TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Intelligent-Insight Archive

View 0 posts and 5,373 comments by Intelligent-Insight 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 5,373 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-2

And you would be wrong because it's not homophobic. Those same people wouldn't be turned off by or judge women sleeping with women. Sexism yes. It's most likely a case of misandry.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 05:28 PM
0

It does. How do women know those men are bisexual? They probably told them. Whether they told them they got fucked by men or they told them that they are dreaming about getting fucked by men - the disgust is there. Yes, I'm assuming every bisexual man was (or wanted to be) penetrated. I'm not specifying the orifice. How else did they make another man orgasm? The idea is the same. Pleased another man? Ran through. I guess, maybe they didn't care about another man and solely used them. That would …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 05:21 PM
–

Wtf you mean how? Statistics show. There's also no rule that the coin toss MUST result in 50% heads and 50% tails. But if you look at big numbers and many tosses - then that's what you will roughly get. And no, women don't prioritize looks slightly more. You should probably look into it before talking as if you knew something. Blah blah blah. Outliers and exceptions. None of that matters, numbers show everything. The features that predict STR success in men are well known.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 05:16 PM
1

Incorrect. See above. This was already posted earlier and refuted right after. Reposting it doesn't unrefute it.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 05:14 PM
1

Incorrect. See above. Everything is explained in detail.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 05:14 PM
1

Right, and that was addressed. So how can you still have a problem understanding it? Those things are irrelevant. We are talking about dating/marriage. Those things, if anything, only prove that men can accept more women than women men for consensual sex. So much more, that the ratio is so bad that men have to pay thus creating demand for those things.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 05:13 PM
2

Treating different groups of people differently is not a double standard, I agree. But treating members of the same group differently is a double standard. Like, by definition it would be. Of course, you have different standards for, say, friends and family. But if you have different standards for different friends or for different men/women you are dating (potential partner group) - then that's a double standard. Do you disagree?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 05:10 PM
1

I don't care at all. I'm just explaining how it works.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 05:08 PM
1

Just because one cook didn't cook it right doesn't mean another one won't. Not all steaks are burnt.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 05:08 PM
-3

Look into hormones. There was a whole explanations with how there are different hormones involved in the process for men and women and how the hormones that are released in men are the ones responsible for pleasure but women's are also responsible for bonding. Something like that.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 05:03 PM
4

It explains everything, actually. And it's not bisexuality that triggers it. It's being fucked by a man. Both men and women have that disgust and prefer that their partner is not ran through by other men.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 03:54 PM
-4

It's not homophobia. it just happens to be homosexual in case of men. But really it's that both men and women don't want their partner to be fucked by other men.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 03:52 PM
1

It's very simple. Both men and women are turned off by the thought of their partner/potential partner pleasing some men that aren't themselves (if applicable haha).
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/26 03:52 PM
1

Because no sex act is special. So? Some of them like it, some of them don't. Some like it with some men but not with others. It has potential to be pleasurable with some partners. Even if its' only done for a partner - in which sense it is similar to oral sex. Unlike oral, though, there is some stimulation of g spot and such + the stretching feeling many women enjoy which goes will with stimulating her clit. Not even that, anus literally has many many nervous endings and is an erogenous zone in …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 11:32 PM
1

Then if she only tried it once then how would it be known that it's not pleasurable more often than not? You are contradicting yourself. Pick a lane. Because it's different with different partners. Sometimes even with the same partner. Plenty of examples where someone didn't like something with one partner but liked it with another or even with the same partner but later (e.g. first time having sex). No, it makes my point stronger because it proves that it depends on the partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 11:28 PM
1

Sure? It can be more than a tiny trifle and still be attractive for sex? I don't understand what you're having a problem with. Unlike women with men, most men see most women as humans, appreciate them, and are happy to share such human experiences as sex with them. Being attractive for sex is an absolute value pretty much, it's not relative to the man. Let's say, 3/10 is attractive for sex. It would be slightly less attractive than a 4/10 man but more than a smidge less attractive than a 8/10 ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 11:26 PM
2

You are interpreting as it as criticism. I'm not giving it any evaluation. I'm just calling it what it is. And no, of course it's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when you have different standards for yourself and for others. No, I am not trying to do that at all. Never have I said it's uniquely about women. That's like the third thing you are trying to put in my mouth. Why? We are talking about women because that's what the thread is about. I am specifically commenting on your attempt to pretend tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 11:22 PM
1

Why sell a house for $100k when you know there are couples out there with two full incomes and can therefore afford twice the budget of a single-income household. Exactly. So don't try to frame it as if it's women's fault somehow. Don't forget who is evil here. They don't have to sell the house for more. They are incentivized to do so and choose to do so, but nobody is forcing them.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 11:19 PM
2

Nobody is saying it's not normal. They are just double standards, that's all. And yes, there's something wrong IF you also pretend that those friends are equally friends to you when they are obviously not. Not that it's wrong to have friends of different ranks, so to speak. Back to the topic - who said anything was wrong? It was simply pointed out why those men are exalted. They are friends women will lend money to. And yes, he can compare them as if they are the same person because they are. Yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 10:39 PM
0

No, the pleasure rate doesn't change anything qualitatively. And if it was known in advance that it's pleasurable less often than not but she wanted to see if she likes it with one man but not the other - that makes my point even stronger, actually.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 10:23 PM
0

The sex act is irrelevant. She will enjoy it if she wants him more. She will enjoy it more if they use more lube (or less?), she will enjoy it more if he moves with the frequency she likes more, etc. There can be multiple reasons. Yeah most men wouldn't care if it means they get more than other men did.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 10:22 PM
1

OK, so 1) Didn't link so can't see where it is. More importantly 2) Nobody called you a misandrist. Or were you replying to some other comment? Because I questioned that you were called misandrist when you say that some women are attractive for sex but not LTR. What you posted doesn't prove it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 10:19 PM
0

I don't care about it, I have no emotions and like/dislike is not applicable. It is simply wrong as explained above. The most likely reason for it - projection. The fact that it's popular doesn't change anything. There are many dumb people.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 10:17 PM
0

Still wouldn't change anything. It's not related to how attractive she finds him. She maybe wouldn't want to have it anymore if she knew in advance it would be bad, too. But that would be seeing future. And your example would be reading minds or - even worse - thought policing.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 10:16 PM
1

Right. So not repulsive, just less attractive. My point holds.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 10:15 PM
1

Of course it does, how doesn't it? Yeah no, that's just denial. If that was true - then how come only certain guys are chosen? Sure, she must be horny first but that doesn't change anything? Many guys are convenient, yet, there are certain qualities that predict sexual success/short-term mating success. Saying that "some" are different does what exactly? Sure, there will be outliers. They are negligible, we are talking statistics and big numbers. It is universal. Again, a few exceptions don't me…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 10:14 PM
1

Incorrect. See above. Everything is explained in detail.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 10:10 PM
1

Incorrect. See above. This was already posted earlier and refuted right after. Reposting it doesn't unrefute it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/26 10:10 PM
2

They are often the same person. For example, the same woman will sleep on the first with some men but not with others. So yes, they will be applying different standards sometimes.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/26 07:45 PM
2

Incorrect. See above. This was already posted earlier and refuted right after. Reposting it doesn't unrefute it.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/26 09:01 PM
1

Incorrect. See above. Everything is explained in detail.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/26 09:01 PM
1

That's irrelevant since we aren't talking about those men. We are talking about how you are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/26 08:56 PM
1

I don't see why we're talking about those. I didn't get it from the post. The term uggos appears only in tldr and sounds more like a joke. The idea is to not look only for the most attractive women but instead to lower standards a bit.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/26 08:55 PM
1

That's exactly what it means because most guys are not chosen for it. You can disagree with how to describe that level of attraction but the point that only the minority can reach it still holds. That is, for men women need to be more attractive for LTR but for women men need to be more attractive for casual.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/26 08:50 PM
2

Incorrect. See above. You didn't show anything. Furthermore, you showed how you disagree with the point you make by making the opposite argument in another thread. Yes, other discussions are relevant because they demonstrate that you don't follow what you preach. And you still didn't even say in this thread - let alone in others - something like a certain race murders so it's okay to treat them differently. Still waiting. Until that happens, as already said above, you can gtfo and your argument …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/26 08:42 PM
1

Incorrect. See above.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/26 08:39 PM
1

I guess it's up to interpretation. I see what you mean now.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/26 08:39 PM
1

Link the comment where it happened to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/26 08:34 PM
0

Correct. And the point is that you are projecting or something and are wrong in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/26 08:34 PM
2

That's fine, why not. It doesn't change anything, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/07/26 08:33 PM
-4

No clue. Doesn't change anything anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 07:35 PM
1

Link the comment where it happened.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 07:34 PM
1

That's a false dilemma. Nobody is talking about having sex with completely unattractive people. You can be sexually attracted to someone even if you don't want anything other than sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 07:34 PM
1

Incorrect. See above.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 07:33 PM
1

Incorrect. See above. And you don't believe in what you're saying anyway. Here you are actively arguing against the point you are making here in the last paternity fraud thread that the search gave me: https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1l4lbga/its_not_offensive_to_ask_for_dna_test/?q=Outside_Memory5703&type=comments&cId=f6b2d405-da2d-4728-9031-0628b5e09d13&iId=3182b45a-3e54-4a3e-9a03-140b7c549ef5 And no comments from you expressing how N count is a good metric to judge women by b…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 07:33 PM
1

Incorrect. See above.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 07:30 PM
0

Very disrespectful. I don't care what he said though, I'm commenting on your comment as a standalone piece. Specifically the first part which is like general statements and questions.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 07:30 PM
0

? That changes nothing. The point holds. You are just projecting.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 07:28 PM
-3

It's not harmless if both get the same thing - which is consensual sex. And no, they are not objects - they are humans with their own preferences and behaviors in sex. And even if they were - the point still holds. You were wrong, they are not unattractive, they are attractive for sex, so nothing desperate in seeking sex with sexually attractive women.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 06:33 PM
1

Yes, you do. You provided nothing that I didn't show being wrong earlier. You - and society in general - does not find it acceptable to judge the entire race by a few. This very sub does not want to judge women for the past and actions of minority. And yes, you absolutely need to demonstrate those positions to be consistent. If they are not demonstrated - you are simply lying. I'm looking for the latest threads rn.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 06:25 PM
1

Incorrect. See above.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 06:22 PM
1

Once again, unless you will link your comments in mainstream subs where you say that it's okay to say black people kill and to treat the entire race differently - you can stfu and have no argument you believe in. You arguing just to argue. Or even better. Let me find the most recent N count thread and see if you have a top level comment where you say that yes it matters if a woman slept with many men because studies show that women with higher count are more likely to cheat/divorce etc. I will a…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 06:22 PM
1

Yes, projection is a common reason.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 06:19 PM
4

It's only better if being celibate is the choice you make, not the choice made for you. If you could stop being celibate and be with a woman you find attractive any time (reasonably soon), then it's a choice you make.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 06:14 PM
-3

Attraction is a spectrum for men. There exist women that are attractive for sex but not for LTR.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 06:13 PM
1

Incorrect. See above.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 05:51 PM
1

Incorrect. See above. Until you claim that black people murder in some active thread somewhere and link that comment or better - create a thread explaining how it's okay to say that and link it - you can stfu and have no argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 05:51 PM
1

Because these guys are basically saying that it’s not that hard, it’s a skill issue for a lot of men. Yeah no, you have no argument here. Not after we've all seen Nazi child molester Chad's performance on the apps. You're only proving that it's hard for average men. Now onto the second video where A WOMAN understands the plight of men! She uses the interviewer’s pictures for Tinder to see what happens! Also no argument. Especially the part of imagine they aren't getting no matches but just don't…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 05:37 PM
1

Of course there is. There's absolutely no other reason to think that they are blindly hitting on everyone because of desperation. It's explained above.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 05:19 PM
1

It does. See above.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 05:19 PM
1

Incorrect. See above.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/07/26 05:18 PM
1

Incorrect. See above.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 05:58 PM
1

Again, that doesn't change the point. If you wanna argue that most people project just like you and that that's why they would hit on everyone - you can go ahead. My point holds. That's just you making stuff up and projecting.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 05:58 PM
1

Exactly. It's not the case. That's because proof exists. See above.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 05:57 PM
1

Good thing that's not the case here. Everything is there and explained in detail. If something is not clear - ask. If you have no questions, then good for you that you finally got it. At this point it's established that the question is closed. You are wrong, I am right.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 05:38 PM
2

They always have been
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 05:30 PM
1

None of those are fine. See above.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 02:38 PM
1

I did. Scroll up. If you can't - see above. Or below. At this point it's established that the question is closed. You are wrong, I am right.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 02:38 PM
1

No, it doesn't communicate any of that. That's just you making stuff up and projecting. Maybe that's why you would hit on everyone. You don't know if you vibe and communicate until you hit on them. It might take hitting on everyone until you find those 2 women.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/26 02:37 PM
1

Yes, I have. No, it's not. If you want a partner, you do your best to get that. Whatever it takes is not desperate and pathetic. The ends justify the means. And the ends are not desperate and pathetic. You don't seem to understand what we're discussing. It's fine, refer back to your receipt. It covers that, too, starting with the second sentence.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 09:37 PM
1

You had your chance. You are either being or playing dumb, misunderstood what I said, reiterated it shortly after I already explained what I meant. So yeah, you simply didn't scroll up. Of course it was explained. Multiple times. Nothing was arbitrary - it was very clear that we are talking about men specifically and not just humans who happen to be men. But yeah, as proven above - you didn't scroll up and didn't reread. And just talking bs rn. At this point it's established that the question is…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 09:33 PM
1

No, it's not. If it's different from what being discussed then it's only because you are trying to derail the topic. I have been discussing the same thing the entire time.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 09:21 PM
1

That's incorrect. I did not agree on what I was talking about and the point holds. Everything is explained in detail above.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 09:18 PM
1

QED. Pearls before swine. No, for the 10th time that's not what I admitted. I literally explained it a few comments ago. That's not what I said and that's not what is meant by what I said. I explained how it works earlier. Necessary but not sufficient is not the same thing as not only. Yeah, at this point it's established that the question is closed. You are wrong, I am right.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 09:18 PM
1

That's incorrect. See above.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 08:11 PM
1

Incorrect. Reasons are given above. Everything is explained step by step with examples, analogies, and even taking into account semantics (e.g. man vs human). Scroll up and reread, lmk if you have any questions. If you have no questions anymore (you should since you demonstrated that you didn't understand some major points just a few comments ago) and understand you were wrong now, then it's all good. If you have no questions or weren't even able to find reasons after this attempt, then it's est…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 08:11 PM
0

Nope. Has nothing to do with me. I am not talkin about myself or any particular people actually. I'm talking about the principle. What they will assume - incorrectly - is on them and is irrelevant to the conversation. You said that those men are desperate and pathetic. Not that some women will assume that. No. You said that they are.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 07:38 PM
1

Incorrect. Reasons are given above. Everything is explained step by step with examples, analogies, and even taking into account semantics (e.g. man vs human). Scroll up and reread, lmk if you have any questions. If you have no questions anymore (you should since you demonstrated that you didn't understand some major points just a few comments ago) and understand you were wrong now, then it's all good. As of right now, the question is closed. You are wrong, I am right.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 07:36 PM
1

That's incorrect. See above.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 07:34 PM
1

Yes, I did. Scroll up. If you still can't do it or comprehend what was said, then the question is closed. You are wrong, I am right.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 05:32 PM
1

Incorrect as explained above.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 05:31 PM
1

There's nothing to live with, none of that has anything to do with me. The only thing is that you were wrong. That's all.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 05:31 PM
1

Yes, when you say group does something - that implies the group in general does it. And if you don't mean to say that - then you need to specify it. It's all explained above. If something is still unclear - scroll up and reread.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 05:40 AM
1

Yes, I have. And you failed to challenge it. Scroll up. It's all explained above. And nobody is saying that it's the only form. It's the necessary form but it's not sufficient. Literally of this was already covered. Again, you are going in circles, unable to understand simple logic or to present any new arguments. Didn't even acknowledge you were wrong in the recent comments saying what I supposedly said when I specifically said something else. The question is closed, you are wrong, I am right.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 05:39 AM
1

Then the majority of people would be wrong. It doesn't matter who and how many make it - the assumption is wrong in general as proven above.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 03:59 AM
1

Nope. That's incorrect to say about the entire group. Only some men lie. Studies show that only the minority lied once. An even smaller minority lies regularly to the point where you would use present simple. You are still wrong as was proven above.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 03:58 AM
1

You are the only one making assumptions here. I am not making any assumptions, I'm just telling you that you are wrong in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 02:43 AM
1

The statement is incorrect as explained above.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 02:43 AM
1

You obviously do. If you didn't, then you wouldn't say stuff like the first sentence of your previous comment, which is not at all what I was saying AND I explained how it wasn't that multiple times. There's literally zero personal anything in my comments here. Formal logic only. The question is closed, you are wrong, I am right.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 02:37 AM
1

No, it's not. Some men rape. Just like you can't say black people kill. Only some of them do. Irrelevant. I am commenting about a particular claim you made which I proved to be incorrect above.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 01:25 AM
1

ok, so you just don't get it and don't even get it enough to ask a question to clarify it. Just say that then, why waste time. That's not at all what I was doing and as I shown above no men can't just be valued by nonsexual things because that's not man-specific. They can be valued by more than sexual things but sexual things are necessary. It's all explained above. Reread. But yeah looks like you just have troubles comprehending simple logic. The question is closed, you are wrong, I am right.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 01:25 AM
1

And that's just an incorrect assumption if there's no other reason to assume that as explained above.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 01:20 AM
1

There's nothing to refute. None of what you said refuted what I said prior. The point holds. Of course he did. He had to compete with more people and get paid less. He now can't afford a house and kids on single income. Yes, sure, interest of liberty for women as a whole. Charity pussy scheme would be for happiness of men as a whole. Wtf you mean "other than him being lonely"? Why would men sacrifice for no reason other than her not being liberated? Why would men's problems be less important tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 12:06 AM
1

The general message is the same and my point holds. Everything is explained above.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 12:02 AM
1

