deliver the child, you won't be injured. Quick question - based on all of this, and the "I highly doubt" suggests that you haven't ever actually experienced or even spoken to anyone about this? Does it really matter? We can cr…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 03:46 PM
1

So being single and not getting your dick wet every week means men struggling with being considered sexually attractive? What's your definition of average men "doing well"? That's what you claimed. What's the point of me finding the research if you are going to constantly move the goalposts and backtracking?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 03:39 PM
1

I said this Sure, the emphasis is on the traumatic event, an unexpected harm that under normal conditions doesn't happen. The pregnancy isn't unexpected, it is expected, lol. Also, the word "traumatic event" has a far negative connotation, and I am really amused that someone would refer to the birth of their children as a "traumatic event".
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 03:33 PM
2

Still not answering my question and dodging like a coward
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 03:31 PM
1

There was a pew study on the rate of singles, too. Most men were single (not having sex, not in a relationship). But what's the point of arguing with you if you are consistently moving the goalposts?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 03:29 PM
1

At least you are admitting that you got owned.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 03:27 PM
2

Then answer my simple yes or no question. Do they deserve firing squads? By not answering, you are showing that you are a coward and backtracking.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 03:15 PM
1

I guess we have a difference of opinion then. I highly doubt most women would consider the birth of their children a "traumatic event". When you say "all pregnancies cause injuries", there is an implicit assumption that it's something traumatic and serious which is not the case most of the time.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 03:11 PM
1

You consider the birth of your child a traumatic event under normal pregnancy without any complications?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 03:06 PM
1

Do you consider an injury the result of a traumatic event that will strain or break muscles to the extent that they cannot work the same way after for any length of time, the way a footballer might pull his groin and be taken off the field? Sure, the emphasis is on the traumatic event, an unexpected harm that under normal conditions doesn't happen.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 02:48 PM
1

It was a yes or no question, I don't need an essay from you, lol. Backtracking as expected.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 02:26 PM
1

I am just asking your opinion. Yes or no?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 02:09 PM
1

So you agree that he deserves a fire squad?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 02:03 PM
1

What does a broken leg have to do with pregnancy, lol? Of course, a broken leg is an injury, but treating the natural changes that happen to your body during pregnancy as injury is almost like saying that your fetus is a parasite.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 01:52 PM
2

I am not confused, you are trying to backtrack. The guy that I described acts incelish, so according to your logic he deserves a fire squad.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 01:37 PM
1

You have a very specific definition of injury that most people would not agree with. There has to be very significant damage to your body that is irreversible for something to be considered an injury. Just because your body changed, doesn't mean it has been injured. It's still your right to decide whether you want it or not, but posting invalid stats and pretending as if you are actually injuring yourself by getting pregnant is dishonest.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 01:35 PM
6

Not approaching anyone, working and then rotting at home, occasionally shitposting on forums, and not holding misogynistic beliefs in their personal lives just like your post describes.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 12:34 PM
1

Except that it's not part of a medical condition is it? Which medical conditions are we talking about? The ones that you have posted aren't guaranteed to happen to all women during pregnancy. Men can also develop health issues with their hearts if they are under too much stress from marriage. Actually it does - you're left slightly worse because your cells are damaged. If that's your definition of an injury, then living your life causes an injury. We all eventually get our cells damaged by the e…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 12:17 PM
33

This is her arguing in the comments btw "Nobody promised you pussy because you are nice. But be nice because otherwise you won't get pussy"
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 12:13 PM
3

This is from your own post, btw Although not all forum users may hold misogynistic beliefs in their personal lives – they may engage in "shitposting," an online activity which involves posting offensive content to elicit a reaction –, the overall language and rhetoric used in Incel forums presents a clear anti-feminist political and ideological discourse.” So, an incel who in real life lives a quiet existence, and then shitposts on forums to elicit a reaction deserves a firing squad?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 12:08 PM
1

Slightly worse isn't equal injury, now you are moving the goalpost. Most married men become fat/develop a dadbod, lose hair, and become less sexy because married life requires sacrifices.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 11:18 AM
6

If you are claiming "the average guy is doing fine right now", you have to present relevant and up-to-date stats. If this has to be explained to you, then you haven't finished high school yet.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 11:16 AM
1

That something doesn't have to be an injury. Unless you consider any change an injury. You keep shifting the goalposts. Do changes happen? Yes, obviously. Can those changes be classified as injuries? Not all of them.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 10:47 AM
3

An old study conducted in 2016 showing that both men and women are fucking? Again, why not 1970s? Why not include all people (including boomers)?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 10:37 AM
6

No, you didn't. You sent one youtube video and another study about people who identify with the incel label. My study is about women's preferences when they are choosing LTRs.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 10:31 AM
7

I have literally posted 2 studies showing that when the lowest threshold for attractiveness is met, women are still going for looks whereas their fathers start prioritizing personality. Haven't got anything back from you except "it's a small study with only 61 women" lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 10:24 AM
1

Stats for 2016/2018? Why not 1970s? Younger Gen Z men and women aren't fucking. There are plenty of studies showing this but keep choosing the timeframes that support your narrative.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 10:12 AM
1

I am aware of the studies that you posted. It is talking about people who identify with the incel label. These people are very rare. Most men are fucking. The average guy is alright in terms of dating. Do you have stats on this? Btw, posting a youtube video isn't proof.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 10:04 AM
–

Men see everything as a zero sum deal, thinking that other people having rights and access to social mobility will decrease their own rights and social mobility Most DEI laws are a zero-sum game. If the law forces the employer to hire a worker not based on skills but based on the fact that they are disadvantaged, capable people will be pushed out of these positions. Pretending that we have infinite resources is naive. I know some of you will say "but they hire disabled men, too" and I don't real…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 10:02 AM
–

And these people get surprised when Nick Fuentes is getting more and more popular, lol. At this point, you are digging your own grave. Keep pushing stupid narratives like "white people don't need no help" and see what happens during the next elections.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 09:57 AM
11

Again, actual incels aren't being chosen in the first place. They don't even get to the point of rejection. It's your average normie that is struggling with these things. The redpill was initially aimed at AFCs (average frustrated chumps). Let me guess, you mean instant sexual gratification, which guys here keep pretending wasn't their actual goal. I have already provided 2 studies for LTRs, not instant sexual gratification. Have you actually read them?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 09:49 AM
2

Most manospherans don't watch Piers Morgan, lol. Piers Morgan is for your average, slightly left-leaning normie. Look at the comments section under his interview with Nick. Even normies are taking his side, lol. You are delusional if you think that the manosphere is not part of the mainstream anymore.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 09:39 AM
3

Keep coping. The fact that people like Nick Fuentes are being invited to famous talk shows is a sign that there is a demand for this content.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 09:33 AM
7

Have you read the part that I have highlighted? It says that even if the minimum threshold is met, daughters still tend to choose the more attractive mate instead of the one who is not ugly but has better personal traits. That's the point. People vary in their looks threshold Women have a very narrow definition of what they find sexually attractive. I can send 10 more studies proving that. Most male protagonists in movies have the same shared characteristics - tall guys with masculine faces and …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 09:31 AM
4

I am aware of the study, actual incels (ugly and poor men with very low-self esteem) are very rare but the fact that the pilloshphere is going mainstream means that dating sucks for average dudes, too. It is almost like how the middle class is being squeezed economically.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 09:19 AM
8

My sample size is 61 women, in properly conducted 2 studies that found statistically significant patterns, your sample size is one youtube video, lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 09:15 AM
7

Also, the typical goal in being liked in relationships, not instant sexual gratification If the woman doesn't find you attractive in the first place, despite the fact that you have a good personality, then it doesn't change anything, she is not dating you. That's why the studies that I have posted matter. Why should I strive to be likeable if she won't consider me for an LTR anyway because of my looks?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 09:07 AM
2

Also, saying "I never implied looks don't matter, just don't be disfigured bro" is a lazy copout. Even if men meet a certain threshold, women still go for the most attractive one as it is indicated here. In short, the male profiles in the study were not considered to be acceptable dating partners by the daughters and their fathers when they were below a particular looks threshold. Above that threshold of physical attractiveness, desirable personality traits, and good character traits in the male…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 09:00 AM
11

Then why have you posted this part then? For example, a guy here showed me a study that people in SPEED DATING EVENTS don't vet for personality all that much.....SPEED DATING. Dont get me started on men who still pretend tinder isn't a quasi-hookup app. I have just shown you the evidence that women care about personality after the looks threshold is met for LTRs too. In both contexts, the men's attractiveness comes first before the personality is even considered. So why bring it up unless you be…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 08:58 AM
3

I bet you had a lot of suitors back in the day." we all chuckled and as the lady went her way and my neighbor looked at me and then looked into a empty space down the hallway as is if she were breaking 4th wall and said to herself "I had suitors? Really? That's news to me". It was as hilarious as it was genuinely sad. My aunt is in her 50s, love her to death, she has supported me through some serious shit that I was going through. With that being said, she is single but has a very high-paying jo…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 08:51 AM
13

It's tiring seeing guys act like women hid the truth about sexual desires mattering, but it's really that these guys didn't want to believe they needed to be very desirable to get the sex life they actually wanted. For example, a guy here showed me a study that people in SPEED DATING EVENTS don't vet for personality all that much.....SPEED DATING. Dont get me started on men who still pretend tinder isn't a quasi-hookup app Looks matter for LTRs too. I am going to attach the studies that you won'…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 08:33 AM
0

This is factually true. Pregnancy changes a woman's body at a cellular level. It really is 100% injury rate, whether it be peeing when you laugh or sneeze (pelvic floor and incontinence), losing teeth (a surprisingly common issue with pregnancy - the placenta leeches all nutrition from you and what you eat and sends to the foetus, leading to the issues with bones, teeth etc - and organs). 100% injury rate implies that all women get the side effects that you mention which is not true. Again, the …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 06:17 AM
1

Other studies report lower overall prevalence, such as 24% of U.S. women experiencing moderate to severe symptoms of at least one pelvic floor disorder, and a global range from 1.9% to 46.5%. The variation underscores that while the 50–70% range is plausible in certain high-risk groups like postpartum women, it may not represent the general female population
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 05:58 AM
1

Studies have found anywhere from 50-70% of women experience pelvic floor dysfunction, such as prolapse or incontinence, after giving birth I can use AI, too, and here is what it says Other studies report lower overall prevalence, such as 24% of U.S. women experiencing moderate to severe symptoms of at least one pelvic floor disorder, and a global range from 1.9% to 46.5%. The variation underscores that while the 50–70% range is plausible in certain high-risk groups like postpartum women, it may …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 05:57 AM
3

I am not here to convince you to have kids. I am an antinatalist for my own reasons, too. I don't want to pass on certain genetic conditions, but that's not relevant. If the only reason stopping you is the fearmongering, I would encourage you to look at this with an open mind. Your grandgrandmothers were having 5-6 kids while not having access to modern medical institutions, and yet they still managed to deliver 5-6 kids, and managed to live and raise those kids. I would argue the toll that it t…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/25 05:51 AM
1

Perhaps we should be recognising that its ok for women to not want children, and that it's certainly ok for women to not want to take part in a process with a 100% injury rate. Regardless of the reasons, even if they are completely arbitrary, at the end of the day, it's your body, your choice. My main contention is the way the pregnancy is portrayed as if it leaves you disabled for life. I disagree with the "100% injury rate" take. You are not disabled for life, not injured for life, in some rar…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 07:44 PM
4

Doesn't change the fact that if you actually want it, you will take the 5-10% chance of side effects because the reward is worth it to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 05:54 PM
3

Pregnancy does alter your body permently Nobody is denying this. The issue is the way it is exaggerated as if you are losing a body part during war or something. At the end of the day, there are trade-offs. Millions of women every day give birth because they don't think it is so bad to the point that it's worth ending their genetic lineage. If you are in the childfree camp and you don't think that having kids somehow makes your life more meaningful, it's fine (I am also in the same camp). But do…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 05:04 PM
-5

Every day, plenty of women across the globe have kids, and they don't destroy their bodies to the point of no return. Even if redpillers come up with some magical solution, you are going to move the goalpost and come up with another reason because, at the end of the day, you are not that interested in having kids (which is fine). Pregnancy isn't as dangerous as you present it. Even women in a coma can deliver babies. If you don't want kids for your own personal reasons, don't put the blame and t…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 11:29 AM
–

Jack Quaid is average looking? Yes, he is. You could argue he is slightly above average due to his height, but other than that, without all the status and money that he was born into, he would have been considered average. Also, having a baby face doesn't somehow make you above average. Adam Sandler, Simon Pegg, and Jack Quaid are all average without their status and money. Had they been everyday store clerks, they would have been chronically single.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 09:26 AM
6

However, I disagree that not being an RPers means being shy I didn't say that, I just said it's more rewarding (from the perspective of getting dates/hookups) to have a false macho bravado. You could technically do the same things these so-called RP machos do without associating yourself with the label, and you will still probably be more successful than guys who just chill and don't proactively approach women and try to game them.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 07:00 AM
20

I've never met a well-adjusted RPer, they're usually losers who're obsessed with sexual reputation and a contorted view of what makes men appealing; furthermore, they can't seem to be focused on much else. These are real life people I know, who I meet with and interact with, not just RPers on this sub (since this sub is specifically geared towards discussion on gender and sexual dynamics). I largely agree that the redpill self-improvement dude-bros are annoying AF. Unfortunately, having this kin…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/25 06:52 AM
1

And the more I learn about them, the less I want to be in a relationship with one. Thats my issue. That's not an issue at all. Most self-sufficient men eventually realize that that modern relationships are too much work for very few benefits. Seems like you lean towards the redpill MGTOW rather than redpill PUA. Thinking Ape's "Intellectually Induced Asexuality" on youtube expresses the same sentiment. Nothing wrong with realizing that romantic relationships are not beneficial for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/12/25 05:13 AM
2

It's so ironic that this is downvoted, lol. The original redpill PUAs were all about getting laid. Of course, you had MGTOWs too, but both groups were against marriage. The truth is most so-called "redpill" guys aren't fully redpilled, they are purple pilled, essentially, thinking that their relationships are somehow more special than other people's relationships and they have found the secret sauce that other offie-doofies don't know.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/25 10:06 AM
1

While I agree that the price matters, the fact that you can't openly discuss this because people will "get the ick" is also problematic. At some point, if you have friends/colleagues at work, the question of finding a partner comes up, you cannot just casually say "oh, I am fucking escorts". Society still puts too much emphasis on your ability to get a wife/get a girlfriend; otherwise, they assume there is something wrong with you which is funny because plenty of serial killers were married men …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/25 05:48 AM
1

If by intense desire you mean sexual attraction, then most men are out of luck, I guess. Intense desire is reserved for very few men. If you had to go on multiple dates before she feels comfortable giving you a pity sex, you are already starting from a point of negotiation, not genuine desire. No woman will ever create artificial barriers for men that they are actually attracted to. If you are a bottom 80% man, you have to make peace with this fact and find other copes.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/25 05:44 AM
1

Give me an example of an obligation according to your definition (it's something that cannot be opted out of).
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 10:49 AM
5

The conditions you have listed aren't the only roadblocks. You are clearly underestimating your looks if getting 30+ bodies to you seems easy and normal. The average number of partners for men, according to the official stats, is like 5. So, you are either lying or severely underestimating your looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 08:42 AM
1

We were discussing your opinion, not the line of argument proposed by other people. You keep dodging the question because you don't want to admit that women don't have obligations by your own logic, too. In fact, nobody has obligation s in this society according to the definition that you are using. If obligations are something that you cannot avoid, then give me an example of an obligation that the average Westerner has.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 08:35 AM
1

My net worth isn’t a million right now (I’ll get there though), not sure what that has to do with this, but I’ve answered it honestly. So, mr millionaire, with all your money, how haven’t you betabuxxed your way to some pussy? I don't measure my worth in terms of how much pussy I have fucked. I have used escort services, and all of them were 8+ looking women, way above my league. I don't usually talk about it because it doesn't make me superior to other people. But you seem to put too much empha…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 08:32 AM
2

First of all, I said the categories are roughly defined. Of course, you can't categorize all men into these categories, but most men will fall in these. I’m not a Chad, I’m 5’9 with a decent face and good body Tom Cruz can be considered a Chad, he has a decent face and a good body, too. Chad doesn't necessarily mean 6t+ only. If your description is actually true, you are leaning towards the Chad group and not the Offy-doofie group. I don’t stand out at all in a nightclub and yet, give me a week …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 08:12 AM
4

If you’re single for all of your 20s and can’t fuck 50+ women, you’re a loser, ugly asf and/or there’s something wrong with you. OK, you got me champ, I am a loser. And you are such a graceful Chad that instead of spinning plates, you are patiently arguing with autistic incels in an echo-chamber and showing them their place. Believe me or don’t, I don’t care You don't care enough to call someone a loser based on an arbitrary number of women that they are supposed to fuck, lol. If you describe yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 07:55 AM
1

A) the actor who plays Hughie is pretty tall and probably did just fine with women even before fame. Do you have any proof? How do you know this? Also, height is probably his only redeeming feature. Other than that, he is pretty average. B) there is a massive middle ground between ultra good looking “chads” and being a “beta”. Nowadays, not really. The gap between a beta and a Chad is way bigger than the gap between a beta and an incel. Most betas are pretty much nearcels who only get into relat…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 07:36 AM
3

You know that different women are attracted to different kinds of men, right? That's largely BS. Most women are sexually attracted to the same archetype. Just because they end up with an unconventionally attractive guy, doesn't mean they are sexually attracted to them. It's a trade-off between stability and hotness. My uncle is not a particularly handsome guy. He's fat and greying with a bald spot. Yet he was still able to find a woman, marry her, and have three children with her, and when he st…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 07:29 AM
1

Until the birth of a child, there is no child with an independent existence that can claim a right to care from a separate person What if the father dies during pregnancy? Isn't the woman still financially obligated to take care of the future child?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 06:25 AM
6

Most men can be roughly categorized into 3 lanes: - Alphas/Chads - these men almost never had issues with having situationships with women. Think about someone who looks like Jensen Ackles, for example: a tall dude, with a symmetrical face, full head of hair, deep voice, etc. If you ever had a male friend who constantly got hit on by women, you know what I am talking about. Also, you know that the whole "men have to approach first and women are afraid to approach" is BS. Women do approach, they …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 06:22 AM
1

Since you cannot unilaterally opt into employment, but rather require the consent of your employer, employment is a bad example. You cannot simply arrive at a workplace, declare yourself employed, and demand and receive payment without first receiving permission from the owner of that workplace. Notice that you still haven't answered my question. If you can opt-in or out-of of your workplace obligations, does it mean that you definitionally don't have any obligations towards your workplace? Seem…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 04:13 AM
1

Rights to make decisions for other people are difficult to justify and tend to revolve around obligations to care. Parents accrue rights to make decisions on behalf of their children because they are obligated to care for those children I don't think anyone disagrees here. A man who can opt into or out of care for a child is definitionally not obligated to care for that child If you can opt-in or out-of of your workplace obligations, does it mean that you definitionally don't have any obligation…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 03:59 AM
1

If a man is fulfilling an obligation towards his children, he has a right to his children. If he doesn't do his obligations, he loses his rights. That's the justification. You haven't provided a reason why someone can't willingly take certain obligations and receive rights associated with them.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 03:47 AM
1

No, it doesn't because that's not how the law is going to be defined. The law is going to be "you are losing your rights to children if you financally abort before the birth, if you don't do it, you keep your obligations and rights". If you don't abort financially, you are already financially responsible for the child and if she is born, you are financially obligated to provide.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 03:39 AM
2

Yes, they are suggesting to change the law to allow that. Changing the law will give you the rights to your children assuming you are not waiving your obligations towards your children.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 03:35 AM
2

So? There is no instance where you can make purely unilateral decisions in society. All decisions are based on consent. Give me an example of a decision that I can make without the consent of others. You think this is some kind of a gotcha, but in a civilized society, no decisions are made ,unilaterally, all decisions eventually have to be aligned with the laws.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 12:58 AM
5

Because for me as a man, (I dont purport to speak for all men, but Im sure it will resonate with many) what I want out of someone I date is an actual partner, who can support me and whom I can support in return, particularily emotionally. But if my partner is a Redpill woman then this is not something I would get from her. A redpiller will call you bluepilled if you believe that you can have a partnership with a woman. The proponents of the redpill don't believe that men and women are equal, so …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/25 12:55 AM
2

Some rights are given conditionally if the person who wants to get those rights agrees to fulfill certain obligations. The workplace is an example of that. You have the right to fire your reportees as long as you are employed. You could argue "you never had the right to fire someone in the first place" which is absurd and pointless because we are talking about conditional rights given that you are fulfilling certain obligations.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 12:54 PM
1

And the father cannot unilaterally assert rights over their children if the government decides so. The same applies to the mother. What's your point? At the end of the day, the government is always involved, and everything has to happen according to laws.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 12:50 PM
1

But you cannot unilaterally opt into rights over another person by agreeing to care for that person. I could not, for example, accrue rights to make decisions about you or your children just by mailing you a check—rather, I would first need the consent of the child in question or that child’s guardian. If we are talking hypotheticals here, there is nothing preventing the lawmakers to pass a law that allows a third party to get the consent from the mother to take care of the child. I am not sure …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 12:41 PM
2

does not entail unilaterally asserting rights over another person. If I am voting for an issue that affects women, my vote is affecting those people. Just because I can choose not to, doesn't mean I didn't have the right in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 11:56 AM
2

A person who can choose whether to opt into or out of an obligation on a whim does not actually possess that obligation, and thus does not accrue any rights that stem from thar obligation. I disagree. There are plenty of examples where you willingly choose to take certain obligations and get certain rights associated with those obligations. Employment is an example of that. This is absurd. You are basically saying "if you don't think you have an obligation to vote, then you don't have a right to…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 11:43 AM
2

Likewise, a father who has no obligations to their child is an uninvolved party No, a father who decides that he has no obligations before the child is born has no rights to them after they are born. That's the argument. You cannot just show up in a child’s life and unilaterally declare that you possess rights to that child because you decided to start providing care If before the child is born, you do not waive your rights to children, it is assumed that you are bearing the responsibility, and …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 11:31 AM
3

No, it doesn't, just like a right to leave your workplace doesn't imply that your employer can withhold your salary. I don't understand why it's such a hard concept to understand. As long as you are employed and are doing your responsibilities, you get paid. As long as you are a responsible father and take care of your children, you retain the rights to them.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 11:24 AM
1

No, I am dashboardpilled.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 11:21 AM
1

My ideal date is a woman inviting me to a date, trying to entertain me and make me laugh during the whole date, while I am scrolling through my Instagram. Then, in the end, she has to pay for the whole date. Unfortunately, there are no real women left who do this, so I am not dating right now.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 11:21 AM
1

Nobody claims that you can do a financial abortion after the child is born. It has to be a decision made before the child is born. If you make that decision, it is final, and you cannot opt in and start fathering your biological children.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 11:15 AM
2

The point is that a right to “financial abortion” necessarily implies that no men possess any rights to any children they might father. If you have the right to leave your current workplace, does it mean that you are not protected by employment protection laws?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 11:07 AM
6

Most of the men in the manosphere wouldnt be in there if they could get women, anything else is delusion and cope The vast majority of men in the West are "sent their own way". Even most normies are supposedly in loving relationships/marriages are MSTOWs in the making. Not sure why you need to shit on people who are making better choices and not participating in the simp economy? You do realize it's collectively better for most men to take a mgtowish approach instead of simping and raising the s…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 11:05 AM
1

Seems like you are arguing against a strawman. The proponents of financial abortion do not claim that you retain the right to future children after you have committed a financial abortion. Once you make a decision that you are not interested in taking care of future children, you cannot have any authority over them. The financial abortion argument is for situations when the child isn't born yet. If a woman is pregnant but the dad refuses to take care of the kids financially, he basically loses a…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 11:00 AM
9

What they ultimately dont get is that, you want something from her, wich is sex, companionship, or both, and most of the time dating is simply nowadays in favor of women and they hold most of the cards, so you as a man have to invest more than her, if you even want to date that is. Not sure why you are using mgtards as some kind of an insult. Most MGTOWs will agree with the last paragraph. If you want to participate in the clown show called modern dating, you will have to invest somehow as a man…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/25 10:44 AM
3

The cause of most dating problems is simping which is done by men due to the fact that men are hornier. Society has convinced men that being in any relationship, regardless of how cucked it is, is better than being a single incel. The moment most men collectively start decentering relationships is when they will regain power, or at least won't be in suboptimal relationships. If 60% of men tomorrow decide that: - They are not approaching women first, sliding into DMs, writing simpy comments on so…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/25 08:46 AM
3

I love how Cardi B and other female rappers sing about needing no man....when almost all of them have a man. Rich, high-class people get married for their image, they don't really have a deep respect for the institution, they just need someone who can be around them when they visit parties, meetings. It's done for the image rather than because they feel that they need it. Most women are choosing not to get married: they have their white-collar job that pays well, their dogs/cats/female friends f…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 02:55 PM
2

When it comes to writing fanfiction communities, having a collection of romance novels, keeping up on K-Dramas, Love Island, The Bachelor, having Disney Princess kitsch, etc... An obsession with romance novels is more of a red flag because most of these romances that are targeted to women always portray a psychopathic, rich asshole who is also good-looking, who somehow ends up being domesticated by the plain-looking Jane. A lot of average-looking women read these and think they can make it happe…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/25 02:44 PM
21

Logic does not benefit men, it hinders men more than it helps them. Women’s opinions on a broad amount of subjects both politically and on this forum, are logically inconsistent. They are logically inconsistent if you assume that they are trying to avoid being hypocritical. If you understand that everyone (both men and women) is trying to maximize their happiness and minimize dissatisfaction, then the choices and positions are pretty logical. In other words, most humans are logically hypocritica…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/25 07:01 PM
1

With the rise of divorces and many children growing without both parents, I think it's necessary to take a step back and let people understand that a marriage is about understanding - conflicts are a natural part of getting better understanding, so long as it doesn't involve violence, provocation to violence or using sex or infidelity as a tool for control. Even the religious perspective doesn't present marriage as something people should just "understand", it's a vow and a duty towards communit…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/25 09:05 AM
1