It is required to say group X does something, as already explained above. Exactly. You can't say that group X rapes or murders just because some of the members of that group do it. If you do that about certain groups you even get cancelled. So yes, those behaviors prove it - and by it, of course, we mean what I said, not what you said.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/26 12:01 AM
1

There were both. It's all explained above. No, that's not what I admitted as I already reiterated multiple times recently. Again. See above. The 3rd time I'm asking a direct question - are you capable of understanding formal logic and what I explained earlier or no? If you can't answer after being asked 3 times, then I think it's pretty clear that you just can't grasp it and this topic is simply way above your head. Then the question is automatically closed and the status of this conversation so…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 11:59 PM
1

Nope. You can't say it if you are not talking about the group in general, just like you can't say that black people kill and rob. It is not true as explained above. What women say changes nothing.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 08:51 PM
1

Yes I did. Plenty of examples and analogies too including engineers, children, old men, scientists etc. The question is simple. Are you capable of grasping it or not. I already asked it in the previous comment and you still didn't reply. So if you can't grasp that you were asked a question, odds are you can't grasp the explanation - and that's why you are struggling with it for so long. Hope that helps.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 08:49 PM
1

Half a woman - that would be desperate and pathetic. Hitting on women or bunches of women isn't as explained above. It requires hitting "blindly" but you can't assume that the hitting is blind just because it's bunches.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 08:47 PM
1

Nope, you're not. See above. Advice has nothing to do with the conversation. It's irrelevant what the best approach is. What's relevant is that hitting on women is not desperate and pathetic.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 08:40 PM
1

Which is why can't say "group X" does it. Have to specify. You didn't, therefore your claim was wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 08:33 PM
1

Incorrect. See above. I conveyed my reasoning too many times to repeat it again. Are you capable of understanding it or not? If yes - see above. If not - then no wonder you can't challenge and the question is automatically closed. You are wrong and I am right.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 08:32 PM
1

See above. Explained it multiple times. With examples and analogies and everything. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong. Unless you have anything to challenge what was said above - this question is closed.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 08:22 PM
1

Irrelevant to the conversation. I am talking about a particular comment you made. You were wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 08:21 PM
1

Nope. That's not what I noted. That's exactly what it means as explained earlier and demonstrated by example. That's exactly why you were wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 08:21 PM
1

Yes, it does. Referring to a group just by its name implies that it applies to that group in general. Which requires all or most. No, that's incorrect. Simple example: Race X commits violent crime, when it's really the minority of it doing that. Go ahead and say something like this and then explain that it doesn't paint everyone with the same brush.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 08:15 PM
1

Can feel connected to more than that. Can become a bunch of them if the ones he approached didn't want to connect.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 08:00 PM
1

That's your problem. You see everything if you choose to see. Proof was presented above multiple times. Repeating it again would be casting pearls before swine. See above. Explained it multiple times. With examples and analogies and everything. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong. Unless you have anything to challenge what was said above - this question is c…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 07:59 PM
1

No, you said men who do are desperate etc. Which I shown to be wrong (unless there's proof) above.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 07:53 PM
1

And again, that claim implies men in general. If the talk is about the minority - it needs to be specified. Which it wasn't. Neither then nor now.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 07:52 PM
1

Yes, there were. See above. Explained it multiple times. With examples and analogies and everything. I am done repeating myself and won't do your legwork for you. I repeated them multiple times already as is back then, I won't scroll to look for them now. As I said before, if something is unclear or you forgot examples or something - go reread. The current status is below. I have proof, it was presented earlier - you could not argue with it. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only rep…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 07:51 PM
0

Blah blah blah. Point holds. They allowed to increase the supply of labor to help random women. There were other things they gave women or have done for women. Women can do something for them, too. And it's not even about men and women, humans should help humans when they can.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 06:35 PM
1

Nope. You said men lie etc. I quoted it above.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 06:33 PM
1

Yes, there were. See above. Explained it multiple times. With examples and analogies and everything. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 06:33 PM
1

Read again. Not most men. Most men who hit on women doing hobbies.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 06:32 PM
2

True, it's the power imbalance. She has a lot more power than him and can replace him on a whim with another 55 year old while he can't necessarily get another 23 yo woman, so he has to keep her happy. That's fertile ground for manipulation and abuse.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 05:52 PM
0

What do you mean by stage of life, though? If that's what it's about, then you can definitely assume that there exist 40 year people that are in the same stage of life as early 20s people, men and women.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/26 05:51 PM
1

Sure? And doubling the labor force is equivalent to a lot more than a year spent helping a random woman. Now it takes you twice as much to earn what you would earn when the labor supply was two times smaller.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 12:43 AM
1

Right, I showed you that you are wrong when talking about most men who would hit on women there.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 12:40 AM
1

Incorrect. The majority is necessary if you make a claim like group X does Y. It was already covered earlier.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 12:38 AM
1

No, that's not all I said above. I explained why with examples. It's all explained above. Reread if you forgot. Explained it multiple times. With examples and analogies and everything. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/26 12:36 AM
3

That was proven wrong before you even posted. Why not read the sub for a while before talking? Yes, what you said would work - if both men and women evaluated each other the same way. Instead, women see 80% of men as below average, so a 50th percentile woman thinks that a 50th percentile man is not on her level.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 08:14 PM
1

Yes, for people who are looking for that it feels lonely . And yes, sex and kisses. So wtf do you mean "so why be so upset?" That's why. Those things are a huge deal and give life flavor. What's the point without them and when you know there's no hope to get them? Continue with their lives why and for what? The only question then is - school or CEO?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 08:09 PM
1

Nope. That's not what I'm doing. Again - nobody is talking about blindly hitting on women. Get back to the topic, what you are saying now is irrelevant to the conversation.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 08:07 PM
1

No, you said men. I quoted it earlier. What you linked is not the claim I was commenting on.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 08:02 PM
1

Nope. It's all explained above. Reread if you forgot. Explained it multiple times. With examples and analogies and everything. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 08:00 PM
1

You can imagine whatever you want. 40k on reddit is not even close to what redpill had 10 years ago and still wasn't considered big or impactful. And weren't there videos or posts from Korean women saying how it's a negligibly small "movement"? Pretty sure there were. Seen them a while ago, though, would need to look for them.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 07:59 PM
0

That's not what I said and no it's not crazy to say. I deliberately exaggerated to show how it works. If one sex can do something to make lives of the other sex better - when they don't have to - then why shouldn't the other sex do the same? Like yeah, it's not their job so they don't have to. But should they? Yes, why not?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 07:55 PM
-5

? Why not? People should help each other when they can. Or, idk, why should've man shared civil rights with a woman? Or help in any way at all?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 05:18 PM
1

I don't see why but if you did and I didn't - that wouldn't be a deal breaker because I would appreciate your perspective and maybe we would learn from each other. And maybe we would end up breaking up and maybe we wouldn't, but definitely wouldn't be a good enough reason to not even go on one date. You love people despite things, not because of them - that would be like picking what's convenient and loving for what they do or how they perform for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 04:36 PM
2

This has nothing to do with the conversation. What they think or feel is on them. It's still not desperate or pathetic to want a partner and do whatever it takes to consensually get them.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 04:29 PM
1

As long as all 7 members agree on it, it's all good.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 04:27 PM
1

True. That's why it's great that I'm not simply declaring anything and demonstrated how everything works step by step earlier. It's all explained above. Reread if you forgot. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 04:26 PM
1

Nope. You are wrong as explained above and provided no new arguments. Therefore, there's nothing new for me to write and I will keep referring you to what was said earlier. Just reread the title and the comments. We already see that it takes you a while to grasp these things. Take your time. You'll get it eventually.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 04:21 PM
1

Tf you mean "so first but now"? It's both and there's no contradiction. Conceptually they are the same. If women have the power to withhold sex - they can exercise that power. If men have the power to withhold whatever they want or to write and enforce laws - then they should be able to do that.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 04:20 PM
1

You did, I quoted it earlier.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 04:19 PM
1

The situation is even worse in that dating market actually. The ratio of fem dommes to male subs is a lot lower. And you are still supposed to initiate and all to be noticed haha You forgot the main orgasm gap - orgasms per attempt to get an orgasm. Men get their orgasms in like 1 out of 100 attempts. Also, what is "moon"?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 04:15 PM
1

Yeah no these numbers don't reflect what's going on. Fantasy is fantasy and just having a fantasy to do it once is not the same as wanting to do it somewhat regularly. Just go try chyrpe or feeld as a submissive man. Your results won't be much different from tinder.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/26 04:12 PM
2

Except the quiet part that a lot of women don't want to say out loud is that they're not ATTRACTED to liberal men because they don't look or act as masculine I mean, they often don't even act liberal. Like look at yourself with politics being a deal breaker instead of embracing diversity of thought and points of view (pluralism of opinions).
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/26 09:17 PM
22

One example of anything doesn't prove anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 05:42 PM
1

Yes, there is a good reason and it was provided multiple times earlier. It's all explained above. Reread if you forgot. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 05:41 PM
1

Just reread the title and the comments. We already see that it takes you a while to grasp these things. Take your time. You'll get it eventually.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 05:39 PM
2

As I said, not talking about legal or violent punishment. Also, not fair talking about those anyway. Every sex has its own strengths and weaknesses. Not fair to allow one of them to do what they can do but not the other. Which only proves my original point. You are allowed to exercise your power to withhold sex (which you could give) but men aren't allowed to withhold what they give you? Yeah no.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 05:39 PM
1

It's a false claim if it implies that men as a group commit rape. Some men commit rape, most men do not. No, it's not necessary to explicitly say ALL depending on the context. For example, if the context is a discussion of what different sexes do.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 05:36 PM
1

That doesn't change anything. You just have different means of enforcing your standards. Conceptually, nothing changes. And nobody is even talking about jail. Even openly refusing to date someone for their weight or sexual past will get you cancelled if you're a man. You'll be called a slut/bodyshamer and a sexist/oppressor.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 04:43 PM
1

Which joining a hobby or going to an event is not one of.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 04:40 PM
1

That's on women and still means that saying that "men rape" or "men are rapists" is a false claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 04:39 PM
2

Blindly hitting does a lot of lifting here. There's no contradiction here. One can go somewhere with the sole goal of hitting on women, yet not do it blindly and actually trying to get to know them and to connect.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 04:38 PM
1

Just reread the title and the comments. We already see that it takes you a while to grasp these things. Take your time. You'll get it eventually.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 04:32 PM
3

Oh nice, so 3 more women joined?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 02:39 PM
10

Right, but when men set and enforce their standards on how women should be/behave - that's oppression.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 02:38 PM
0

It was never about fucking people. It was always about getting fucked by men. That's why men and women view it differently and that's why it would never be the same like in your first sentence. A man mad at woman getting fucked by 1000 men wouldn't also get fucked by 1000 men, so there's no reason he shouldn't be mad (using your logic/terminology) because he hasn't or wouldn't do same.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 02:36 PM
14

Because it's desperate and pathetic to want a partner. Lmao, if most people think that then most people are braindead and we really need to invest into solving that teacher shortage. Brains don't develop, it's a tragedy.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 06:48 PM
1

Nope. Not lying. Again, at least once a year is irrelevant when we are talking about struggling. Just reread the title and the comments. We already see that it takes you a while to grasp these things. Take your time. You'll get it eventually.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 06:45 PM
1

It does have to be a majority to make claims that you made. The claim was not about behavior. It was about men and you literally double down on it yourself later, for example, here https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1u5j2i2/comment/ouevug6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button You talk about men, not some men, as if men as a group do this.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 06:45 PM
1

Well there you go.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 06:43 PM
1

Yes, there is a good reason and it was provided multiple times earlier. It's all explained above. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 06:00 PM
1

Generalization does mean majority at least. Otherwise, you say some or minority. Which nobody would argue with - some men do that indeed. Your examples only showed that the minority of men do this, which is nothing new. The claim the way it was phrased was wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 05:59 PM
0

That is incorrect. Multiple women is, of course, natural. That's why nature made sure the refractory period is short and multiple women can be impregnated by the same man. That's why they are attracted to multiple women even if they don't pursue that. Again, see the definition. See the definition of natural, too. You are confused. What you are thinking of is the social construct, not what's natural.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 05:53 PM
1

Nope. Not lying. Again, at least once a year is irrelevant when we are talking about struggling. Just reread the title and the comments. We already see that it takes you a while to grasp these things. Take your time. You'll get it eventually.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 05:51 PM
1

Yes, I did. Scroll up. If you want exact descriptors - you can find those, too. There are entire subs about this here, for example. There's literally one where they rank appearance using objective measurements. Forgot what it's called, truerankme or something like that.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 05:51 PM
3

His profile was shown in the video. In absolutely no way what he said there was screaming "he must be using playtime". There's no biased anything. Just watch the video where he shows his profile.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 03:43 PM
1

Nope. It is not. Again, you don't understand what perversion means. You should read the definition before you use the word. Not wanting multiple women is perversion. Wanting multiple women is natural. It doesn't necessarily mean disloyalty if the main woman doesn't lose anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 03:42 PM
1

No, you don't understand for some reason - that's very different from me not making sense. It's not at all circular, the last comment was literally about a person who's new to it and how they would learn.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 03:39 PM
1

Nope. Not lying. Again, at least once a year is irrelevant when we are talking about struggling. Just reread the title and the comments. We already see that it takes you a while to grasp these things. Take your time. You'll get it eventually.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 03:38 PM
1

No, it's not enough to say "men do something". Say that implies men as a group, when in reality the minority of men do it. You required me to provide a single example of both 1) a man using a woman for sex and 2) a woman requiring effort to filter out such men No, that's not what I required. Wtf are you on about? Can you not read or something? I required you to prove your claim that implies that men as a group lie to get sex. You failed to do so.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 03:37 PM
1

Yes, there is a good reason. It's all explained above. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/26 03:35 PM
1

Irrelevant. "Get laid" including once a year is irrelevant in the thread about struggling to get laid. Just reread the title and the comments. We already see that it takes you a while to grasp these things. Take your time. You'll get it eventually.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 09:49 PM
1

And that claim was not proven. All you showed is that 22% of college men do it. I did bother looking, you didn't. 22% of college kids. That's not men do it. That's some men do it.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 09:43 PM
1

As long as they are not sexually rejected, yes, those other things add to it. No, that's not what I did. Reread again.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 09:42 PM
1

Unless you can show it's not a negligible minority, no, we pretty much can say that men don't do this. Almost no man starts a relationship with a woman he wouldn't have sex with, and almost no man will not have sex with a woman he wants to have sex if she wants to have sex with him.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 08:56 PM
1

Incorrect. You are claiming that I agreed with X. For you to be correct, my agreement with X is necessary. I did not agree with it and therefore you are wrong saying that I agreed to something. I explained exactly what I was agreeing with and saying above in detail. Reread again if you are going to repeat what was already addressed earlier. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am ri…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 08:46 PM
1

These studies do not prove your claim. They simply show that some men do it. In fact, they show that the minority of men do it, therefore your claim that men do (i.e. majority is implied otherwise you can't say that the group does it) is proven wrong by your very sources. (e.g. first link: "About 1 in 4 college males admit to having lied or made false promises to have sex.") Thanks for showing them, I didn't care enough to look myself. Now we know that you were wrong. Your claim is thus dismisse…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 08:45 PM
1

Nope. It is not. Again, you don't understand what perversion means. You should read the definition before you use the word. Perversion is not wanting multiple women.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 08:42 PM
1

No, blaming SW is not absolving men from anything. Just like blaming drug dealers doesn't absolve addicts. Addicts still made their choice but they are victims here still compared to suppliers who not only made the choice to meet demand but also to benefit from it despite the damage it causes. Free will of SW clients, drug users, or gamblers doesn't change the fact that people benefitting from them are evil. It's very simple. I don't need to change your mind. I'm showing you where you are wrong …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 08:41 PM
1

Yup. It's nothing in the context of the thread. Those facts do not challenge the title because they include people who ARE struggling to get laid. Just reread the title and the comments. We already see that it takes you a while to grasp these things. Take your time. You'll get it eventually.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 08:38 PM
1

Because she didn't think about it before and decided to figure it out now.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 08:36 PM
7

Wym? Did he call it playtime in his profile? If not, what sense does your point make? And it's not that he's not everyone's cup of tea - no one is, - it's that he turned out to be nobody's cup of tea. And if it's so bad for him, what chance do most men have?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 05:27 PM
0

That'd be a good point if 1) He used that terminology in his profile; 2) We didn't see all the chadfishing experiments, in one of which the guy was a nazi and convicted child molester - which he reiterated in chat in case they didn't read his profile.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/26 05:24 PM
–

No, it's not the same thing. Both those categories of women get sex. And the LTR category won't have to wait longer if they'd rather not, won't get less sexually because he doesn't want her to see him that way, etc. The point is, LTR - that is supposed to be better - in this case is indeed better and gets a better deal + gets his sexual best and most enthusiastic.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 12:28 AM
–

Men don't do this. They will hook with women they want a relationship with, too. Many relationships start as hookups.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 12:26 AM
1

That is true. Similarly, the partner of whichever gender/sex happens to be more sexually desirable (who knows which gender will have it easier to get laid years from now) at the time should provide their partner with regular sex since that partner became older and rusty and won't be able to find someone quickly if at all. That is, of course, if the sex of their partner is the one that has to work to get sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/26 12:15 AM
1

What do you not understand? In my original comment I said - you are wrong saying that men are shaming women for whom it's the last resort. You replied to that comment. We were discussing that comment. Then you say - oh so you like/dislike this and that. That literally has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You just have no arguments - so just say that. Gonna be talking about syntax when I asked multiple times what exactly you didn't understand so you could just ask and clarify. Can't mak…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 07:48 PM
1

That sounds like you don't love them anymore. And wanting multiple women is not a perversion. It is actually natural. I don't think you understand what the word pervert means.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 07:45 PM
1

? Everywhere. Some things are well known and established. This is one of them.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 07:38 PM
0

Good thing that's not at all what I said and if you can't show where I said that (you used quotation marks as if I did), then you lied and failed. Just reread the title and the comments. We already see that it takes you a while to grasp these things. Take your time. You'll get it eventually.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 07:37 PM
1