You said "women make relationship decisions on whims" to disprove that personality matters in the process of relationship-decision making No, I was arguing that women don't choose personality as a marker of genetic fitness/"good genes"/whatever your post implies, it's a choice that is dictated based on their immediate needs. I am not saying personality doesn't matter, it matters, but only in the context of the short-term needs that women have in the moment. Those needs can change and therefore, …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 08:10 PM
1

A long-term relationship in my criteria is 1 year+ or so as there is intention for it to continue for a while An intention is always there, but, in practice, most relationships break down at the 7-10 year mark. Do you really believe that people enter relationships without serious intentions? A 1-year cutoff is a very convenient choice because most LTRs will probably pass that mark, but it's a completely arbitrary cutoff. I could argue that a real long-term relationship should last at least 20 ye…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 08:03 PM
1

OP is such a bastard, he came to your house, put a gun to your head, and forced you to engage in a hypothetical that you didn't need, and want to engage in. Then, he forced you to write very lengthy, unrelated responses. Everyone under the threads agrees that your response is not aligned with your flair, but you keep doubling down. Choosing a disloyal King over the average guy because he has something to offer succinctly summarizes you as a person, and no amount of walls of text will change that…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 05:37 PM
114

It makes good men feel jaded and hopeless in the dating world, while men with toxic behaviors continue to thrive. It’s a frustrating observation, but it’s worth thinking about why attraction and perceived value often seem disconnected from safety, stability, or respect. Most men are raised with the idea that women are the ultimate arbiters of moral values, assuming that their choices are somehow righteous. Once men stop putting women on a pedestal and start realizing that sexual choices are not …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:27 PM
21

These men don't do this out of the kindness of their heart or because they are financially illiterate. They do this to put women in a vulnerable position if the relationship doesn't work out. It's calculated, intentional, malicious, and unfair. And women who date these guys don't have any ulterior motives and choose them for the kindness of their hearts /s From a purely pragmatic perspective, both parties are engaging in a transaction, and one party (the man) is making sure that he is not going …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:10 PM
1

Okay, so if this the ultimate deciding factor and it applies to both sexes, how on earth to long-term couples and marriages last? If you can make the general statement that women (and now mens bcs you said it applies to both) partner choices are entirely dictated by immediate needs, how does that explain the consistent existence of long-term bonds? What are your criteria for a lasting relationship? A few weeks, months, years, decades? "Till death do us part" is not as common as you think it is. …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 02:25 PM
1

just like neither wasn't an option for the OP OP never said you can't respond with neither, why did you feel you were pressured to choose one option? Plenty of women said neither and weren't confronted. Seems like you know good and fucking well you've been bad faith trying to make personal attacks of my character based on my answer to a false binary hypothetical No, it's not bad faith because if you make a choice according to redpill logic, you are confirming their beliefs. If you are claiming "…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 01:13 PM
2

That's why I narrowed it down to two men who provide the same level of loyalty, but one is better looking than the other. Since you have stated that you value looks over loyalty, you are going to choose a better-looking guy, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 05:51 AM
0

I didn't force her to tell me that she values looks and good dick over loyalty lol. She could have avoided this question entirely or said "neither". If you are engaging in the hypothetical, it means that the options are not outrageously unacceptable, and choosing one over the other doesn't really violate your integrity. I personally would rather not rape anyone, so my answer is neither.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 05:45 AM
3

There's no such thing as "leaving the marketplace" just by being single If you are not actively looking for someone, you are by definition not in the marketplace. Being single is the default state of being, not an active statement or position or behavior. Sure, but then you are not dating. The options I "don't like" aren't "King's mistress" or "unattractive low-earning peasant." For the final time, nothing about this false dichotomy is applicable to real life. The average American isn't middle-c…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 05:40 AM
2

I value looks and good dick more than loyalty if it's a zero-sum game So, basically implying that if a better-looking guy with good dick comes around, she will dump her current partner. Lol, "those goddamn redpillers have to touch grass, I am not hypergamous".
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 05:30 AM
5

You can't use this completely unrealistic scenario to make claims as to what I would actually "rather do" in real fucking life, in real life I'd just be single than choose either. And this doesn't contradict the Redpill either. Redpill isn't concerned about women who voluntarily leave the marketplace because they don't like their options. The redpill is concerned about women who have to eventually make a choice, and just as you confirmed, if you had to make a choice, you would choose an "Alpha",…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 05:17 AM
1

But if a woman wants an emotionally validating partner, this often reflects a long-term intention to be in a relationship Not necessarily, it just implies that, in the moment, she wants someone who can listen to her. Maybe, in a day or two, she might want someone to have crazy caveman sex with. Also, this logic is not specific to females, it applies to both sexes. It doesn't make sense to bring this up as a "womans partner choice" thing and not a thing of both sexes lol. Where did I imply that t…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 05:00 AM
18

This is a core redpill belief. Women would rather be an Alpha's side piece than be with a faithful beta. Not that I fully agree with this, but this has been discussed in red pill circles for a very long time.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:56 AM
1

Having a good personality, like you said, increases fitness by ensuring offspring survival. First of all, I didn't say that I believe this is true. I said if you think it's true, then it is a proxy for genetic fitness. I am not interested in having a semantic discussion on what genetic fitness is. If your argument is having a "good" personality helps offspring survival, I still disagree. Women's partner choices are dictated by their immediate short-term needs, that's why I brought up the example…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:48 AM
1

What are these "immediate short-term needs" that change so frequently? Examples include, "I am horny, I want to fuck a hot guy", and then, afterwards, "I want a boyfriend who can listen to me and validate me". Both of these needs require different types of personalities. Also, keep in mind that personality is not a "screen" for good genes, they are literally a factor of genetic fitness beyond good genes. This sounds like a contradiction. On the one hand, you say it's not a screen for good genes,…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:20 AM
3

Your original point implies that personality is being chosen as a proxy for good genetics. In reality, women are not screening for personality to weed out the genetic dead ends, they will choose a man based on their immediate short-term needs that can change frequently.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:08 AM
1

Yes, that was really brutal. Honestly, I think finding peace with the role that your genetics assigns you is the path forward. Trying to be something that you were never supposed to be is never going to result in contentment.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:04 AM
0

You cannot live your life as though this over-generalized statement is a truth that applies to everyone Which part of what I said is over-generalizing? Saying that your looks and personality have to be congruent with the type of arrangement that women want is a pretty logical statement that doesn't require any studies. For example, if she is looking for a guy who she wants to settle down with, she would expect him to look and behave in a way that a typical "hubby" does. The same applies to hooku…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 04:02 AM
7

This is why women do in fact care about personality AND why you can also have a good personality Women do care about personality as long as it is congruent with your looks and their desired type of arrangement. "Good" personality is a meme, the type of personality that women expect you to have largely depends on how you look like, and what kind of arrangement they are interested in.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 03:45 AM
7

Have you tried putting my response into your favorite AI summarizer?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 03:38 AM
11

Thanks for an AI-generated slop, but nobody in the manosphere claims that personality doesn't matter. Redpillers will say that you have to be confident and have game, blackpillers will say that you have to be NT, personality definitely matters. I am not a basement dweller, I have observed all kinds of real-life situations (ugly guys dating better-looking women, hot guys who want to enter relationships but are strictly seen as hookup material, etc). One thing that I have noticed is that most men …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 03:29 AM
0

Are you being obtuse on purpose, or do you think you came up with some crazy gotcha? If the first thing being mentioned is niceness without anything else, it is assumed to be the prerequisite. In reality, it's just a "nice" (pun intended) add-on on top of all other things that are not being mentioned. At some point, women have to be open about their "real" preferences and stop gaslighting about niceness when it's not even the most important ingredient. Did I make it clear enough?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/25 02:23 AM
6

Women love nice guys who have something going for themselves Which means that being nice isn't the prerequisite, is it? It's the icing on the cake that is comprised of being hot, financially, and socially successful. It's almost equivalent to employers saying they want "nice" employees, and then you go to the interview and realize that you should be young, qualified and have years of experience, and being nice is the cherry on top. When women say we like kind guys the “also is assertive and conf…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/25 07:47 PM
–

Evidence for what? Lol, I am basing this on your replies in the threads. You literally said your boyfriend was elected a president of some club in school, which means he is very well capable of masking his neurodivergence.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/25 11:25 AM
0

Had your boyfriend been as neurodivergent as you are, he would have been chronically single and a top 1% commenter here. The fact that he used to be in a leadership position in school means that his neurodivergence is very mild, and he can very well mask it.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/25 01:04 PM
–

This is how I speak about women in public. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZlK_ThjMk4 So glad they haven't figured out my bad personality yet.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/25 09:23 PM
11

If you were employed and found out that a less qualified employee is outearning you by a very huge margin, are you still going to be like "at least my needs are met, I am going to stay here" or is it going to make you uncomfortable? What you are describing is called willful ignorance because deep down you know that you are not going to find pleasant details about your fiance's interactions with way better-looking men, so you pretend as if you don't care in the first place. "It's an incel conspir…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/25 09:18 PM
1

That describes 60% of men in relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/25 04:21 PM
1

involuntarily single men Her post doesn't describe incels. An incel, by definition, doesn't have a choice. The men she refers to have choices. They can choose to be single instead of being settled down for.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/25 08:35 PM
0

Where do you see the angst, though? People who have already decided to stay single are peacefully single. Others are in relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/25 09:07 PM
6

What is the actual question here? Some men will choose dignified solitude, others will compromise. What's your point?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/25 09:00 PM
58

People are entitled to their standards. There are women out there who demand the whole 666 package, but are nothing close to that. You might consider it delusional, but it's their freedom of choice. The same applies to men. If a man decides that he will invest in a relationship only if he notices behaviors that signal genuine desire, it's his right to do so. Are all men entitled to Chad treatment? No. Are men allowed to have a standard and not want to become the beta-boring-backup guy? Yes. What…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/25 07:28 PM
3

You are a "slutty bluepill woman" according to your own words. I thought I had had enough of cognitive dissonance from the empathetic gender here, have to take a break.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/25 09:42 PM
37

Nobody is surprised, it's just the guys who have to put in a Herculean effort to get sloppy seconds are waking up and realizing that they are getting scammed. The vast majority of dudes are in the "not hot but not repulsive" category. This makes them good LTR candidates, but women have higher courting expectations and are going to expect the guy to "pursue" them. For a smaller percentage of dudes, they are the ones who are being chased. Women will have very low expectations for them, will immedi…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 03:23 PM
1

So I guess we agree then. Thanks for sharing your story.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 02:26 PM
1

Did he self-improve to date you? That was kind of the whole point. Also, neurodivergence is mostly a serious handicap for men, not women. Women are already haloed so much by default that having some form of neurodivergence is seen as "quirky" but not creepy. Can some ND men luck out? Sure.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 07:23 AM
1

You said “They will be lucky to find a woman” and I agree with that which is why I asked a follow up question. Is English your first language? When you say "someone will be lucky to get x", it's implied that it's the best-case scenario that usually doesn't happen that frequently, so the person in question actually isn't in a good predicament in the first place. The fact that you took this common expression and deduced that "men are lucky" is hilarious. I have never claimed that women don’t have …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 12:18 AM
15

I denounce the redpill self-improver types, although I used to be one. Once you observe couples, you realize that most people didn't need to go through some Herculean effort to get their fiances. Most people in this sphere who have issues (despite being perfect on paper) are just neurodivergent which is a huge handicap. A neurotypical normie is always going to have more relationship success than 200K+ earning, gym-going, looksmaxxing autist. I see all kinds of ooffy-dooffies in relationships: me…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 12:02 AM
1

You said that "there are traits that are safe to assume", which implies that there are other traits that shouldn't be assumed. Now you are saying you essentially don't care if people make generalizations. If this kind of thinking becomes popularized, laws might be created that prohibit your rights based on population generalizations, and you are going to reap the consequences of having such an ignorant position.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 03:50 PM
2

There are national traits, gender traits that are safe to assume Who decides which traits are safe to assume? What if I assume that all women have an in-group bias until proven otherwise?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 02:12 PM
2

The power was always held by the top 1% of the elite (that includes both white men and women). The fact that the same elite brainwashed you to think that the average white man is your enemy is really sad. By your own logic, black women should be justified in being racist towards white women because white women were clearly in a more advantageous position. Also, justifying racism against whites isn't going to help your cause in any significant way. Keep doing this and see what happens during the …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 02:04 PM
4

Now try with gays, trans or black people.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 01:57 PM
11

There are systematic thing that men do and i presume all men are like that until proven otherwise (meaning i would assume something about a man but if i observe that he is different i’ll change my mind about him specifically). Now substitute men with any ethnic/sexual minority, realize how horrible this sounds, then somehow be ok with your original statement because of your cognitive dissonance, and then come back with a response justifying your misandry.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 12:05 PM
3

If men are truly lucky they shouldn’t be complaining How did you deduce this from my response? You keep responding with unrelated messages that have nothing to do with my responses. Your anger about your lack of casual sex has nothing to do with a woman who is interested in you later in life I never said that I am angry, never implied that all men are entitled to casual sex, but denying that women have an advantage there is straight-up dishonesty and gaslighting. I can be upset about this fact a…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 12:01 PM
5

It’s unfortunate but not every man is going to have hookups and if you’re entering a long term relationship that’s all you should be focused on Very easy to talk like that from a high horse. This is like a first-worlder telling a starving kid in Africa that "well, it's unfortunate that you are starving most of the time, but I don't eat pizza every day, so I guess we are even". I don’t think anyone’s truly settling Settling by definition implies that you are choosing a worse option out of existin…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/25 08:05 PM
8

What does your question have to do with my response? For women, it's was easier to have casual hook-ups with men way above their league. If a man wants to do that, he has to open his wallet or be very famous. I am just stating a fact that most women who go through their hook-up phase are going to settle for a guy who doesn't necessarily have the same skills as the hot guys, but has other boxes checked. Men don't have this luxury. They get what they can get.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/25 06:27 PM
5

Suffering from success.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/25 02:15 AM
1

I am only leaving my house to buy a course from you. I have always wanted to learn from ugly guys how to pull bitches.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/25 02:08 AM
7

It’s not always about looks. Unattractive guys pull bitches all the time Mind selling me a course on how to do that?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/25 02:04 AM
5

In the National Geographic narrator voice: "After a whole day of protecting women from predator males, a bear has to cope with his stress. He arrives at the yoga studio that will help him relieve his stress. This time, it seems that the job isn't over. The yoga studio has a bunch of predator males, too, who are camouflaged as metrosexual-looking homosexuals. It's an evolutionary trait allowing them to be sneaky and to get the trust of women. The bear is not going to allow that to happen."
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/25 01:46 AM
13

What about yoga-maxxing bears? Are they a safer bet?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/25 01:35 AM
16

Stopped reading after the first sentence. If requiring consistency is considered autistic, then I am autistic, I guess. This is your title I'm starting to believe that the "women are only attracted to the top 20% of attractive men" rule is only true for Autistic males This is the first sentence This belief that women only date the top 20% of attractive men in the general population is not only highly defeatist/pessimistic, but also absurdly incorrect Women can be physically aroused/attracted to …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/25 01:27 AM
1

The title says it all, if someone is boastful and rude Women are attracted to attractive men. Attractive men are perceived as confident. Unattractive men who have status are also perceived as confident. Unattractive men with no status are perceived as arrogant. The moral of the story: be attractive and have status, stop gaslighting people about confidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 05:38 PM
1

an average guy with great game will always outperform a natural chad with average game. Outperform in which arena? It's all a matter of how much effort you are putting into this thing. A Chad can scroll through his matches, call someone up for a hookup, and be done with that. Your average guy with "game" will have to approach 100s of women, get rejected 95% of the time, and luck out with the rest of them. You are delusional if you think that "game" is somehow equalizing anything. It's usually th…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 05:36 PM
2

women only go for top 10% men This is a broad statement that is not really aligned with reality. Most men are rated on 2 scales - the LTR scale (a responsible, boring husband type) and the STR scale (the hot guy that has sex without putting any effort). Most men, assuming they take care of their hygiene, have a social circle and a job, are going to score higher on the LTR scale (especially after their 30s). That's why most men end up in relationships. The catch here is that women who end up marr…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/25 09:41 PM
1

FYI, "This is not a court" is not a copout for illogical, feeling- based decisions. Acting irrational and having biases is generally discouraged in society.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/25 12:35 PM
1

Clearly - you have too - so insisting that someone needs to default “men good woman bad” isn’t a great mentality Notice how I didn't say the man was right or wrong, just that if you don't have evidence, you can't accuse him by default. I don't understand where you took the "men good woman bad" part from my posts. Seems like you are projecting your misandry. With regards to "people make judgement calls all the time", you are entitled to your judgement calls, and I will rightfully call you out for…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/25 12:33 PM
2

same with men who believe they’ve been led on or used Not sure what you mean by this. If a man tells you that he feels that he was used in his marriage after his wife files for divorce, are you just going to believe him? If no, then you should be consistent and do the same with women. Assume that by default, unless proven otherwise, nobody is at fault. That's how justice usually works, not based on feelings, but based on evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 10:58 PM
3

None of the points that I made were addressed. You just brought up an unrelated escort example that has nothing to do with my main point. This is the crux of my argument. If you are entertaining the idea of sex only under covert expectation of commitment, you are no better than a man who pays for a date expecting sex in return. If you have preconditions for sex, you have to voice them. If you don't do it and assume that the man is on the same page, then don't say that you got used. Had you expre…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 10:55 PM
1

Usually it’s her slowly finding out stuff after she’s already gotten emotionally invested. These situations can be mostly avoided if the man is properly vetted and your boundaries are explicitly communicated. There is social media, there are groups like "are we dating the same man", if he has weird dating patterns, has never been in any long-term relationships, has a sketchy past, it is very easy to weed out the player. But it’s also never entirely a victim’s “fault” that they got taken advantag…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 05:27 PM
2

You have no nuanced understanding of topics, of course, it's going to be a challenge for you to manipulate me. If you somehow pull it off, consider it the best achievement of your life.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 05:21 PM
1

The guy clearly led her to believe there was commitment while fully aware all the time he was not interested in that with her. And all that as a way to get sexual with her knowing she probably wouldn't want it if she knew he wasn't interested into committing to a relationship with her Unless you have ironclad, 100% proof that he was leading you on, you can't just assume that his initial intentions were faulty. In reality, unless the guy tells you or brags to others that he "smashed and dashed", …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 05:18 PM
2

My whole point is, again, leading people (men or women) on is wrong. For whatever gain you’re looking for. If you can agree with that right on. If you can prove you were led on, fair enough. But if your "proof" is "I feel like he did it", then that doesn't count. How do you know exactly that you were led on vs he genuinely liked you first and then changed his mind? If you are by default assuming that all men who refuse commitment are leading you on, you are the problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 05:13 PM
3

It’s unequal because it was given under false pretences and consent was conditional Very feminist of you to frame it as "I gave sex to him". Sex is something that happens to both of you, it's not something that you give to someone. If he has to pretend then it’s not equal exchange already The fact that you consented to sex already means that on some level you wanted to have it. If he was repulsive, you wouldn't have entertained the idea under any premises. That's the point. If you are entertaini…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 05:12 PM
1

I can bring an analogy that for example a man pretends to be your friend because you do something good or have access to something he likes, like I don’t know, you can vouch for him at your golf club. And as soon as you vouch he lost his interest in you. You would feel used because you did it under false pretences of being friends. Not all this bs you span here about being entitled to friendship, have no control over, using it as bargaining chips and so on. If you vouched for your friend under t…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 05:06 PM
9

This is the part that you probably missed And I will be telling men to be smarter about it, if it happens to you once, it's one thing, but "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me". While you can consider it morally wrong, there is also common sense that should be used. If you know that a particular neighborhood is dangerous, and you still go there and get robbed, you are partially responsible because you were informed. I do consider using men for foodie dates "wrong", but if, as …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 02:50 AM
3

the guy in question has a reputation for doing shitty things to other people too If it is widely known that the guy has a bad reputation, would you agree that, in that specific case, it's the woman's fault for choosing to engage with him despite knowing that he was an asshole to other people?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 02:47 AM
8

Of course he has a right to that, but he shouldn’t pretend otherwise before they have sex Not sure what do you mean by pretending? A guy can have sex with a woman, realize that they are not sexually compatible, and not commit to her. If you are going to say "he is lying", the burden of proof is on you to show that. In general, it's very hard to know people's intentions beforehand, but by saying that you have been used for sex you are implying that you know 100% that the guy was pretending. You c…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 02:45 AM
7

If someone shares their story and the guy clearly had asshole behavior, then yeah I’d agree with her that he had at least some fault. How do you know that? Based on her words only? Are you going to conduct an independent investigation?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 12:03 AM
11

Agreed, divorce rape is a pointless term. My advice to most men in the West is not to get married. At this point, given how much the pilloshphere has become part of the mainstream, as a man, if you "feel like you got divorce raped", I don't have any sympathy for you because you chose to be ignorant.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/25 11:07 PM
14

If there’s no good evidence of it then why would I agree with him? He can still feel however he wants about it though, he doesn’t have to care about my opinion. I have the same attitude towards women who say "I got used for sex". If I don't see any evidence besides "I feel like I was used", I am inclined not to take them seriously and don't have any sympathy for them. And they can ignore my opinion as well. Thanks for confirming that you agree with my post.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/25 11:04 PM
8

If a man feels like he was used by a woman, is he justified in saying that he was used by a woman despite the absence of evidence that he was taken advantage of?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/25 10:48 PM
10

Not it just implies that you felt taken advantage of women who attach sentimental feelings to sex Is a man who attaches a sentimental feeling to his marriage justified in saying that he got used like a wallet by a woman if she files for a divorce? The framing implies that you got nothing out of the experience which is not true, assuming sex was consensual.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/25 10:37 PM
20

Men can often lie about their feelings to get sex faster. The whole premise around "someone used me for sex" implies that you had no control over the situation (which you did unless someone had forced you to do it). If both parties had consensual sex, why is it framed as a zero-sum game loss on the part of the woman? The only women who view it as "he got sex" are the ones who did it without actually finding the man attractive, but expecting some kind of commitment in return for having sex. In th…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/25 10:25 PM
7

Is it fair? No, but we really need to put to bed this tired talking point about how women treat men they're attracted to vs. men they're not attracted to when men are no better in this regard. This talking point is brought up not to make men look "better". I do agree that most men, due to the nature of a free sexual marketplace, are going to have very few options and will have to act accordingly with the only women that they can get commitment from. Hypothetically speaking, if the same men were …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/25 07:15 PM
2

All because I was honest that he isnt the best I have ever had Are you that honest with him? Or only with random strangers on reddit? Again, has he read the thread at all? If he has read it, and he is fine, he is probably the type of dude that will agree to open relationships in the future as well. You think so because you are too insecure to handle being with a woman that doesn’t see you as the best thing ever in everything If your boyfriend treated you like a homely girlfriend material type, a…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/25 09:43 PM
1

My boyfriend is not going to personally comment to prove something to Reddit user 9546843 lmao. He thinks that I’m ridiculous for even going back and forth with you. He has nothing to prove to you and he doesn’t think that I do either Have you decided it for himself? Sounds like the kind of guy that would be fine with his girlfriend publicly telling other people that she has had better partners before. You are just so insecure that you think that not being the best automatically in someone’s eye…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 03:55 PM
1

However, this time you can’t infer that the answer is obviously yes? I didnt mention that he was next to me for no reason. Mentioning that he is next to you means nothing. He could be doing all kinds of shit without paying attention to what you are writing. If he actually has an account, he can come here and respond, and it's going to be the only 100% proof that he has actually read the whole thread. As for assumptions, if a man hears his girlfriend say "well, our sex life is fine , I definitely…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/25 10:45 PM
1

If that had been true, then the percentage of lonely people would've stayed the same from 1975 to 2025. But it hasn't. How do you objectively measure the percentage of lonely people? Do you have any studies that you are willing to share? My take is that men have always been alone, it's just in the past we didn't have online forums where lonely men could congregate and share their experiences.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/25 10:35 PM
1

Redpillers are giving shitty advice, too. If you need a step-by-step tutorial on how to be social, how to get friends, and how to date, you are already far behind. Most people learn these things in their formative years naturally. Furthermore the idea of not approaching whenever a man feels like it, is counterintuitive for the man's success How? What is success by your own definition? The party that approaches usually doesn't have an upper hand. That's why women almost never approach because the…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/25 09:19 PM
1

Why are you avoiding my question, though? Has he actually read the thread? I don't care if he is next to you doing his own thing. If he agrees with you, I don't think he would mind responding to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/25 11:45 AM
1

He thinks my subreddits are lame, but he can read my comments anytime. Would you be comfortable sharing this whole discussion thread with him where you state that you are not getting the most optimal sex, but he checks other boxes? Have you actually explicitly told him that?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 09:26 PM
0

My main issue is with the way you phrase things. You seem to be implying that all of your sexual incombatibilities are resolved and he has improved himself to the point where both of you enjoy things, but you still classify yourself as being in the second group. Also, if everything in bed is fine, why would you say that you don't care about optimal sex? Isn't what you have already optimal? This is the definition of the second group that you gave However, there are other women who are comfortable…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 01:26 AM
1

I do appreciate that you are very open about this. But I don't think that I agree with this part However I didn’t sacrifice that part of my life either because I voiced my displeasure, allowing us both to improve You gave him a chance which shows that you love him on a more personal level and that love isn't contingent upon his performance in bed, but you do admit that you still have sexual compatibility issues which means that you did actually sacrifice it. Not that it's wrong, it's just I don'…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 07:55 PM
1

You are still in the statistical majority, though. The majority of men are in the same boat. If you have to approach and be a clown monkey, it's already over. I have seen women approach men whom they are actually attracted to.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 07:46 PM
13

At least in blackpill/MGTOWish circles, it's more or less acknowledged that women are simply not interested in men. Yet, there is always some redpill grifter out there teaching men how to be "alpha" or "confident" to "get" the best women. There was a guy here preaching confidence who admitted that he approached 500 women and got rejected 95% of the time as if it is some kind of a badge of honor. Most men are better off just finding other copes to deal with their mundane lives instead of trying t…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 07:44 PM
1

It really depends on what matters the most to each person. So, in which category are you personally?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 07:38 PM
1

OP literally says he does the opposite. Whose personal anecdote is more relevant then? A bit of an anecdote, I am fortunate enough to have a period of glow up (no longer though), when I dated multiple women simultaneously over a period of a little under 2 years (majority hadn't made it to exclusivity talk)
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 11:47 PM
1