Nope. That's not what I agreed to. I said that sex is necessary but not sufficient. Reread again if you are going to repeat what was already addressed earlier. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 07:36 PM
1

No. It's not proof. It's an anecdote. Ok, so no source, you pull that claim out of your ass, which is now established. Great, then we can finally dismiss it and conclude that you were wrong and I was right.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 07:36 PM
1

Oh, I see, you are just trolling and playing dumb. Lasted quite a bit. Good job. You replied to my comment where I was telling whoever said that men are shaming women for whom it's the last resort that they are wrong. So that's the point you are arguing with or why else did you reply?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 07:30 PM
1

No, that doesn't sound very loving, especially if leaving them is the opposite to what they would prefer. Don't see how this is love. Love is actions, not saying I love you and then doing what you don't want me to do and not doing anything of what you do want me to do. I fail to see how you can love them and leave. If you love them you would want to stay.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 07:22 PM
1

Correct. That's why we should at least express our resentment and at best try to shame them to discourage them from being like that and to discourage others from becoming like them. And of course, this applies not only to billionaires but to this thread as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 06:25 PM
0

? That's not an answer. There was no question. That's just an incorrect argument as explained above. So yes, I am correct. You failed to challenge it. Saying nuh uh is not argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 06:23 PM
1

? What does it have to with what I personally like or dislike? Once again, I said - you are wrong saying that men are shaming women for whom it's the last resort.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 06:10 PM
1

Sure, if you don't love them enough to want to solve the problems and be together. I just didn't include that into what I'd call love, but sure we can just say somewhat love or love not enough instead of saying don't love.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 06:08 PM
1

Unless you are not attracted to one of the protected characteristics. If you aren't attracted to one member of group based on X trait - that's not being attracted, if you aren't attracted to all members of group X or to all people who have some characteristics that group X has or correlate with the X trait - then that's X-ism.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 06:06 PM
1

This has nothing to do with your claim that I am talking about, which is "Men already know, that’s why they lie about wanting casual sex rather than relationship sex, either outright or by omission" Also, anecdotes and forum responses are not a source or proof of anything. There's literally zero proof that everyone who posted there is a woman to begin with or posted only once etc. Show controlled studies or GTFO.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 05:49 PM
1

Nope. That's not what I agreed to. I said that sex is necessary but not sufficient. Reread again if you are going to repeat what was already addressed earlier. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 05:41 PM
0

Yes, they are. You can count how many relationships/sex partners each person gets, then plot it. Which is why it's pointless to then talk about "I can't say I've witnessed women" if you are refusing to witness them. STFU and GTFO with that crap. So then? What are you arguing with? Women do talk shit about men and express their annoyance with what men do or their other qualities when they do something women don't want them to do. Men are allowed to do the same.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 05:41 PM
1

Of course I have. They are logically consistent and correct. It's exactly through comparison with them that we can clearly see how embarrassing what you are saying is. Read the title again.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 05:37 PM
1

Yes, there is. One person's ideal is another person's mid etc doesn't matter when you look at the big picture. If there was no league and no consensus, you wouldn't observe that certain people tend to end up with certain people, which you clearly observe.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/26 05:35 PM
1

We do but people want to tax them even more. Which only shows that as long as the distribution is far from even - there's request to even it out more.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 05:53 PM
1

No that sounds like a solution to all the problems you outlined. Sounds like you don't want to solve them, you just want to complain and be a victim. And what you're saying is like saying men value virginity and yet women want to throw it out of the window and have sex before marriage or even without any commitment. Like no. If you love someone you accept them. That's sorta what we decided as the society but weirdly some people only want to apply it to women. Also women can't cuck themselves, si…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 05:48 PM
1

They are distributed mathematically. I'm talking those distributions. Of course. How else do you express that you don't like it AND at the same time do something that would hopefully deter people from doing it? Lmao you must be joking. Plenty of content that is women doing just that. If I find something and show you, will you acknowledge I am right? I'm pretty sure I've seen a tiktok not so long ago where a woman was making vomit sounds talking about being approached by some guy who was older or…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 05:06 PM
1

No, it's not, as explained above. Both are getting the exact same thing in this scenario. Absolutely nothing selfish and definitely nothing hypocritical. You were wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 04:56 PM
1

Nope. That's not what I agreed to. I said that sex is necessary but not sufficient. Reread again if you are going to repeat what was already addressed earlier. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 04:56 PM
1

You absolutely do if you want to stop embarrassing yourself. Of course, if you don't then you don't. Indeed, facts are facts and the title is the title. You are counting men that are struggling to get laid for the statistic that you use attempting to show that most men aren't struggling to get laid. It doesn't show that at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 04:54 PM
1

Indeed it won't. It simply agrees with the fact that you still provided zero source. That is why your claim is dismissed. There's simply no reason to assume that it corresponds to what women and men do and why. As of right now, based on the facts and source we have at hand - what you said is more likely to be incorrect than correct.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 04:53 PM
1

No. How is that correct and how is it clarifying anything that I am saying. I literally said what I said - you are wrong saying that men are shaming women for whom it's the last resort. Nowhere in the conversation are we talking about what I like or dislike.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 04:29 PM
1

Omg really? Is that a known thing or just your opinion? You got any studies? It's very alarming if true. The majority of young women are bigots and we aren't discussing it as a society? We need to get on fixing it right away or at least on raising future generations differently. Of course it does make you ageist. Just like not wanting an old man in your employ makes you ageist, or not wanting an old man in your social group makes you ageist etc. If you don't want someone because of their age (or…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 04:27 PM
0

Of course yes. That IS what I said. And it does apply to everything. And you did not want to try and see if it feels good with them but wanted to do it with others. So yes, I am correct. You failed to challenge it. Saying nuh uh is not argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 04:24 PM
1

Compare yourself to a bunch of people whose leagues are known or to requirements of each league of women. Then see previous comment. Or, if you have time, approach hundreds of women (from different leagues) and see what your success rate with each league. That's doing what others have done already and results will most likely be about the same as predicted by the method above. But that way you actually measure your data point which could slightly deviate from the best fit curve, I suppose. Only …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 04:23 PM
1

Then why is he mad he’s not getting pussy as soon as possible? He didn’t ask for it. This question is literally answered in the comment you are replying to. Read the whole thing, not just one part of one sentence that you quote. Women dont care about some guy's little peepee insecurities. They absolutely care about the guys they like. So if they don't care about this guy - that confirms my point. Especially together with the fact that she didn't want to sleep with him as fast as with another guy…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 04:20 PM
1

They are. You just wanna come up with reasons not to believe that because you guys don’t like that you can’t access hookups like you want. Nope. Your explanation is cut off by the Occam's razor immediately. These are just your fantasies, literally no reason to think that way unless you are biased and are trying to push a certain point. You have no proof that they knew beforehand. Of course I do. That stuff is in mainstream media and has been for decades. I never hooked up with a man and I know a…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 04:07 PM
1

Of course they do, as already explained above. If they didn't care about time with you, then yes they would get a sex toy. But they prefer to spend time with you and have sex with you. That's how you know that it's about time with you and not just about sexual release. And of course they care about more than how you look. Everyone would prefer a woman it's fun to have sex with over a 10/10 who has starfish sex with the lights out and don't want to experiment or try anything. Again, a lot is spec…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 04:04 PM
1

Irrelevant to the conversation. I'm not talking about hating anyone. Women already know in advance how statistically hookups turn out and still choose to hookup. So either they aren't actually unpleasant or they hook up for reasons other than physical pleasure and hookups are pleasant in that regard.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/07/26 04:01 PM
0

Basically all your points are the same one - one woman cannot quench men's thirst for other women. But you are wrong, of course she can. She just needs to help bring other women sometimes or at least be open to it. Done. That solves all 6 of your issues. And yes, there would be no need to abandon family/leave - why would he? That one woman would be irreplaceable.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 03:26 PM
0

The goal is the same as the goal of taxing the rich - to make the distribution less uneven. And well, to minimize chances of getting someone who's already alpha widowed (I think that's what trp calls it?), I assume. But really for most men doing it's just expressing that they don't like something. It's similar to women talking shit about short/poor/old/fat/balding men, except women have full control over their count.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 02:48 PM
1

It is not impossible that the app never showed him to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 08:28 PM
1

This is well-known, actually. See Hanlon's Razor.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 05:32 PM
1

Some apps actually have a way to look for friends, e.g. Facebook dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 05:25 PM
1

If they did, then women wouldn't have them ever, since they already knew they were likely to suck before having them. Go back to my first comment. All of this was already explained. Nope. You could not. See above. You didn't present an argument that I didn't address immediately. If you did and I forgot, feel free to post the link to that comment.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 11:01 PM
1

Wym? I get the notification, see that you are still wrong so I reply and correct you. You're still going on about this so of course I am.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 10:57 PM
5

Yes, they do. How can they have sex with you without spending time with you? Having sex is spending time with you. Of course they can't replace you, tf are you talking about? If you don't have a twin sister - they can't replace you. Having sex with someone else will not be the same as having sex with you. Someone else would almost certainly have a different face and voice, could have a very different body, smell, hair color/style, skin color, different moves, taboos, limits etc. It will not be t…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 10:56 PM
1

Irrelevant. Women who aren't Stacy can get hookups anytime compared to men, they are not a part of this conversation. It's not about both genders. Again. All of that is irrelevant. You were wrong as pointed out in my original comment and explained in the following comments. You couldn't challenge that and instead tried to sidetrack the conversation.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 10:53 PM
2

You think you are arguing but you are actually supporting the OP. Women are attracted to these things. That's just that. That's his point. Women are attracted to the things he has as opposed to being attracted to him/who he is.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 10:37 PM
1

Yes, but she doesn't like most men that much as we know most women don't. So what else can you do? At least you can get something with money and status, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 09:09 PM
1

That would be awesome. That's all men want. Stop hooking up with all guys as opposed to hooking up only with a few. Either way, irrelevant to the conversation. You were wrong as pointed out in my original comment and explained in the following comments. You couldn't challenge that and instead tried to sidetrack the conversation.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 09:06 PM
1

Superimpose leagues onto a normal distribution. Then use percentiles.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 09:03 PM
1

Nice. You demonstrated that you have no arguments to challenge it, therefore, your side is dismissed. I am right and you are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 09:02 PM
1

No, it's not. You are comparing apples to oranges and men to women. They aren't keeping her from sleeping with the same women they want to be sleeping with. If it's a 3some - they both get to sleep with the same person.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 09:01 PM
1

No, nobody is moving goalposts. No, I didn't make anything up. There's in principle a cutoff frequency that can be discussed that means that a man is not struggling. That frequency is for sure not once a year. Yes, struggling is not zero. So you showing some low number that is not zero doesn't mean that they are not struggling. They still are and therefore your stats are irrelevant and you argument is wrong. Everything was addressed before. If you have no new arguments to offer, just reread the …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 09:00 PM
1

No, men aren't complaining about women's orgasm rate.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 08:58 PM
1

You know enough to assume that statistically they have fewer partners than sex workers.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 08:57 PM
1

Nope. Try reading again. It is still useful, there are just more useful metrics. Them being more meaningful doesn't mean that average is not meaningful.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 08:57 PM
0

? I said that to show that the situation predates pushing. Therefore, pushing can be (and is) ignored when discussing the situation that led to it. I also said that pushing is bad, so no, not rapey. If you have no relevant arguments about discussion, then just concede faster instead of all this irrelevant bs that means that you lost anyway. So, yes, I am correct. Because what I said applies to everyone. You didn't want to try and see if it feels good with them to begin with but wanted to see if …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 08:51 PM
1

My agreement doesn't matter, it's not about me agreeing. You need to show source if you are making a general claim. That's not about agreement, it's about following the rules of debate and logic. Without that source you have no argument and your claim is dismissed. Since you couldn't provide the source after being requested to provide it three times, we conclude that your claim is based on nothing and is therefore dismissed.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 08:37 PM
1

Nope. I did not. Lying about it wont' make it true. I literally just recently reminded multiple times that that's not what those links show. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 08:35 PM
1

What? What does it have to do with the conversation? I am not talking about what's right and wrong. I am saying that you are wrong saying that men are shaming women for whom it's the last resort. You should probably re-read the conversation. And yes, of course I am correct. Everything I said was correct. If it wasn't - you would be able to refer to logical mistakes, which you can't do. The demand for sex workers is irrelevant. The demand can exist - it doesn't mean that women need to meet it. No…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 08:34 PM
1

Talking to women in person doesn't imply nightlife. Yes, nightlife will have men who's done it longer than you and will be dressed and groomed, have more money and know they are entitled to some success (which is why they will be dressed to impress), etc. You can get close to that level if you keep doing it. But who said you need to go out to night clubs? It will have certain men and women for the most part. How about women you meet in school, at work, when you're running errands? How about wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 08:22 PM
0

Are most women ageist? Idk, I wouldn't accuse the entire sex of being prejudiced like that. You shouldn't talk about your experience implying that it's true in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 08:09 PM
1

No, it's not that they think they are desirable, it's that what else will they do? Not hit on women and have zero chance as opposed to 0.1%? The older men get the more they understand that there is no reward for doing your best or being good etc. There's only what you can get if you try to get it. And sometimes there isn't much to lose.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 08:07 PM
8

Yup. Most likely they can't relate and the reason is in your very comment. Being objectified for what you do is a lot worse than being objectified for who you are. Most men dream about being objectified as a sex object instead of a resource object. Treated as a useful sex object means they want to have sex with you - that is they don't want you to do anything for them or give them anything, they just want to spend time with you. That's not the same as when people want nothing to do with you, the…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 08:06 PM
–

That is a bs argument. Those men having gf/wife at some point doesn't prove anything. There are weak and shy men who also have gfs/wives at some point.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/26 07:58 PM
1

I mean, if you say that women are discriminated because they are represented less among CEOs/higher positions and because supposedly the pay correlates with gender, then how come the fact that most CEOs/bosses are tall and that height correlates with salary does not already prove that?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 06:51 PM
1

Yet, many of our instincts are outlawed or we are expected to act against them. So what's special about this one?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 06:49 PM
1

What rights? You have no rights other than the ones that are given to you and enforced. And they aren't given and enforced by vibrators.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:31 PM
1

33% of casual hookups result in female orgasm. So? IF that's true - need a source btw - then they knew in advance so they don't get to complain. Like, see how I know this number (still waiting for the source) and didn't have to suck a dick to find out about it?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:27 PM
–

Yes, just like you have zero idea what number you will roll when you roll a die. Yet, the probabilities are different. What do you not understand? No, that's math and stats, not perception. Hooker is fucking a lot more than a stranger statistically. That's all.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:26 PM
1

No assumptions and arbitrary definitions on my end. And again, if there were any - you would be able to point them out, which you failed to do. But yeah - your assumptions and arbitrary definitions aren't the truth. Especially since men don't say what you say they say as you can see when you open your own links. That is already addressed in detail above. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discu…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:21 PM
1

Nope. Those are the things some men say and do and some women experience. Without a source, you can't claim this generally. You failed to provide the source so far. This is the third time I ask. If you can't provide it - your claim is dismissed.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:19 PM
0

Nope. That has nothing to do with discussion. I am not talking about that at all. Reread before replying. I literally already said that's not what discussion is about. Last time - in the previous comment. So, yes, I am correct. Because what I said applies to everyone. The only reason they were pushing is because you didn't want to try and see if it feels good with them to begin with but wanted to see if it feels good with someone else. Pushing is bad form, sure. But that has nothing to do with d…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:18 PM
–

Nope. Categories don't change anything, they just show one's success rate in more detail. That way you can see which category to go for if you want to minmax the odds.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:16 PM
1

? How is that applicable here? Here, you are actually helping them because you support their businesses. If they sold food on fb marketplace or idk on the curb, then you would support that business. But apparently they can only do one business, so you have no choice but to support that if you can. And many can't. Have you even seen the prices? No, I'm just summarizing the discussion when it's clear who is right. At this point it is clear, so I wrote it not to forget that that's where we stopped …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:14 PM
1

Which, again, does not contradict what I said. Being incompatible = there are some factors out of their control. And even if one can argue that choosing to have sex with your SO is out of one's control, it's definitely not out of one's control to not expect their SO to not have sex at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:11 PM
1

How? No, men don't want to sleep with other men so not allowing their gf to is not selfish.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:09 PM
1

Irrelevant to the conversation. What I said is true in general and we were talking about men in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:08 PM
1

Nope. Everything was addressed by pointing out what the thread is about. Reread again starting with the title. Reality, indeed, exists. And in that reality getting sex once a year is struggling to get sex, therefore counting people who get it at least once a year is wrong. The cutoff frequency has to be a lot higher.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:07 PM
1

Yes, yes they do. Trends define leagues, so you can see how you fit trends and what your league is. That's the whole point. You can estimate what percentage of people from each league would reject you.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:06 PM
1

Obviously moderators do it. You are just the one breaking rules. Nobody is gaslighting you, nobody is talking about anything non-consensual. If you have troubles reading - that's on you. Reread and try again. If something is unclear - ask for clarifications. If you have no arguments - just admit your defeat, that wouldn't look pathetic unlike trying to insult people who never insulted you.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/26 04:04 PM
-4

The real orgasm gap is that women get orgasms in about 30% of attempts to get them, while men get them in about 1% - most of their attempts don't even result in sex at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/07/26 03:11 PM
1

Again, 1/20 is not equal to 1/6. Getting an STD from an escort and getting one from a regular stranger are not equally likely. So he is right and you are wrong. No, it's not about perception, it's about math and common sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 04:58 PM
1

No, it didn't. As explained above, there's no contradiction, since those women don't have to meet the demand. You can think of it as a test to see who will go for that money. You wouldn't say it's contradictory that a teacher fails students who fail the test but they are also the one who gives them the test.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 04:55 PM
1

That's incorrect without proof. Also, irrelevant to the topic. Right, most of them knew the risks, tried it anyway, then stopped when they saw that what they knew would like happen did happen. So yeah, it's completely on them. 100%.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 04:52 PM
1

In a debate with that person, what they said matters. Nope. Correctness of your move does not depend on them at all. It's a logical fallacy regardless of what they said. You want to have a totally different argument, and for some absurd reason, you thought jumping in to insult me with a stupid meme would convince me to debate you on a topic that is not what OP said. That's not what I did. I demonstrated how you are wrong with a smart meme. If you got offended by it - it's on you. You shouldn't g…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 04:45 PM
1

Yeah, truly astonishing women aren’t sympathetic to your obsession with making them suffer to stroke your ego. 🙄 Again, can you not read? Nobody wants anyone to suffer. That's the whole point - to see if it feels good with this partner. Cuz she already knows she doesn’t like it. This isn’t complicated. No. She knows she didn't like it with the partner she tried it with. She doesn't know if she likes it with this partner. Again, plenty of examples. Everyone had bad sex, but it's not like they sto…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 04:40 PM
1

See above. It's explained in text and there's a picture of the analogy that applies.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 04:26 PM
1

Sex at all or specific act - the idea is the same. No, it's not weird to say that at all. There are plenty of acts I would do with my gf but wouldn't do with strangers, for example. Exactly. So what are you arguing about? Different acts feel differently with different partners. So if you aren't interested in whether a specific act feels good at all, then you don't try it with any partner. But if you are interested to see if it feels good with one partner but not another, then it's not about the …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 04:25 PM
1

No, that's not hypocritical by definition. Again, "I think doing A is bad but I do A and expect to not be seen bad" is hypocrisy. That's not the case here. They don't try to sleep with men but are against women sleeping with men. If men were sleeping with men but didn't want equality for women, then you would have a point. But that's not the case and you don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 04:23 PM
1

That means you are trying to say something that is true in general is not true just because you have an example that contradicts it, which is illogical. In other words - you are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 04:21 PM
1

No, that's not the only way, but acts of service is the love language of many. Either way, nobody was talking about convenience for men or defined any sexes. What I said is true for both men and women. I'm not sure why you are projecting.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 04:20 PM
1

That would be insulting to them. Most people don't want to be beggars, they want to earn their money and to not feel like they owe the debt they can't repay. Also, more practically speaking, it's not like most men (or women) have money to just give away that they couldn't use instead. That's why to separate them from their money it's only fair to offer them something in exchange. And it's not like those men would just get money without having to work for it, so why expect them to just give money…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 04:18 PM
1

Yes, if we cared, we could separate by all sorts of factors. And those two guys are absolutely comparable. That's the whole point - you can see how success rate depends on awkwardness, for example. What you would do with this information is describe reality. Of course, it doesn't predict the result of any specific scenario, but it does predict what you can expect if you do it for a while. It's the same practical value as the value of any statistic.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 04:12 PM
1

Again, the part where they are pushing is irrelevant - I am not talking about part. So, yes, I am correct. Because what I said applies to everyone. The only reason they were pushing is because you didn't want to try and see if it feels good with them to begin with but wanted to see if it feels good with someone else.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 04:10 PM
1

That's not a source, these are your fantasies. Need a source for that claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 04:08 PM
1

They are correct because I explained step by step using formal logic how they are correct. And you weren't able to challenge them or find any inconsistency. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 04:07 PM
1

That doesn't contradict what I said. What I said was not about whether the second partner needs to leave but about whether the first partner loves them.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 04:06 PM
1

No, at least is not ignored. This is already explained in the previous comment. Read it again. Generally, try to read the entire thing before replying. Either way, nothing changes. Everything you said was already addressed earlier. I am still right and you are still wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 03:27 PM
1

Me? My girlfriend? No, this has nothing to do with me. What I said applies to everyone. It's just generally true. And no, lower libido is not the scenario being discussed here. Presumably, we are talking about sex frequency dropping when the couple is already a few years in or is married. Either way, libido or not. The other person is a victim not just because their partner has a low libido but if they also expect them to just not have sex with anyone. And yeah, you said nothing new and nothing …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 03:26 PM
0

Lmao, you are breaking sub rules? That's how triggered you are? It's okay to be wrong, no need to break the rules (e.g. insulting and downvoting). Either way, your comments are deleted for breaking rules, but to respond to what I see in notifications - yes, I enjoy being right. Thanks for confirming that I am. And no, I don't pretend about anything regarding you and your husband. My statements are correct and general and they apply to everyone. They also don't imply "hate".
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 03:23 PM
1

Absolutely. That's why you never rely on trends. I mean, there are people who like oysters and stuff, so you never know. That doesn't change the fact that generally there are leagues and common preferences.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/26 03:19 PM
–

No shit. That doesn't change anything though and this victim blaming is just weird. Of course if someone hurts you in any way, you should speak up or leave. That doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't have hurt you, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 12:10 AM
–

Now that's weird. They claim they love them so they want them to be happy but also expect them to just not have sex? Sounds like they just don't love them and the title then should be women shouldn't marry men they don't love.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 12:09 AM
0

No, incorrect. You have no proof of that, but thanks for using the blatant ad hominem attack and confirming that you have no arguments to challenge me, which means you concede. So I am right and you are wrong. It's good we established that.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 12:08 AM
1

Of course they do if you are trying to understand what to do to maximize your results as a person who's being evaluated by others.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 12:06 AM
1

Exactly. So you will like the same act with some people and not like it with others. Yes, it does - since not every person will do it maybe. Or different people will move with different speed, or act differently and make you feel differently about the same thing, etc. Either way, my point holds as being generally true and there are plenty of examples. And since no sexual act is special compared to another sexual act, there's no reason why it would depend on an act more than on a partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 12:06 AM
–

What he said doesn’t matter? I get it, you feel like you can just make up whatever you want in an effort to try to call other people incompetent. Yes, what one person said doesn't matter compared to observations of multiple people and to what they said. You came in trying to smart off at me about basic logic— and you are wrong . I didn’t do the stupid shit you’re blasting me with in your condescending little pictogram meme. Nope. I'm not wrong, if I was - you would be easily able to show me, but…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 12:04 AM
1

? Of course, otherwise they starve to death. Glad you learned something. Either way, nothing new to add about the subject so we can establish that the question is closed and I was right and you were wrong?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 12:01 AM
0

That is incorrect and there are plenty examples of how the same act will feel good with one partner but not another. Or sometimes, it will even feel bad with a partner and then good with the same partner. I'm not the one playing dumb, seems like.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/26 12:00 AM
1

Everyone is tracking their own approaches (or being approached) at least roughly. They have an idea and can give some estimates. Besides, hypothetically if we cared about it - that could be easily studied/surveyed. So in principle, there's absolutely no reason why it can't be measured.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 11:59 PM
1

Incorrect. It was addressed in more detail earlier. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 11:58 PM
1

Would need a source for this claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 11:58 PM
1

They are not shameful for exploiting slave labor and having concentration camps? Ok, then yeah keep supporting them and you aren't a hypocrite. No, you didn't. you tried, and I explained why you were wrong and why it's not a contradiction. See comments above. You never had any new arguments to challenge anything that I said.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 11:58 PM
0

No, I am not. I am literally trying to make sure we stay on topic, the title of which specifies that it's about struggling to get sex. No, I'm not ignoring at least, I'm specifically saying that using that "at least" as a cutoff point doesn't make your point valid. You can't count those people as the ones not struggling. The cutoff would need to be somewhere around a week(or weeks), which means the percentage is not 75% and you're wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 11:56 PM
1

That was already addressed. Something being painful and resulting in trauma with one partner doesn't mean it won't go well with another.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 11:55 PM
1

Exactly. So it's nobody's fault but their own. And you can't say that they don't like the idea of gambling. They do - that's why they tried it the first time. They knew all risks very well and still did it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 11:54 PM
–

Because in this scenario it's women who are the bottleneck. It applies to men to in the reverse scenario. Men who won't have regular sex with their wives shouldn't have married them.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 11:52 PM
–

That's not the only solution. They could enjoy everything else about the marriage and still want to be married to that man. In that case, they could just outsource and bring in some help.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 11:51 PM
1

How would you even measure that? ?? You count the number of successful approaches and divide it by the total number of approaches.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:41 PM
–

Idk I feel like we could see more shooting-suicides one the generation that live fully when TRP was more or less mainstream starts aging. It's like, if I didn't enjoy my life and think it's someone's fault - would I rather just die and then they win by default or would I at least try to hurt them before I die? Since I'm leaving no kids/legacy - at least I can leave my mark and prove that I was alive this way.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:38 PM
4

Men aren't happy without consistent sex life. That's why it's not advertised. That's because most of those men are not really happy, since being single for most men means not having sex and not getting dates.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:32 PM
1

It is not entirely subjective, otherwise there would be no trends. And again, what any given person likes is not of concern in this discussion because the idea is that you can predict trends - not every single person. That was clear from the beginning. What do you still not understand?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:29 PM
1

I was talking about people mining rare metals used in your electronic devices. Indeed, they are. I suggest you look into it before opening your mouth. Some are legit slaves. Some do get paid - but very little anyway. And it is still true that some of those countries have literal concentration camps and you give money to them. You are a hypocrite because you actually give money to those evil people and corporations while presumably thinking that exploiting people is wrong. Of course, you are not …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:28 PM
–

Incorrect, it is applicable here indeed. Regardless of what he said, saying that's not true about men therefore your point is invalid is illogical. See the picture. No, nowhere is he saying anything about all women as in every single woman. He's making a general statement, it is very clearly implied. Nobody thinks that those claims mean every single group member ever. You must be new on the sub if you get triggered by something like that. Yeah you could teach me logic if you were more qualified …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:24 PM
1

Irrelevant. Nobody has any special way of doing vaginal or oral either. Yet, you like those acts with some men but not with others. Same applies here. In fact, here there at least could be some ways - e.g. using more lube or stretching first etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:18 PM
–

What does that have to do with anything? We aren't talking about men, we are talking about women in the sex work. If anything, men have a moral duty to pay for these services if for those workers there's no other choice - otherwise those workers will starve to death.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:17 PM
1

That’s really how you think about it, huh? If she won’t let you inflict pain, discomfort, or even abuse on her, you think that means you’re not just attractive enough. In order for you to feel desired, you need to inflict pain on her. Anything short of her crying and hating every time she fucks you means you won’t like it. That's the only way to see it. And it follows directly from what you said. As I said - great analogy. And appeal to emotion doesn't work here. If she wanted someone else to in…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:16 PM
1

Yes, that she doesn't like it with that partner. That doesn't mean she won't like it with a new partner. Yes, mushrooms can be cooked differently and I might like them. Also, sex is not mushrooms and specifically depends on the partner. That's why, for example, some people are not sexually compatible with some but compatible with other people. They enjoy the same acts with some people but not with other.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:04 PM
1

Yes, valued as people. In this tread we are talking about men being valued specifically as men. Again, sex is necessary but not sufficient, and it's not about how any given people value them. It's about how they are valued by society as an entity. If they are sexually rejected by society then they aren't valued as men. It's very simple. It was addressed in more detail earlier. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Curre…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:02 PM
1

You do, if you're gonna be saying that men should stop dating to get sex. There's no lie, you didn't show there was a lie. Dating includes sex. Women themselves recommend (on record) that men should date them to get sex and not just offer sex right away. At least most men. So no, both reality and women themselves disagree with your take.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 09:00 PM
–

Nope. Not how it works. It's not slaves who benefit from you buying stuff. And if you buy stuff then you support those who exploit those slaves. Is it hypocritical? So you are hypocritical then? Why are you okay with being hypocritical and supporting slave labor financially then? No, the truth is that you don't know what hypocritical and contradictory means. There's nothing contradictory in the original scenario you are describing. Proving demand doesn't mean they have to supply, and if they cho…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 08:59 PM
1

They know this in advance. The orgasm gap - especially outside LTR - is well documented. So most women having casual sex at some point doesn't help your point. They are reluctant to keep having them? Why did they even start having them when they knew the odds very well? It's like saying most people don't want to keep gambling, but that doesn't change the fact that they already gambled and lost in the past.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 08:57 PM
–

No, that's not hypocrisy by definition. How is not turning down a fmf threesome while caring that she doesn't sleep with other men is hypocritical? If they didn't turn down a mmf threesome, then maybe you'd have a point worth discussing. But that's not the case. You don't seem to understand what hypocrisy means so I'll remind you. "I think doing A is bad but I do A and expect to not be seen bad" is hypocrisy. That's not the case here. A here is sleeping with men.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 08:54 PM
–

<image>
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 08:52 PM
1

It is a statistical thing, nobody is promoting it as if it was going to predict every single case. Attraction is not subjective, if it was then there wouldn't be studies showing how many traits are universally attractive. And liking a tall nerd vs a tall sportsman does not make it subjective.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 08:51 PM
1

Yes, I do get it. And yes, sex is supposed to be mutually pleasurable, that's exactly what I'm saying. Thus, if one partner wants to see if something is mutually pleasurable with their previous partner but not with their current partner, you know they are attracted to the current partner less.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 08:50 PM
1

It is not getting laid as in this guy gets laid aka doesn't struggle to get laid, which is the context of this thread. Getting sex once a year is struggling to get laid. The fact that some people struggle even more doesn't change the fact that those people still struggle.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 08:49 PM
0

What's not the case? The situation itself is exactly this case - they are not wanted the same way other men were wanted.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 08:48 PM
10

Not that he has any stats or numbers, but your argument doesn't invalidate his point (if it was based on something to begin with). <image>
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 06:51 PM
0

It is not if they are actually LTR + corresponding cool off period (since it was so serious, it's not like she can just hop right back in without some healing). So if she is in some sort of relationship that lasts a few years and with a few years in between those - then it's not like casual sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/26 06:49 PM
2

I said what I said in my comment and it specifically is not about the scenario where they are pushing. My first comment defines what I'm talking about very clearly. And I'm talking about the situation itself (that leads to them pushing - but that's on them. The situation where they are not wanted the same way other men were wanted predates them pushing).
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 04:23 AM
1

Getting laid once a year is struggling and is not getting laid. As in, nobody would look at a guy who gets sex once a year and say "wow this guy gets laid" or "this guy fucks". All of this is explained above. Reread. You'll get it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 04:20 AM
2

Getting laid once a year is struggling and is not getting laid. As in, nobody would look at a guy who gets sex once a year and say "wow this guy gets laid" or "this guy fucks". All of this is explained above. Reread. You'll get it.It all explained above. Reread it. You'll get it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 04:17 AM
2

I am logical. That's why you still couldn't find any contradictions or logical mistakes. That's because there are none. I get paid for being logical. Not to mention that you are trying to insult/imply stuff about me, which is a classic logical fallacy so how would you even know if I was or wasn't logical when you don't know how it all works? lmao. Focus on the topic at hand, you just don't know enough to be talking about this other topic.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 04:17 AM
1

Right, that's why nobody is talking about pushing anyone. You just see if they want something with you that they are historicically known to want with somebody else.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 04:14 AM
1

It sounds like it is the way to get it. You still didn't show a better way.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 04:13 AM
1

And yet, with all those reason they are still stratified and it's pretty predictable. That's because it doesn't matter if they would or wouldn't date any given person. What matters is the kind of person they end up dating in general. As in, all of them as ensemble.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 04:13 AM
2

Again, I never said nothing. Exactly, words mean what they mean. And getting laid once a year is struggling and is not getting laid. As in, nobody would look at a guy who gets sex once a year and say "wow this guy gets laid" or "this guy fucks". All of this is explained above. Reread. You'll get it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 04:12 AM
1

So can men? Right, so not only men, others too. Which is why its' not about being valued as men. Yes, men can be valued by other things as long as they are not sexually rejected. Sex is necessary but not sufficient. Not gonna go in circles. It was addressed in more detail earlier. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 04:11 AM
1

Incorrect. Again, sex acts can be bad with some people but good with other (or even with the same people but later or after practice).
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 04:09 AM
2

Of course. That's the whole point. If she said yes and wanted to see if she liked it with one man but doesn't say yes and doesn't want to see if she likes it with another - then you don't want to be another. No, it's not wrong. How would you know how we behave? It's homophobic to assume that lesbians can't be logical.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 04:09 AM
1

That is irrelevant. Whether it is or isn't meant to be used that way was still true when you tried it with another partner. A mouth also wasn't mean to be used sexually, nor were hands or feet. Yet, people use all of them. The only question is - with whom are they using them. Of course, performing it on a person who doesn't want it is not nice. That's why it's important to see if she wants to try it with you. IF she doesn't want to try it with you to see if she likes it with you but wanted to tr…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 04:07 AM
2

Yes, the context is "struggling to get laid" and as such getting laid once a year IS struggling to get laid and therefore is not getting laid. It was all explained above right after or almost right after the comment you screenshotted. Of course, we established earlier that there are some reading comprehension problems, but in this case even if you didn't get the point from one comment, it is explained in more detail just below. Just keep reading and you'll get it. You got this.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 04:04 AM
1

This is of course the way it works. I described in detail how. Simply saying nuh uh is not an argument. Nor is assuming stuff about me, that's just a textbook ad hominem and all but an acknowledgment that you are wrong and have no arguments.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 04:02 AM
1

They might. That's not the case here, though, since again - it is observable reality that there are people who are more and people who are less popular in dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 04:01 AM
0

I do not, no. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Knowing that the same sex act can be bad with one partner but good with another (which applies to any sex act), giving consent to one partner but not to another to try it (and see if you like it with that partner) is a clear indicator that you are attracted more to the partner that got your consent. Like, it's so obvious, I don't understand why you are in denial and what are you arguing about. If a man went down on one woman but doesn't want t…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 03:17 AM
0

I am not wrong, you still didn't challenge my argument. All you described is already addressed. A bad experience with one partner doesn't mean there can't be a good experience with another. The fact that some things can happen doesn't mean that they will. There can be tearing and infections during other sex acts as well, even your classic vaginal and oral. Yet, people still have those. EVEN after those bad things happening to them.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 03:15 AM
3

Because both men and women don't like their partners being fucked or otherwise pleasing other men. Why exactly? Who knows? Might be some instinct and revulsion to your partner sleeping with a member of the impregnating sex? Or just revulsion to men? or to their genitalia? That's a whole different conversation we can have after you acknowledge that most men care. After that, we can see if we can figure out why.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 03:11 AM
0

We can discuss it after you address my argument or acknowledge that you were wrong (or I was right).
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 03:11 AM
0