Your personal anecdote totally invalidates my point. Thanks for your contribution.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 11:40 PM
1

Women are saying that men (in general) lie about commitment to get sex, not just Chads. Yes, a lot of men lie because they are not attractive, but women aren't going to be FWBs with a guy they are not attracted to. So, his lying isn't going to be as effective because women aren't going to fuck them in the first place. The real question is if a woman fucks a guy she is not attracted to, what are her ulterior motives? Is she trying to lock down a betabux? What you and others don't understand is th…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 10:08 PM
1

You are asking why the law is written the way it's written. Because someone has proposed this law, and the democratic majority agreed that it's a good idea.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 07:06 PM
2

Finally, the day came, a post from Lilith that I partially agree with (but not for the reasons that she thinks I do). The "male loneliness" epidemic isn't a new phenomenon. Before the internet, this wasn't a topic being discussed. Here is a quote from Oscar Wilde. most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them The reality is, most men have always been historically alone. Society, for the most part, views you as a utility (whether you are a soldier dying …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 06:59 PM
60

Lol, the only legit response here. It's kind of funny how I tend to agree with blueps more than the redpill "confidence" types recently. If you have never been approached by a woman, you already have your answer, buddy: welcome to the bottom 90% club.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 06:47 PM
2

Here is a recent source 2022, about 38 percent of single mothers received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits; 14 percent received benefits from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and 85 percent received free or reduced lunch subsidies for their children. (see Figure 6) Seventeen percent received public housing subsidies, and 8 percent received rent subsidies. About 40 percent of single mothers were covered by Medicaid, the Ch…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 05:32 PM
4

I was expecting a comment like this. This is already happening (source). The most well-known aspect of the welfare system bearing on marriage and fertility is the set of of eligibility rules in the Aid to Families with Depandent Children (AFDC) program that result in a high concentration of single mothers among recipients, a relatively tiny fraction of married couples on the rolls, and no families or individuals without children (single mothers are defined as women with children under 18 in the …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 05:27 PM
5

In a legally recognized environment, the points that you bring up are valid. What we have right now cannot be rigidly classified as "monogamy" or "polygamy". If your argument is that women having multiple kids from multiple fathers isn't sustainable, I disagree. The kids can be raised by a "village", in this case, the "village" is the taxpayer base. In the near future, I definitely see a possibility that more taxes are going to be collected to support all the children who are not being supported…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 04:41 PM
1

You are entitled to whatever you want. Maybe remove dating/marriage from your priorities. As for myself, I did a long time ago, and I feel like I am more at peace with myself. I don't really hate anyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 04:34 PM
1

Which parts of Europe are we considering? I think London is going to be different from some ruralish European areas. I think it's more of urban vs rural things, rather than US vs Europe.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 04:30 PM
2

Holy shit, the only legit response here (no sarcasm). The whole point of being a "natural", is well, being a "natural". You can't fake being a "natural". If you have to, you are already setting yourself up for failure.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 10:56 PM
4

Do they complain to you? Or are you just telling them "that dude is creepy, you should avoid him". From my experience, when women complain in these instances, they are not really looking for advice, it's more of a way to vent out their frustrations. They are not looking for a constructive, logical, step-by-step solution that will help them avoid the same guys. The best you can do in such instances is to tell them "yeah, dating sucks" and move on.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 10:45 PM
3

If you are looking for dating advice, I would argue that you are already in a losing position. For most people, dating happens naturally, assuming they have a proper social circle and were properly socialized during their formative years. They don't need a step-by-step tutorial on how to meet people, how not be creepy, and how to talk to women. Almost any dating advice should be taken with a grain of salt, regardless of the gender. Here are examples of harmful pieces of advice from men: - "Men p…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 10:39 PM
4

Exclusivity is usually achieved very quickly in most of Europe. May I ask you how this works? It kind of blows my mind that you can just assume that both of you are exclusive without explicitly discussing it. Also, which parts of Europe are we talking about?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 10:29 PM
7

My response already describes which women I am referring to. I have had plenty of women here arguing with me that attractive men lie to get into their pants while these men literally don't have to. That's the point of my post. I never implied that all women are doing these things, if you don't fall under this category, there is no need to be snarky.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 10:27 PM
12

I thought everyone understood this implicitly, that dating is supposed to be experimenting. These women will tell incels that they are not entitled to sex just because they paid for a date (which I totally agree with), but then will complain about Chads not committing after they had sex with them, essentially implying that they are somehow entitled to commitment. Entitlement works both ways, sweety.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 02:52 PM
14

According to most women here, these 10% "Chads" are explicitly lying that they are going to commit and then leave them after sex. This is not what most of these guys do. In reality, this is what happens. Neither of the sides brings up exclusivity early on. As a woman, if exclusivity is so important to you, you can always explicitly bring it up and not fuck a dude who hasn't committed to you. But they won't do it. Why? Because, intuitively, they understand that the party that brings up exclusivit…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 02:16 PM
–

If you can't attract a woman based on your looks alone, you are pretty much going to be a full-time clown-entertainer during the relationship, regardless of whether you are extroverted or introverted. Your lack of looks has to be somehow compensated in other departments and you better be a good clown, otherwise why is she even with you? All the excuses for the lack of attraction are always going to be presented as "he wasn't social enough, he wasn't confident enough, he was boring, he wasn't fun…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 12:34 PM
–

Gold digging is not the same as being robbed I literally gave you an example of a guy getting fleeced in Columbia, how is that not robbery, lol? Women lure these guys, make them comfortable, poison them, and steal their shit. So many stories like this. A naive American tourist visiting a poor country hoping his dollars will make locals like them. Do these guys deserve to get what they get? I don't know, but going to some of the most dangerous places and expecting not to get hurt is ridiculous. G…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 07:04 PM
–

Yeah but clearly you feel more sympathy towards the players than the women getting played based on your vitriol And this is based on what? I said I would feel more sympathy towards a person who took more precautions vs the one who didn't which doesn't mean that I sympathize with the players/robbers. I still find this kind of behavior unethical, but there is a point where people should take some responsibility and not get into obvious traps (applied to both men and women). Also, apart from the fe…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 02:34 PM
–

What she’s saying is if a woman has expressed she is only interested in LTRs and you tell her what she wants to hear so you can have a steady supply of sex then it’s not she deserves that but that the guy is in the wrong here. We can argue what's right and wrong all the time. Is it wrong for a gold-digger to fleece guys? I have a more "full me once, shame on you, full me twice, shame on me" attitude (regardless of whether the subject is a man or a woman). Usually, it's very obvious when you are …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 01:07 PM
1

Oh, hello, Lilith. Most women date men who are uglier than them Can you even prove this? Or is this just anecdotal? Most women without makeup, push-up bras and high heels are going to be average looking. 80/20 study The 80/20 study is NOT about relationships, it's about casual situationships. You guys keep using this strawman a lot. 20% of guys are desired by most women but they are not going to get commitment from them. Women still message the guys they don't find attractive For what exactly? T…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/25 04:20 PM
0

Mostly every women will get played by a guy at some stage where she wants a relationship and love whereas the guy sees her as just for sex. She will end up feeling crazy, used and upset because some guy pretended to like her and played with her emotions just to use her body The kind of guy that you are willing to do all kinds of shit for is usually above your league (not necessarily Chad). If you are going to say "he was totes a nerdy loser", that's a coping "sour-grapes" mechanism, "I can't get…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/25 01:32 PM
–

Love exists Depends on how you define it. If you can't even define it, what are we even talking about? By the same logic, I can say "Santa" exists, but once asked for specifics, I say "you just have to feeeeel him". This is an emotional argument. Love is pretty much lust (hormones) + your emotional response to the persona that is being projected by that person. The fact that most couples divorce after 7-8 years on average shows that love is mostly a proxy for lust, it fades away after the hormon…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/25 10:13 AM
2

History's lesson seems to be that if a man's primary goal was to be exceptionally promiscuous, focusing on his looks would be the wrong strategy. He should focus on building status. Most men are not going to gain the kind of status to be able to hook up with supermodels for free. It's not a matter of skill/effort, you have to be incredibly lucky and rich to accomplish that. If your goal is to have sex with as many hot women as possible, you can always visit escorts. If you don't have the money t…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/25 09:28 PM
2

I agree confidence is nebulous and a sort of “I know it when I see it” sort of thing If something exists, you have to be able to rationally explain how it works. If you can't give one single behavioral example of confident behavior that works for everyone, then it's probably a proxy for something else (most probably your attractiveness and your perceived status). He’s throwing spaghetti at the wall, talking incessantly, and putting himself in situations no one wants him in. That isn’t confidence…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/25 08:45 AM
4

Sounds like a lot of people were truly in love with each other regardless of what they could provide or circumstances People certainly lusted for each other, no doubt about that. But was it the kind of love that OP describes? Kind of doubt that. However at the same time there's a lot of long lasting relationships full of people giving and taking, not actually liking the person Not sure whether I agree with this one. I remember a study that showed that only 2-3% of married couples reported that t…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/25 01:01 AM
1

It certainly destroyed our basic survival skills. Why wouldn't we've forgotten how to be communal and skillful at getting along? In the modern environment, you are not surviving anymore, that was my point. We have moved away from fighting natural disasters/predators to dominating the planet. In the modern civilized world, there is no need to be tribal to be physically protected. I think the popularity of Stoicism is evidence that things like altruism and self sacrifice can be learned after all, …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/25 12:58 AM
6

I guess we are moving into some other kinds of relationships dynamics, and maybe a new practicality where man and woman team up to procreate but separate when they aren't really feeling it anymore. My point is, we have always lived like this. Under certain cultures, people weren't allowed to divorce, but they actually wanted to. In the absence of external forces pushing people to stay together, they usually procreate and then part ways. This is the "natural default" so to speak.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/25 12:55 AM
13

I just don't share your utopian "let's just all hold hands and come together" message. The reality has always been grim. I don't really believe that the type of love you are talking about has ever existed. Relationships between people, especially between men and women, have always been transactional. Pretending that the modern world somehow "destroyed" love is a shortsighted take. I would argue that since most people nowadays have the most freedoms by historical standards, we are seeing what hap…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 10:50 PM
1

If being confident is behavioral, then there has to be a step-by-step way to show how it works for every guy. If ugly people doing the same thing isn't perceived as "confidence", then the whole thesis falls apart. If the perception of confidence hinges on you being attractive/having high status, then confidence doesn't really exist and cannot be replicated. OP is coping so hard pretending as if hard work allowed him to get 25 bodies while being rejected 475 times. If I were as desperate as him a…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 08:08 PM
1

Just to be clear, I don't really care either as long you just live your life. But once you people start coming here and preaching "game" and "confidence" as some kind of a solution, this is where it gets to me. You call yourself redpilled, yet you are the average beta that they contrast with Chads. Redpilled guys are usually against marriage and are spinning plates (assuming they have any options). You are the stereotypical beta that they talk about who gets rejected a lot in your 20s, and then …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 08:51 AM
–

Why do you care so much? After I exposed you as a simp, you think you can come back with "but you are an incel anyway"? Dude, I would rather stay single than be as desperate as you are. You are a classical, texbook, betabux normie: - Approached 500 women, got rejected 95% of the time - check - Got married in his early 30s, thinks that his confidence and self-improvement got his matches and his wife - check - Thinks that he is somehow better than some incels on the web - check What else have I mi…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 08:27 AM
2

Most of the behavioral things you described only work if the girl is already attracted to you (flirting, physical touch, dark humor, etc). Otherwise, it's harassment. A confident person will do what they know they can get away with So having basic common sense that all people do is now considered confident? Lol, you guys will take some of the basic shit that average dudes do anyway and call it "confidence". You are basically saying "just stay in your lane bro" and then framing it as if it is "co…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 08:23 AM
3

It doesn't seem that they punish for being blackpilled. Join the dark side.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 08:08 AM
1

If it's not 100% looks then you should be able to explain all other components, referring to a vague term without being able to explain it doesn't help your case. You are giving a self-referencing definition "someone is confident because they are confident".
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 03:37 AM
1

OK, so I am going to stop engaging here because you are clearly arguing to argue. I gave you a study, you are giving anecdotal examples. From the same study: Time made the effect of good looks among detailers less dramatic. Where the length of the relationship was "relatively short" — one standard deviation below the mean of 1.13 years — the market share changes by 2.94 percent for each 1-unit change in attractiveness rating. Also, the percentage is for 1 unit change in attractiveness, so going …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 03:32 AM
4

Thanks for confirming that you don't know what you are talking about. "Just become more confident, bro"
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 03:22 AM
2

But no I cannot give some sort of step by step guide to what confidence looks like or how it translates to being attractive, I doubt anyone could truly do that honestly. I also never said anything is 100% behavioral in fact I said the opposite? So confused by that question. If you believe that an AFC can become more attractive by becoming more confident, you should be able to describe how to do that. If it's not behavioral, then what is it exactly? If it's mostly behavioral, you should be able t…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 03:13 AM
4

Or are you claiming that every smooth-talking salesman/conman is an attractive looking individual? Not much more than the general population imo, but they are good at appealing to your emotions and acting in a way conducive to them Most successful salesmen that I see are conventionally attractive. It's part of the "magic". This is AI -generated but can be verified independently: The "Halo Effect": Attractive individuals are often perceived as having other positive qualities, such as competence a…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 03:08 AM
3

Like most men are not either super physically beautiful or super physically ugly to begin with, so it’s not bad advice for your AVERAGE frustrated chump. The argument isn't strictly about hot guys who are very rare. If a guy is 2 points above your league, you are still going to be attracted to him, he doesn't need to be hot for that. What is an example of a "confident" behavior from an AFC? Can you give a step-by-step example of a confident behavior vs the type of behavior that wouldn't be consi…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 03:00 AM
2

This discrepancy is why, every year, confident first-timers go on to be good and selfless lovers who are frequently invited back by the women they are sleeping with for repeat performances in the bedroom, while the same people continue to complain, year after year, about their lack of experience holding them back, to the point they're legitimately afraid of when sex even comes up in conversation, if they're even dating someone. I will need some evidence for the bolded statement. Most posts on re…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 02:49 AM
–

OP admitted that he approached 500 women, lol. A confident, reserved person won't do that, only desperate simps (aka redpillers) are approaching 500 random women. Also, he is a "married redpill man". This guy's picture should be used to describe the word oxymoron in the dictionary.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 02:26 AM
6

If you say "I am confident if I try something new, I will succeed", it's not confidence, it's arrogance. If you haven't done something before, how do you know that you will succeed? Only arrogant people have this kind of reasoning. I don't need to have done that exact skill, or have met those exact people, or have been in that exact setting to feel confident about myself and my ability to succeed at something given my combination of effort and competence. Don't you see the contradiction, though?…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 02:24 AM
5

So, I was trying to joke here, but you actually approached 500 women to get success? Lol. You do realize that due to the sheer number of people you approached, you most probably lucked out. 500 women? I don't think I even know that many people. You are out of your mind if you think that this is a viable strategy.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 01:37 AM
3

So, you are in your 20s, and already married in the US? 25 different women, at a 5% conversion rate, means that 475 women rejected you. This is what desperate simps do. Approach hundreds of women so that at least some of them will tell them yes. And you will also marry the first one who is more pleasant to you and doesn't require too much simping because again, you are desperate as fuck. You have a lot to learn, man. You are a classical betabux/offie-doofie in the making.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 01:33 AM
5

No, it's acting in a way that's congruent with the emotions, attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors of those in the room with you OK, you do realize that emotions, attitudes, and thoughts are guided by the way people perceive you, right? Or are you going to deny that your attractiveness plays a role? It doesn't matter how attractive or well-liked you are, if you continue making jokes about raping somebody's sister, you're going to get decked Now you are taking things to the extreme, I never said he …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 01:23 AM
5

But what about pushing the boundaries, though? Maybe you didn't try hard enough, maybe you should have approached 500 people instead of 100. Are you a quitter?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 01:15 AM
3

"Married red pill man". Got you. So you are out of the game, but you are here to teach lonely incels that they need to be confident. Also, how old are you? If it has been a while, I am assuming you are in your mid-30s, the dating game back then was waaay different without social media and the smartphone. Just because you lucked out here and there doesn't mean it's your strategy helping you. You claim 5% which are the numbers that some of the best PUAs are also claiming. How do you know that it w…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 01:14 AM
5

OK, and? What if you try really hard, and all people around you tell you to lower your intensity? Are you going to go back to not being intense?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 01:11 AM
7

Instead, being socially adept will net you better results across the board regardless of your attractiveness. I don't think we disagree here. If you think about it more, you will realize that "being socially adept" is more equivalent to "act according to how you are perceived by others". Again, I have seen men who do the same shit that this guy does, and they don't get in trouble, and people don't complain. They are still universally liked by everyone despite their "goofy" behavior. Are these pe…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 01:08 AM
3

What do you mean by "success"? Going on dates? Having sex? I am assuming you like doing PUA shit, so what is the percentage of women that you fuck after initially meeting (doesn't have to be on the same day, or on the first date)?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 01:05 AM
3

What is your measurement of success then? He hasn't hooked up with anyone as far as I am aware. Plenty of women were talking about how he pushes hard, some girl almost wanted to report him to HR. If you are ugly, you should act according to your looks: don't try to take much space and don't annoy other people. Otherwise, people will quickly remind you that you have to stay in your lane.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 12:56 AM
14

While I don't deny that he is being socially retarded, there are way attractive men who can do the same thing, and it won't be considered creepy by other people (have seen it happen multiple times). Women will find these men's jokes funny and he will be considered "goofy" instead of "creepy". The point is, if you are going to argue that "just act according to how you look like", then the confidence argument just doesn't hold up. If your behavior has to match what you look like, then it's not abo…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 12:53 AM
3

Their "niche" are women who are below their league by at least 2 points. But then they could get the same women by just acting like normal human beings. But in that case, the redpill dating coaches won't be able to sell you a course on how to be more confident, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 12:43 AM
9

As for your friend, what you're telling me is that he's trying to do things beyond what he has the capacity to do. But even by your own scenario, the guy would be the same -if not worse- if he didn't actually talk to people and remained quiet and isolated. If he didn't talk to people and was chill like me, he would have had more success. At least people wouldn't be annoyed by him. Most of you guys are so predictable with your arguments. "Of course he was ugly, he needed to be more attractive". N…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 12:42 AM
12

Confidence is attempting things you can actually pull off. Then it's meaningless because you don't need confidence to do things that you can already do. If I can do something, I am already confident that I can do something, not the other way around. Why I am confident? Because I have already done it before. Why have I already done it before? Certainly not because I was confident, maybe I had some knowledge.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 12:38 AM
32

Most people can do a backflip. It's not very physically demanding, and it's not hard to actually pull off. The instructions are simple as fuck: Jump back at about a 15º angle, tuck your knees against your chest, and then look at the floor and put your feet there. 99% of the difficulties of a backflip are mental limitations. Lack of confidence. Fear of failure. I am pretty sure, without external assistance and precautions, the average person who is not exercising regularly will break their back w…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/25 11:48 PM
2

And it happens all the time to all sorts of women, because the reality is, women are just better looking than men on average Women are better looking because they are allowed to fraud their looks as much as possible. If all men were allowed to fraud with makeup, high heels, right clothing, there wouldn't be any difference. They are judged by their looks more harshly, and put more effort into their appearance. There is literally a fat acceptance movement that only applies to women, but not men. O…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/25 01:49 AM
1

I was out of his league by far. Next you'll tell me I'm lying, or I overestimate my looks. Sure, cause the whole "man of the year" trend on tiktok is false, and never has there ever been a shitty ugly loser guy treating a woman out of his league poorly. And all women who say they had a situation like that are lying. Is this a one-time thing, or does this happen consistently? If all the guys that you have sex with treat you like a short-term fling, then they are above your league. If you are goin…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/25 10:10 PM
1

In redpill circles, gym-going is done to improve physical appearance, the ultimate goal isn't good health, is to build a six-pack and muscles so that you can then wear tight shirts to emphasize your physique. Getting better health was never the ultimate end goal, you can be more or less active by running/jogging, cycling, swimming, but in these cases you are not really going to get that "alpha man" physique. Our grandparents didn't focus on the superficial aspects, that was my point. If you are …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/25 08:49 PM
1

You seem to be agreeing with them. If you don't agree with them, why are you using their talking points? I have my fair share of disagreements with them and don't use the talking points that I disagree with.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/25 03:30 PM
1

It was a tool to help you become a better man, not to sit in self-loathe and self-pity but to realize that nobody is coming to save you Which is the criteria for a "better" man? Is it based on how women perceive you? The reality is that most of your grandparents didn't rot in the gym so that they could "feel" confident. They had other meaningful activities beyond surface-level "I am going to look like a Greek God to feel confident". This whole "just build your empire bro" kind of attitude is a s…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/25 03:00 PM
7

As soon as you look around and see who is dating who. People on average date and marry within their own status The 80/20 is mostly applied to situationships/genuine desire, not relationships. Most guys don't check the box for casual FWB type, they have to do the standard courting while some other guys just have sex without any upfront investment. Nobody denies the fact that most women will eventually settle down. In before you tell me this is some kind of a conspiracy, this is the first post on …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/25 11:11 PM
8

The reality is they are willing to "risk" it for the attractive types, and they will tolerate all kinds of minor and even major BS from the right guy (hence "the bar is on the floor" rhetoric) but when it comes to men on their own level, the guy has to be perfect to a tee, no imperfections, even the smallest misstep is seen as "mistreatment". He has to know his place as an asexual emotional tampon.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/25 10:33 AM
–

Most women here think that saying that "nerds can be assholes" is some kind of a gotcha. It's all about the odds and probabilities; just because exceptions exist, doesn't mean, in general, introverted, shy men are as likely to mistreat a woman as some cocky fuckboy. It's a coping mechanism on women's part to say "he was a nerdy loser anyway" after she got pumped and dumped despite the fact that the guy could very well be above her league. Most women don't know how to rate themselves. If a guy is…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/25 09:03 AM
2

Instead, culture needs to shift so that having multiple men is seen as a conquest. A status symbol. A sign of success. Conquest implies that whatever is being conquered has some intrinsic value. Most men are not intrinsically valuable. "Men are human doings, women are human beings". I don't want to dismiss the whole point, though. I do agree that men should stop looking at getting into relationships as some kind of a conquest. It shouldn't be viewed from the perspective of "I got a girlfriend", …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/25 12:07 AM
–

And if your personailty and everything else is good then people will gladly make you ltr partners. This is an oversimplification of the main argument. Take the average beta Billy with a good personality and a heart of gold. In his 20s, he has been told on numerous occasions that, on paper, he is the perfect partner, but they are not feeling the spark for him. In the meantime, the same women would go for hotter, better-looking cocky guys while also telling him that one day he is going to be a goo…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/25 07:13 PM
1

Somewhere you were sold a lie that you could have it all, that's just not how life works. Ideally we have equal opportunity but that's not how things work. Don't become entitled because of egalitarianism. Operate from a position of gratitude, including gratitude for the hardship so you can learn, improve, see more of yourself. That's part of being blackpilled, though. No one is entitled to anything, but I categorically refuse to accept that my hardships are somehow meaningful. I don't subscribe …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 08:53 PM
2

Thanks for the kind words
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 04:06 PM
2

Why is it hard for you to use the little time you have and put effort into social/group-hobby/dating? Because after a 9/5 you just don't have enough energy left. Also, most people aren't enthusiastic about meeting a random guy. Had I had even 10% of the halo that most women have by default, I would have been more enthusiastic, but grinding to build relationships nowadays seems like a waste of time. Most men aren't your bros and will ghost you whenever they don't benefit from you. And if you're a…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 04:04 PM
3

Why is it held over our heads and used as a threat? I do agree that it's silly to present it as a threat. A threat is something that usually has tangible, real-life consequences. From my perspective, the more guys decenter women and start dating AI/robots, the less unwanted attention most women are going to get. Looks like it's a win-win for both parties. Also, there is this misconception that women aren't using ChatGPT to create customized love partners. I recently read an article on how a marr…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 02:37 PM
4

I am a "modern" stereotypical STEM loser with no social life. Because of circumstances outside of my control, during my formative years, our family moved around a lot, and on top of that, we were also poor. Needless to say, I didn't socialize a lot. I had to grind for years to get a profession in STEM. Had to work and study at the same time, no time for socializing and forming relationships with people. I have never had my "fun" phase. Nowadays, I earn enough money so that I live separately, and…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/25 06:56 PM
4

This was your question did he lie? I see lots of men hiding their political views exactly because women do not want to date conservatives. This was the part of my response answering your question Lying happens, but plenty of these men have active social media presence and will not hide their support for certain right-wing politicians. It's very easy to vet them out, assuming you are interested in doing that instead of wanting to enjoy sex with a hot guy. Then you asked this so we're talking hypo…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/25 03:59 PM
9

Not sure what you are expecting from me, a step-by-step tutorial on how to vet someone for personal compatibility? If you have his social media, you can do it fairly quickly. If you meet him at least once, ask him the right questions and observe the responses, you will be able to determine whether he is politically aligned with you or not. Or, if you can't do this, I have a course on "how to spot a redpill/conservative guy in 69 easy steps". It costs only 699.9$, this offer is limited, hurry up!…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/25 03:50 PM
13

did he lie? I see lots of men hiding their political views exactly because women do not want to date conservatives. Many Chadfishing experiments were done with guys having Nazi tattoos, claiming that they like age gap relationships, these men have no issues getting matches on dating apps. In real life, it is very easy to gauge whether someone has the same political views as you. Lying happens, but plenty of these men have active social media presence and will not hide their support for certain r…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/25 03:09 PM
24

And on the other hand, when women turn to feminism and try to make programs ‘teaching boys to be ashamed of their masculinity’ (teaching them not to be menaces to society), refuse to date Trump supporters, wont date bigots, the MeToo movement, cancelling men they find to be awful, etc. then the reaction is “YOU GUYS ARE INSANE! None of this will work and will drive men to the redpill!“ I don't think anyone here shames women for dating and fucking leftist, anti-Trump men. The real disconnect is w…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/25 01:54 PM
1