You don't know if it hurts when he does if you never let him try it. And whether you are more attracted to him or not, we can't say, since we don't know more details. Maybe you let him do more than you let others do. All we know is that you don't let him do something you let others do, which - without other information - proves your statement wrong so far.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 03:10 AM
3

Because both men and women don't like their partners being fucked or otherwise pleasing other men. Why exactly? Who knows? Might be some instinct and revulsion to your partner sleeping with a member of the impregnating sex? Or just revulsion to men? or to their genitalia? That's a whole different conversation we can have after you acknowledge that most men care. After that, we can see if we can figure out why.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 03:08 AM
1

It absolutely does mean that. In fact, that fact is why we even introduced the term leagues and are using it - it's to show that not people are equal/equally attractive for dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 03:07 AM
1

Yes, if she has no other choice, she gotta do what she gotta do. Yes, because now she does have another choice but still chooses that. All workers are exploited. If they are so exploited doing sex work, then they should want to not do sex work as long as it's not a matter of survival.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 03:06 AM
2

No, I was not. I never used those words. Scroll up and reread or show a screenshot proving I claimed that. I said that it's not getting laid in the context of this thread (which is about struggling to get laid which getting laid once a year is).
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 03:04 AM
0

?I'm not triggered. And what you said doesn't contradict or even challenges what I said.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 03:03 AM
1

They are not and they don't say it. See your own links. It was addressed in more detail earlier. That's them being valued as humans who just happened to be men, since women and children can be valued the same way. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 03:02 AM
4

It's being banged by 2 men, not banging them. And I already answered the question - most men care.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 03:02 AM
–

And relationships include sex. Therefore, dating is also for sex. That's how most men get sex - from relationships. Because the relationships/marriage club is less exclusive than FWB/casual sex club. There's absolutely no lie. Whenever dating begins that's because a man is sexually attracted to a woman, both participants know this.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 03:01 AM
3

And you can find it quite easily because you are a woman. You can quite literally put in your bio on feeld/chyrpe/fetlife and there will be plenty of partners to choose from.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 03:00 AM
3

Again, not liking sex acts with one partner doesn't mean not liking them with another (and vice versa). Plenty of people don't like sex with someone but don't suddenly stop it with another. That applies to any sex act.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 02:59 AM
-2

That's already addressed. Painful with one partner doesn't mean painful with another. Nothing changed.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 02:58 AM
-1

? Where am I saying that? Read again what I said. What I said is pointed out the fact that not liking something with one partner doesn't mean not liking it with another. If you didn't enjoy something in the past but wanted to see if you enjoyed but now don't want to see if you enjoy it in the present - then that's your right. Just don't like to the current partner that you are not attracted to them less.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 02:57 AM
7

There wouldn't be more competition, most men are invisible anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 02:38 AM
1

That's a great analogy that answers the question perfectly! If she doesn't want to try it with you - you are plain noodles and cottage cheese. That's the thing though, most men don't want to be settled for and to be plain noodles. Also, you are wrong. Experimenting is only held against you if you did it with other men - and especially if you did it with other men but not with me. If you experiment with me - that's not held against you at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 02:31 AM
4

Which proves the opinion of this sub, pretty much. You like the new man so much less that not only do you not want to see if you like something with him when you wanted to see if you liked that same thing with another, but you will also lie to him while probably telling him how important trust is to you and how relationships should be built on trust. You can't make this up.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 02:29 AM
2

Great. So she wanted to see if she likes it with him so much that she kept trying, then why wouldn't she want to see if she likes it with you and try as much? Because of course not liking something with one partner doesn't mean that you can't like it with another.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 02:28 AM
0

That's a perfectly reasonable question, although the answer is obvious. It's well known that not liking something with one partner doesn't mean you won't like it with another. So if she wanted to try something with the first partner to see if she likes it with him, but doesn't want to try and see if she likes it with the second partner, then the answer why not him is pretty obvious.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 02:26 AM
1

Fr retarded. Thinking that not liking an experience with one person means you can't like it with another person. You absolutely can and there are many example of women not liking sex with one man but liking it with another. And in your scenario the most important thing is that that woman liked the idea of trying it with that man and seeing if she likes it with him, but doesn't like the idea of trying it with you and seeing if she likes it with you. Of course, she doesn't like you like that.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 02:25 AM
-1

Non sequitur. Not liking something or having a bad experience with someone doesn't mean one won't like it or have a good experience with someone else. Or even with the same man but another time. E.g. many people don't like the first time they have vaginal sex, but still like it later.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 02:21 AM
1

They do care if she likes it. If she likes it with them, that is. Whether she liked it with another man is not a predictor of whether she would like it with this man. For example, she likes sex with this man, but probably had experience when she didn't like it with others. She likes giving oral to this man, but probably wouldn't give it to a hobo. Thus, we can see that she liked the idea of trying it with another man and checking if she likes it with him, so why wouldn't she want to see if she l…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 02:19 AM
1

You could be discussing certain acts or fantasies, then ask if she's done that and/or would do it. Then it comes up. Or it can slip out sometimes.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 02:17 AM
0

Why? It's average compared to other lengths but small compared to preferred lengths. Think women ranking men in general and how that is not a normal curve centered at 5, so a man can be average (5) but ranked below average (as all men under 8 are ranked).
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 02:15 AM
-1

wouldve couldve shouldve. It's not just to punish people for crimes they didn't commit even if they would commit them were they in the same position as the criminals who did. Maybe you would be a maniac if you were raised differently or would be a pedo on an island if you were rich. So should we use that as grounds to have any opinion about you or to punish you?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 01:17 AM
4

It's a huge deal for most men
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 01:03 AM
2

Women can always find the kind of sex they want.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 12:54 AM
3

Yes, of course. Celibacy can start at any point of his life.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 12:53 AM
5

This is a classic mistake many people make here. Being attracted to men doesn't need you have to sleep with multiple men. But also, even if it did, in your scenario women are attracted to men so even ugly men would be able to get sex, therefore a high count might be less of a deal breaker - since everyone has access to sex anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 12:50 AM
1

It's not what I say, it's what reality says and shows. If that wasn't the case, then all attractive and unattractive people would be uniformly mixed with each other, attractiveness wouldn't predict sexual or dating success, etc etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 12:46 AM
1

No, it is not. Saying that there are some successful OF men and therefore it's available to men is like saying that there were some successful female %insert job title% and so all jobs were available to women. We as society decided long time ago that this is not an argument. Either way, I'm glad that you have nothing to say against my other arguments and the only argument you had I just showed to be wrong. So, we agree on everything now. That's great.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 12:45 AM
0

It is, if only a certain group is expected to do it to get what other groups get without doing it. I am also not the one who even used the term oppressive, you still didn't answer my question where I said what you said I said. Still waiting for the quote or a screenshot and the link to the comment
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 12:43 AM
1

That's what I said. He will not be okay with it but maybe will take it if there's no other choice. Either way, it's irrelevant what he would or wouldn't prefer, since this is about testing whether she finds him as attractive as her hookups. The only relevant thing is whether or not she allows him as much as (or more than) she allowed them. It's very simple and obvious, indeed.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 12:42 AM
2

Yes, there is. It's the title of the thread. Exactly. Struggling to get sex is getting very little sex if at all. So it's not only not getting it, but also not getting a lot of it or getting only a fraction of what some people can get. So? That's still struggling. 0.1 atm is 10 times more than 0.01 atm, but it's still low pressure/struggling to get the normal pressure of 1 atm. Nobody is claiming that it's not. I'm claiming that it's struggling to get laid which it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 12:39 AM
1

It is, if only a certain group is expected to do it to get what other groups get without doing it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 12:35 AM
–

Not at all. How is it lying? Sex is part of dating for most people. And again, it doesn't change the fact that that is how most people get sex, so why would they not use dating for it? What should they use instead that works? Until you can answer that, you can keep your "advices" to yourself really, since they aren't useful or helpful.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 12:34 AM
1

It is that much of a rule, a simple observation of who dates whom or who hooks up with whom will confirm it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 12:32 AM
1

It is, indeed, irrelevant. You giving support to some industry doesn't contradict you having problems with people benefitting from it. For example, you are typing this from a smartphone or a computer but think that it doesn't contradict the fact that you don't support slave labor, or child labor, or concentration/reeducation camps etc., even though you financially support those things by buying most electronic devices.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 12:25 AM
1

No, what does that have to do with anything? No, that doesn't follow from my logic. Also, there's no such thing as my logic. There's just logic. It's very simple. We are talking about objective consequences of actions, there known stats and stories from previous generations, it's not all like flavors - even though even those can be statistically described so if you like to eat shit when you know most people don't like that flavor, thjen it was your choice and you knew what you were doing and wha…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 12:22 AM
1

Nope. They are not saying that they are valued AS men BY those things. That's in none of your links. It was addressed in detail earlier. That's them being valued as humans who just happened to be men, since women and children can be valued the same way. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/26 12:19 AM
–

It's not about correlation. Correlation means you have to define attractiveness somehow in a way that's not related to the partner count so you can measure it and have your x-axis. But of course, that is nonsense. The number of partners shows how attractive someone is. It's not the only metric but it's one of the most important ones. One can be delusional and think they are attractive all they want, but if they don't attract partners - then it's all wishful thinking.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 04:26 PM
1

People being liked for who they are? Yes, sounds like a nice thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 04:22 PM
0

Yes, really. See the hierarchy of needs. No, they are not. See the hierarchy of needs. See it again, then you won't make not one, but two false statements in a row like above. It does not, see the hierarchy of needs. Your point doesn't stand, it's shown to be wrong by the hierarchy of needs. It's well established and agreed upon by the society that there are needs other than survival needs. <image>
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 04:21 PM
-1

There are needs other than what's needed for survival. Not only survival-related things are needs. See the hierarchy of needs. Sex is basically the same or almost the same level on the pyramid as survival.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/26 09:55 PM
1

Fetishisation is biphilia, not biphobia.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/26 09:26 PM
1

It's not homophobia, both men and women are turned off by their partners sleeping with some men. And what you describe sounds more like biphilia than biphobia btw.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/26 09:24 PM
2

Both men and women don't want their partners to be pleasing other men.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/26 09:15 PM
0

No, that's not contradictory. Again, how/why is it? There is no contradiction because you aren't shaming them for the behavior you yourself engage in WHILE ALSO expecting to not be shamed. THAT would be contradictory. What you are describing is not that and therefore is not contradictory. Yes, in this scenario I'm not saying that watching it is shameful, only that doing it is - and I'm not doing it. So no contradiction. Whether I'm giving it more views and supporting it is irrelevant - you still…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 09:04 PM
3

Yes, yes you can. Give me your feeld, chyrpe, tinder profiles and I will do it for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 09:00 PM
1

It is not, no. Not in the context of this thread that is about struggling to get sex which you try to contradict with a once-a-year stat. Getting sex once a year IS struggling to get sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 09:00 PM
1

Are you replying to some other comment somewhere else? I'm not talking about lying anywhere.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 08:59 PM
1

And yet, you are just one data point.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 08:58 PM
0

That has no relation to the comment you are replying to. The point holds and you were wrong/didn't make an argument previously. You have no basis for your claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 08:57 PM
1

Where did I say that? Please, quote and link the comment. Can add a screenshot, too. Expecting someone to perform while not expecting others to perform is by nature oppressive/preferential. She was always free to sleep with anyone - that doesn't mean she can't require everyone to perform (or not). If you don't understand what I said or meant, then you should ask me to clarify instead of doing whatever this bs is.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 08:55 PM
1

Huh? I don't know who you are and don't memorize nicknames. I will reply to whatever comment I want to reply to. If you can't debate, this sub might not be for you. Just reply when you have arguments or don't reply or reply with unrelated stuff when you don't have arguments and concede.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 08:52 PM
1

Which is the region being discussed the most, so it is wrong. Nope, not the same. Broccoli is a flavor that you need to try before you know what happens. What happens after/during casual sex is well-known - orgasm gaps, using for sex, etc are all well-documented and are common knowledge. So if someone wants to try it - they know what they are doing.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 08:01 PM
1

Huh? How is that "so ..."? That doesn't follow from what I said at all. Nobody owes anyone anything. But if she has double standards for me and for other men, then why wouldn't that mean that what I'm expected to do is performative?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 07:59 PM
1

How did Ted Mosby not offer anything? He had a good job/mission and was pretty successful at it, he was a pretty thoughtful guy, not a user or anything, family-oriented.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 07:53 PM
1

What does n count have to do with anything? It's about getting sex, not new partners. Having sex once a year is not getting laid
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 07:47 PM
1

How is it contradictory? It is not contradictory as long as you aren't doing that job yourself AND expect to not be shamed for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 07:46 PM
1

For, not by. These links were addressed before. They are about what they are valued FOR, not BY. Or about what makes you valued in general, not as a man. Or have a total of 4 replies and aren't representative of anything (and also don't talk about being valued AS MEN, but about being valued in general). Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 07:46 PM
1

Because they take advantage of sex-starved men and are a clear example of how supposedly important jobs aren't that important (since those people aren't paid as much), which encourages people by example to follow an easier/immoral route. And let's not forget about the sexist nature of it all and that this is not available to men. Either way, that's irrelevant to the main. The main point is that OP was wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 07:43 PM
3

And if you're a woman - you can easily find that.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 07:40 PM
4

I will repeat. You can literally find exactly what you want online by following what I described above. There will be plenty of men who will do anything you want. You literally just need to advertise for those men. And if your reason is that they are tainted by others, that's kinda on you. It doesn't mean that you can't get exactly what you want.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 07:39 PM
1

A man would not be okay with his FWB sleeping with other men either, so I don't see your point.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 06:27 PM
1

No, it's not. For that to be true, it needs to be equally easy for men to get either, which is obviously not the case.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 06:27 PM
1

Huh? Who are you? No, that's not how debating works. That's one of the main logical fallacies - to debate a person and not an argument. So if you are capable of "debating" at all, then of course you would be debating people regardless of any interactions in the past. And if you aren't - that's simply because you have no arguments and can't debate, so you have to come up with an excuse. It's pretty pathetic, would look a lot more respectable if you admitted you were wrong, which is obvious anyway…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 06:06 PM
1

That's because for it to be a general rule, it needs to be applied to thousands of people. Most people don't date that many people so nuances are not negligible. But that rules sort of describes the big picture very well. As in, data points can be a little off but the general trade/line of best fit would still be what you'd expect.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 06:04 PM
1

Obviously it's a horrible advice that doesn't have men's best interests at heart. Even women themselves will often say that being explicit about it is bad and disrespectful and will cost men women that could otherwise be interested. So until women will change how they select for sex, men should not stop using dating to get sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 06:03 PM
1

Ok? So the point holds. Not shamed just for sex, only for sex with more than 3 men. And no, it's no longer 3, it's more like more than 5 I'd say, considering that the average is 4. And no, sleeping with 20 men is not considered normal and healthy for men. In fact, they would be shamed for more than 3. Often - for more than 0. It's not about the body count, it's about the dick count. And what's the point of your observation anyway? It's men who are considering women and it's women who are conside…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 06:00 PM
1

It is not oppressive to find it. It is oppressive to be required to find it when others are not required to find it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 05:57 PM
1

Right. Most peoole dont like casual sex. This is obviously wrong. If that was true, then why would most people have had it or hoped to have it?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 05:53 PM
1

A probability to get 1 on a twenty-sided die is not the same/not as high as on a six-sided die. How would you know that? You don't know that die or who's throwing it whatsoever. And then gonna be teaching people about debates? Lmao. You can't make this up.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 05:52 PM
2

Because some men don't have to be those things - and sometimes with the very same women.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 05:48 PM
0

She literally wasn't right in a single post that I've seen. And people keep explaining and she learns nothing and then writes stuff that was already shown to be wrong in the previous posts.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 05:47 PM
1

Nobody is slut shaming anyone just for sex. It's about sex with men specifically and not just with men but with many men.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 05:38 PM
1

That's great. You found solution for the dating crisis. We simply need to bring those pressures on women back. Great idea.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 05:36 PM
1

What should they start using to get sex instead?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 05:31 PM
0

It's not that simple. That rule is a good general rule, but there are other factors that it can't account for. For example, those men could have something going on in their lives and didn't want to date at the time. Or you weren't their type. Don't overthink it. They could be well within your league and even below, but still not want what you had to offer just because they were looking for something else or not looking at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 03:54 PM
1

For many men is the only reliable sexual outlet and a way to explore things. Women don't need to consume it - they can just go get whatever they want IRL.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/26 03:49 PM
5

You can literally have sex as good as you want. You can write in your tinder/feeld/etc bio exactly what you want - and there will be men willing to do it. You want x min of foreplay, y min of oral, certain kink? Snap your fingers and you can get it.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 06:40 PM
2

Of course it makes sense. Numbers support this very clearly too. Most men are in relationships or married, but not in FWB/regularly hooking up. It's very clear that casual sex is more difficult to get for men than LTR.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 06:36 PM
2

If that's the only regret - that's the life well lived.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 06:34 PM
1

More than half had it more than once.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 06:31 PM
-2

They do, and if nothing else - they say it with their actions. That's why they will withhold sex sometimes, for example, but still expect that the marriage is fine etc. There's a very simple test - ask any woman, would she be okay to take a step back and go casual with her husband or at least that be okay - and stay with him - if he's not exclusive. The answer will be no in most cases. So, some men got sex from her just for who they were, but the husband/bf gets it for what he does - and there a…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 06:31 PM
4

<image>
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 06:27 PM
0

Yeah no. Nobody is shaming women for whom it's the last resort. They are talking about women who make $10k+ a month, women who make/made millions. Also, where is the contradiction. If you shame someone for doing something and don't do that same thing - then there's no contradiction.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 05:48 PM
1

Source for your numbers, first of all. But let's assume they are real. In that case, a man receives 4 orgasms roughly after 90 attempts, while a woman receives one orgasm after 3 attempts. Nothing changes. The gap is still huge and it's men who are behind. You are wrong because you calculate percentage of sex acts, instead of percentage of attempts to get an orgasm (which includes attempts to even have sex in the first place).
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 05:45 PM
1

And again, nobody cares because getting laid once a year is not getting laid. Huh? Admit? That was never a point of discussion. This has nothing to do with the discussion, actually. The discussion is - you claimed that 75% of men are getting laid in the thread about men struggling to get laid and used the figure of men who have sex once a year. Having sex once a year is still struggling to get laid, and so is, say, twice a year, so your statement was irrelevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 05:43 PM
1