Had you said "LTRs are not natural and have to be enforced", I would have agreed. Both men and women have natural tendencies that make LTRs hard to maintain. That's why, historically, if a society needed to enforce order, they had to appeal to God and introduce very strict rules on which kind of conduct was acceptable for both men and women. As we move away from religion to a postmodern "everything goes" world, we see these natural tendencies manifest themselves again, and LTRs aren't on the tab…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/25 12:57 PM
–

Not sure what's the point of this question if you are not coming with an open mind. No amount of personal anecdotes will convince you anyway. This is how it usually goes: "Tell me about your experience that I am going to dismiss as a personal anecdote anyway, but go on" * People here tell about plenty of real-life stories showing women in a bad light "Damn, I am so sorry that happened to you. Some people are shitty. Good luck!" What is being accomplished here? Is there a threshold where you woul…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/25 10:30 PM
0

You have issues with reading comprehension. I have never suggested that men will do it , but had they wanted to, they would have done it a long time ago because women are certainly not gonna stop them. That was the whole point. You exist due to the mercy of women. Only in your stupid fantasies, I acknowledge that my rights are also protected by other men. It's so hilarious that you cannot even acknowledge a basic observable reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/25 05:44 PM
2

Men are enforcing the laws whether you like it or not. And no, I am not fantasizing about some takeover with Sharia law, I like the freedoms that I have, and I don't want to enslave anyone. But what I am saying is still descriptively true: women are at the mercy of men when it comes to law enforcement, whether you like it or not. If you don't agree with this, you will have to provide counter-evidence. The majority of soldiers and police officers are men, this is verifiably true. Also realistical…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/25 12:00 AM
2

Well, how did people practically implement the shift around people's perception of let's say drugs? I don't think this is a good example, I hardly ever see drugs mentioned in a positive light in any context. Reddit doesn't count, this is not where most normies are hanging around. Most people like you always talk about educating people, but you are going to find a lot of people who are not interested in learning. Humans, in general, take the path of least resistance. That's why I asked you how fa…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/25 11:45 PM
3

Technology exists Is "technology" going to mediate the sex disputes? How is this going to happen in your fantasy? this "argument" (violent fantasy) is so tired This is not a fantasy, this already happened in Afghanistan, most women weren't physically hurt, they just went in line. No one suggested that any mass-scale violence is going to be committed.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/25 09:33 PM
8

I think we need better balance. I know that's gonna be uber-vague for a lot of you, but at the end of the day, I think most of it comes down to culture and literally just how we phrase things and what kind of stories we tell. The real question is how far are you willing to go to enforce it. Let's say you come up with common cultural values that everyone should abide by: what happens to people who are not willing to be part of that? Are you going to say "well, that's their personal choice" and mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/25 09:25 PM
0

If it helps you sleep better.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/25 09:15 PM
1

By who?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/25 08:43 PM
0

Besides when my husband and I were young we waited tables. We partied all the time. Lots of fun drugs, parties, etc. We were broke but just lived it up. And now we are normal responsible adults This response shows how out of touch you are, you could afford to be broke, party, and things still worked out for you because the economic conditions were better for you. You can't build a career nowadays if you are partying, taking drugs, etc. The competition is tougher, the employment marketplace is br…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/25 06:43 PM
-2

Men don’t have the monopoly on force. Then who has it? Bears from the outer space? You guys never realize that your rights too could be stripped. By who? It doesn't matter whether you like this or not but most of your rights are enforced by men. If you are claiming otherwise, you are delusional. Also, my point wasn't about "we are enforcing your rights so you better be thankful". It was related to the point that OP made about men wanting this patriarchal setup. If men actually wanted to have pat…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/25 05:43 PM
7

Relationships between men and women have always been transactional. The idea that now we have real, unconditional relationships is naive. Just because you don't need a financial provider, doesn't mean you are not looking for other conditions to be met before you date someone (attraction to their looks, status, etc). The difference between now and patriarchal times is that women are allowed to set a price themselves instead of their fathers/relatives doing that. If you go on a dating app and writ…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/25 03:36 PM
-2

if you're going to try and appeal to "old = lame", at least get your generalizations correct. Dismissing my overall point on a technacility like this is disingenuous. Also, I didn't write 40, I wrote 40+ which includes 40-year-old people and older. Your case might be an exception. You seem to be suggesting that your husband is a musician, not sure what your profession is, but you don't seem to be experiencing financial hurdles. If you have plenty of free time to argue on the internet with some r…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 09:15 PM
-2

So, I got a bunch of replies from 40+ year old people or people who know 40+ year old people who managed to have an "interesting" life while having a family. I thought this was obvious, but using rich or upper-middle class boomers to prove a point is ridiculous. Yes, your boomer dad could work in a factory, have a paid house, not have crazy student loans, support a family of 3, and also play golf at the same time, a shocker. If you haven't noticed, the economy is way harder. You need two people …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 07:00 PM
24

I don't care about the underlying mechanisms making women more attracted to tall men (that are most probably rooted in our barbaric past), I am sick of post-hoc rationalizations trying to justify these simple monkey brain responses as something virtuous. Men have shallow preferences (that are also based on certain aspects related to breeding and the survival of the offspring), women have shallow preferences. There is no need to pretend as if female preferences are more "moral" and "justified".
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 04:31 PM
1

If anything besides working/housework counts as not being boring (even some of the most mundane things that everyone does), than watching anime is also not boring and is in fact more outside of the box.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 04:13 PM
1

They don’t have time to hang out with their kids at home? Strange, considering they all literally live together but ok. They don’t even really have to do anything super hard or time-consuming, they can literally just watch a movie. You’re trying to tell me you’re married friends don’t have time to watch a movie with their own kids? If that’s the hill you’re choosing to die on, ok. So, watching movies together is now considered not boring, lol? OK, so the bar is that low that anything besides wor…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 04:12 PM
0

Playing video games, playing a sport, making dinner together, reading together, watching a movie. These things do not, by definition, become boring just because other people do them. No, I am not trolling. All the stuff that is listed there is boring. Once you do them enough, it becomes monotonous. You just arbitrarily decided that "going to work" and doing housework is boring, but cooking and watching TV isn't. These are all monotonous things that will happen over and over again so yes, they ar…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 04:06 PM
0

I haven't moved the goalpost at all. You keep mentioning some of the most average things that married couples do (cooking, watching shows, gardening, etc). These are not outside of the box interesting "hobbies", if this is as common as you say it is, it doesn't make you more special to do those things, you are just settling into monotonous existence that includes those things that others are also doing. I don't see how cooking, watching shows makes you an interesting person.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 04:01 PM
0

How does spending time with your kids make you less boring? The original point was about having a boring personality. If every couple is doing the same thing with their kids, it is by definition going to be boring, monotonous things that you are doing, nothing outside of the box.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 03:59 PM
1

do DIY projects (tbh if you own a house and aren't wealthy it's essential to learn to do these things), cook for their families or watch shows/read books Watching shows, reading books and cooking is considered a non-boring hobby? If it is as prevelant as you say it is, to the point that you are not that different from other couples, then all of you are doing the same mundane things which makes you boring. You haven't mentioned anything outside of the box.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 03:57 PM
1

Good, what makes you interesting? So far you have described your husband's interests but what do you personally bring to the table in terms of hobbies?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 03:52 PM
2

OK, and I know a family who can't. The real question is whether this is realistic for the average married couple with kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 03:49 PM
0

You are talking in hypotheticals as if you have personally experienced it. You haven't responded whether you have kids or not. Most married couples that I personally know who have kids don't have time for all the fun you are talking about, especially in this economy. There is a difference between dating someone for fun vs being in a committed relationship with kids and all kinds of responsibilities.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 03:45 PM
0

It all sounds fun until kids enter the scene. In a husband/wife dynamic I am assuming you are going to have kids to take care of.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 03:42 PM
0

Do you have kids though? If you are not planning to have kids, then your disagreement is pointless, you are just dating and having fun.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 03:41 PM
0

Weekend trips with the kids The original point was about the personality of the partner, how does going on weekend trips make you less boring? This is literally what a lot of couples do. Cooking new dishes for the family to try, trying a new hobby out of your comfort zone, DIY projects, home improvements/projects, binge watching a foreign show, learning a new skill. Do you really believe that a married man is going to have the time for all of this? This doesn’t have to happen everyday but once i…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 03:39 PM
-1

If it is that easy, then enlighten me. Give me an example. You keep pretending as if it's so obvious, but you haven't come up with a single example yet.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 03:34 PM
3

Can you, please, engage here? https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1mbib96/comment/n5mh8um/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Someone else already said the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 03:31 PM
1

Can you give an example of a fun and interesting person who simultaneously has to have a 9/5 job, work at least 40 hours a week, do housework, take care of the kids, etc. I am assuming this is not a short fling, you are in a committed relationship with the kind of responsibilities that most couples have.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 03:30 PM
7

I do have my fair share of disagreements with trads, too. I don't believe that most women nowadays want a provider or a protector. Given that most women earn their own money, they want a young, hot, adventurous guy to have fun with (especially during their early 20s). After a certain age, the preferences might shift towards more stable, "boring" types, but these guys are not protectors or providers either.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 03:19 PM
-2

Aren't these the qualities that would make a stable, committed, responsible husband? Assuming he has to be in a relationship with you, do his fair share of housework, have a reasonably paying job, and take care of the kids as much as you do, doesn't it mean that his behavioral patterns are going to be more or less monotonous? I don't really see how this person can be less monotonous given that he is going to be busy 24/7? EDIT: editing this for future viewers. According to most women who disagre…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 03:17 PM
58

It's another way to justify a shallow preference by hiding behind a virtuous reason. The reality is, both men and women are attracted to each other based on shallow reasons. Men are more or less open about it, but women are still trying to have the moral high ground and pretend they are all above their monkey brains. Just to be clear, I do believe people are entitled to have their preferences, no matter how shallow they are. But these arguments talking about protection are ridiculous. Most tall …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 02:45 PM
2

I think that the majority of mistreatment that does happen happens between average men and average women You have a very vague definition of mistreatment that ranges from "he left the toilet seat up" to "he cheated on me". If you include every action that gives you a minor discomfort as part of your definition, then yes, most of the "mistreatment" will happen by average guys. This is not some kind of a gotcha, your definition is just too wide. Average men take their partners for granted too, if …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/25 02:32 PM
1

If the majority of women aren't being mistreated by their average partners, then what's the point of your original post? Are there going to be bad apples here and there? Sure. You are smart enough to know that. My point with regards to leagues still stands. A man who is way out of your league will generally take you for granted, and you will feel like you are putting more effort than he does.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 11:49 PM
1

The point is if a woman chooses to stay with an average man who mistreats her, she is either not noticing the mistreatment (which means that it happens secretly) or likes the trade-offs that the relationship offers. In the last case, she can still complain, but to call it "mistreatment" is an overreaction. The whole "secretly mistreating" part was an implication that was made from other things that you have said. Since you have already decided to respond in a hostile manner, I don't see a reason…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 11:31 PM
10

Men aren’t prevented from being in HR. But it seems there are barriers preventing women from reaching the position of CEO. I haven't seen any evidence suggesting that female CEOs aren't welcome. I am actually curious as to why you have that feeling.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 11:18 PM
1

The majority of average women are in relationships with average men. The majority of women's relationship complaints are about average men. So, on the one hand, women have a choice and choose to be with their partners, but on the other hand, the majority of the male partners are secretly mistreating them? That doesn't sound contradictory at all. Also, you have a very vague definition of mistreating. Just because women complain about certain topics, doesn't mean they feel mistreated. No human is …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 11:15 PM
8

I don't know. Why are women overrepresented in HR positions? Why are Jews overrepresented in most influential positions? I don't think the answer is "there is some grand conspiracy in play".
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 11:06 PM
20

Those statistics are certainly true, but I notice men often don’t go into the context of it… Kind of ironic that feminists don't consider context either when constructing their arguments in favor of "female oppression" and talking about equity that is based on concentrating on outcomes without looking at the whole context. Example, "Women aren't CEOs at the same rate as men". The reality "Being a CEO is a tough position that most people aren't willing to take, just because the very few people wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 10:44 PM
5

Have you genuinely never seen average men mistreat average women? There are very few things in life that happen 100% of the time. The only thing that is guaranteed is death. Let me ask you this question: are you more likely to be robbed in a safe neighborhood or in a neighborhood that has a reputation for robbery? Almost any sane person will choose the former option. Does it mean that robberies in safe neighborhoods don't happen? No, but it's more likely that you will be safer there. It's the sa…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 09:44 PM
6

And then there is the whole loneliness male epidemic My speculation is that the male loneliness epidemic started after the destruction of extended families and a general move towards individualistic society. Social media also put the nail in the coffin. Contrary to what most so-called "trads" believe, extended families were the norm before, and the nuclear family was a new invention. In an extended family, as a man, you don't usually feel alone because you are surrounded by your relatives (regar…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 01:55 PM
1

We've already established that the study is wrong so I'm not sure why you're referencing it again. Again, I don't agree with you on this one, you have to present more arguments than "I don't agree with the way they selected the sample" It is a random sample of OnlyFans subscribers and we have a lot of male subscribers, so... But apparently, you have already made up your mind, so we are at an impasse here. Even if the average married OF user was against prostitution I find it unlikely they'd be a…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/25 07:53 PM
1

I can concede that my original point wasn't fully accurate. It should have been phrased more along the lines of "most men in relationships/marriages that speak out against prostitution are going to be OnlyFans users themselves". I don't agree with dismissing the whole study based on the assumption that the sample might not accurately represent the total population. They have randomly chosen OnlyFans subscribers, and most of the chosen people were either married or in a romantic relationship. If …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/25 07:35 PM
1

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dinner-party-smart/202308/men-subscribing-to-onlyfans-are-not-who-you-might-think After surveying 335 men and 383 women ages 18 to 71, researchers found that subscribers, on average, were 63 percent male, 68 percent white, and 89 percent married The 89% percent married includes both men and women, but it would be logical to assume that it is mostly men. Now, I don't know the exact number, but I don't think assuming that it is >50% is unrealistic. Also, it …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/25 05:34 PM
2

I did some self-reflection and came to the conclusion that I had unrealistic expectations about relationships. I am probably on the autism spectrum, and my personality isn't everyone's cup of tea. I don't blame women for not liking my personality. I don't think I could be an LTR, I like my solo life. But thanks for the kind words.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/25 04:15 PM
2

And why would I be awful to someone especially the one I really like? Not sure where I suggested that you should have mistreated him. You admitted that you were crushing on him, but for whatever mystical reason you didn't show any signs. But at the same time, you were anticipating that they were going to approach. Pretending that you didn't want to ruin the friendship is cope: it was more about "he is a man, he should approach, otherwise, I am going to lose the upper hand". You chickened out and…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 06:31 PM
3

Personally, I think I hid the spark damn well. I probably would have gone out with them if they had asked me out, but I tried to hide my feelings to the best of my abilities. This part right here completely invalidates your original point. The fact that you were interested in him but did your best to hide your feelings kind of implies that having an upper hand in the relationship was more important to you than getting into a relationship with him. The whole thing sounds like a chicken game of "w…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 05:56 PM
16

This is what I would call getting "betabuxx" attention. Most women start looking for a steady, stable, ooff-doofy because the alternative is being alone. So all of the nerds who were ignored in their 20s will start getting more attention, assuming they start dressing well, grooming, and sending signals that they are financially responsible. A story from my life. A single mom who preemptively friendzoned me at the workplace, suddenly started talking to me after 5 years. I wasn't trying to hit on …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 04:39 PM
2

Sounds like a good recipe for being perpetually single. If you think forming new social circles is that easy, especially after your mid-20s, you are delusional. I just wanted to confirm that you don't have any practical solutions that work within reasonable timeframes.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 04:25 PM
4

Guys here seem to believe the "oh wow" can disappear very easily, but I actually think that's when you "give it a chance" at a neutral stage. There is a very small window where you are supposed to act perfectly not to fuck things up before she assumes that you are not interested. It's very easy to talk about this from a female perspective because you are in the position of receiving the approach. Had you been in the position of the pursuer, you would have understood that it's not as easy as it s…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 04:23 PM
3

OK, so you get your first rejection and then do what? Find a new social circle just so that you can approach another woman? It might take decades before you find a person interested in you if you give up after the first rejection and start looking for other social circles.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 04:09 PM
–

I won't be able to back up everything with peer-reviewed studies right away, but here is the list: - A significantly higher percentage of men are single than women. - After graduation, women are hired at a higher rate than men (will find the study and post it here, saw it circulating recently). - The number of NEET men is increasing (compared to NEET women). - The whole messaging around "the future is female", "women only coders", DEI hiring practices, deliberately hiring women in tech and white…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 04:04 PM
1

The overwhelming majority of men advocating against sex work are not purchasing OF content. I didn't suggest that, there is definitely an overlap, though. The ones who are against it are usually religious, I am not talking about the "live and let live" crowd who don't mind other people doing it but won't do it themselves, we are talking about the ones who actively want to ban it. These are mostly religious men. If anything, the type of women who oppose OF and consider themselves feminists do so …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 03:51 PM
4

While I do agree that cold approaching is not effective, warm approaching has it's own can of worms. If you have a social circle consisting of both men and women, and you get rejected by one of the women, she is most probably going to tell other women about your rejection, and that will automatically reduce your "rating" in their eyes. So, it turns into a "poisoned well". You cannot approach any women in the same social circle anymore. The situation is even worse: if a new woman is introduced to…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 03:37 PM
6

I remember telling him it's kind of weird for relationships to have 10 year age gaps Saying that something is "weird" isn't a valid debating argument. If you respect the freedom of choice, there is nothing wrong with age gap relationships between adults. If you are going to argue that these marriages do not last long, you have to have studies showing that. As far as I am aware, there are no studies that can pinpoint a single factor that contributes to failed marriages. For the most part, I am in…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 06:19 AM
11

why do men push this “Nice-guy” narrative and tell women we should choose them when not even other men view them as competitors? While some men do push this narrative, I disagree with them. Women should choose whatever they want based on whatever they find attractive. A man who couldn’t even protect himself and his woman in a fight for their lives? Why should women chose that? If you are a loser to other men you think women won’t pick up on that? Or even want nothing to do with that? Be a man!!!…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/25 03:30 AM
5

It was never about the safety of sex workers. I see 2 types against sex work: - Religious conservative dailywire talking head followers talking about how harmful it is and also bragging about the fact that they provide for their SAHMs, which, if you think about it, is covert prostitution. Most of these guys are the same people who are subscribed to OnlyFans accounts because their wives don't even give them intimacy, so they are huge hypocrites anyway. - Some leftist feminists (not all) who deep …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/25 05:17 PM
11

Good luck convincing most men to do that. I was recently accused of being a "simp" because I suggested that the term "getting a woman" is pointless because no men actually get women like they used to before. It wasn't suggested in a simpy way defending maladies, it's just a fact that a lot of guys don't want to admit because it hurts their egos No matter how much people talk about pills, there is always the element of competitiveness even among men in these circles, men trying to out-"macho" eac…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/25 12:36 PM
7

Physical appearance tends to play a significantly larger role in what attracts men. For women, however, a man’s confidence can strongly influence attraction, making it easier for manipulators to take advantage of that dynamic. Hard disagree on this one. Men's confidence is also perceived through their appearance. A limp wristed short guy with glasses won't be able to project "confidence", if he tries the techniques parroted by the redpill alpha dude bros, women will cringe at best and file sexua…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/25 12:30 PM
2

She is categorically refusing to accept the fact that what worked in the past doesn't work anymore. The average AFC has to put 3x the effort of his predecessors to be able to smash a woman who is going to be below his league. That's why most of them start identifying with incels because if you have to go through a herculean effort and not get your looksmatch after doing all kinds of self-improvement, why would you bother? Honestly, being a NEET incel nowadays doesn't even seem that bad given tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/25 12:16 PM
2

Are you intentionally being disingenuous? Projecting much? I literally referenced the content in both of your bullets and presented the issues. Did you even bother to read what I wrote? Or maybe you ran out of arguments and now are rage quitting.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/25 11:16 PM
1

Do you think TRP was just about editing one’s “looks”? If so, perhaps that’s why you’re not able to believe me? Your link literally says "Behavioral changes to his style and how he physically presents" Don't you see the contradiction? What do behavioral changes have to do with presentation. Practicing being a bit bolder, less neurotic, and less hyper high-inhib "Just be a social butterfly bro" Most extroverted people are extroverted because they received positive reinforcement during formative y…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/25 11:03 PM
2

The standard boost is about ~2 SMV points And this observation is based on what? Do you really believe that a 5'9 tall guy with an average shoulder width can become a 7 if he goes to the gym and dresses well? Lol. If it were that easy, everyone would have been 7s. If you are a 5, going up 2 SMV points is only achievable through hardcore life-threatening surgeries because the attractiveness scale isn't linear, it's exponential. In other words, going from a 3 to a 5 is exponentially easier than go…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/25 10:48 PM
3

There is a cap on how much you can improve from your starting point. Even if we assume you are a 5 out of 10, at best you can get to 6.5, maybe 7 if you do hardcore surgeries. The 5-6 zone is that awkward zone where you are not that ugly but your are not hot either. You are still going to be perceived as a betabuxx, that's the point of the blackpill. Most mainstream redpillers tell men to self-improve to join the top 10% club, and yet only very few men who are 5s will do that. TRP was always gea…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/25 09:05 PM
–

Life, would I rather walk on lava or be rained on by poison ivy juice? Which one corresponds to "meeting a random man" - walking on lava or being rained on by poison ivy?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/25 06:37 PM
1

Buddy, I have been in these circles for at least 5 years, have been in looksmaxxing forums too. The general consensus is what I described. If you have a warped understanding and are not willing to educate yourself, what's the point of engaging?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/25 05:31 PM
12

The Red Pill’a tenets did not promise that someone was going to be top 10%. It promised they were going to be better than what they were. You are missing the point, improving your SMV from 3 to 4.5 isn't going to move the needle that much. Most women are only visually attracted to the top 20% which is entirely genetics (height, facial definition, hair, being non-autistic). You can't get into the top 20% by self-improving. Even if you are a 50 percentile male, going from 50 to 40 isn't going to m…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/25 05:17 PM
11

The difference is explained here, not sure why you keep ignoring it. The difference from the redpill is that the redpillers will convince betas that they can learn game, go to the gym, grow a beard, and end up in the top 10%. This could have been true 20 years ago before social media but nowadays, as I have already said, the gap between incels and betas is veryy narrow (almost non-existent). Redpill grifters who sell courses know that betas don't have a chance, they are just trying to earn money…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/25 05:11 PM
5

There is a famous wiki that I am not allowed to post here because it's considered blackpill content. If you go there, this topic is being described under betabuxxing.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/25 05:05 PM
3

no black pill rhetoric is by definition saying the guy will never have a wife, family, etc., not that it's just harder for him to do so. Wrong, blackpillers admit that ooffy-doofies (betas) end up in relationships once women are done with Chads and are looking for a safe provider type. You have a warped understanding of the blackpill.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/25 05:04 PM
13

Is that “black pill”? That’s just common sense Just because you don't agree with the black-pill or have a caricature-like understanding of it, doesn't mean it's not rational. For example, I grew up in a city as a Black American woman. Based on common “black pill™️” rhetoric, I should’ve offed myself because I was never gonna have it as easy as a upper middle class white guy from the suburbs or something lol. The blackpill tells you that you are either an incel (omega), offy-doofy(beta), or Chad …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/25 05:00 PM
28

What are your takes for what’s caused this shift on this sub and the general zeitgeist? The standards for being a "beta" have increased. Betabuxxing is not the META anymore, most women earn their money, so being a man who barely earns 6 figures isn't enough anymore. Blackpillers have been saying this for years: the gap between a beta and an incel is way smaller than the gap between a beta and an alpha. Some even call betas "nearcels" because these are the guys who will get lucky once in high sch…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/25 04:43 PM
–

Basic comprehension of English says "getting a woman" means "entering into a romantic relationship with a woman." If you bothered to look into my post history, you would have realized I am not a simp, quite the opposite. Also, the "getting a woman" term is mostly used by redpill alpha dude bros who want to act like they have an ownership of some kind of a prize. "See incel, my game got a woman". The reality is, you don't "get" a woman, you enter a temporary relationship that can be broken off at…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/25 04:21 PM
18

Thinking this is what will help you get women is just coping. What does "getting a woman" even mean in this modern environment? She is a free agent who can leave whenever she wants, does anyone really "get" a woman? Showing dark triad traits might help men to be considered hookup material. There is plenty of evidence that dark-traid men are more sexually successful. Hell, most incarcerated men have had/do have more women lusting for them than an autistic software engineer who wouldn't hurt a fly…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/25 12:10 AM
7

But men throughout history have always pursued women and while I do agree it sucks to be the person who’s always reaching out, unfortunately if you don’t put any effort you will not succeed. Would love to see sources on this one. Which period of history are you referring to? In patriarchal societies, women weren't "chased", they were redistributed among men. Your parents/male relatives would have decided who you would've married. Your female grandparents didn't have the luxury of having a white-…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/25 06:32 PM
1

Breaking news: People have unrealistic standards when theyre younger. Clearly, the youth doesn’t do this with anything else. Sure but younger women have it easier when it comes to dating/having sex with men of higher leagues, cannot say the same about most men (unless they are willing to open their wallet). Men claim they are simple creatures, but get mad that the woman he’s fucking doesn’t worship his cock. I don't know who says that men are simple but not me. Also, being simple has nothing to …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/25 12:27 PM
2

women want to “wait at the finish line” for a competent mature man instead of investing in some manchild who doesnt have his shit together Agree, it's mostly a redpill cope. "Your age isn't in triple digits yet, you are not at your peak age yet, bro". Most women will date and have casual sex with an attractive-looking manchild, you don't need to earn 6-figures to get that experience. Most people are not trying to find the highest value mate Disagree on this one. While you are not internally calc…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/25 11:31 AM
0

hetero sex boosts male value and decreases female value, sleeping with men much more impressive than you is a good way to avoid being subjected to this nonsense. Your whole post is just a roundabout way of saying "I don't want to have sex with average men because they are publicly seen as losers, I would rather do it with a high-status guy because they are not losers". You don't value sex for the sake of it and I highly doubt you enjoy doing it, it's all about the optics at the end of the day. H…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/25 08:53 AM
1

At the end of the day, no matter how kind you are or how much money you have, it means absolutely nothing to most women if you don’t meet their standards for physical appearance — and my life experience has made that painfully clear. If you had 45K to spare, you could have had your face fixed with a corrective surgery. I am not sure about the risks of doing that when you are 38, but it might be good for you healthwise going forward. It's not that money doesn't matter: it's more like you should k…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/25 12:20 AM
3

There is no guarantee that if i lower my standards they will see me not for a hookup, it’s not tied to looks, it’s more about what a man wants. There are very few things in life that are guaranteed. It's more about having a better chance of getting something. Depending on your risk tolerance, you might decide that it's either 100% success rate or nothing which is fine, it is your personal decision after all. But most women who complain about the lack of men who commit have already shown that the…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/25 09:09 PM
9

I criticize both men and women who lie about their intentions equally. While it's a shitty move to lie about your intentions, it's part of human experience and a direct consequence of freedom of choice. Unless you want to outlaw lying, I don't see any other alternative other than exercising your best judgment, and not having sex with someone that you are not sure is going to commit. By the way, I would tell the same to any guy who gets used during a "foodie" date. Fool me once, shame on you, foo…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/25 08:50 PM
3

Is there a difference between how a teenage girl or a teenage boy acts?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/25 05:38 PM
3

The title of your post says "Conservatives and Redpillers have come up with fantasies about what masculinity is like." implying that masculinity exists and is being misdefined. You have still not provided what you think is the correct definition of masculinity. If you don't care about defining masculinity/femininity and you think that it's pointless to define those terms, then your title should be something like "Masculinity/femininity doesn't exist, people who obsess with those terms are immatu…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/25 05:18 PM
18

I think "choose better" is mostly directed towards women who consistently choose men who are exclusively interested in hookups thinking that they can "change" them to be the husband material. After multiple failures, they start complaining about the lack of mature and relationship-oriented men. The part about complaining is important: if you are strictly interested in hookups and are engaging with hookup-oriented guys and not complaining, you are making a choice and you are taking accountability…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/25 05:14 PM
5

If we are going to define masculinity and femininity, it's impossible to avoid talking about men and women because, traditionally, masculinity was associated with men and femininity was associated with women. If you are going to reject the traditional definition and not provide a meaningful definition that sets masculinity and femininity apart, you are essentially rendering those terms meaningless. To be clear, I agree that those terms are outdated and shouldn't be used. People are complex and c…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/25 05:05 PM
13

Just to be clear, according to your definition, if a woman doesn't have massive insecurities and acts according to her age, she is masculine?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/25 01:32 AM
13

Granted, I will give you that the pillosphere has a lot of hypocritical, logically inconsistent men. But your title implies that they are misdefining masculinity, in which case the question is how would you define it? And please, don't use common definitions that can be Googled/ChatGPTed because most redpillers do refer to those "standard" definitions when talking about masculinity, it's just they are hypocritical, as you have mentioned.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/25 12:03 AM
2

You are full of contradictions, my man. This is what you said before I've given up on dating at this point, but I'm still grappling with the shame I feel for failing to achieve this milestone that so many others conquer with a modicum of the effort I've put in. Had you lived in a family-oriented culture, you wouldn't have been struggling with dating/marriage, you would have already been married with kids. The fact that you are posting on this forum shows that even those supposedly conservative e…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/25 07:29 PM
4

Our culture lacks alternatives to a meaningful life for the average joe who can't couple up. There is no "culture", it's a capitalistic, everyone is for themselves kind of environment with little sprinkles of old wisdom that is not relevant anymore. The solution for average joe is to adjust their expectations around marriage/kids, realize that most probably you are not going to have a family, chill, and find good copes to deal with everyday mundane BS.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/25 05:44 PM
6

Attention: an obligatory "no one owes anything to anyone" disclaimer ahead. I don't have unrealistic expectations, I do believe that your SMV is determined by the dating market, if you don't like your baseline SMV in the current market and the level of effort that you have to put in, you can travel to another market where you might have better chances or stop complaining about dating and just find other endeavors. With that being said, modern dating is in a transitory phase. Your male parents us…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/25 02:39 PM
2

You are clearly autistic. If what you said is true, you do realize you mog 99% of the forum guys, lol? You are basically getting more IOIs than all redpill grifter PUAs combined. After that I calm myself that I pay for sex because transactional with an adult is better than non-transactional with a minor. Paying is fine, if you are not into alcohol/drugs and loud music environments, you are not gonna be getting a lot of casual sex "for free". There are way uglier guys who visit very niche parties…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/25 09:39 PM
11

I am not really going to get into a metaphysical debate about what is you and what is not you. The point here is that constructing a false persona to attract women isn't going to be productive and can be harmful psychologically. The more time you spend thinking about impressing other people, the more unhappy you are going to be. Most guys should just learn to chill and go with the flow, dating isn't something that has to be solved at any cost.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/25 09:03 PM
15

I am 6'2" with the right facial features (i get compliments from women) and a full head of hair. And if a woman senses lack of confidence, for her it's an instant turn off. If you are actually conventionally attractive but you are stuck on this forum, you are probably autistic. The redpill won't help you. They will teach you to build a false persona that is fundamentally not compatible with the actual you. This will cause more issues down the road, especially after you get multiple hookups after…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/25 08:31 PM
1

Right now, the biggest obstacle isn't the law or ease of access but the stigma around it. I know that most women deep down are against legalized prostitution because it takes away from the free attention that they are getting + the circle of potential betabuxxers who would have committed to them also narrows. The real issue is that most men are not on board. If visiting a prostitute were as easy and acceptable as visiting a barber, most dudes wouldn't be in the "pill" circles. The reality is you…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/25 05:11 PM
41

What's funny is that guys shooting their shot with women is the direct result of women gaslighting men about "just being confident" I don't think it's women gaslighting men about not approaching. In the example that you brought up, those are two different women claiming two different things. Judging by their actions in public, most women are at best not interested in most men and at worst find about 40% of them repulsive and dangerous. It's other men who have this false macho bravado who are alw…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/25 04:56 PM
2

I've been seeing comments on Instagram telling women to avoid marriage because supposedly all men hate their wife gaining weight. What's the point of this post? To convince women that they should keep getting married? Lol, they don't need to be convinced. If a woman decides that she doesn't want to get married, she definitely has more serious concerns than "my husband is gonna divorce me because I gained weight". Most husband material guys don't even have as many options as you think they do, so…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/25 03:38 PM
7

If you are undesirable or so ugly that you have been rejected by every person you are interested in, you are not voluntarily "going your own way" or "focusing on yourself" The reality is more nuanced. Most men are not being rejected, it's just the courting expectations differ depending on what your baseline SMV is. If you end up in the "not so repulsive looking but not sexy either" category (which is most men), you realize the following: in order to get with your looksmatch you will have to simp…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/25 06:31 PM
4

-works hard without complaining What do you mean by this? "Just be a quiet wageslave, bro"? Why do you care if your partner is a "hard worker"? What if he had millions of dollars and was spending all the time with you, would you care if he was a "hard worker"? -has money (I'm redpill and conservative-ish so definitely don't take this as a representation of all women). How much money exactly? The average as far as I am aware is 50K. -Likes animals. This American obsession with animals is so insan…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/25 06:13 PM
2

"I didn't get the girls when I was young so I am going to do it right now when I am a successful guy with money".
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/25 04:04 PM
1

If we are talking no strings attached sex, I would prefer an older experienced MILF over a younger girl. I never really understood this obsession with younger girls in the pill circles, sounds more like a revenge fantasy. When it comes to LTRs, I could see why some men would prefer a younger woman because the younger she is, the higher the odds that the kids that you have will be healthier and she is going to have less baggage.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/25 02:30 PM
1

Imo, if a woman is hot and seductive enough, it doesn´t matter if she´s a single mother, it doesn´t matter if she´s over 35, it doesn´t even matter if she had had obvious plastic surgery.. Just be hot. The average champ is very weak to female seduction and attention But this is not anti-redpill. I am pretty sure most redpillers will call him a simp for committing to her. The redpill acknowledges that the average guy is a simp and will commit to the first woman who gives him the right type of tre…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/25 02:23 PM
1

There is no reason it can't be both. Since when did it become agreed on that the blackpill was just doomposting? Was there some sort of Incel International Conference where the blackpill was defined as hopelessness with no systemic solutions? Which part of what I said is doomposting? I said it's individuals finding copes to deal with their meaningless lives which is by definition nihilism. Nihilism cannot sustain a civilization. You can't turn blackpill into some kind of a movement to better oth…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 03:40 AM
4

The praxis here is male separatism as consequence of blackpill science. This is the first time I see the "blackpill" defined like that. The blackpill isn't tradcon. There is no movement, no common goals, just a bunch of disenfranchised guys realizing they have no place in this society and finding copes to deal with their situation. There is no collective movement. Such conditions are not possible in the long run. Demographics will make all of this exceedingly difficult in the coming decades. Bes…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 01:51 AM
4

I mean, why would they do that if they were raised in the environment from the beginning? Think of it from the perspective of a boy born in such a place. Would the blackpill regarding women really be that crushing, or would it be the same as you or I learning about how some ancient civilization functioned prior to modern technology? The environment that you describe isn't "blackpill" which means giving up and embracing the suck, it is a state with clear values and goals that has expectations fro…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 12:35 AM
14

Blackpill would be the official state ideology You can't have a functioning state with a "blackpill" ideology. Most guys will be playing video games and jerking off to porn instead of working and contributing back. Would you leave your current society? If I were rich and had a lot of money to spare, I would stay and embrace the degeneracy. If I had the option of NEETing off of strong and independent taxpayers, I would stay. If I was forced to wageslave till my 40s and pay taxes, I would rather d…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 11:58 PM
-4

I have yet to see any evidence that modern young women prefer masculine men. Modern women are not enforcing masculinity at all. The average prettyboy on Tiktok who does skincare is way more popular than the bulky bald dude with a chain and a beard. Redpillers need to understand that masculinity is out, women don't want a bossy dude. They want a youthful-looking (full head of hair, good skin), non-confrontational, harmless guy with an ooffy-doofy personality. Look at all the LTRs and the boyfrien…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 08:45 PM
5

Most MGTOWs are older betabuxxers who married their high-school sweethearts or got settled down for when they were in their 30s and then got divorced and realized that being a provider isn't enough to attract a woman anymore. They are starting to discover the blackpill right now, so you will see a lot of resentment which includes going on shows talking shit about women. The younger generation is already blackpilled, they have been raised in the era of smartphones and they know the power that wom…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 06:26 PM
2

We live in a free society with no expectations. The only expectations that you have are in your head coming from older dating models that are not relevant anymore. This is not 1950s where you take a cute next-door girl to a date, pay for the date, and then both of you go home wondering about what your kids are going to look like. Nowadays, if she has a phone and even a mild social media presence, it's over for you. There are way better looking guys with better sense of fashion and a sense of hum…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/25 04:15 PM
1

The whole confusion around "consent is sexy" exists because most women compartmentalize men into "hookup material" and "boyfriend material". The things that women are willing to do with "hookup material" guys are drastically different from the things that they want to do with the "boyfriend/husband" types. The hookup material dude is supposed to get it, he can cross the boundaries because he is hot and do things/say things that under any other circumstances would have been considered sexual assa…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/25 12:02 AM
8

could men turn to porn because they struggle to form real-life romantic or sexual connections in the first place? It’s accessible, offers an illusion of intimacy, and doesn’t come with the risks or effort that dating can require, especially in a society where loneliness and social anxiety are increasingly common Most humans choose the path of least resistance. In order to get be able to regularly get sex as a an average looking man, you have to pursue a relationship, hopefully end up with a pers…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 11:53 PM
1

so many red pilled young men pushing ideas that men should act one way and women should act another. These men are obsessed with looking strong, getting rich, dominating other men, and making their women submit to and depend on them. Yeah, I agree. More and more men should stop feeding into the system and should start acting in their own best interests which is: take as much as possible, don't show any loyalty to the workplace, if possible, go NEET, relax, and live a chill life. We already have …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/25 06:13 PM
1

For example, if you’re an average-looking guy struggling, and haven’t figured out that at least part of it is how you interact or part of it is your lacking presence of mind to improve what’s mutable, are you actually “super smart”? A smarter person would’ve grokked that sooner. At some point, you start questioning whether the "prize" is actually worth the squeeze anymore. Here is the recipe that "works" for most average guys: - Find a vulnerable woman in her late 20s - early 30s, preferably a s…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/25 04:11 PM
1

This is as generic as it gets, if an AI had to analyze millions of female dating profiles, it would come up with a generic word salad like this. Looking for a deep connection with an outgoing emotionally available man who is not afraid to show his vulnerable side This sounds like "the Chads that I used to date were not emotionally available so now I am looking for guys who look like Chads but can sometimes open up but up to a certain threshold". A man who can keep up, KNOWS WHAT HE WANTS, and ca…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/25 08:10 PM
2

OK, big boy alpha man. As a defeated bitch boy, I am forced to retreat to my goon cave and hug my wifu pillows. You are obviously so busy getting the "wahmen" but you are graciously arguing with strangers online to spread your wisdom. I will not distract you from your mission anymore.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/25 01:41 PM
1

Isn't this from the Bible? Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 1 Timothy 2:11-12
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/25 09:45 PM
-6

OK, thanks ChatGPT. Since you are not interested in giving your opinion, I don't see a point in further engaging.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/25 09:31 PM
4

Can you describe what "masculinity" is in a way that sets it apart from "femininity" or vice versa? If we are not going to follow rigid gender roles, then using these terms is pointless. We are all people, we have our distinct qualities, saying that "masculinity is under attack" or "femininity is oppressed" becomes pointless. Those terms don't mean anything anymore.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/25 09:29 PM
4

Not gonna downvote because I disagree. So you guys are doomed since theres nothing you can do? I don't consider myself "dooomed", I live my life I chill and relax, I don't create artificial expectations, if things happen naturally, fine, if they don't, I am not going to force anything. The workplace is not Tinder, what do you mean approached confidently at work. HR is correct lol Most of the previous generation was finding their partners at work. The whole idea that the "workplace isn't for dati…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/25 05:47 PM
18

That's a total simp mindset. It's so ironic that you have the "red pill" flair but all of your existence is defined by how much you simp for women because "someone else might do it". At this point, "the blue pill" = "the red pill".
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/25 06:53 AM
38

Men aren't approaching women because they don't want to make them feel uncomfortable. The real question is where approaching is acceptable in the first place. Unless you have faced any consequences for approaching the "wrong" woman, you won't understand why guys take a defensive position. I knew a man who approached a woman in the club that they were attending (don't remember the exact hobby). He was very respectful, they already knew each other, he got a rejection and moved on. One day he is to…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/25 06:51 AM
1

You don't get to determine for me what proof I find acceptable. I wonder why you even asked me for my criteria if you were just going to ignore it anyway or tell me it's wrong when you asked me for my opinion. Since that's your M.O., then you determine the acceptable standards of proof and then provide it. You can always move the goalposts if we don't agree on the criteria. By my own standards, if people change their behavior to fit in, their preferences have also changed. Measure physiologicall…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/25 04:59 AM
1

Being a self proclaimed “contrarian” doesn’t make you any less a “normie” you understand that right? Most normies by definition are not contrarians. Like who are the “normies” here compared to you? Most people here are not normies either. Reddit by itself is not for normies but this subreddit is even weird by Reddit's standards which means that it attracts people with very extreme views that are not very common around normies. Contrarian by and large just means disagreeable asshole which doesn’t…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/25 01:46 AM
1

I want examples or scientific evidence of people genuinely changing their desires, preferences, standards, or dislikes because people shamed or insulted them. Examples and personal anecdotes are not proof. If a person says that they changed their preference for something, can you 100% trust them? What if they were tricked into doing that and don't want to admit that? You can't prove scientifically that preferences can change through shaming because we don't have a tool that can read people's min…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/25 01:15 AM
1

In your culture, maybe. In the first-world "culture", it can include all kinds of things (kissing, makeouts, up to but not necessarily sex). By "dating around", I meant entering situationships. If it doesn't happen in your culture, then yes you are traditional. But that's not the case for the vast majority of first-world countries.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/25 12:48 AM
1

And first-world dating usually implies hookups or some form of sexual activity (kissing, makeouts, etc). If it's a foreign concept for you, it's fine, it might not be prevalent in your culture, but it is very prevalent among cultures that are not traditional.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/25 12:37 AM
1

You haven't answered my question because you haven't started the discussion with the intention to change your mind. This was my question: What kind of proof do you expect from me to show that actual preferences can change after shaming?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/25 12:35 AM
1

I am not sure who told you that they settle down with the first guy, that is all kinds of wrong. Even my own mother had a line of suitors who went to my grandparents house with gifts, then took my mom out, and if she did not like him she would move on to the next suitor. Third-world "dating" doesn't involve hookups and situationships. It's just an initial stage where you meet and talk, you are not going to do anything sexual yet. In the first world, dating usually implies that something sexual h…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/25 12:32 AM
2

people are constantly changing their genuine desires because they were insulted or to appease complainers The status quo isn't changing frequently, it usually stays the same for a long period of time. And most people adjust to it because they don't want to feel excluded. This is not a process that happens every second and requires drastic changes every day. You keep misrepresenting my position. No, that's not what I've done. I'm well aware that these things can change - organically. For the fina…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/25 12:26 AM
1

In traditional courting women still have options of suitors In traditional courting, women are not "dating around", they usually settle with the first guy that matches the minimum that is required to form a stable family. In Orthodox Jewish communities which are considered traditional, women cannot infinitely keep looking for a "Chad", at some point, the community will "shame" her to be reasonable and to choose a good enough person. Even match making in the third world operates this way, as a se…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/25 12:19 AM
1

I get being against jumping on a bandwagon - but saying what "normies" believe in is usually false is still a logical fallacy. Youre right to make decisions based on data and not common sentiment. The common sentiment is going to be popular with normies that's why I am immediately skeptical of it and try to find data supporting a viewpoint before jumping on a bandwagon. That's what I said.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/25 12:14 AM
2

Your thoughts and feelings are not evidence Evidence of what, that people tend to follow the status quo? There are very famous studies conducted to show that. I'm not concerned with changes in behavior, I'm concerned with changes in actual preferences You are already assuming that preferences are apriori static and can never change. That's what your claim above implies. There is no objective way of measuring whether someone's preferences have changed other than their behavior (revealed vs stated…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/25 12:12 AM
0

I am talking about women who want traditional dynamics and then are very selective, but she is traditional across all relationships. So, she may date less, but her standards are higher. Which is how things should be "Traditional" women are not "dating", they are set up with a partner very early with the help of their parents and get married as soon as possible. They don't necessarily marry a rich successful dude but a guy who has potential (the guy is being vetted by the family too) and they bui…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/25 12:01 AM
2

It's tricky to collect evidence on how people are affected by public shaming. Most people are not going to admit it. There have been many studies conducted showing the power of the social consensus.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/25 11:52 PM
-1

Women have no problem doing traditional things, she just will not want to do it for some loser. Just because you are selectively being traditional with the "right" guy (who is usually 2 points above your league), doesn't make you a "traditional" woman. The same applies to men. If you are going to be progressive with some women (aka pump and dump them without commitment) and traditional with others, you are not really "traditional". Traditionalism implies following virtues for the sake of virtues…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/25 11:48 PM
3

How many people in your personal life have you known who genuinely changed the things in my title due to the criticism or insults of women? My older relative women tried to "shame" me into marriage, didn't work. My own parents once thought that I am gay because I am not getting married. They didn't have the talk ala "It's ok if you are gay, you can tell us", it was more like "are you fkn gay?" and yes, it was coming from a woman. How many people in your personal life have you known who genuinely…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/25 11:40 PM
2

Sex work needs to be turned into a bigger market because this is the future of interaction between men and women, outside of the workplace. I mean, it's already a big market. If you count OnlyFans, WebCam girls, and celebrities selling their bathwater, these are all light examples of sex work. The biggest obstacle to acceptance is other men "shaming" you for using escort services because "you are not a man enough, bro, you have to learn game". Some of the most influential people have always used…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/25 11:35 PM
1

A man who makes bad decisions and has no life direction—what am I going to submit to? Abuse? Poverty? LOL. The real question is why would you want to submit to anyone in the first place? "Submission" has a negative connotation and implies that you don't have agency and you follow someone against your will. In the arrangement that you describe you have full control so you are not really submitting to anyone, you are just role-playing a tradwife. It's just a role-play, but none of you have an uppe…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/25 11:28 PM
1

I'm curious, because it seems like many men think this is an effective method on women Shaming still works for the vast majority of the population. Plenty of men still get married to this day despite knowing the stats and all possible consequences. Plenty of men still message women on instagram knowing that they are the simp #1267 who is doing the same thing. The reality is: the average person isn't self-introspective enough to make rational decisions. They just go with the flow. Applies to both…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/25 11:24 PM
-1

I don't think people should adhere to traditional gender norms anymore because they are outdated. With that being said, if you are defining submissiveness as "I am going to switch it on and off depending who I am dating", it's not really submissiveness, it's a facade. You are LARPing as a tradwife for the right person. By the same logic, a man could say "I am going to be a wimp up until the point when I meet the right woman, then I am going become a masculine leader". I know some of these men wi…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/25 11:15 PM
0

There is really no way to resist this other than playing the game Nah, man. Go ahead and play this game if you want to but more and more guys are realizing that juice isn't worth the squeeze. When you are young, doing all the "maxxing", "mogging" seems fun and thrilling but once you reach a certain age, you realize you want peace. I would rather stay at home, have a good meal and, play a video game, than participate in the modern dating humiliation ritual. At some point, wearing this "facade" of…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/25 09:48 PM
1

So, you are dealing with conservative people then. Rural areas of any state are known to be more conservative than liberal. And just to be clear, I am not saying that they are justified to do that, if you move to more moderate area, you will notice that non one gives a shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 07:56 PM
3

People here constantly threaten women that their rights will be stripped if they don’t breed and they’ll die alone with their cats, and they want that to come true. You do realize that people here are not representative of the total population, right? This is an echo chamber where you have very extreme opinions on full display (both from men and women). Those people are also getting banned for such opinions, so not sure what your point is. It's not even a very famous opinion in this subreddit.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 07:35 PM
1

Do you live in suburbs?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 06:47 PM
4

Are you in a conservative state? Because I know people have expected me to be married with a kid by now, more people than not, and look at me having done neither It's not about some people thinking that, it's about the overall attitude of the society. I highly doubt that most people care if you are married or have kids. If someone shames you in public for being a "childless cat lady", that person will be shamed back. If someone calls a random dude "a virgin loser", nobody cares. Are there some p…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 06:25 PM
4

I'm totally against removing gender roles Can you expand on this or is this a typo? But more men need to become involved in spearheading those efforts in ways that don't resort to manosphere tactics and resenting feminism for the progress made for women's "side" I agree. It should be a collective effort from both men and women. We should also criticize certain standards that enforce gender roles (like "a man has to provide", "a man has to pay for the first date", etc). From my experience, even s…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 06:21 PM
5

I would've called it the "virgins and losers" meme You missed the point, It's not about what you call it, it's about how society reacts to it. If a guy complains about his issues, a very common reaction that I see even in moderate circles is that "he has to man up, not be a lazy virgin loser and pull himself up by his own bootstraps". The same doesn't apply to women. The term "loser" is almost never used when describing a woman because society doesn't have any gendered expectations around women.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 06:16 PM
5

right-wing "childless cat ladies" meme Just the fact that this is considered a meme, means people don't take it seriously, and proves my point. In any moderate circles (not ultra-conservative ones), anyone who blames a woman for being a "childless cat lady" will be considered misogynistic and will be shamed. On the other hand, men can be blamed as virgins and losers, and nobody cares.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 05:38 PM
1

Also, not all pressure comes from explicit statements like “you have to have kids.” It can be the constant implication that something’s missing if you don’t. That messaging is still very real for a lot of women, especially outside of urban, liberal bubbles. I have yet to see any evidence that the "moderate" crowd shames women for being childless and single. The modern media is targeted towards moderates and they are promoting the opposite. I appreciate that you are trying to fight against gender…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 05:31 PM
4

And you haven't presented any evidence that this happens in moderate environments. By the way, most media is targeted towards "moderates", and I don't see any messaging that shames single, childless women. In fact, it's the opposite. It's considered empowering.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 05:26 PM
0

I already said, unless you live in an ultra-conservative environment, this kind of pressure doesn't exist for women. The pressure doesn't even exist on the "so-called" mainstream conservative women either. In the vast majority of states, there is no expectation that women should be mothers and have kids. The media is not real life The media is part of real life, through their messaging they can shape the thoughts of people. You cannot be seriously arguing that the media doesn't matter.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 04:53 PM
1

Critiquing the system means taking a closer look at the beliefs and behaviors we’ve internalized. It’s not about blame…it’s about understanding and growth. I understand that but this is not actionable advice. Can you really "convince" a "racist" not to be "racist"? That's why shaming and blaming exist. At some point, after putting enough effort, we should resort to that because most people aren't open to changing their minds (regardless of how backward their worldview is).
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 04:46 PM
4

Edit: Also I’m sorry to ask but how do I pull out comments like you did?! That’s a neat way to have organize the conversation 😌 Click on "Aa" to show the formatting options, copy the quote that you want to refer to, then click the "quote" button at the top.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 04:39 PM
3

For example, when women choose not to have kids, they’re often labeled selfish, cold, or told they’ll regret it. You can see that messaging in everything from celebrity interviews to political commentary. I don't see this though. In fact, I see the opposite. The Hollywood is pretty liberal. Celebrities are the ones promoting the "sex and the city" lifestyle. Show me one celebrity that tells women that they have to have kids? Also, political commentary from the "right" doesn't mean that the mains…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 04:35 PM
2

So, what's your point then? If you are so "optimistic" about the status-quo, why are you on this forum asking a random dude about how to "have sex with your looksmatch"? If it were so simple, don't you think you would have already had an experience with your looksmatch? I gave you my viewpoint, it's up to you to decide what you want to do.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 04:31 PM
7

That said, I don’t think the solution is to assume women get to do whatever they want without scrutiny. Women face their own set of cultural expectations, including caregiving, appearance, emotional labor, and motherhood. When they reject those roles, they’re often judged just as harshly, just in different ways. Unless you live in an ultra-conservative environment, there are no cultural expectations around caregiving, appearance, emotional labor, and motherhood for women. I just don't see eviden…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 04:27 PM
15