It's not laser optics. 75% is still pretty close. And we need to know more about those men. Maybe they are very young and didn't have time get more count, maybe they are religious or married early. But as far as single men who are dating go - attractive men are the ones who have higher count. Of course they are - that's how you measure it - and they are the ones who even get dates/matches etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 05:40 PM
1

No, it is not as explained above multiple times. You never proved any of what you just said, too. Including the fact that men aren't saying they are valued AS MEN BY things other than that. Which I pointed out not so long ago last time. Reread. Don't reply until you read and understand what is written. Conclusion: nothing changed, no new argument, only repeated (for some reason) arguments that were already refuted. Current status of this discussion: I am right, you are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 05:37 PM
0

That changes nothing? Your comment is irrelevant, since nobody was saying anything about every single person ever. In general, desirable men have higher counts. If it's not high - then there's barely any way to measure their desirability - maybe only count how many women actually proposed sex and got rejected. What you think about your bf is what you think about him, and it absolutely doesn't mean he's desirable to all women.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 05:34 PM
–

No you didn't. You said you don't see what the issue is. And I described what it is above. The ratio is even worse on kink apps, especially if a man is anything but dom.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/26 05:32 PM
–

And again, getting sex once a year is not getting laid as a statistic. Once a week is a decent metric, but that's not majority. No, you definitely do have one. What you said and what the original link you posted said demonstrate it clearly. Another proof - still didn't answer the direct question asked in the previous comment.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 09:52 PM
1

Already addressed above. First, you need to prove that sex is not required if they were saying that, which you still didn't.. Second, they are not saying that - not in the links you posted at least. They are valued by those things as humans, not as men. Women are also valued by those things. So yep, nothing new. You are still wrong, I am still right.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 09:50 PM
1

That's literally what is implied when statements like that are made. Of course, there's some confidence interval that is not 100%. It's pretty close, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 09:48 PM
0

Indeed, the gap is crazy. Women have an orgasm in something like 30% casual encounters last I heard and a lot more frequently in a relationship I assume, but let's take 30%. They can have sex pretty much in 100% cases when they want it. So they get orgasm in 30% of attempts to get it. Men experience orgasm in, say, 90% of encounters but the success rate is probably 5% give or take (the last study about it the answer was actually 0% women vs 75% men agreeing to just sleep with a stranger). So men…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 09:38 PM
1

<image>
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 09:13 PM
2

<image>
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 09:13 PM
-1

Waiting longer than the guy who waited the least.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 09:05 PM
1

No, can be pretty secure and have no complaints but still be disgusted.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/26 09:04 PM
–

You aren't making much sense there. First of all, where are men even slut shaming? Not wanting to date a slut is not slut shaming. Also, being beautiful and not asexual doesn't mean a woman will have a high count. One can have lots of sex with the same partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 10:56 PM
1

Swapping in he hospital happens, even though it's rare. Collisions are also rare but I would always wear a seatbelt when driving, so I don't see why both parents wouldn't want a DNA test tbh.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 10:54 PM
0

No, 52 a year is not nothing. But 52 a year is not 75% or a majority. Can you not read? Getting laid weekly is 37% - that's a minority. And counts have nothing to do with it btw - most of that is sex with the same partner in relationships, not sleeping with unique partners. How tf do you read "And if you are getting some once a year, then you are not getting some." And reply "So 52 times a year is nothing?" ?? How is that "so.."? Zero sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 10:46 PM
1

Again, he doesn't need to ask if other men didn't. If he has to ask - then that proves my point. He doesn't want to ask more than others did. And again - nobody is supposed to verbally ask, even women say that. No, they way men "ask" is by presenting themselves and/or trying to escalate (if she doesn't). And if she is less welcoming to him than to others - then yeah no thanks but no thanks.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 10:44 PM
1

No, you don't get it. Nobody cares that you disagree as in logic doesn't care. No, you don't. You posted links that show not what you said they show. It was all explained above. Scroll up and reread. It's not about agree or disagree. It's that I'm right and you are wrong, but yes you can stay wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 10:41 PM
1

What does that have to do with anything? Men care about the age gap less while women seem to want a specific age gap, therefore it's clear who is (or is more) ageist.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 10:38 PM
1

For both me and her. I don't do double standards and hypocrisy.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 10:32 PM
–

Again, both men and women have their obligation so even if it's those things - it goes both ways. But more importantly - whatever it is - it proves your title wrong. "No one told men " etc etc is a false statement. You are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/26 10:31 PM
1

No, it doesn't prove that at all. It's not even about that at all. Both men and women have duties. Doesn't matter, though, because even if does prove that, what it for sure does is proves your title wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 04:21 PM
1

Why should she? Is he paying her lots of money Why would she what? The sentences you quoted doesn't say that she should anything. Did he ask for a hookup? Why should he? Did others? He absolutely shouldn't ASK for it, everyone including women agrees that asking for it means not getting it even if otherwise one would.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 04:19 PM
–

No, not a thing, since we are talking about dating, not about committing crime and/or paying. Sex work is illegal in many places and it's prohibitively expensive to do regularly.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 04:17 PM
1

I just explained what the issue is. Worse ratio so it's even more difficult to get matches. Not to mention that on kink apps "findom" is normalized and even if you get matches, a huge chunk of them will be just scams/sex workers/findoms.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 03:31 PM
1

Nobody cares that you don't agree. I have students not agreeing that I can take a square root of a negative number. Disagreement means nothing if you don't understand the subject. Everything is logically consistent and explained above. Feel free to reread and ask questions if something is still unclear.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 03:29 PM
1

Yep, 3 attempts, zero arguments that weren't already addressed. It is now established that you were wrong and I was right. Men are not valued as men if they are sexually rejected by society. Details are above. If you have any new questions or arguments - feel free to ask or present them. Otherwise the question is closed.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 03:27 PM
–

No, doesn't seem so. It seems like men allow the age gap to be pretty high, unlike women. In your scenario they even ensure the gap increases. But I have never heard about women breaking up with men to go for even older men to increase the age gap.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 03:24 PM
1

Exactly. And if you are getting some once a year, then you are not getting some. Only 37% are getting some weekly. And even that is a pretty low for most to say I am getting laid (as in consistently and happy with my sex life). And that's lower than it 55% that it used to be 33 years ago. Now, these are facts.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 03:22 PM
1

No, this is not my opinion. This is a fact that follows from the nature of this "research". It's a survey. I already answered what's wrong with the methodology. It's a self reported survey, they don't know actual numbers. Only what was reported.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/26 03:15 PM
1

Of course they did. The whole premise is that there are "duties" (wifely and husbandly), so of course it is implied that each party performs their duties. And yes, that includes regular sex. And if you think about it in a more "romantic" form, then marriage is all about making your spouse happy, which again will include regular sex for most men.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 05:36 PM
1

As long as those other people are female
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 05:33 PM
1

Omg, how do you still not get it? No, there's no absolute reference like that. They don't want instant gratification in absolute terms. They want to be above HER normal/baseline attraction level. If she never gives instant gratification to anyone then she doesn't and that's the end of it. If she does, though, but not to this man - then yes he will feel a certain way.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 05:05 PM
1

Why wrongly? Even if it is wrong, most men see in their own life and in lives of others how women have conditions for men to meet to even start talking to them, let alone to be in a relationship. It seems like that "unconditional" love - even if exists - is an exception and it's best not to expect it.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 04:08 PM
1

That's because odds are somebody else didn't have to take it slow with good woman. Men generally don't want to feel like chumps.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/26 03:23 PM
1

It's onl af/bb if more than one man involved and different men get different treatment. If she always goes for money, for example, regardless of her age and and no man get more sexual enthusiasm or experiments or particular acts that other men don't get, then there's no af/bb because nobody got af treatment in comparison.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 06:25 PM
1

It doesn't matter. If you are going there because you can't find it on regular apps - you aren't getting matches anyway. And if you are attractive and not kinky, your matches would still probably be pretty happy.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 06:13 PM
1

Even worse there. The ratio is worse - maybe it's because men are more kinky, but more likely because they are more desperate so you get kinky women only and kinky + not kinky but desperate men. They are also very small. And women who are in it for sex only select for appearance even more so there's not much chance to compensate. Btw another proof that women prefer bigger dicks. They will often have it in their profile (seen multiple X inch minimum but zero Y inc maximum profiles).
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 06:10 PM
3

That's getting laid once a year or more. Getting laid once or even a couple times a year is not getting laid. It's not a flex. The first graph, though, shows that 37% have sex weekly as opposed to 55% 33 years ago. So yeah, the recession is there and only about 40% men are getting laid, which is less than half already - and most of that number comes from LTR/marriages.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 05:50 PM
2

CDC only knows what was reported. They don't really know anything. This is not the count study, this is analysis or reported counts. The count study would include actually observing and actually counting for some period of time, then maybe extrapolating.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 05:43 PM
3

No, that's not it. There's literally a study proving what they claimed.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 05:41 PM
5

That counts people who had it once. That doesn't support your point that men aren't struggling or invalidates the point that they are struggling.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 05:39 PM
0

Oh damn, so it sounds like women are ageist and men don't care about the age gap and are less bigoted. I'll trust your statistics and won't ask for sources. But actually, of course, you should understand that this is not really what we are talking about. Preference is preference, not a deal breaker. The original comment I replied to framed this as more of a deal breaker. As in they would filter out those men based on age, for example, if they approached or tried something, whereas preference wou…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 05:29 PM
1

That's exactly my point. You are too dramatic basically saying that they are bigots. I think they are NOT bigots. I guess if there's data showing that they are ageist bigots then I can't argue with that. Men being far worse is not relevant here, nobody is talking about men. I was saying that I don't think we can accuse women of that, I never argued about men. Oh I see, like if some members of a group commit crimes - it's reasonable and not bigoted to judge the entire group based on that.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 03:36 PM
1

Irrelevant, women can be providers and protectors too. And children. OK if we are back to gender identifiers and historical stuff, then the main gender identifier is the genitals a baby is born with and whom they should have sex with to become a father or a mother. And if they can't become a father then they aren't valued as a man. No, not by their own admission. You didn't show that they feel valued BY those things, only that they feel valued FOR those things. So yep, 0/3. It is now established…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/26 03:24 PM
1

Exactly. As men, not as humans, providers, protectors etc. And what makes them valued not what they are valued for. Incorrect. It's decided by the market. Everything explained above with examples. No. Again, an affirmative claim without proof. Dismissed. Yes, they are important for humans. They are not specific to men. So yes, you had 2 attempts - nothing new in 2 comments. Try one more time. If nothing changes, then it is established that you were wrong and I was right.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/26 04:38 PM
1

That's not correct. Comments are words. Fat women still get matches and can at the very least get laid, fat men don't and can't (in general and nearly as much anyway). So it's pretty clear who is more judged and hated.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/26 04:26 PM
1

I don't think all younger women are bigots/ageist. They statistically don't end up with older men, though, because they are usually around younger men and end up with them.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/26 03:18 PM
1

<image>
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 06:55 AM
1

Nope. They don't say they want to be. You failed to prove that they do. The threads you linked show what men say they feel they are valued FOR, not by. And no, it doesn't matter what you want to be paid in. Valued/valuable or not is decided by the market and by what you are paid compared to others. That's why an engineer who is happy to be paid in food vs high salary is not valued. He gets what he wants or thinks he wants while the employer is laughing and counting money they saved that they wou…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 06:50 AM
–

Reward is in the eye of the beholder ^ exactly this. Which is why it doesn't matter what you think. If you don't think of it that way , it still is a reward because men do think of it that way because they can't get it easily. They generally need to be valued as men to get it. Or they need to pay.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/26 06:46 AM
1

Paying for it is illegal in most places + not affordable to do with any satisfying frequency.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 06:29 AM
1

Yes, not only. But it can't be paid only in intangibles. Everything explained above with examples. Again, you are talking about what men are valued FOR. That's not the topic of the conversation. The conversation is what they get for being valuable as men. And again, as pointed out above - no that's not what men are saying. Again, they are talking about what they are valued FOR, not by. So yeah, nothing new. Repeating the same things that were already proven wrong. Maybe try one more time. If it …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 06:19 AM
0

No, if you did you would post them, but all your arguments were disproven before to the point where all you could do is make excuses and call people rude.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/26 06:17 AM
1

It feels good and is a good start. Or did they ask to do it until completion, i.e. instead of sex ?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/26 02:00 PM
0

Umm no, not always. Most men are not 18. And again, the point holds - it's about the feeling/the validation and the corresponding turn on. Rarely do the require a blowjob to completion before going for round 2. Or are you saying that's what's going on?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/26 01:29 PM
1

That depends on the scenario. In the considered scenarios it has to include monetary or sexual "pay" as explained above. If you can be valued and defined as a man by things other than having sex, then you don’t need to be paid in sex to be valued as a man. No. This needs to be proven and you still didn't prove it. A virgin or sexually rejected man can still be valued as a man. No. As explained in detail above with multiple examples, he can not. Only as a human who happens to be a man. A man can …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/26 01:26 PM
1

No, that's not it. You simply have no arguments. It's easy to prove - it's obvious actually - you are still talking back and my arguments are still unchallenged.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/26 01:13 PM
1

No, my tag is accurate, why would I remove it? That's what - whataboutism? What does it have to do with the point? It is dishonorable (or not) regardless of what men do. No, no one is doing anything to women in the scenario we are discussing. Women are making choice to do something here. Of course, if they are trafficked and forced to film porn at gunpoint, then the men doing this are guilty.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/26 01:12 PM
1

That does not depend on me or on any individual, but what does depend on the individual is whether they do something or not. For example, whether they engage in the sex work or porn.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/26 01:07 PM
–

That depends. Is she claiming she loves him and wants him happy and he's into that stuff? Then yes. Is she claiming he's the most attractive? Then yes if she's done it before with someone (allegedly less attractive/important to her) and he is interested in doing it. And of course if she's done it before that absolutely means she likes the idea of trying it or wanted to see if she likes it with that partner (unless she was forced, of course). Since it's obvious that not liking something with one …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/26 04:01 PM
1

It is absolutely horrible that they do that and have better lives that women who do some jobs that are actually important to the society but aren't paid as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/26 03:39 PM
0

That's an irrelevant question. Nobody forced supply to meet demand. Not to mention that it's more like an addiction, so it's not even supply/demand and more like a drug dealer/user. And yes, that is cosmically unfair if they get happy ending, doing that type of work when others doing "honest" and supposedly useful work (think teachers or something) struggle.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/26 03:38 PM
1

Yeah no, it's wrong. It's like saying that renters are responsible for higher rents/inflation. Of course not, just because the market can bear more doesn't mean you have to charge it that. Whoever sets the prices is responsible 100%.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/26 03:35 PM
3

It's not to get off, it's a stimulation to get hard on demand.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/26 03:32 PM
1

Being nice is the bare ass minimum, This is obviously false. If that was true, that would mean only nice men would get women.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/26 03:30 PM
0

That's a no true scotsman argument. You can only tell if they are nice or not if you have an independent definition. And you don't have any definition in the post at all, so what is there to argue about? Also, society mostly agrees that self-proclaimed women are women. So why wouldn't nice guys be nice guys?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/26 03:28 PM
1

No, that's incorrect as explained above. If something is unclear in the explanation and you have questions - let me know. Otherwise, we establish that it's incorrect. No, they don't. As in, they maybe do but nobody is talking about individual examples, we are talking about it in general. And that's about stats and what the market decides, not individual employees. Again, no. This is non sequitur. This is based on nothing. YOu have to prove it because this rule doesn't work in general as demonstr…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/26 03:25 PM
1

There's absolutely no disrespectful way here. Disrespectful were about 4-5 of your comments that were deleted. This is a very neutral way. Either way, nothing changes. Not liking something with a partner means you didn't like it with that partner, it doesn't mean you won't like it with any other partner. Again, gave multiple examples already. For example, many women say they don't like the first time they have vaginal sex. Yet, they still keep doing it and not only with another partner, but some…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/26 03:22 PM
1

No, only if he chose to be a virgin. Incorrect. Just like if an exploited worker seems that they are valued, doesn't mean they are valued, if men say they are valued doesn't mean they are valued. Whether they are valued or not depends on how them being valued compares to how the most valued men are valued. Yes, they are valued by things other than sex as long as they have the sex they want. We already covered all of that. If you have no arguments and just gonna repeat stuff only for it to be sho…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 03:04 AM
1

Where? No, I'm just being factual. And you have no arguments and are wrong regardless of whether I'm being rude or not. Everything I said holds even if you didn't like how I said it. Either way, nothing changes. Not liking something with a partner means you didn't like it with that partner, it doesn't mean you won't like it with any other partner. Again, gave multiple examples already. For example, many women say they don't like the first time they have vaginal sex. Yet, they still keep doing it…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/26 03:02 AM
1

No, not exclusively. Only when the "not sexually rejected" condition is already met. Again, covered this multiple times. Do you not understand the concept of necessary and sufficient? Yes, of course it is defined by sex, more accurately - whom they are meant to have sex with to become a parent. That's why someone is called a boy or a girl as soon as they are born in most cases. Right, so it's a good thing that I don't just keep denying it. I explained everything in detail using definitions and f…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/26 12:02 AM
1

Can you not read? I did not agree with what you said. What exactly is not clear to you?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/26 09:50 PM
1

Right, if only they meant valuing someone as men, that'd be swell. But they don't. They are a good addition to not being sexually rejected, but don't replace it. And if a man is sexually rejected then he is not valued as a man just if a professional is not paid then he's not valued as a professional. Of course not. They are necessary but sometimes are not sufficient.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/26 09:46 PM
1

No, you can't be. You can only be valued by those other things in addition to money, just like men can be valued as men by things other than having sex in addition to not being sexually rejected. Yes, they can mean more as long as they already have enough money. No, they can't as explained in this comment and in even more detail in some comments above.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/26 09:20 PM
1