According to the American Psychological Association, rigid gender roles are linked to increased anxiety, depression, and restricted emotional expression, especially in men (APA Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men, 2018). Rigid gender roles that are only enforced on men will obviously cause anxiety and depression among men because women are not held to the same standard. If you are arguing for the demolition of gender roles in general, I agree. But as long as society expects "…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 04:06 PM
1

There is a blackpill science section on the site that I am not going to mention. All the studies were properly conducted, they were looking at the revealed preferences vs stated preferences and came to the same conclusions that the "manospherians" came to (looks over personality, etc). The mainstream doesn't care though. Feminists are trying really hard to push academia towards progressivism but the evidence that we have is so overwhelming that they have to resort to cop-outs like "math is racis…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 03:58 PM
1

Almost any self-reported data can be rejected. Even if we assume that it's true, this doesn't say anything about whether they were mutually interested in each other. Guys will usually date down to get easy sex, so you don't know whether the guy was actually interested in her or was just looking for easy sex. Right now, if you approach a girl who is way below your league, have sex with her and then LTR her, you are going to be part of that 40%. Judging from how fixated you are on sex, seems that …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 03:33 PM
3

Well, I am completely inexperienced so frankly I don't know how to tell It's not about experience, don't fall for the redpill PUA scam. If it happens, you will know. If it doesn't happen to you, well congrats, you statistically belong to the bottom 90% of guys that it doesn't happen to either. It is what it is. You either have to lower your standards or travel to a location where you are considered more attractive. You don't need to read a book or pass a course to understand that a woman is inte…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 02:55 PM
10

If you already have a feeling that you are "waiting for sex", it's probably time to leave. When things happen naturally, they progress fast. Women will lead you to sex. Things will naturally progress from hand-holding, to light kissing, to make-outs, and eventually sex will happen. If a woman really likes you, this will happen fast and she is going to be the one leading you. If you feel like you are stuck at a certain stage, it's over and you should move on.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 07:04 PM
1

Wait for what? Sex?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 06:56 PM
6

No, sex isn't the only sign. Make-outs, kissing, touching each other, hugging, holding hands are also good indicators.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 05:55 PM
–

Neo-Charismatic and evangelical churches are not, and it is where young men are staying at. Do you have any data on this? I don't think churches are that popular among young men. It is just good enough for young men to not want to shake the system too much, or to defy their parents frameworks too much. Is it good for men specifically or is it good for the system? With regards to what is best for men, I personally think young men lack both a clear view on what they need and what their plan is. So…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 05:14 PM
–

In this way, young men rely on traditional sources of community, like the Church, while young women rely on newly created feminist communities. There is no community right now where young men's issues are taken seriously. The church has been feminized and liberalized. The "conservative" right isn't the solution either. It doesn't matter whether conservative Tomi Lauren or Megan Kelly on Fox News says that young men have to "man up" or progressive Ana Kasparian from Young Turks says the same thin…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 04:36 PM
70

Settling down is more of a spectrum. It goes from "I am broke, I need a guy to financially support me so I am going to reluctantly tolerate him although I hate his appearance" to "I guess the dudes that I am attracted to do not want to commit to me, but beta Billy is so nice, he is not my first choice but he will probably never cheat so this is not that bad I guess". Yes, women won't marry a guy that they feel repulsed by (unless they are in a very desperate situation) but they are not necessari…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 03:01 AM
1

What should one do to defend oneself from the violation of one's fundamental rights? Use your best judgement. The morality of your action is going to be determined after the fact considering your circumstances. If after the fact it is determined that you could have used a less lethal force, then you "misjudged" and what you did isn't moral.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 04:07 PM
1

Ask yourself, you've used the term arbitrary multiple times with regard to my arguments Something is either arbitrary or is not, there is no spectrum, if you are using the word seemingly, you are implying that there is a degree to which it can be arbitrary which also implies that there is a threshold. When did I accuse you using the phrase "continuous attack" This is literally what you said "Haven't you been personally attacking me?", I also bolded that part. When you say someone is attacking yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 04:00 PM
1

Replace the word create with the word define, also note the word seemingly What does seemingly arbitrary even mean? Seems like a nice cop-out just in case you are challenged. What's the threshold for something to become arbitrary? you seem to be using the term as a pejorative Not at all, I find it pointless arguing with moral relativists. Haven't you been personally attacking me for making assumptions about your position, and here you are making assumptions I have called you "insane" once, I don…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 03:41 PM
1

Where have I stated any of this? I asked for your source because I'm curious where you get your convictions from You said this in one of your replies. That's part of creating a moral principle, am I incorrect? Making seemingly arbitrary decisions? If you consider that moral principles are created based on arbitrary decisions, you are a moral relativist. I am making this assumption based on what you said (which could be wrong). A simple question can demonstrate this: what do you do if somebody is…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 03:25 PM
1

You are a meta-ethical moral relativist. If you don't believe in universal truth (which I am assuming you don't because you asked for a source of objective truth), you fall under this category. Meta-ethical moral relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good", "bad", "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all; rather, they are relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group o…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 03:02 PM
1

Would you agree a right to life to be universal? Yes. Yet when you threaten somebody else's life, you lose your own right to life. No one ever loses their right to life. If you attempt to kill someone, you don't lose your right to life although you violated their consent. If you are referring to the self-defense laws, they are not universal. In the UK, you can go to jail for killing even after self-defense. What if you fail, and the person you tried to kill plots a revenge? You never lose your r…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 02:18 PM
1

That doesn't answer my question. Give me a single example of a moral principle that can be universally applied without exception. What do you mean can be applied? Almost any principle, in theory, can be universally applied if the law applies it universally. Take violation of consent, for example. That's part of creating a moral principle, am I incorrect? Making seemingly arbitrary decisions? Again, if you are going to argue that morality is relative, I don't see a point in having a discussion. I…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 01:43 PM
1

Provide me a single example of a moral principle that can be universally applied, without a single exception The law is always going to have exceptions, it's not about how the law interprets the moral principle, this is more of a philosophical discussion. Violation of consent is an example. And no, saying that the "law currently violates consent" isn't an argument, we are not arguing what the law is, we are arguing what the law should be. I'm not flipping positions because I do not consider prop…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 01:23 PM
1

There is not a single moral principle that can be unequivocably applied across the board without some form of exception If you are creating exceptions, you are either - Appealing to a different principle (for example, harm reduction) - You are arbitrarily drawing the line which is hypocritical. In this argument, one can appeal to consent without agreeing that you have a universal right to property to the same degree that you have a universal right to life, as can be seen through your right to us…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 12:45 PM
1

Moral debates don't work like that, you cannot use different moral principles for different contexts and justify breaking them arbitrarily. If you are going to appeal to consent, you should consistently apply consent across the board. If you are not doing that, you are not really appealing to consent. You are appealing to something else. Present which moral principle you are appealing to, then we can have a discussion. If you are a moral relativist, it's fine, but then there is no argument to be…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 12:30 PM
1

From a purely pragmatic perspective, starving people get angry and revolt a lot faster than sexless people (and also have a lot less to lose. Even if you prove this, this doesn't change my point. This is more of a philosophical debate. If you are ok with violating the consent of people to reduce instability, then you are appealing to "harm reduction", not to "consent". That's a completely different argument. I am going to reiterate this again. Most people when asked how female redistribution is …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 12:05 PM
1

Engaging implies givings answers to questions. You still haven't provided an answer to my last question.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 10:24 AM
1

Taxes pay for a lot more than social programs (a collective defense, public infrastructure, parks, etc). We are specifically discussing taxes that support social programs here, that was the theme of the thread. I am personally not against paying taxes that support building roads and having police because those taxes directly benefit me. From a purely pragmatic perspective, starving people get angry and revolt a lot faster than sexless people (and also have a lot less to lose) I will need to see …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 09:47 AM
1

My last question was this, it's literally visible in the thread. If tomorrow the law is changed to force women to be paired up with undesirable men, are you going to tell women "the democratic majority has decided to limit your rights, it is what it is"? It still requires you to say "yes, I would tell them" or "no, I wouldn't". You keep dodging these questions and being obtuse on purpose because you understand that you don't have good arguments (otherwise you would have responded reasonably). I …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 09:36 AM
1

No straight answers given, lol. Not once you said "yes, I would" or "no I wouldn't". Anyone with basic English knowledge will look at this thread and come to the conclusion that you stopped responding adequately. Obviously, you are not interested in a good-faith discussion. Good luck!
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:46 PM
1

What was my last question? Did I ask you about morality in the last question? Can you quote it just to make sure that we are on the same page?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:42 PM
1

This was my question. This is the response (according to your link). They are “entitled” to whatever the democratic collective voted on. That changes local government to local government. Stop being intentionally dense. I’ve answered your question thrice now. How can you consider this a response to my question? I am asking whether you would personally tell them that they are not entitled to X and you are saying "they are entitled to whatever they are entitled to". It's either a yes or no, "yes, …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:39 PM
2

You keep avoiding answering my questions. This is my question. If tomorrow the law is changed to force women to be paired up with undesirable men, are you going to tell women "the democratic majority has decided to limit your rights, it is what it is"? It's a simple yes or no question. Why do you intentionally avoid answering my questions? It's kind of hard to debate someone who is intentionally avoiding good faith discussion. So, it yes or no? Are you just going to accept that the law has chang…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:33 PM
1

Also, my question was would you personally tell them that they are not entitled to those things and you still haven't said yes or no. It's so amusing that you don't want to give a simple yes or no answer because you understand that you are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:26 PM
2

Eh, he clarified repeatedly upthread that he specifically means that nobody owes you anything in regards to one’s dating life. No, he actually used personal responsibility as an argument, not dating. I could argue that it's your personal responsibility to get your food, get a job, a house, and a girlfriend. We disagree with each other but at least you are consistent with your attitude. Thanks for a productive discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:22 PM
1

If you consent to submit to the governing system of the place you abide, you agree to follow its laws, or face the consequences of breaking them; and to receive its benefits. So far so good, but I’m wondering if it’s actually possible to revoke consent to be governed. My point is you don't fully consent. Hypothetically speaking, if tomorrow the law changes (which can happen) and you are forced to be married to a guy you are not attracted to, are you going to use the same arguments? Essentially s…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:19 PM
3

OK, but you do realize that it's not a moral argument. You are not appealing to any moral principles, you are saying "the law is the law, bro". If tomorrow the law is changed to force women to be paired up with undesirable men, are you going to tell women "the democratic majority has decided to limit your rights, it is what it is"?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:16 PM
1

I never said that there should be no laws, the laws should be in place but my taxes shouldn't be used for social programs without my consent. That should be the law.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:06 PM
3

No, you didn't, I don't see a yes or a no. If you don't mind, can you send the part that answers the question?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:48 PM
3

"lil buddy" Also, I have been very respectful during the exchange not, sure why you would need to throw this in, especially as a MOD. I will check whether this is acceptable at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:44 PM
1

This was my question Would you tell them that they are not entitled to taxpayer money and should move to a place where they are more supported? It's a simple yes or no question, not sure why you keep talking about democracy?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:43 PM
1

That doesn't answer my question. Also, why are you calling me "lil buddy"?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:34 PM
2

That wasn't the point though. Would you tell them that they are not entitled to taxpayer money and should move to a place where they are more supported?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:22 PM
–

Agreed. So what's your point?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:16 PM
2

If you are claiming "nobody owes you anything", just like our friend here did, then it implies that social programs that are funded by taxes should not exist. You can't wiggle your way out of this. If you actually don't believe that, then it's a completely different discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:59 PM
1

Reporting contentless rhetoric feels good. Once you are ready to engage properly, we can have a discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:45 PM
2

You earlier said that consent isn't the crux of your argument, so we wasted so much time and now you are saying it is? Lol, chao, buddy. Blocked.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:30 PM
1

Forcing women to date men they are not attracted to is a violation of consent. Taking money from me that I don't consent to give is a violation of consent. Both are violations of consent, so, yes they are related in the sense that the principle of personal autonomy is violated. We usually apply moral principles universally, if it applies to Jane, it should also apply to Bob, that's how "fairness" works. Btw, I am not saying just because someone robs me, I should rape someone else, I have never s…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:29 PM
2

I’m the one who is happy to say rape = bad without the CONDITION of taxation or no taxation Let's put taxation aside, why rape is bad? Provide a moral justification and don't tell me "it's bad because it's bad bruh".
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:19 PM
1

You created a dichotomy between the two like they're both equal violations of consent Never said that they are equal, under one of the threads I said there are different types of violations of consent just like there are different crimes with different severities. Doesn't mean crimes shouldn't be punished, just like violations of consent shouldn't be tolerated. I don't care about your stammering. I've already seen right through you Then why are you engaging then? If you don't have logical argume…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:17 PM
2

You haven't provided moral justification, you are just saying "X is X" because I said so. Explain why it's bad. I already provided my explanation. Now it's your turn.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:15 PM
1

Yes it is. Because you are demanding the benefit to the society Which benefit am I demanding? I said I am against social programs that are funded by taxes.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:13 PM
2

You have the right to vote. If you dislike the system, feel free to move or to petition the government. If women don't like current "misogynistic" laws, they are free to move as well. If you are broke, feel free to move to a place where you are given food/shelter. etc. Hopefully, now you see how absurd this sounds.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:12 PM
1

If you still don't understand that both are violations of consent, then I am out. This is a very simply argument. By the way, I have never said just because I am getting taxed right now, I should be justified in raping other people. i am plain and simply saying that taxation is wrong because it violates my consent. I am assuming you are not against violating people's consent, are you?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:10 PM
1

This could be mitigated as much as possible by making this ostracization as non-punitive as possible Ostracization shouldn't happen in the first place, it is by definition punitive. Why should I be ostracized?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:08 PM
2

Just wondering would you being forced to marry and have sex with another man be a good trade off for you no longer having to pay taxes you don't want to pay? This is not a good faith question. I am not trying to "optimize" my situation with trade-offs. No one should be forced to be married with anyone else. I shouldn't be taxed. That's it. Both are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:00 PM
1

The really thorny part is: can you opt out of consent to be governed, and if not, how is that compatible with agency? Ancient city-states solved this problem by the expedience of having relatively concise borders and being able to exclude anyone who refused to consent to governance. In modern nations that doesn’t really happen. If you are going to exclude me from society or jail me for not paying taxes and I pay taxes reluctantly, that's not consent, it's a violation of consent. Consent doesn't …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:57 PM
1

If that's what you took from what I said, I am done. I literally said this I don't think I have ever suggested creating a female redistribution system How is this relevant to your question?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:53 PM
1

That's not a moral principle, lol. You cannot claim "people can't do X, because they can't do unconditionally". You have to appeal to a moral principle. If you cannot present a moral justification why raping is bad then you are a sick human that I am not interested in talking to. It's a very simple question.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:51 PM
1

I already said it, dummy. It's literally in my previous response. I have a moral argument - consent shouldn't be violated Consent is the moral principle that I am appealing to. Now it's your turn.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:47 PM
1

All humans will behave hypocritically in their lives at some point big or small. It's how humans work. That's a different point though. You can have hypocritical ideas and then denounce them after thinking about it. Of course, people are going to make mistakes. But claiming that there are no people who consistently apply moral principles is a very bold claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:46 PM
1

Sexual autonomy is to be respected - unconditionally So you don't have any moral justification for that? I have a moral argument - consent shouldn't be violated. If you cannot morally justify why sexual autonomy should be respected, you are a sick human being.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:40 PM
1

I said it in response to you saying "all people are hypocritical" (not the exact words but you implied this). My assertion is that there is at least one person who is not hypocritical. Which is more likely? Of course, you can deny my assertion too but you were first to claim that everyone is hypocritical, so...
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:38 PM
1

Once you present a moral argument I will continue. The highest moral argument that I use to justify is consent. Now it's your turn.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:32 PM
1

Crux of my argument is in both my OP’s that you’ve banged on this weird non-counter point in You haven't presented any moral arguments why forcing people to date each other is "bad". I am asking you again, what is the highest moral argument you are appealing to justify that forcing people to date is not moral? If you’re implying the moral consistency is important to arguing against my argument for sexual autonomy Never implied that, sexual autonomy has to be respected, just like my autonomy over…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:27 PM
1

Logic does work like that lol No, it doesn't. Go educate yourself. I NEVER made “a moral standpoint of violating consent” the crux of my argument though What's the crux of your argument then? What is the most important moral principle that you are appealing to? And moral consistency does not equate to believing being taxed is at all relevant to female sexual autonomy, you’ve just pulled that out of your ass to make a very weird purposeless point that achieves and proves nothing Moral consistency…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:13 PM
3

Go get all the puss champ, don't waste your time with incels like me, you obviously have so many women lined up for your alpha male energy but you are graciously arguing with some random dude on the internet.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:09 PM
1

And if you’re saying that they ARE comparable and relevant to each other, and that they’re tied morally and that both breaches of consent are bad, then you’re saying the reverse is true, no? Cos if not, you’re literally admitting they’re incomparable and unrelated. That's not how logic works, buddy. If I say that "If I believe that consent should not be violated, no one should be taxed against their will", this doesn't mean that if I am taxed, I have the right to go and rape someone else. I am g…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:06 PM
–

you can have a right to something due to legal entitlement but also for other reasons Would love to hear other reasons because I don't think other reasons exist. Also, please use secular arguments, I am assuming we are not going to refer to God, "karma" or some other spiritual thing that gives humans "inherent" rights.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:57 PM
2

They’re incomparable violations of consent Just because they are incomparable doesn't mean it's not a violation. It is still a violation just like not all crimes have the same severity but they are still crimes that people get punished for. Are you saying if you have to pay tax against your will, then women should have sexual freedom stripped? Never said that, don't put words into my mouth.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:53 PM
1

I am going to summarize this once and for all because it doesn't seem like that you want to connect the dots yourself. A lot of things involve morality (which doesn't have to be related to obligations). Is it moral to force people to date other people? No, because we accept that the violation of consent is not moral. If we are accepting consent as a moral principle, it should be applied universally (that's how morality works, selectively applying morality is generally understood to be hypocritic…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:50 PM
1

Because I do care about moral consistency, what kind of a question is this? So, you don't care about morality? It's all about how the law is written?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:37 PM
6

Forcing women to date men they are not interested in -> violation of consent Taking my money that I have earned against my will -> violation of consent Both are violations of consent, do you agree? It's a simple yes or no question, if you are going to come back with some "but do you imply blabblabla", I am going to stop engaging with you because you are refusing to answer simple straightforward questions.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:36 PM
1

That's literally the definition of question-begging, go read about. I have never said that I am perfect but if you claim that all people are hypocritical, that's a definitive assertive claim that needs proof. If you don't provide proof, it can be dismissed without proof.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:31 PM
1

Which one exactly? lol If you got owned, just accept it bro. No need to be snarky.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:29 PM
–

Based on which moral principle?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:26 PM
1

You cannot refer to the social contract as an arbiter of morality, if the social contract tomorrow is changed to force women to be paired up, are you going to tell women to leave the country if they don't like it? The social contract can absolutely be changed, you can't use it as a jail-out-of card when running out of moral arguments. You haven't presented any moral arguments, you are saying the government does it because they are allowed to. What if tomorrow they are allowed to redistribute wom…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:25 PM
1

No, the wisest and most introspective people recognize that there is no such thing as a person with an infallible and perfect sense of justice and morality. Only someone who is delusional and self-centered would believe such a thing. This is an assertive claim that implies that all people are hypocritical. If you are making such a claim, you have to present evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:21 PM
2

Your moral disagreement is irrelevant to you consenting to taxation by continuing to live here. The government has a monopoly on force and will force me to pay taxes if I deny doing that. That's not how consent works. By the same logic, one can justify holding a gun to a woman's head and raping her and then saying, well she consented by not running away. You do realize that you do not consent to something if you are forced to do it?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:16 PM
-2

Shhh, don't tell him that. He is sure that his vote counts and will matter in the next elections.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:12 PM
2

Right, but that argument was already trashed by you living here and thus agreeing to the social contract of taxation. No, just because I morally disagree with certain laws doesn't mean that I should leave. You absolutely can draw a line between taxation, which you’ve consented to, and forcing women to date you, which is inherently nonconsensual. Taking my hard-earned money without my consent is also "inherently nonconsensual", are you dense? So, you are fine violating consent for some people but…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:08 PM
–

No, the burden of proof is on you to show that there are no people who are hypocritical because you are the one who initially made the claim. Something that has been asserted without evidence can be discarded without evidence. Also, you are using the question-begging fallacy. Go educate yourself on how debating works.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:06 PM
2

Look at the second response, lol, are you high? I have literally quoted it for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:00 PM
–

Cool but that's not relevant. If you are claiming that there is no one who does it, the burden of proof is on you to show that. You haven't demonstrated it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:59 PM
1

Why would I do this? I like the current dating setup. I have never said that I wanted a bang maid (find a quote where I said it). Now, why won't you tell broke people to move to countries that support them and give them food and shelter?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:49 PM
–

That's kind of a bold claim to say that no one does it, it requires proof. People who are consistent and introspective enough do this and they do exist. If you are admitting to being a hypocrite, it's fine but don't project it on other people.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:48 PM
3

This is what I said Just to be clear, I also believe that "no one owes anything to anyone" but you should be consistent with taxes too. You can't arbitrarily draw the line at "it's ok to take money from people without their consent". The money that I earn is the fruit of my labor and taking it without my consent is a violation of consent just like forcing women to date men they are not attracted to is a violation of consent. You can't have inconsistent views on these: we should prevent violation…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:36 PM
2

I have never said, go find a quote where I said that, I am actually saying that it's not lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:34 PM
–

No worries, I am interested in a productive discussion. We can have one if you are interested. Do you have any religious beliefs? Or are we going to argue using secular logic?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:30 PM
–

It's consistent if you respect consent as a moral principle. Both are violations of consent, aren't they?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:25 PM
–

I have never said that. Two wrongs don't make things right. Just because someone robs me, doesn't mean I have the right to rape anyone. My point is this: If you believe consent should be respected universally, then taxing people without their consent is a violation of consent and shouldn't happen.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:23 PM
2

Then I guess we have a difference of opinion, but my point is mostly about consistency. If you have a libertarian "don't like it leave it, solve your problems on your own" attitude, it should be universally applied to anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:19 PM
1

We don't need to be "logically consistent" with two different subjects that aren't closely related They are closely related: forcing women to date people they are not attracted to is a violation of consent. Forcing people to pay for other people's needs is a violation of consent. Both are violations of consent, you can't argue against that. Especially as an excuse for government issued bang maids. I don't think I have ever suggested creating a female redistribution system, I actually agree with …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:16 PM
6

Now he is asking "what was your point?". Literally, the third paragraph nicely summarizes my viewpoint but apparently he is too busy "getting puss" to bother reading my response.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:14 PM
5

I already said it multiple times in previous responses, if you bothered to read any of my responses carefully instead of trying to ad-hom me, you would have already understood my position.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:11 PM
–

If you bothered to look into other threads, you would have noticed that I am actually against "Free pussy for all", but I am expecting intellectual consistency. Just like the dating issues of an incel Bob aren't my responsibility, the financial situation of a broke Bob isn't either. Both are not entitled to anything from anyone, the money that I earn is mine and shouldn't be taken from me against my will.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:09 PM
7

"Human rights" do not exist and are defined by the government and enforced by the government. There is no universal definition of "human rights", it's up to the government to decide what people are entitled to. By your own logic, if you don't like being poor here, you can just leave and you can become a citizen of a country that gives you housing and food for free. Why don't you tell broke people to leave the country if they don't like it?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 03:57 PM
–

The social security of older people is partially paid by the next generation of people. If you have too many old people with very few young people, social security is going to become an issue. Also, there is not going to be enough people to take more jobs. Importing more people doesn't always work, look at Japan right now. Any society that is not shortsighted has a vested interest in healthy birth rates.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 03:53 PM
6

it’s that nobody owes you anything for things that are your personal responsibility to solve Why is food/shelter not your personal responsibility to solve? Just work hard, find a good-paying job, and buy a house, bucko. Why is it my responsibility to support broke people?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 03:48 PM
5

You consent to taxes by living here. You are not consenting to anything when you are born against your will. The government provides a forced contract. "Just solve your problems on your own" is a libertarian position that I agree with but you should be consistent and apply this approach to taxes too. A random Joe isn't entitled to my money through the government, period. You are not addressing my main argument. My main argument is that you should be consistent with "nobody owes you anything". Yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 03:43 PM
–

Who defines what is a "collective issue"? Low birth rates are also a "collective issue". Are you supporting a government- sponsored solution for that? Just to be clear, I also believe that "no one owes anything to anyone" but you should be consistent with taxes too. You can't arbitrarily draw the line at "it's ok to take money from people without their consent". The money that I earn is the fruit of my labor and taking it without my consent is a violation of consent just like forcing women to da…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 03:34 PM
–

If you are logically consistent with "nobody owes anything to anyone", you should be against tax-payer-sponsored social programs as well, there is no way around this. If you don't understand basic logic and consistency, I am not going to teach you things that you should have learned in high school.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 03:24 PM
–

Ah, yea, I’m sure your inability to get pussy is because you’re too concerned about the birth rate lmfao So, ad homing and not addressing my original question/argument after being proven wrong? This was very easy, lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 03:16 PM
-9

Are you 100% sure? Trump was also "not supposed" to be elected. What's preventing some right-wing incel adjacent politician to be elected and changing the law to allow this scenario?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 03:12 PM
–

My question was formulated in response to Once you figure out no one “owes” you anything If he actually believes that "no one owes anything to anyone", then my taxes shouldn't be given to other people to support their needs. If you still don't see the "relevance", I am not going to bother arguing with you because you don't understand how logic and consistency work. You either apply a moral principle universally and consistently or you are a hypocrite.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 03:11 PM
–

Well, society has a vested interest in people not dying in a gutter. Society also has a vested interest in maintaining a reasonable birth rate and a psychologically healthy male population.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 03:09 PM
–

Just curious, do you have the same "no one owes" you anything energy about all social programs that are sponsored by taxpayers?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 02:52 PM
–

This whole entitlement discussion is becoming tedious. This is already the second post where people are arguing "no one is entitled to dates/sex". Entitlements are defined by the government. When you claim that "Bob isn't entitled to X", you are basically claiming that the government doesn't give X to Bob for free. This is trivially true because you are referring to the current law. Putting aside the fact that "you are not entitled to dating/sex" is trivially descriptively true according to the …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 02:51 PM
–