Right, that makes sense. You just don't do math to practice logic regularly. That's fine but what is not clear is how can you not understand the concept of not knowing enough to be talking. Obviously, when someone started their degree they didn't know much and after some time they learned. So until they learned, of course,they wouldn't be arguing as if they knew something. So by that logic, why argue about studies not existing when they do exist and are posted here periodically? Like you should …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/26 09:16 PM
1

? can you not read? It can be a hoop if and only if certain conditions are met.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/26 08:57 PM
0

In this scenario of course it does, it shows how much you know/how much time you spent learning the subject you're discussing, which you don't seem to know well enough to be arguing. It especially matters in combination with the other thing, though. Either way, doesn't change anything. You really have no arguments that weren't already addressed.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/26 08:52 PM
1

Not necessarily. Need to prove that, as said two times already. That's non sequitur. And even if true, doesn't contradict my point. Of course it can involve things other than having sex, but it always involves not being sexually rejected, otherwise - not valued as a man.For example, if being an engineer involves things other than money, being paid as an engineer also involves things other than money is an analogous statement. And, just like your original statement, it's nonsense if you try to im…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/26 08:40 PM
1

No, it's only a hoop if some other guy didn't have to say hi. Do you not read before replying or something? The comment was pretty clear.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/26 08:04 PM
0

That explains why you are so bad at logic. You just don't do math to practice it. That's fine but what is not clear is how can you not understand the concept of not knowing enough to be talking. Obviously, when you started your degree you didn't know much and after some time you learned. So until you learned, of course, you wouldn't be arguing as if you knew something. So by that logic, why argue about studies not existing when they do exist and are posted here periodically? Like you should unde…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/26 08:03 PM
1

Which is why there are no double standards here. It's like saying, idk, knives should be sharp but weights should be heavy. Two unrelated things, two different standards. No double standards.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/26 07:58 PM
1

Nope, as explained above in detail, that's incorrect. Already addressed 13 days ago when you first mentioned those. And it of course is the opposite of reasoning if the argument is non sequitur, which it is. It's just a claim without any proof or reasoning. No, that's non sequitur. And even if true, doesn't contradict my point. Of course it can involve things other than having sex, but it always involves not being sexually rejected, otherwise - not valued as a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/26 07:57 PM
1

You are focused on one example, but there's a general rule which includes that example in certain scenarios. And the answer/rule is simple - it's doing more than other guys had to do (or more than you had to do for other women to be even more general, but only few men have options like that). So yes talking can be considered that but it's not always that.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/26 09:17 PM
1

None of that matters without sexual validation. These things are nice to have in addition to sexual/romantic validation, but not instead. Without that - what self-worth are you talking about? As in, I'm valuable as someone convenient and useful for others, but not as someone who is picked for the process related to passing on his genes? No as someone they want to spend all their time with? Yeah right, not very validating. Like, sure, it's nice to be praised, but it's just lower on the hierarchy …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/26 09:10 PM
1

Education that includes formal logic (and using that logic for years every day), and being around here for many years which results in knowing a few basic things and not denying reality. Like imagine saying there are no studies showing that physical attractiveness predicts sexual success? When there are tons of these about height alone, let alone the ranking based on combined appearance. Or imagine saying nonsense like the original claim from the post that was refuted earlier and not seeing how …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/26 09:02 PM
1

No, you are not as shown multiple times above. Simple example - being in denial of stats/studies that were shown in the sub many times and claiming they don't exist. Yet, couldn't answer what predicts sexual success if not that with any sources.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/26 08:57 PM
1

? These are two completely unrelated things.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/26 08:56 PM
1

No, that's non sequitur. That absolutely doesn't mean that. And even if it does, I don't argue against that. I'm simply pointing that it necessarily includes not being sexually rejected. But that is necessary and might not be sufficient, so yes it can include other things in addition to not being sexually rejected. Yes, they are valid forms of valuing someone as a human, not as a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/05/26 08:55 PM
1

Yeah, saying it doesn't make magically be true. The links you showed are about for, not by. And other than that you have no proof that it's true. You couldn't even answer the question I asked in the previous comment and show any gender-specific rewards other than sex. That's because, of course, gender is assigned at birth based on what genitalia a person has and is primarily sex and parenthood related. And therefore, of course if a man is sexually rejected, then he's not valued as a man. That's …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 09:27 PM
1

No, it's not. It's an average of all subjective validations and is objective. It's also objective in the sense that it is things that are actually happening (or not happening) to you. If people subjectively find you unattractive then you objectively don't attract people and objectively dating is not happening for you. Yeah I don't see how worth is useful, that's why I asked the original commenter what I asked.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 09:23 PM
1

Incorrect, as explained above multiple times. You are again talking about what it's valued FOR, not BY. What other things specific to a gender can it be valued by? And as, again, explained multiple times above it doesn't need to be just about having sex, it just needs to include it which it does. That's why sex is necessary but might not be sufficient and that's why if they are not sexually rejected they might still be not valued, but if they are sexually rejected they are definitely not valued …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 09:12 PM
1

So that's just useless then and is irrelevant to the conversation. We're talking about the concepts and how it works in general. Not about what made you happier which is completely subjective.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 09:10 PM
1

When you double down on claiming it's pathetic in response to a true statement about it being an instinct. Exactly, we're in a debate sub, so we should follow the rules of debate/logic and not commit fallacies or give value judgements. Of course I proved it. Not me, actually, it's a well-established thing that comes from Freud's times if not earlier. I'm not talking about identity. Of course it shouldn't be the center of your identity. It simply shows how valuable others find you. Again with the…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 09:09 PM
1

Nope. That's incorrect. The only truly gendered thing is who can father children and who can mother children. Other things can be more or less likely to be found in a certain gender, but they aren't gender-specific. No, it's not about having sex. It's about fathering vs mothering children. And again, they would be valued (as men) not FOR having sex, but BY having sex/not being sexually rejected. We are talking about reality of dating in this sub. Therefore, we are talking about genders as about …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 07:19 PM
2

There is no such thing as inherent worth. I don't need to ask myself, I already asked the dictionary. It's basically value/importance -things that are by definition determined by others. Saying that you are important to yourself is trivial and useless, and is irrelevant to the conversation, really. You are you, of course you are important in that sense, nobody ever argued otherwise.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 07:16 PM
2

What double standards are there in this scenario?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 07:11 PM
1

? But they don't become that if they are doing the same, since the same usually includes not sleeping with men. Besides, it's not about the body count, it's about the dick count.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 07:10 PM
2

I don't think most people are not okay with a woman dating women. They are not okay with her getting ran through by dudes and taking other men's dicks. So yes, usually men are okay with a woman doing the same thing they want to be doing, or at least we have no data showing that they aren't.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 07:09 PM
1

It makes no sense. How do I matter to you because I gotta live with myself? If I don't and I only matter to myself, that means it's a closed system where I'm irrelevant to others and therefore do not matter. The original comment was about having worth and mattering, that clearly implies others/market. How else is worth defined if not by how much you are valued (i.e. how you're "rewarded") just like the market price is defined by what others are willing to pay?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 06:54 PM
1

No, not as men. As humans who happen to be men. That's explained in detail above. Feel free to re-read. Also, it doesn't even matter what they feel just like if an exploited worker feels valued when they get a pizza party but not a pay they deserver that doesn't mean that they are valued as a worker. And most importantly, you don't have any proof that those thing are how men feel valued for being men. That's not at all what you links said as, again, pointed out above. The links have men saying w…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 06:52 PM
1

Not mine or anyone else's. Self-worth as a concept is dependent on opinions of others, unless a person is delusional. No, feelings are never a choice. That's why they are feelings. Actions are a choice. I don't choose to feel pain when I get cut. It's already explained above, not sure why you repeat something incorrect after it was already shown to be incorrect. No, that's just your imagination. I'm talking about concepts and feelings, not about actions and/or living my life. I'm not even talkin…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 06:35 PM
1

You are not criticizing it, you are just calling it bad without any arguments and in complete denial of reality. And calling it unhealthy doesn't magically make it unhealthy. You have to prove it. And the point there was that it's an instinct as in we don't choose it. No, calling something pathetic doesn't magically makes it pathetic. You have to prove it. So far, it's just your opinion - an appeal to emotion and/or denial.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 06:33 PM
0

That's not rude or disrespectful, that's simply an accurate evaluation. It was given with all due respect. Either way, I will talk on the topic if I want to. If you have nothing new to add and concede the argument then stop replying. Either way, so far we are at the point where I'm proven right and you are proven wrong. Trying to say you won't debate with someone because of who they are/what they said = logic fallacy and an automatic loss. You would look less silly if you acknowledged you were w…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/26 06:30 PM
1

There's no helplessness. I'm talking about worth. And not, none of us a worthy, some of us are. Just not by default and not all. Maybe when they are born they are worthy for their potential (isn't that what you are talking about - a chance to turn it all around?), but if it's not realized by a certain age - or if they went the wrong way (murderers etc) - then are they really worthy? I think they demonstrated that they aren't. And besides, it's not up to them to decide. If people don't accept the…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 08:29 PM
1

Yeah no, that's worth as humans, not as men. And also still need to to prove that all humans matter. I think some don't and I don't see why I'm wrong. Or maybe they do when they are born because of the potential but if potential is not realized by a certain age or they go the wrong way (become criminals or whatever), then they showed that they don't have worth at that point and do not matter.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 07:41 PM
1

That's not a choice. We feel what we feel and our instincts are the way they are or the way we evolved. It's not like out of many things we chose sex. No, sex feels good and at the same time indicates your social and genetic value. Of course we want it because it feels good, and we want what it symbolizes so we want it as an indicator/proof that we have that. Yes, some of the great minds of humanity were not valuable as men, even though they were valuable as humans.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 07:39 PM
3

No, not me. The original commenter who made the claim. Not for you, no, I wasn't asking you. It's for the person who made the claim. I asked to explain it better because I just don't see it. And I'm not the only one. Because self-worth is just your reaction to feedback. You are supposed to have low self-worth/esteem if you see that others don't find you valuable. That's your brain/instinct telling you that you need to improve to be accepted.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 07:35 PM
1

What is self-esteem if not the reaction to how valuable others deem you? No, feeling any type of way is not a choice. That's how you feel, you can't control it or at least can't be reasonably expected to control it. If you get hurt you feel pain, unless you are some 200 year old Tibetan monk you can't control how you feel.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 07:30 PM
1

What do you mean what is the difference? What is the difference between a chair and furniture? Man is a subset. Both men and women (of all ages) are humans. Men we are talking about - the ones that don't see their value - are specifically men of reproductive (or near-reproductive) age. No, not all that you are depends on another, but your worth/value is. Supply-demand and all. I don't see how every one of us is a miracle and deserves to be here, though. Some people definitely deserve it more tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 07:22 PM
1

I matter because I gotta live with myself? Makes no sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 06:38 PM
1

That's the point. That's why men level up. So saying that self-improvement advice is useless because it's women-centered is delusional. The opposite is true. The advice is useful and is needed because it's women-centered.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 06:37 PM
1

Nope. Again, the reason those things make life worse is that they are detrimental to getting sex/family. If for whatever reason a man could choose between being broke but somehow having any sex with any women he desired or having money, most would choose the former. It's not pathetic, it's an instinct. What's the point otherwise? To experience and see things except for the thing you want/need the most? To make rich richer? Now that's pathetic.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/26 06:35 PM
7

No matter what we need to them because sex with a woman/women is impossible without them. And without that many men are just straight up not happy and can't really be happy unless they know they can reliably get it and choose not to. Which, as you know, is not the case for most men.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/26 07:36 PM
13

How? What is our worth? And how do we know we have it - as men, not humans - if we don't get picked by women? Just hearing it for someone is more annoying than helpful, if it's so vague and so different from what see and experience tbh. No offence, and thanks for kind words either way.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/26 07:35 PM
3

Men should improve because being weak, passive, unhealthy, broke, socially isolated, or emotionally dependent makes life worse. That should be enough. Your body matters even when nobody is attracted to it. Your money matters even when nobody is impressed by it. Your confidence matters even when it does not get you laid. Your friendships, hobbies, discipline, health, and peace of mind should not need a female audience to become valuable. Nope. Not enough. And how do you measure the "worse"? Other…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/26 07:32 PM
1

No, the difference is huge. They are completely different things logically - one is a quality you're valued for, one is an action/payment/reward you get for being valued. No, value is about what feedback you get. If people just think that you're great but you live your life as if they didn't - then you have no value. Correct. It's an external thing, not internal. So without external positive reinforcement - there's no value. Anything else you still don't understand?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/26 07:30 PM
1

No, they do not. The links you posted earlier do not confirm that claim. They show what men are valued FOR, which, again, is not the topic of the discussion. Those other thing is them being valued as men as in humans, the same way women could be valued, as opposed to being valued as men as in males which necessarily includes sex since that's they get confirmation that instinctively someone is not opposed to having their genes in them. We already covered this multiple times. Again - what is that …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/26 07:15 PM
1

Ah no, it is not, but I see how to make sure you are not confused again. When I share my opinion, I usually say "in my opinion". I did not use that in this conversation - that's how you know it's not an opinion. It is based on definitions and logic, as explained step-by-step above.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/26 07:03 PM
1

Exactly. And again, the question is not what they are praised FOR, it's HOW they are praised for it. And if they are sexually rejected, then they aren't valued as men. Pretty simple. What are you still struggling to grasp?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/26 06:57 PM
1

Looks like your comment is deleted again because you broke the rules again. To answer what I still see in the notifications, though: so you got no other arguments and can only try to insult without anything else said? Yes, then we both clearly see that I am right and you are wrong. I'm glad we established that. And to reiterate - yes, you are not qualified to debate here. You don't know enough. Case in point, studies that show that attractiveness predicts sexual success were shown multiple times…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/26 06:55 PM
1

Looks like your comment is deleted again because you broke the rules again. To answer what I still see in the notifications, though: so you got no other arguments and can only try to insult without anything else said? Yes, then we both clearly see that I am right and you are wrong. I'm glad we established that.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/26 06:51 PM
1

Looks like your comment is deleted again because you broke the rules again. To answer what I still see in the notifications, though: Yes, exactly! This proves my point. It's painful and they don't like it, but the don't conclude that they don't like it in general. They correctly conclude that they don't like it with that partner. You almost got it. Can't believe you got that far and still can't grasp it.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/26 06:48 PM
3

You might as well tell the whole story and what it was that actually happened.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 08:59 PM
1

That's a useless argument because it's pretty much a textbook example of a no true Scotsman fallacy. No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. This Scotsman does? Then he's not a true Scotsman. Casual sex is available to any man competent enough. It's not available to this man? Then he's not competent enough. Your mistake is circular logic and that you define a thing that has it's own definition by the outcome only. A Scotsman is a person from Scotland. They may or may not put sugar in their …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 08:56 PM
1

No, it's not. If it was basic reasoning and conditionals, then I wouldn't be able to find the example demonstrating that your "if-then" is nonsense. But I did find it. So no, that "reasoning" is proved wrong. Of course not, I never said they should be only valued by it. It's necessary but not necessarily sufficient depending on the man. No, none of this is my personal opinion. Nowhere did I say "in my opinion" and I'm not sharing any opinions. I'm discussing the concept. Except they don't say it…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 07:53 PM
1

Nope. That's non sequitur. There's no "if - then" here. That's just you making things up. We already covered it. Simply translate your nonsense into another example about payment/reward and it becomes clear that it's nonsense. E.g.: If engineering is things other than getting paid, then things other than getting paid can pay engineers. Nonsense. If engineer (or any job) is not getting paid, then they aren't valued in their role. Just like if men are sexually rejected, they aren't valued as men. …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 06:03 PM
1

Yes, they do. They clearly show that. They also show that it's the main women's preference for STR.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 05:57 PM
1

If you don't, then you don't try it. If you try it - that means you liked the idea of it and wanted to see if you like it with that partner. We already covered it. Yes, I do. They were posted here multiple times. But here I don't even need them. That's common sense and definitions. If you are attracted to a partner you want to do things with that partner that you don't want to do with people you are not attracted to. We already covered it and had examples and all. You are attracted to your bf mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 05:57 PM
1

It is, indeed, the primary predictor of sexual success. You need to stop using AI that simply quotes from whatever is the top search result. Look at the studies. Looks predict STR success and women prefer - strongly - attractiveness for STR. This is not new. It's well known and established.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 05:55 PM
1

You are not qualified to debate here. You don't know enough. You need to be quiet and read. Maybe ask questions. But not argue. Case in point, you say dumb stuff like studies don't show that attractiveness predicts sexual success. When of course they do. This was shown multiple times on this sub. Like, nobody who's been here for a while is questioning it.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 05:53 PM
1

Already covered this multiple times. That means you didn't like it with that partner, it doesn't mean you won't like it with any other partner. Again, gave multiple examples already. For example, many women say they don't like the first time they have vaginal sex. Yet, they still keep doing it and not only with another partner, but sometimes even with the same partner they like what they didn't like previously.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 05:51 PM
1

No, it's not defined by having sex - it's defined by whom they potentially will have sex with. That's why the gender was historically assigned at birth. Yes, it's valued by having sex, although more could be required. But if they are sexually rejected, then they aren't valued as men. My argument is correct, and you haven't refuted it even once, so what do you mean again and again? If it was incorrect, you would easily refute it but so far you failed to do so. You kept repeatedly talking about wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 05:48 PM
1

Of course. A person can be valued as a person by those things. We are talking about men being valued as men as in males, not as men as in people. And if they are sexually rejected then they aren't valued as men.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 12:40 AM
1

Nope. If an engineer is good because of his skills or goods he designs, he can't be paid by somebody else designing stuff for him or by the goods. He can only be paid by what he needs and expects for his position. For engineer that would be the engineer-level salary, for a man that would be a man-specific thing that shows he is valued as a man, which is sex, since traditionally what determined if someone was a man was genitalia and that he's a potential future father as opposed to mother. And to…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/26 12:05 AM
1

Nope. Again, what makes them men are things they are valued FOR, not BY.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 11:54 PM
1

Yes what? Of course not, your very links prove it - the questions asked are what makes them feel masculine and such. So no, they don't say what you claim they say. And, as explained, multiple times it's about how they are valued, not what they are valued for or the magnitude of that value, so no set value is also irrelevant. And of course it's not what they think. If an engineer is underpaid he can think he's valued all he wants - the fact is that he's not valued. It's very simple. If they are s…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 11:52 PM
1