The situation is even worse. Men's issues are only considered if they are affecting women as well. I am seeing this attitude with all the manosphere-adjacent boomer types (like Scott Galloway, for example) who will recognize that there is an issue but will always frame it in a way to show that "women are being hurt by this". He was asked to define positive masculinity and his definition was "sacrificing without expecting anything in return". He is trying to pretend that he cares about the men's …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 02:42 PM
2

At this point, I am not even going to argue with you because you refuse to give basic yes or no answers to my questions. I made a point, you said you disagreed with it, then backtracked and now you are saying that you agree, it gets tiresome after a while. This is what the point is, if you don't get this you are purposefully being dense. Taxing me against my will is relevant to forcing women to be in relationships because both are violating consent. If you are going to argue that consent shouldn…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 07:34 PM
1

They already cut a lot of programs and still didn't reduce the deficit. What are you talking about? Musk was literally shitting on Trump's spending bill recently and the bill doesn't even include absurd spendings. You are delusional if you think that it's just a matter of taking more debt. You do realize they cannot take the new debt with current long term treasury yields which are sky high? They are desperately closing shitload of departments and the deficit is still there. Imagine someone come…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 06:47 PM
1

It's not a little program. Givingg all men regular access to prostitutes requires a lot of money and cannot be fully covered by taking more debt. They literally slashed departments to reduce the spending this year because the debt is out of control. You are the naive one if you think they will take debt to finance men's sexual needs.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 06:32 PM
1

Enlighten me then. If the government needs to raise money, how are they going to do it?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 06:14 PM
2

Taxation isn't robbery because when you work a job in this country you're agreeing to the social contract of contributing to this society through taxation The social contract is determined by the law. If the law tomorrow decides that sex is part of the social contract, what are you going to do? You cannot refer to the law as a moral argument, the law can be changed, based on which moral principle the government is allowed to rob me?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 06:07 PM
2

Then why do you disagree with the original point then? It literally says robbery is bad because of violation of consent which also happens when women get raped?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 06:06 PM
2

I would simply not be paying more taxes for such a small program Sure, buddy. The government needs more money so they will grow it on trees instead of taking it from the taxpayers like you because that's where the money grows. If the government needs more money, they will put the burden on taxpayers. This is basic economics. If you cannot grasp this and you think things happen out of thin air, you are delusional.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 06:03 PM
3

You are basically refusing to accept that robbery is bad because it violates consent.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 06:01 PM
2

So you would accept it if it were possible? You are fine with paying more taxes to make sure other men can have sex?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 05:59 PM
2

You cannot selectively apply consent in one case, but not in other cases. You are basically saying "consent is ok to violate in this case but not in other cases". That's now how morality works. That's why I said you are a hypocrite. Women having sex with people they don't want is a violation of consent. People robbing me is a violation of consent. If you still don't agree that both are violations of consent and shouldn't happen then I have nothing to argue. You are just a hypocrite.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 05:57 PM
2

Can you answer the question, please? I would have never thought that the Netherlands could create a coupon system for disabled people either but they did. Assume what I said happens, what are you going to do? Are you just going to accept it?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 05:54 PM
4

You either agree with this or not. Simple yes or no answer. What I am actually saying is that if you are against people having sex without consent because consent shouldn't be universally violated, you should also be against people robbing other people because it's also a violation of consent. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite and you are applying the principle arbitrarily
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 05:49 PM
4

I am trying to do that but if you don't answer my questions, I can't do it. I haven't demonstrated the relevance yet, you have to answer to my last question so that I can show you the chain of thought.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 05:41 PM
2

You’re resorting to a scenario that’s literally never gona happen It's a hypothetical, but I can give you a more realistic number, if you are currently paying X%, assume the government taxes you X+10% to give all men the ability to have sex for free. Are you just going to accept it and move on?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 05:40 PM
3

You keep dodging my questions, I am trying to show you the relevance, in order to do that you have to answer my questions. So, do you agree with this statement? If you disagree, explain why.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 05:38 PM
2

OK, so if the government tomorrow starts taxing you 60% to make sure that all men can visit prostitutes, you are gonna be like "well, I have no power, it is what it is".
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 05:33 PM
3

OK, but do you agree with what I said? Specifically this part. What I am actually saying is that if you are against people having sex without consent because consent shouldn't be universally violated, you should also be against people robbing other people because it's also a violation of consent. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite and you are applying the principle arbitrarily. Because I still haven't demonstrated the relevance.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 05:30 PM
2

No, I will notice, if you don't care how much taxes you pay, it's your prerogative. So you agree to pay taxes to support disabled men having sex?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 05:26 PM
4

That if your money is taken against your will, and you do not consent to that, then sexual freedom should be void No, two wrongs doesn't make it right. I am not saying that just because someone robs me, I have the right to rape other people. What I am actually saying is that if you are against people having sex without consent because consent shouldn't be universally violated, you should also be against people robbing other people because it's also a violation of consent. Otherwise, you are a hy…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 05:24 PM
2

You keep missing my point. My point is entitlement without government enforcement is nothing. If the government decides that someone is entitled to your house tomorrow, they will be entitled to your house. Saying that a person is or isn't entitled to X is a tautology, you are basically saying the law allows them or disallows to get things for free which is true depending on the law.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 05:11 PM
6

Cool, my point is that if we agree that consent shouldn't be violated universally, this has multiple implications: - People shouldn't have sex with other people that they don't like (violation of consent) - Money shouldn't be taken from people against their will (also a violation of consent). Some taxes (but not all of them) fall under the second category. If the government takes money from me against my will and gives it to some random Joe, it's a violation of consent. If you agree that we shou…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 05:09 PM
2

If the government decides that disabled men have to get sex through coupons, you, me and all other taxpayers are going to pay for that. How is this something that you don't understand? Still not “entitled” to it They are entitled by the fact that the government gives them the ability to do that without expecting anything in return.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 05:00 PM
4

consent across the board Is consent only related to sex? Can I take something that doesn't belong to you without your consent?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:55 PM
3

Usually, prostitutes are going to consent as long as they are getting paid. Someone has to pay for the coupons, and that someone is the taxpayer. If you are saying you agree with this, you are basically saying that you agree to pay more taxes so that disabled men can have sex. Why are you not saying that they are not entitled to sex in this case?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:53 PM
4

I don't imply anything, I have just asked a question that you keep refusing to answer. Can you just give an answer to my last question? You asked me to show you the relevance and I can't do it if you don't respond to my questions.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:49 PM
3

You are not entitled to X is trivially true because entitlements are defined by the government. If you are claiming that "you are not entitled to sex", you are claiming that the government isn't going to give you sex for free which is codified in the law. But guess what: the government could decide tomorrow that men are entitled to sex at the expense of taxpayers. For example, in the Netherlands disabled men get free coupons to visit prostitutes. The government thinks that they are entitled to s…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:47 PM
6

I agree with you but not for the reasons that you think I do. Also, can you respond to my last question?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:41 PM
2

There is a thread where I am asking you questions to show the relevance. Go ahead and respond to my last question if you want me to demonstrate how those things are relevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:32 PM
3

I never denied that we need some taxation, as long as the tax is directly benefitting me, I am in (police, for example). But I don't see how some random Joe who doesn't have a house is entitled to my money through the government.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:27 PM
5

And forcing people to date each other is immoral because you’re making one person endure rape Why is rape immoral? Which moral principle is violated? Hint: consent. Do you agree that consent should be respected universally and shouldn't be violated?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:24 PM
4

Glad that we at least agree that "nobody owes you anything bucko" isn't constructive at all. By the way, I am not even arguing that just because someone robs me, I have the right to rape other people. I am just saying that if we are going to consistently apply the principle, it should be applied across the board.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:20 PM
6

I am all for consistency. I am not even arguing that we should have a female redistribution system but using a "nobody owes you anything bucko" is not a constructive argument that leads anywhere, it breeds more contempt.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:15 PM
7

OK, I will engage. In order to explain why it's relevant, explain why forcing people to date other people is immoral? Which moral principle is being violated?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:11 PM
7

This isn’t a recommendation to SOCIETY, it’s a recommendation to unsuccessful men and women in dating - accept or essentially suffer Do you have the same recommendation for broke people who are begging for food?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:57 PM
5

Consistently applying moral principles, is irrelevant Ok, good to know that you are a hypocrite. And my recommendation to you is not to be a hypocrite.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:52 PM
7

In a totally libertarian or anarchic society where taxation doesn’t exist you’d arguably have even more singledom I don't care about the rates of singledom. I care about consistently applying moral principles. The moral argument for "you are not entitled to a girlfriend" is based on the violation of personal autonomy and I agree. Personal autonomy of people is sacred. It is also violated when the government takes away the money that I earn without my consent. So, I am against taxation that doesn…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:47 PM
7

Is this another variation of "no one owes you anything"? Cool, I agree. If you can't afford a house, tough luck buddy, nobody owes you that. Can't get a job? You are not working hard enough, apply more. Don't have a health insurance? Should have applied for a better job. As long as you are consistently applying this principle, I am in. I also hope you won't come up with some obscure justifications as to why spending the money that I earn to help other people without my consent is fine.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:39 PM
12

"Victims", lol. Poor girls had to date a rich famous successful guy which also allowed them to become more famous. How are they supposed to handle all of this trauma?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:26 PM
1

Why should I date some loser no one else wants who will still end up cheating when I can sleep w 10/10 guys and stay single forever? I am not arguing what you should or should not do, you are a free person who can sleep around as much as you want. If you don't want to date losers, don't date them. My goal isn't to shame you into dating someone you don't want to. My main concern is with the way you call all men trash just because men are capable of cheating. Cheating is done by both genders, I do…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 11:00 AM
1

I have never suggested that all top 1 % men are cheaters, just like not all ugly guys are wonderful people. It's not a binary thing. Cheaters exist across the spectrum. What I said is that more often than not a man who is way out of your league is going to consider you only for a hookup, not for commitment. Statistically, you are more likely to find a guy who wants commitment at your actual level not at a level that is higher than yours. If you can't grasp simple probabilities than I don't think…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 10:49 AM
1

Men's latest propaganda is suggesting that women who get cheated on deserve it bc they are only getting "played" by highly desirable, beautiful, wealthy TOP 1% men This is a strawman. No one in his sane mind argues that all women who get cheated on deserve it. It's more about women who ignore very obvious red flags who get cheated on and then complain about how unfair things are and how all men are trash. At the end of the day, regardless of whether you are a man or a woman, if you are deliberat…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 10:32 AM
-2

It's a supply and demand issue. Most women (even the below average looking ones) are still considered more desirable than their equivalent male counterparts. I would argue that the legalization and destigmatization of prostitution can even things out and will reduce simping.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 10:26 AM
2

No, I don't identify as a feminist because it doesn't have a clear definition and doesn't have any clear goals. Also, what does "believing in equality" even mean?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/25 07:52 PM
30

The burden is now on challengers to present a counter-model that survives logic better than monogamy. You are making 2 claims - that monogamy survives logic and does it better than other systems. Since the burden of proof is on people who make the claim, you should be the one presenting the arguments first. If I claim "Santa Claus" exists, and people ask me "where is your proof?", I cannot claim that the burden is on them to prove that "Santa Claus" doesn't exist. That's not a fair argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 11:07 AM
67

You don't present any logical arguments yourself. You are basically arguing in a circular fashion (it's logical because it is). Once you present an actual argument, we can have a debate.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 10:52 AM
5

If someone comes strong at you and you recognize a manipulative pattern, just stop dating them. Once you have recognized a love bomber, it's your responsibility to detach. I do acknowledge that manipulative and shitty men (and women) exist. No doubt about that. I don't believe that each man has the purest intentions when dating women so you have to be cautious about who you open up to especially during the initial stages of dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 09:34 AM
4

Random thought but what could men offer women anymore if it's not for physical strength? What use is a men at all (aside from recreational use only) if women, even in the animal kingdom still have to protect and provide for themselfs? At the end of the day, women in first-world countries don't need a man but all of the rights and privileges are supported and upheld by the male collective. The manospherian point is that women still need the collective effort of all men. This is a fact. The govern…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 08:39 AM
1

Is six figures really that unreasonable of an ask? The 6 figure argument is mostly used by women who don't find their potential suitors attractive based on physical appearance alone and demand a higher salary to compensate for the fact that the man doesn't bring enough to the table, so to speak. I highly doubt that the same women will have such strict financial requirements for a man that they are actually attracted to who happens to earn 75K, for example. The average salary is at around 50K so …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 04:21 PM
1

The truth is there’s no real reason for these men to be shamed as long as they aren’t hurting anyone Exactly, just live and let live. Most men should learn to empathize with each other, only then we will be able to change things on a systemic level. As long as we are trying to "outmog" each other, nothing is being accomplished.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 09:50 PM
1

For me, I feel like it is more comforting to believe my success is only due to my choices rather then fixate on things I can’t control… but I do know that sometimes we are hindered by greater forces Props to you, sir. I am glad you are at least conceding this. This kind of zero-sum mentality is hurting men in general, I could understand if women started shaming men for AI girlfriends because it takes one potential betabux/oofy-doofy out of circulation but there is literally no reason for other m…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 09:43 PM
2

Good for you, right now I also have a job and investments, so what? Does it give me the right to judge you? I don't judge people in general. I do recognize that both dating and the job market are tough and it's not down to effort only, but also you have to be at the right place at the right time. I just hate this hustle mentality. Why do you care if some incel who doesn't harm anyone chooses to cope in peace?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 09:38 PM
1

If these men left their basements, groomed themselves, exercised, and actually tried to meet women out in the real world instead of on apps, they might find no need for an AI girlfriend after all. For most men, this is mostly going to lead to a betabux/oofy-doofy relationship. Most guys are figuring out that the juice isn't worth the squeeze so they switch to harmless copes like escorts, porn, or AI girlfriends. It's so cringe looking at these Andrew Tate wannabes who act like they are all about…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 09:33 PM
54

More young men are becoming NEETs than women. Rising number of men don't want to work. I don't even blame them. Work for what exactly? To increase the profits for the companies that will throw you away once they don't need you? There have to be better incentives for people to keep contributing to a system. If the whole system is like "if you wanna survive, gotta work", then most men are going to logically aim for low-stress jobs that allow them to get by. On top of that, most men are also told t…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 03:08 PM
1

Which part of what I said you disagree with? Can you quote it?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 12:27 PM
1

So why are they flocking to them en masse? Can you explain what flocking means? This is my position on the dating scene in first-world countries. 1) A sizable majority of women don't care about LTRs/hookups. They have completely checked out en masse. They have a white-collar job and a support network, they don't need an individual man (even top-tier Chads) to feel happy. 2) The ones who actually want LTRs, choose the kind of guys that I have mentioned. They want a simple, easily controllable oof…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 08:30 AM
3

Since women are extremely preoccupied by social status and signs of wealth This is literally the opposite of what I said. I am actually arguing that most women don't want these ultra-rich, super-successful guys because they feel insecure next to them.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 06:23 AM
2

No amount of conditioning can change these preferences. I disagree. Social conditioning can affect women. Whenever I talk about this trend of younger women deliberately choosing shorter, less educated, "hubby-shlubby", "huggable-bear" type-looking guys for LTRs, I get downvoted with no engagement. And yet, this is something that I see in younger circles, in colleges, for example. Most of these guys do not come off as fuckboys. They don't have slick haircuts, they might be overweight, they have a…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 06:01 AM
10

In this case, they lie because they get the benefits of having a wife without actually "committing" to a contract that would create obligations for them. I do agree that it's a shitty move. If a man wants to keep an LTR without marriage, he should be open about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 05:19 AM
16

Yeap, would do it in a heartbeat.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 05:15 AM
–

The good thing is that you can always find someone who agrees with your values and date them specifically.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/25 01:12 PM
3

Sure. People should be doing what works for them.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/25 05:59 PM
2

That's why you are not supposed to commit to a woman after dating them for a short time. You start as a FWB, keep paying attention to what she does, and then after you have enough evidence that she is the type that you want to commit to, you do it. If you are that afraid that the woman you are committing to is going to change, then don't commit at all. Only do FWBs and then drop them once you become incompatible.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/25 04:28 PM
1

I have never suggested that a woman cannot change once in a relationship. The question is to what degree she can change. Can she go from an "introverted, nerdy, librarian" type to an "extroverted, party animal"? Sure but how likely it is? That's why vetting is important and no, a couple of months of vetting isn't enough. You have to start with a casual no strings attached relationship and then keep paying attention. Pay attention to: - Does she have an active social media presence? - What kind o…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/25 04:23 PM
1

Dude, don't sperg at me, I know. The joke meant that there is going to be a pay gap in the opposite direction (women getting paid more than men).
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/25 12:09 PM
2

You missed the point. The pay gap will still be there.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/25 11:31 AM
4

To each their own I guess. Going through FWBs is essential to make sure you understand what you actually want. Have seen so many guys get into the betabux trap in their 30s because they were sexless/touchless in their 20s. They meet a woman who gives them "the demo version" of the relationship, maybe a mind blowing sex and the guy loses his mind and marries her 2 months after meeting her, lol. If you can't get FWBs, you should definitely consider escorts to tame your lower head and start thinkin…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/25 04:00 AM
0

I am aware of the bait-and-switch. I am more surprised that men are still interested in marriage/"committed relationships" (whatever that means). I have been consistently telling men that they should be aiming for high-quality FWB situationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 11:39 PM
6

Women will probably stop complaining about the gender pay gap. Also, you are going to get a lot of articles "Men are dropping out of society. Women most affected".
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 06:38 PM
92

You need to gain respect for yourself to speak up your mind I am not sure how you can become exclusive with someone without vetting them for a while. She is not suddenly gonna wear revealing clothes once you decide you are exclusive, right? The odds are she was already doing it. Pretending that she has suddenly changed and now you are unhappy about it is a bit disingenuous. On the other hand, if a guy has a preference for women who dress modestly, it's totally acceptable and no one should be sha…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 06:37 PM
2

Now you can say that men should keep in shape and top of their game regardless. That's fine but men dont have incentive to do so if their reward is an aging wife. There is no point of being a billionaire in a deserted island. Marriage was never about maximizing personal satisfaction. The goal wasn't to have a 6-pack and a multi-step Patrick-Batemanesque skincare routine with a Margot Robbie-looking wife, lol. The goal was to find a person that you build something together with. You paired up ear…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 03:19 PM
1

Most people don't even read what I write. They downvote my post and then start arguing. Was recently downvoted on a post where I said that women lower their looks standards for relationships and choose more agreeable, "huggable bear" type partners. People were disagreeing with me and saying "looks aren't everything". And I am like, "yeah, that's what I said".
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 02:52 AM
2

Most priests and touching little Timmy behind the pulpit either but when people say “many priests” are doing it, anyone saying “it’s not that many” is accused of being an enabler and pro child molestation. I also criticize them in the same manner. I was literally arguing with someone here who was telling me that "the majority of men have a natural tendency to rape" a couple of days ago, so I understand the frustration. Had a recent argument with someone who said that the only acceptable rate of …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 02:44 AM
17

Yet we see a word where 99% of elementary level teachers are female and so many of them prey on the young male students. I mean this is a bit hyperbolic, most of female teachers are not preying on young male students. Maybe this wasn't previously reported because there was a stigma around men not wanting to admit that they got SAd by a woman?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/25 11:35 PM
7

Friendships with women is “wrong” to many men. Kind of depends on what your definition of "friendship" is. Friendships to me are deeper than just "chitchatting" about the latest things or gossiping with each other. It implies some level of trust that doesn't usually exist with other people. I know only one person that I would consider my "friend", others are acquaintances (work-related colleagues, people I used to study with, etc). It's really hard to find people that you jive with to the point …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/25 11:30 PM
1

By the way, if you consistently find yourself in a position where you are the one romancing her and she shows no reciprocity, it means that she considers you below her league-wise and expects more upfront investment to compensate for the fact that she doesn't find you attractive. This is basically covert prostitution. If you are experienced and know how harshly most women rate men's looks, you will have a realistic understanding of where you stand and won't even end up in situations like this.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/25 07:38 AM
–

Had you had very attractive male friends who have been in multiple situationships, you would have known that there are plenty of women who are also capable of romance: the caveat is that you have to be extremely attractive and waaay out of their league. Just because it doesn't happen to average guys, doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all. I knew a guy who traveled with this woman to a certain location at her expense and also cheated on her during the vacation. She was still dating him, providing…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/25 07:26 AM
10

The best way for most men to improve their dating prospects is to make more money. (Especially if they are broke.) The median income for the average American is about $40,000. This is not enough money to raise a family on one income. The Red Pill man making $40,000 who fantasizes about being the provider just isn't making enough money. So, men should focus on their career/education to make more money. The kind of money that attracts women is not attainable for the average guy in the West (unless…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/25 04:20 AM
–

The type of man that a woman is interested in, will have enough options where they don't need to do speed dating. The type of man who is desperate enough to actually resort to speed dating, would never be a man that women would be interested. If he has tried so many things that he is now at a stage where he is attempting speed dating... Not much else needs to be said. Nailed it. For most women, it's a way to get temporary attention without any serious commitments. Guys are usually the ones chasi…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 10:51 PM
1

OK, so do you agree that there has to be a baseline, minimal attraction towards the guy before a woman wants to have sex with him?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 09:47 PM
2

Yes, by lowering I meant lowering below the acceptable level. If you keep having enthusiastic sex with your husband, you are well above that level. Cool, glad we agree that there is no disagreement there.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 09:44 PM
1

Yes, but go ahead and read my response again. I am basically saying that most women do what you are already doing. They reduce their requirements for looks and choose more agreeable partners. Now, had you found your husband repulsive, would you have sex with him? It means that your "looks"standards are where they should be if you are having sex with him.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 09:33 PM
2

So you disagree with the first quote? You think you can have sex with a guy who you are not attracted to? Also, you are not quoting the second quote fully. There is a part of the quote you are omitting.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 09:30 PM
1

I am not arguing that you shouldn't have married your husband, you have the right to marry whoever you want. I am not sure why you disagree with my response to OPs post, though. Have you read it?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 09:21 PM
1

To all the people who disagree with this, come out of the shadows and present your arguments instead of cowardly downvoting this. Read the response first before coming at me with "looks don't matter to women for relationships, bro" because that's literally what I said in the response.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 09:15 PM
2

Show me the part where I said that female attraction is entirely looks-based. By the way, had you read my response, you would have realized that we agree but instead you decided not to read it and assumed that we disagree.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 09:12 PM
1

I wouldn’t have pursued him if I just saw him out somewhere. In that imaginary scenario, we’re strangers who just happen to see each other in the library or something, and I probably wouldn’t have tried to get to know him based on appearance alone. Cool, what about all other guys that you pursued, didn't you see them somewhere before pursuing them? And yes, I’ve basically told him that word-for-word. We’re pretty open about everything. This just confirms what I said in my response. You chose an …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 08:55 PM
2

Earlier you said this I definitely wouldn’t have pursued him if I just saw him out somewhere. Now you are claiming that I wouldn’t pursue someone who was involved with someone else How do you know that he is taken if "you just saw him out somewhere"? What I am implying is that you have already decided not to pursue him based on his appearance, not primarily based on the fact that he was taken (that you found out later). Also, you still didn't answer my question. Would you tell him word-by-word t…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 08:21 PM
2

My husband and I aren’t sure who pursued who any more because I didn’t realize that what he thought was our first date was a date at first. If you didn't realize what he thought was a date and he was sure that it was a date, it means that he was initially pursuing you. Now that we have established that. Would you be comfortable telling your husband that you have pursued all your previous partners before meeting him and tell him that you didn't want to pursue him when you saw him?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 08:00 PM
7

The context here is two consenting adults having sex with each other.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 07:54 PM
2

I wasn’t unattracted to my husband when we first met, but I definitely wouldn’t have pursued him if I just saw him out somewhere. Today, he makes me absolutely feral. Have you ever pursued other guys before meeting him?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 07:51 PM
3

There is an attraction based on "looks" that doesn't grow. You are either attracted to someone's looks or you are not. Then, there is a "comfort-based" attraction that can grow if you become familiar with someone. Do you think there is nothing wrong with OPs post?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 07:40 PM
3

This rhetoric is mostly coming from older women who are jaded about men of their age choosing younger women and label them as "predatory". I have also seen this from older boomer men who were engaging in age-gap hookups when they were young but now they have an adult daughter and suddenly "she is a princess that shouldn't be touched by an older man". You are a free person, if you want to have your hoe phase in your 30s, go ahead and do it. No one has the right to call you a "predator" or a "pedo…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 07:33 PM
2

Ok, so you were ridiculing the whole "provide like a real man" concept. In such cases, you should use quotation marks (just like I did) so that people can understand that it's not your actual position but rather an attempt to ridicule it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 06:18 PM
1

Is this how you define what "a real men" is? Is this actually your opinion?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 06:13 PM
–

You used the word “most”…. With the weak qualifier “(not all)”… that’s not getting you very far away from treating women as a monolith given then context you’ve set it in. e.g. In other words, I didn't imply that "women are a monolith". Otherwise, I don't understand how you define this theory. I am willing to learn what "women are a monolith" actually means if you think I am wrong. You are essentially insinuating that women are sheep and will go with the majority, and if you don’t, you’re fucked…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 05:51 PM
2

My current relationship? At first, it felt like a compromise. I wasn’t into his looks. The first impression? Meh. But his personality? Perfect match. I wasn’t dating anyone at the time, so I figured—“why not just see what happens?” Fast-forward: I’m completely in love now. His scent has become comforting. His soft belly is adorable. Sleeping next to him works better than melatonin. It honestly feels like I’m raising a big squishy puppy… that I’m also wildly attracted to. When I posted that women…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 05:43 PM
–

What??? You’re really pushing the “women are a monolith” theory aren’t you? What do you think is the “status quo political movement” at the moment? I literally said this Most (not all) women are going to be aligned with the majority political ideology. I don't think this qualifies as "women are a monolith". What do you think is the “status quo political movement” at the moment? Depends on where you live geographically, but there were multiple mainstream articles showing that women tend to vote f…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 04:46 PM
–

I don't need to choose anything. This happens automatically when you support the status quo political movement. Most (not all) women are going to be aligned with the majority political ideology, so no effort is required to cherrypick.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 04:30 PM
1

My intent was never to convince a woman that marriage isn't worth it. They already benefit immensely from the given laws, so they are obviously going to be in favor of it. My intent is to convince men that they don't need to do it. For most men, it's a pointless contract and more of a liability rather than an asset. You aren’t going to have a debate with a person whose acting hysterical, the relationship will be over right there 100% agree with this one. This is already a litmus test of understa…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 03:38 PM
2

The real question is: why do you care? Currently, I don't have a car and I don't own a house (although most people who have the same profession already bought a house using a mortgage). I also don't have any debts and I have a very sizable amount invested which will allow me to FIRE sooner than I thought. Do I invest the money to impress people? No, I just want financial independence. If a woman considers me a loser based on the fact that I don't have a house or a car, I am fine with it. The one…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 11:03 PM
4

That doesn't answer my question.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 10:27 PM
3

I haven't implied anything, I asked a question.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 09:53 PM
3

How do you think inviting gay men will help straight lonely men?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 09:41 PM
3

You haven't responded to my last question. Do you demand that they invite more straight men?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 09:26 PM
6

Gay men already have gay-only clubs and bars. No one asks them "Why don't you invite more straight men? Aren't they men?" because it's absurd, the whole point of a gay club is for gays to gather and enjoy each other's company. Male loneliness epidemic refers to straight guys who have trouble finding heterosexual relationships. Do you have the same demands for gays as well? Do you tell them to include more straight men in their clubs?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 09:09 PM
3

I asked you this. Classifying these people as "terrorists" is kind of harsh, don't you think so. It's implied that we are talking about all of them. You responded. Why shouldn’t we, if some of them actually do kill people like they often talk about doing? Implying that all of them should be classified as terrorists because some of them do kill people.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 08:34 PM
5

You confess nothing whatsoever is stopping you from attending gay bars I am not gay, why would I attend a gay bar? or holding male only events? Holding straight male-only events doesn't work, people get mad and call you a bigot because you are not inclusive enough.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 08:29 PM
3

I asked you this. Classifying these people as "terrorists" is kind of harsh, don't you think so? Just to remind you, we are talking about mostly peaceful people who vent about their dating issues. There have been only like 3 incels out of millions who have committed atrocities. You said this. Why shouldn’t we, if some of them actually do kill people like they often talk about doing? That's not a good argument. You don't consider all Muslims terrorists because some of them kill people. This is a …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 08:22 PM
7

It's not about one-off male events, you are consistently missing the point. I am talking about bars/clubs that only allow straight men all the time. Basically, women and gays are barred from entering those places. So I am going to repeat my question again. Do you really believe someone can just create a "straight-men-only" bar without any backlash from society?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 08:16 PM
3

Careful with arguments like that, some Muslims also kill people, we don't classify all of them as terrorists.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 08:06 PM
8

Do you really believe someone can just create a "straight-men-only" bar without any backlash from society? The "Boy Scouts of America" is changing its name to support inclusivity.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 07:23 PM
2

Fair enough. I have never said you are not allowed to criticize, it's more about whether these communities should be policed/banned. Classifying these people as "terrorists" is kind of harsh, don't you think so?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 06:46 PM
2

I do agree that people showing entitlement should be criticized, no doubt about that. What about a bunch of "incels" that do a youtube stream on their small Youtube channel that nobody cares about, how are they affecting your life?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 06:39 PM
5

Because they will not solve the problem by complaining I mean I agree, but aren't people allowed to vent? As long as they are venting with each other without harming you, why do you care what they are talking about? And we can judge that, just like how feminists are judged and hated Feminists get far better treatment by normies than the "manosphereans" and you know that.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 06:33 PM
9

Point taken. Now are you done telling me what I'm allowed to complain about? Can you point to where I said that you are not allowed to complain? I have literally partially agreed with your post, lol. Also, I don't think this kind of snarky contentless rhetoric is aligned with the community rules so I am going to check this with the mods.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 06:17 PM
11

You are not in a position to tell other people what they are allowed to complain about as long as they are not threatening you and are just minding their business. It's a free country. Just like women are allowed to vent about men (this is exactly what FDS does), men are also allowed to do that as long as they are minding their business. I don't agree with most of the FDS says but I don't think their community should be policed.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 06:12 PM
7

If these people are not harming anyone and are just minding their business, why do you care if they complain about women? Feminists complain about men all the time, does anyone consider their mission "unhealthy"? If you have gender-specific circles, there is always going to be some form of venting that is directed towards the opposite gender.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 06:03 PM
2

Power of attorney, beneficiary, living will, will, inheritance, healthcare proxy, 401k distribution, are all standard with marriage, but can be protected with a few hours with a lawyer and filing them with the state. Thousands of dollars and hours of time. This is a very U.S.-centric response. For example, tax benefits depend on the state that you live in. If you live outside of the U.S., tax benefits are very negligible. The assumption that you make is that the couple wants to combine their inc…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 05:57 PM
10

The fact that so many men see the solution to the "male lonelineless epidemic" as something that women can/should provide is just absurd. Agree, men should find ways to develop a self-sufficient lifestyle that doesn't necessarily involve women. men are lonely because men don't care to meet and build healthy, supportive, platonic relationships with other men Almost all "male-only" spaces are consistently infiltrated by women. It is kind of ironic that "female-only" gyms are a thing no one bats an…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 05:50 PM
1

No matter how much feminists try to pretend that women are still oppressed, women and children are still considered a "protected" class. The only way to protect yourself from relational aggression coming from women is to: - Always agree with women and basically become a status quo supporter of whatever the "current thing" is. - Go gay or transition to female which makes you part of a "more" protected class so you can always play "the gay" or the "trans" card. I am really speculating here but I t…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 05:40 PM
3

Marriage certificate and prenup is way cheaper than all of the paperwork you would need to file to even begin to cover what marriage does Can you give examples of what marriage covers that you would have to otherwise manually do? Marriage is a net positive if you choose properly and use appropriate safeguards. I am not against religious marriage (assuming both parties are religious) but secular marriage that involves the government doesn't provide any significant benefits.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 05:35 PM
3

I do agree that most guys here are not using their flairs correctly. I am not sure what the policy is for using "blackpill/mgtow", doesn't seem to be bannable. There is only one guy here mentioning that he is "trad", other than that the tradcon types usually use the "red pill" flair which is wrong. The "red" pill was never prescriptive, the tradcons are prescriptive.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 05:13 PM
1

Got you. So, tradcons/blackpillers/mgtows don't like redpill PUA types that much, so I don't think they would associate themselves with the "red" pill. The only content creator that comes to my mind that falls under your definition of hypocricy is Roosh V. The guy is a grifter. He used to sell books on how to get laid using the Western passport when he was young. Then, in 40s he switched to "conservatism", and now he claims that he is an Orthodox Christian. Obviously, I don't believe he has chan…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 05:01 PM
1

The "red pill" is used as an umbrella term by the mainstream to refer to people who are in the manosphere. Just like feminists are not a monolith, the "manospherians" aren't a monolith either. Different sections of the manosphere have different takes: - Redpill PUA types - they don't care about morality, their end goal is to get laid at any cost. They never claimed to be conservative in the first place. - Tradcons - tradcons are conservative AND consistent with their values. They are against pro…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 03:28 PM
6

If they feel that they need to do it, a conversation can be had as to why they think like that. OP is clearly hesitating that's why I suggested not to do it and I am willing to present my arguments.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 01:29 PM
4

Most men are not signing the contract of marriage just so that they can safeguard themselves from the very unlikely scenario that was presented. I know this and you know this. If you are really concerned about a scenario like this, you should hire attorneys and make sure that your relatives are also authorized to make a decision on your behalf in case such an emergency occurs. Ad hominem This is a very weak argument in favor signing a paper that can also potentially have other catastrophic drawb…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 01:20 PM
1

Not sure why you are getting downvoted. If guys are downvoting this, it's a tragedy. Masculinity is a social construct. I agree. Tradcons and feminists redefine the term according to how they want to shame men into doing things for society. A tradcon boomer is usually going to say "a real masculine man has to sacrifice himself without expecting anything in return", this is not a hyperboly, Scott Galloway who some people like here has literally said this in one of the interviews. Feminists will s…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 01:13 PM
1

Either a man is "weak and agreeable" or he's not. I disagree. Someone can have an outward strong appearance but also have an agreeable personality type. Both don't have to be true at the same time. Sometimes people compromise, that doesn't make you weak. I have never really implied that it does. My main argument was that unless you have been in a "high stakes" disagreement with someone, you cannot know whether they are the "compromising, agreeable" type or the "it's my way or the highway" type.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 12:57 PM
1

A "shoe cabinet" disagreement isn't really the kind of disagreement that is a deal breaker. My statement implied that the man is weak and agreeable when dealing with his girlfriend. There are plenty of guys who strongly push back when dealing with other people but have a soft spot for their wives and will try to compromise to avoid further confrontations.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 10:49 AM
1

If you don't have big disagreements, how can you claim that he is not agreeable? So you have never had an argument that you both disagree on? Who compromises in such situations?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 10:10 AM
4

Sure. You don't need to sign a contract for that though.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 10:05 AM
1

Just because I claim something is true in general, doesn't mean every single woman does it. Are you politically aligned with your boyfriend? What are the main disagreements that he has with you?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 09:57 AM
4

Is this your strongest argument?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 09:50 AM
4

Which needs do you think they can satisfy with one click that you can't?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 07:30 AM
1

While I do agree that hypergamy is overblown, there is a caveat. For the most part, most women have decentered men. They don't want to deal with most men. The ones who are looking for long-term relationships (not hookups) are specifically choosing weak, agreeable, "golden-retriever" type guys so that they can feel emotionally secure and have an upper hand in the relationship. While the looks standards for these guys aren't high, he should be an "ally" and a supporter of the "status quo" zeitgeis…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 01:11 AM
10

Agree. Women have already pretty much decentered most men. They are content on their own as long as they have a white-collar job and a support network. Also, more and more spaces are becoming "female only" like gyms, for example. Women simply don't want to deal with most men and it's fine. It's time for men to do the same. Most of the economy is fueled by guys trying to impress/get a woman. The simping on a massive scale should stop. Just live your life, find interesting hobbies, and live a mini…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 12:53 AM
16

Why are people complicating their lives? Just don't do it. Even if alimony laws were "fair", why do you need to sign a paper to be with someone?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/25 12:42 AM
1

I have a similar issue, my family moved around a lot when I was young, kind of hard to develop a strong social circle with a lifestyle like that. Once you are above a certain age with very few friends, you have to call it a day. Getting a girlfriend isn't going to solve your issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 03:37 PM
1

You are setting yourself up for failure. The more rejections you get, the more it's going to tank your confidence. These "dating "coaches are literally preying on guys like you, convincing you that you are a "loser" who needs to take action. Cold approach is simply not effective. Even if the woman finds you attractive, she might be thinking "this guy is attractive, why is he approaching random women on the street? Doesn't he have friends?". You can't force these things. I am pretty sure you have…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 03:28 PM
2

Is your strategy successful? What have you accomplished so far?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 03:22 PM
1

To each their own, I guess. I was wondering what you mean by "taking action". Approaching random women in the mall?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 03:18 PM
-1

but the thing is that, that doesn't happen as much anymore. Now most guys get "friendzoned". I disagree. I see a lot of ordinary, average guys in relationships. Those guys are not necessarily the most attractive guys, they are not "running game, holding frame" and they are not in the gym 24/7. They don't even wear the most fitting clothes. They just happened to be in the social circle of the woman that they are dating and have a very specific "golden retriever", agreeable type of personality. bu…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 03:04 PM
19

Truly unconditional love doesn't exist. When you think about loving a woman, you are already imagining a cute girl with a low body fat percentage and a symmetrical face. You are not going to suddenly love an obese girl with a receding hairline and crooked teeth. Your want for relationships is socially conditioned. You can replace that with a fulfilling life with hobbies.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 02:56 PM
12

I mean you are kind of missing the point. The key deal breaker here is that your friend is a Chad, not that he is a republican.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 12:12 PM
1

You don't need "game" for marriage. You have to have a "golden retriever" personality.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 11:21 AM
49

A loud minority flash mob that only very few people were aware of. I am pretty sure most normies don't know what 4B or MGTOW is. They are too busy trying to make ends meet.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 10:33 PM
138

Most average guys were ignored by women before the election, during the election, and after the election. Attractive dudes on dating apps (that could also be Trump voters) were still successful before the election, during the election, and also after the election. Practically speaking, nothing has changed.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 10:19 PM
7

I don't think confidence is a red pill talking point. Different people have different opinions depending on what works for them. We are usually biased based on what works for us. For example, an attractive guy who doesn't have issues with getting dates is going to assume that his "confidence" and "personality" are the dealbreakers because otherwise, he would have to admit that it's his genetics that attracts women. That's not easy to admit and is a huge blow to his ego. A 30 year old nerdy engin…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 10:12 PM
19

Cold approaching was never the "default" in the past. Heterosexual dating was never about random hookups and meeting strangers outside. I am so amazed at how heterosexuals adopted the gay dating culture. Most people entered relationships through social circles, by first developing familiarity and then becoming romantic partners. The whole idea that you should just approach women with "confidence" is a redpill PUA scam to extract as much money from guys as possible. They will literally tell you t…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 10:01 PM
0

If someone took your money without your consent, would it be considered theft? Would it be considered an attack on your personal autonomy? Yes. Any taxation that doesn't immediately benefit the taxee, is theft, therefore, a violation of personal autonomy. This is my point: if you are going to use the "personal autonomy" card, you should be consistent. there’s a difference in having the choice to have a job since no one is forcing you anyways, you could live in the wild if you want This is such a…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 07:35 PM
1

"based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something." When I use the word "arbitrary", it refers to the third definition that you posted. It is arbitrary in the sense that it tries to maximize the self-interest of the person who draws the line. Here is an example of an argument: - Why don't you just pay 10 cents as a tax? That doesn't change your economic power that much. - Ok, why don't you let men touch your breasts once…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 07:20 PM
1

OK, so this is the third time you are using "the law is the law" argument. You keep circling back to "it is what it is" once you run out of logical arguments. As I have said, I am not going to engage further because it's pointless. By the way, the democratic majority could decide that you should be a housewife tomorrow against your will. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I am not going to respond under this thread anymore because we keep circling back to tautologies. Thanks!
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 05:06 PM
1

You are basically arguing "if the government does it, it's ok because they are 'certified'". Fine, if that's the case if the government tomorrow decides that they have to heavily regulate how you enter relationships, I am going to tell you "Well, honey. It's the government. They are certified. it is what it is".
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 04:59 PM
1

So stealing money from me is for human rights? What if tomorrow I come to your house, steal half of your belongings, and donate it to some charity? Will you still defend my act under the guise of "human rights"?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 04:53 PM
1

That doesn't explain why the state has the right to take my money and give to other people, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 04:48 PM
1

You keep using "the law is the law" argument in your threads once you run out of arguments. I will stop engaging if you refer to it once again because it's a tautology and doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 04:46 PM
1

The state is entitled to decide how the taxes are used though Based on what principle? What if I said "The state is entitled to decide which people you enter relationships with".
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 04:42 PM
1

If you are going to argue using the current status quo laws as the absolute truth, I am not going to engage further because it's pointless.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 04:41 PM
1

Don’t you see the difference between paying taxes and being turned into a slave? Paying taxes that do not benefit me directly is theft, it takes away from my economic power. It's the equivalent of legalized robbery. Women in arranged marriages were not slaves either, they were taken care of by their husbands, so there was a middle ground there as well. it’s just a part of your income You are not arguing in good faith, it's not just money, it's the money that I earned by working hard. You are not…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 04:34 PM
1

Great, if the state tomorrow decides that you should be forcibly married to a man that you don't like, I will remind you that "it is what it is, I guess".
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 04:28 PM
1

Personal relationships do require person’s consent though. Removing content is just turning them into a slave, and that’s a total lack of autonomy. Everything requires consent, not just relationships. If someone takes your money without your consent, it's called theft. The government should ask my consent before spending my money on other people.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 04:25 PM
2

No, I am not going to engage in hypotheticals. By the way, some incels make the same claim. They say that if women are evenly redistributed among men, more men will be psychologically healthy and will contribute more. If you dismiss the argument above based on the principle of personal autonomy intactness, you should also dismiss your argument that I should pay more taxes to support other people's health.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 04:19 PM
2

Medical insurance for people who cannot afford it Not my problem, they are not entitled to my support. Or taxes that pay the police? It falls under the category of "benefitting me" so I am not against it.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 04:13 PM
2

Which services are we talking about? I have already stated multiple times that I am not against taxes that directly benefit me (for example, taxes collected for roads). Anything else, as far as I am concerned is a theft. Also, most of the services that I use are provided by individuals who transact with me. I give them money and they provide a service, it's a fair exchange. On the other hand, the government taking my money and using it to support other people's housing concerns is not fair. I am…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 04:09 PM
2

So your argument is "the law is the law, just conform, bro"? And the law in Afganistan is that women shouldn't leave the house without men. Would you tell the same to a woman who complains about issues there?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 04:00 PM
2

No worries, I think you misunderstand my position. I never said women should date me. I do believe no one owes anything to anyone because personal autonomy of people should be intact. My issue is with people who will use personal autonomy as a justification for saying that the government shouldn't redistribute women but do not consistently apply the same principle to anything else (like foods/shelter etc). If we agree that personal autonomy of people shouldn't be violated, then I shouldn't be ta…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 03:56 PM
1

I would rather keep my personal autonomy intact than consider hypotheticals that might affect me in the future. Even if I am wrong, I would rather keep my autonomy intact and it's my right to do so. Pros/cons can be constructed for forced redistribution of women as well. I am not interested in looking into hypotheticals whether it's an incel claiming that they are "entitled" to a woman or a poor person claiming that they are "entitled" to my taxes. I just want consistency. If I respect your righ…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 03:52 PM
2

What's your definition of "success"? Is it the number of "hookups", the quality of "hookups", a long-term relationship that lasts at least x years?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 03:38 PM
1

Glad you enjoyed it.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 03:13 PM
1

because when i pay taxes i don't get railed by every other taxpayer u idiot. I just get good roads n shit Quoting you here because I am going to report you to the mods for insulting me. If you carefully read what I wrote, I said I am not against the taxes that benefit me directly. Anything else is pretty much theft.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 03:05 PM
0

I am going to stop engaging because you spewed a bunch of nonsense. If you really believe that houses are just created out of thin air without taxpayers paying for it, I don't see any reason why I should be engaging further. The money that I earn is mine, period. Stealing it is an infringement on my personal autonomy. By the way, I have never argued against your body autonomy. Just like you have the right to your personal autonomy, I have the right to mine.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 01:27 PM
1

Yeah I agree, nobody should be able to force another person to be in a personal relationship, I’m not sure what he’s going on about. I have never argued for forced redistribution of relationships and have clearly stated my position on multiple occasions under the thread. Do your due diligence before accusing me of something that I have never said.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 01:14 PM
1

u/shadowrangerfs I agree. Rights are made up and are enforced by the government using forces like the police and/or the military. In other words, it is "might is right". There is no such thing as a "God" given right, it is up to the government to decide which rights should exist and which rights should not.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 01:11 PM
0

You keep painfully missing the point. If someone is entitled to something (whether it's a house or someone else's body), they basically get it for free because the government intervenes and does some form of forced redistribution. If you are claiming that people are entitled to housing, you are basically saying that someone else's house has to be taken against their will and given to a person in need. Selling the house doesn't count here because if a person can buy a house, they will. They don't…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 12:37 PM
2

The main argument against legislating some form of sex slavery/female redistribution is the violation of personal autonomy. I fully agree. No one should have their personal autonomy violated. But personal autonomy doesn't just stop at sex. The fruits of your labor are also part of your autonomy. If you tax me and the tax doesn't immediately benefit me, this is theft and theft is a violation of personal autonomy. Either way, drawing the line at "dating" is completely arbitrary and doesn't address…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 12:31 PM
-1

My position has been clearly stated multiple times and I have already answered this question. Personal body autonomy should be intact. So, no I don't want to legislate any sex slavery because I respect your personal autonomy. But I am also expecting the same treatment with regards to the fruits of my labor aka the money that I earn: I don't want to be taxed in a way that doesn't directly benefit me because that violates my autonomy.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 12:16 PM
2

I'm saying your argument that any position in between the extremes is arbitrary is false It's arbitrary in the sense that any person can draw the line wherever he/she wants depending on how it benefits them. An incel can draw the line at "let's redistribute women to men" because of his own inability to meet/date women organically, a broke guy who gets women but doesn't earn enough money might say "nah, let's keep women intact but let's redistribute other people's money ", someone who already get…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 05:16 AM
2

My position is "nobody owes anyone anything" just like OP says. I have been very active in the thread, if you actually open the comments from my profile page, you will see the details.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 05:03 AM
2

Thanks for the suggestion, I will consider that.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 04:57 AM
4

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion is absurd and that's why you're refusing to go there. If you really understand my argument, show me how taking it to its logical conclusion is absurd. I will keep engaging. Just because you don't agree with my position, doesn't mean its not logical. Personal autonomy of people is sacred. It's the core principle that shouldn't be violated. Part of personal autonomy is your body and also the fruits of your label. Any kind of infringement on personal a…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 04:54 AM
6

You are the one consistently missing the point. You literally said this But that doesn't mean they may don't both morally owe duties to pay taxes that go towards providing basic needs of food and shelter to certain folks, for example. And my point is that nobody owes anyone anything. I don't owe you money. You don't owe anyone money/sex. And yes, society doesn't owe disabled folks minimal funds for basic needs either. Some people out of the goodness of their heart might create a charity to suppo…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 04:43 AM
0

The post already describes my position very clearly. I have also been consistent in the replies as well. I am not going to repeat it again and again and again.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 04:08 AM
2

Like creating charities to support people in need, for example.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 04:07 AM
2

No, you misunderstand my position. This is how it works. My autonomy should be intact (just like anyone else's). That is the core principle. Some taxes keep my autonomy intact by directly benefitting me, others do not. So I am not against the taxes that keep my autonomy intact and I am against the ones that do not.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 03:55 AM
8

Housing shortage can be solved just by building more of it while fairly compensating everyone involved. Who is going to compensate the costs? Remember that we don't want to infringe on anyone's autonomy which includes the fruits of their labor because we are good people who believe in the principle of personal autonomy intactness.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 03:51 AM
-3

If you believe that redistributing money against people's will is ok under certain conditions but redistributing sex is not, then you are being hypocritical. You are arguing that some type of autonomy infringement is fine sometimes while other types are not. The core principle here is the intactness of autonomy. Introducing exceptions creates a slippery slope where another person can claim some exceptions for your bodily autonomy as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 03:42 AM
6

Why is taxation good if it benefits you but bad if it does not? When you tax someone, you are taking the fruits of their labor. If the fruits of their labor do not serve them directly, then it's a theft. Theft is an infringement on my autonomy. If we are against infringement on autonomy in any form (whether it's your body or your income), then we should be consistently applying this principle. Hope this helps you understand my position.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 03:18 AM
3

Depends on the type of taxes. I don't mind the taxes that benefit me (but might benefit others as a side effect, like road construction for example).
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 03:10 AM
-1

I am glad that we agree that the line is drawn in an arbitrary fashion. Thanks for your input.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 03:05 AM
3

I am actually very interested, I just haven't received a satisfactory answer that covers all the points that the question asks.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 03:02 AM
3

I have clearly stated my position multiple times. I am not for legislating sex and romance. I do believe that no one owes anyone anything. No one is entitled to your body just like no one is entitled to the fruits of my labor.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 03:01 AM
3

And why should your autonomy be infringed but mine shouldn't be? What kind of a question is this? My original point was that nobody's autonomy should be infringed. Given my income, odds are I make more than you and thus my "autonomy" is more restricted in paying taxes. I am not arguing that you should be paying taxes either, I am arguing that nobody should. No one is entitled to the results of your labor. If you want to donate your income for charity, it should be your own decision. But that doe…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:53 AM
1

This is the question We are discussing how you can solve the housing problem for people who don't have any alternatives and are in dire need of housing without infringing on other people's autonomy. Can you, please, show me the response to this question, I am having a hard time finding it.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:48 AM
0

I mean we could have a discussion on that but it's not relevant to the original point. I think we pretty much agree that entitlements are subjective and defined by the government depending on how much the government wants to invest into the population.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:41 AM
3

I am not sure why you keep posting things that don't have any relevance to the original argument. People who can find a shelter (any shelter) are out of this discussion. We are discussing how you can solve the housing problem for people who don't have any alternatives and are in dire need of housing without infringing on other people's autonomy.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:39 AM
3

and how do you increase the supply? Who bears the costs of construction?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:33 AM
3

without infringing on other people's autonomy so killing people doesn't count as infringing?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:32 AM
2

I mean if you already have a house, it's easy to say "let's just wait". What about people who don't have houses right now? Let's not divert from the original argument. Can you provide a guaranteed solution for people who have housing needs without infringing on other people's autonomy?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:31 AM
1

You are still not providing a guaranteed solution that makes housing accessible without infringing on other people's autonomy.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:29 AM
5

Also the more housing that is built in an area can lower the cost of all housing in the area due to supply and demand and that can make housing affordable. This is not necessarily true, if an institutional company like Blackrock keeps buying those houses, the prices will keep going up.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:26 AM
1

I wish I knew, lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:24 AM
6

Agree.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:22 AM
5

You mean the law shouldn't restrict you from buying a house, for example?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:19 AM
14

Just like you "don't have a moral duty to spread your legs", I don't have a moral duty to support other people at my own expense. You are not engaging fairly. Why should my autonomy be infringed but yours should stay intact?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:18 AM
0

Will be happy to look at if you have any relevant studies.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:15 AM
2

You do realize that that it is not a guaranteed solution to the shelter problem because chairities don't need to exist, they are not created by the government, they are created by citizens who care about the issues. What if you don't have enough charities to support people in need with shelter?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:14 AM
6

So you ran out of logical arguments and now are accusing me of hostility. I am not interested in engaging either. Unless you provide an example of a legislation that doesn't infringe on other people's autonomy when providing housing, I am not going to continue the conversation.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:10 AM
8

That's very nice of you to draw the line exactly where it benefits you. I wasn't expecting fair engagement from you anyway but I am going to continue: Everything you listed can be adjusted through legislation Can you explain how do you create a legislation that doesn't infringe on other people's autonomy when you are providing housing?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:01 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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