No. And they don't say it. They say that they are valued FOR things other than sex and/or that things other than sex make them feel masculine. Which has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is what they need to be valued by to be valued as men. That's why, for example, being valued for the same qualities when they are children or very old men they aren't valued as men. They are valued as humans. That's because they don't get what high-value men get.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 11:42 PM
1

Yes, fortunately we are not talking about the magnitude of value, so it's irrelevant. Nor we are talking about things they are valued for. Again, what do you still not understand? Again you say "they can be valued for things". Yes, they can be valued for things other than sex. Just like engineers are valued for things they do as engineers not for the money they make. But if they aren't getting paid - then they are not valued. If they get thanks or a pizza party then they are valued as useful chu…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 11:16 PM
1

Again, it's not about what makes them feel like a man or what they are valued for. It's about whether they are valued as men and not as other things (that women can also be/have). Therefore, if they are sexually rejected - they are not valued as men. And no, incorrect. Sex is necessary but maybe not be sufficient. Everything was explained many times. What do you still not understand?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 11:07 PM
1

No, it's not. Because again this is what they are valued FOR, not BY. The topic is how they are valued as men, not what they are valued for as men. No, it might not be the only thing they need to feel valued. But if they are n't getting that, then they are not valued. Again, necessary and sufficient.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 09:02 PM
1

No, of course they don't. Because the main thing they want that women don't and that is man-specific is doing what would make them fathers, i.e sex with women. The anecdotes of people answering the question what makes them FEEL masculine are irrelevant, and not just because they are anecdotes, but mostly because we are not talking about what makes men feel masculine. We are talking about men being VALUED as men. And if they are sexually rejected, then they are not valued as men. Even if they fee…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 08:10 PM
–

No. I am not sure what you're still not getting. If you read any of the multiple threads on this sub where we're discussing how men can know if women are actually attracted to them (or attracted more than to their previous partners as they often claim). One of the biggest indicators is if she wants to sex with them for them as opposed to having him invest more (time etc). One of the excuses you will see there is that she could be attracted but he just didn't ask, so to speak. So how to eliminate…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 07:38 PM
1

Of course not. To be valued as men they need to get what is specific to their gender and the only thing that is truly specific to men or women is being fathers/mothers. Therefore, if they are sexually rejected, then they are not valued as men. This was covered multiple times before. What do you still not understand?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 07:33 PM
–

No, I mean consensual encounters. Simply having sex on the first date or something or even ONS/casual.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 04:11 PM
1

If you've never seen these in this sub, then you shouldn't be talking. You should be quietly listening and maybe asking questions, but you're not qualified to debate just yet. I am not doing your homework. I already sent you multiple other links and you're still talking about the points those links clearly show. Maybe I'll look for links, but only after you say what you think predicts sexual success if not attractiveness (with links to prove it, of course).
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 04:01 PM
1

If you tried it before, then all you know is that you didn't like it with that partner. You don't know if you'd like it with a new partner before trying it with them. And if you think you do know (and that's why won't even try even though tried with someone else) - then again you are not attracted to that partner as much. Just like you like whatever you like with your bf, but not with some hobo.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 03:59 PM
1

Nobody is gaslighting you, I explained everything step by step. You are the one trying to gaslight me, talking about oh they don't like it in general, when they do it with some but not others and when we can clearly demonstrate that they can like something with some but not with others. Sure, they may dislike the idea of it in general - then they just won't try it. If they tried it, then they like the idea of trying it and can like it with some partners. So if they wanted to check if they liked …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 03:57 PM
1

Nope. Not how statistics works. What a separate person might have been doesn't matter. Stats/studies clearly show what women prefer and what predicts success.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 03:54 PM
1

Huh? Worse in what sense? He says legit stuff about working hard and not being satisfied etc. Clav is a clown.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 03:53 PM
–

You should do whatever people who get it fast do. If they push, you should push, otherwise you will be told that you just didn't try. It's both - it's a real excuse people often hear when question why she made him wait while having it fast with someone else.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 03:52 PM
1

No, they can't. By those immaterial things they are valued as providers etc. But not as men. Just like an engineer is not valued as an engineer by pizza parties, they're valued by getting paid the engineer salary.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 03:48 PM
1

No, not even men. Women know better and they agree with me because again there are studies showing what they prefer and what predicts success.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 03:10 AM
1

Yes, but they can't be valued BY things that don't include sex. What do you still not understand? Yes, because I am not talking about WHAT they are valued for, I'm talking about the payment/reward they get to show that they are valued. What you're saying is nonsense. It's like - going back to the job analogy - saying that if engineer is valued for skills and not for making money then they can be valued without getting paid. Which is of course wrong, because they aren't valued in their role if th…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 03:09 AM
1

Not at all what? Again, yes about FOR things. The conversation is not about what they are valued for, it's how they are valued/what they are valued by. And if they are sexually rejected, then they aren't valued as men. They are valued for (and as) those other qualities and just happen to be men, but aren't valued as men. No sex = rejected as potential father which is one role that is man specific. It's explained in detail above multiple times. Scroll up and read again. What do you still not unde…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 02:02 AM
1

Again, if it wasn't the driving force, then see above. It would work differently. It would be the main predictor of success etc. You have nothing to base it on and the reality works as if it was the driving force as explained above.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 01:20 AM
1

What is evidenced? That they can't date up when it comes to casual sex or that they can but don't? None of that contradicts the point that they can and you look ridiculous with this argument. Kinda like this: https://preview.redd.it/r1vzb75z4uwg1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=c37943045e64d26a48d5b92112f095204e261809 And again, no reason to believe that it's evidenced by you since we know nothing about you. Are you a woman or some transwoman or whatever? What's your height/weight? Of cour…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 12:35 AM
1

Because according to you it's all about whether they want sex and that comes first. So in this case, why waste time and swipe left? Just swipe right until you get the first match - then go have sex with them. That clearly is not how it works because you are wrong. Why does it matter if attractiveness doesn't matter? And what if it doesn't? Sure if it does, then it does. Then if you asked women what percentage of men they swipe on, the answer would be close to a 100% because the first men are alr…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 12:31 AM
–

How can you assume that? No, it's a smaller pool of women that they like not necessarily that likes them. E.g. I can't match with anyone but I like idk goth girls so I start only going for those. But it is possible that they don't like me while idk comic con girls like me, for example. In that case, I would do better if I went for more girls while if I narrow the pool down I exclude women that actually like me.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 12:26 AM
–

They are upset they can't succeed with women they want. If they can't succeed with women they want, only focusing on their ideal women makes their chances to succeed lower, not higher. So it sounds like a bad advice. It sounds like - if you can't match with women you like on the apps, don't be upset you can't match at all and start swiping only on women you like as opposed to more women. But of course, that doesn't work. That's why men swipe on a wider range of women, some probably even swipe on…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 12:21 AM
1

If that's true, you will have no problem showing proof. In the end, it doesn't matter what comes first. The only thing that matters is what kind of guy is picked for that sex. And what you said is almost obviously incorrect, which a simple example can demonstrate: Say you want sex - that doesn't matter that you will have it with the first guy that offers, but you will have it with a guy who is attractive enough. For example, women who go to hookup apps : 1) don't swipe on everyone which they wou…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 12:16 AM
1

No, again - read before talking. 10-20% (at best) is global. In any local group it can be single digits if not not zero. Either way, it has nothing to do with the point. The point is that you started with the false claim that there's pretty much only one chad and only he can get casual sex. That is, of course, not the case and nobody said that it was. What was said is that women can date up when it comes to casual sex. In that sense, he could be about the highest you can shoot for (so kinda like…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/26 12:10 AM
1

Huh? 20% is relative. Wth are you talking about. Do you not know what % means and how it's calculated? You literally compare the group to the total number and find the ratio.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 11:56 PM
1

What do you mean? You are still replying, I get notifications so I'm replying to them. Educating is my calling, so of course I will keep trying to help you as long as I see that you are still struggling and still don't see that you are wrong. Of course, whenever you get that you are wrong you can stop replying and then the interaction will end. Or you can acknowledge it if you have manners, of course.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 11:55 PM
1

Correct. No, men can not be valued as men without sex. They can be valued as different aspects but not as men. I explained it many times above, stop going in circles. Scroll up and reread.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 11:53 PM
-1

What? Here? What are you talking about? Replying to a wrong comment or something?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 11:51 PM
0

No, not 99%, 10-20%. Again, if you are new, maybe lurk more, read more, read the trp sub which is the reason this sub exists(start with the sidebar). It really sounds like you just don't know enough to be arguing yet. All of this is well established.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 11:51 PM
1

Yeah, I get it, it's like those quantum field theory lectures - when stuff is too difficult for you to understand you kinda get bored. Which is why I'm trying to help. What exactly are you still struggling with? Maybe some examples or analogies will help.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 10:46 PM
–

So basically, improve and try your luck every now and then until you find a woman with which you notice everything is very easy? And if it's not easy - back to the gym?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 10:40 PM
0

It always was. That's exactly how chad is defined - as top % of an ensemble. And since different women have access to different sets of men - there might be different chads. That's not to even talk about niches, but just about the fact that some women aren't attractive enough to get 10 and cap somewhere lower (still higher than what they are, of course). No, that's a false dilemma. Even if there's one desirable type, not everyone can attain it. And yes, people can be divided into stereotypes no …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 10:36 PM
1

? Seems like you are not okay. What exactly are you struggling with? Or if you suddenly got that you are wrong, feel free to not respond.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 10:30 PM
1

Exactly, which is not the same. Ass is not the same as vagina, the mouth surrounded by beard or shaved skin is not the same as the mouth surrounded by smooth skin (just like a hairy or shaved ass is not the same as a smooth ass). So yes, your example shows how they are not options and it's not that they are not attracted to - it's that it's a completely different thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 10:29 PM
1

If attraction didn't matter, then they would be equally as likely to flirt with unattractive people, leaving other attractive people forced to flirt with more unattractive people. Moreover, the success rate per time asked would be roughly the same. This is not the case so you are wrong. Unless, of course, you have some study showing that results agree with the implications above.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 10:27 PM
1

Incorrect. It is about payment, and respect, opinion etc are all forms of payment in this scenario. So yes, depending on the payment you see as whom the person is valued. If they are sexually rejected, then they are not valued as men. Yes, sex is necessary to be valued as men because sex is how babies are made and men/women dichotomy stems from who fathers and who mothers babies.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 10:26 PM
1

I am, are you? Do you see that you were wrong or is there something you are still struggling to grasp?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 10:24 PM
1

I thought I was pretty clear. They owe the society the same when it comes to raising birth rates but not necessarily the same in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 10:23 PM
–

Nah, but then how do they find out if they are the most sexually attractive to her? If they don't push quickly, then later on the excuse that she slept with someone faster than with them because they didn't try/ask is not eliminated. Men must eliminate that excuse. It could be the most common thing, though, because all men must do it, it's just that unsuccessful men are not successful doing it.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 10:20 PM
0

It is that simple, because who are they gonna take the risk and be flirty with? With people who are more attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 07:30 PM
0

No, can you not read? Specifically by that logic men are not an option for men. Because it's not that they wouldn't enjoy it, it's that they are not doing the same thing at all. By that logic, men are rocks (not an option) and the food they don't prefer would be unattractive women. No, there's more than not having attraction to both cases. There's still having attraction, in principle, to one group but not another. That is, if you close your eyes - it will still feel good. You are also not attra…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 07:29 PM
1

No, they are not free. They can't discriminate and not hire or pay less to any groups.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 07:26 PM
1

? I say what is correct. Have you finally grasped why/where you were wrong or are you still struggling?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 07:24 PM
1

No, that's not logic. There's absolutely no logic when jumping from "if" to "then" in the second paragraph. Simple demonstration again: You are valued for the work you do, but you aren't paid. Then no, you are not valued for the work you do. Because it's not about why you're valued, it's about how you're valued. If you get no reward - then you are not valued. Simple. Logic and definitions were explained earlier. From them it follows that if they are sexually rejected, then they are not valued as…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 07:23 PM
1

Incorrect. Food you don't like is still an option even if you won't enjoy it as much. It's a lot more of an option than rocks which you can't even chew and swallow - and that are not as satisfying as food (or have the same effect at all) even if you managed to eat them somehow.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 07:20 PM
1

? You were okay forcing men to hire women they didn't want to hire, so why change now?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 07:19 PM
0

That's obviously false because if it had to do with something other than looks, then looks wouldn't be statistical predictors of success, which they are.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 07:17 PM
1

We don't know how you look (or if you're even female) so he could still be a chad relatively speaking.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 07:14 PM
1

That's a man who was attractive enough to get it with her, but not attractive enough to keep it while pursuing other options.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 07:11 PM
1

Because obviously it wouldn't hurt her at all, since it doesn't have to do anything with her. If she's not losing any of his time and effort, then how does it hurt her? For example, if he sleeps with someone while on the work trip. No, she knows that about 90% men have a fantasy to have sex with more women, it's just a power play. That's why when a man is hot so he can get sex without committing, she will be FWB or otherwise sleep with him without requiring that he doesn't sleep with others.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 07:10 PM
0

Who is he? He's a man who will be supposed to date/marry a woman who was available like that to another man but not to him.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 07:04 PM
-1

Lmao are you new here or something? No, the problem is that those women who want something casual only want it with top % of men. And those apps that are out there and well know and it is well know that they don't work for the overwhelming majority of men.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 07:03 PM
1

Wait until you find out that spectra can be discreet and even binary.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 06:59 PM
1

It doesn't show that at all, though, because men are still something you mechanically prefer. Having all the food around which you'd rather not eat is not the same as having rocks around that you would rather not eat.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 06:58 PM
2

You don't choose what you feel but you do choose what you do.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 06:54 PM
1

Yes, that would be correct if what men wanted was casual sex without any clarifications. Of course, that's not the case so your advice doesn't work. They want what they know and see other men can get. They want what they know and see women doing with other men. Especially since later they are supposed to marry some of those women.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 06:53 PM
1

Yes, I am. No, not end of because it's not about my opinion and there's no agree or disagree. There's right or wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 06:49 PM
1

It doesn't matter what they are considered, women can still have them. So yes. No, that's false. Again, it's not about what they are valued for, it's about how they are valued. You keep repeating that having sex isn't the only thing that men are value for. Are you stupid or something? I said multiple times that yes it's not the only thing they are valued for. If they are sexually rejected then they are not valued as men - that doesn't contradict that sex is not what they are valued for. Sex is H…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 06:47 PM
1

No, not the same thing because those qualities aren't man-specific and can be possessed by women, too. Of course you can't be, as I explained multiple times above. If you're gonna say that you can be, you have to challenge those explanations. Simply saying it won't make it true or even make sense. Yes, single dudes can be leaders etc, so so can single women. Yes, being a man isn't just about having sex. Again, that's irrelevant because we are not talking about what they are valued for, we are ta…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 06:38 PM
1

? Your sex and you are irrelevant, I'm arguing with the comments.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 06:35 PM
1

I don't need to keep telling myself anything. You still seem to not be able to grasp it, though, so I need to keep driving it home.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 06:02 PM
5

Are those redpillers in the room right now? Never seen them idolized on the trp sub. And clavicular is more of a clown than an idol. Not the same weight class as Tate at all. And drop this bs about what people are saying somehow being wrong because of who they are. That's very illogical (it's a logical fallacy actually) and it's not how the world works. Nazi scientists and eugenicists are not ignored and their research is not suddenly bad/wrong just because of who they were. Many people disagree…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 05:56 PM
1

Again, it's not what they are value FOR. It's how they are valued or what they are valued by. No, if they are not having sex- then they are not valued as men, as already explained above. Again, sex is necessary but not sufficient. So yes, it's not the only way, but it has to be there. If they are sexually rejected, then they are not valued as men. To add to a plethora of examples above, here's another one. As a man ages, nobody considers him a sexual partner/potential father of children - so he …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 05:42 PM
1

More? You got nothing. None of that is my opinion. None of those quotes have "in my opinion". As I said, I'm pointing it out. It's pointing out the fact, not sharing my opinion.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 05:39 PM
1

Everyone is born with no rights. Rights are given and enforced by those with power. Everyone gets what their ancestors negotiated or fought for. Correct, which is why OP is wrong and women owe it to society to raise birth rates. Same as men, actually. Men owe the same thing. It's not like women can raise birth rates without men. In this case - right, they both owe it to raise birthrates. In general, not right. They definitely owe more since they gave less by virtue of not dying for that society.…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 05:38 PM
1

That's wrong. There are studies showing what predicts sexual success. I already mentioned it. Yes, those men are hotter. And that agrees with what women prefer for hookups. But more importantly, even if they weren't "hotter", they still would be. They get hookups which most men don't get as often - therefore whatever they are is what is hotter.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 05:22 PM
1

If so, that's because yours is. My argument is simply showing where and why you are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 05:21 PM
1

The fact that they got hook up showed that they were attractive. Plus all the well known data showing what women prefer for short term relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 05:20 PM
1

Mmm yeah and that's incorrect. As already explained and demonstrated multiple times, whether you like or dislike stuff depends on the partner you're doing that stuff with. And that's not your point, your point is that women are entitled to sexual equality, too. Which I agree with, both men and women are entitled to it. The only thing is that you didn't describe it correctly and equal. You said women are entitled to what other men did for those women if men are entitled to what those women did fo…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 05:20 PM
1

Yes, because when they are not on your side it doesn't matter who they are. It has no effect on whether your side gets to pass their name or not. Right, you earn it by dying for others. We aren't discussing them, it's just the number I found when I googled what percent is raised by single mothers or out of wedlock. If you have numbers for other countries feel free to post. Children born to unmarried women by default would get their name or anyway it's the mother who decides which name they get w…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 05:16 PM
–

^ True, it's because they just can't be or don't want to be friends with men. If a woman asked for advice or said she couldn't get laid, many of her male friends would help the best they can to solve her problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 06:00 AM
–

How is it not a need? Of course it is. Recognized as one, too. See the hierarchy of needs. Needs aren't just about immediate survival. Hiring a prostitute is illegal or prohibitively expensive in most places. You're not gonna say if food is a need then why won't starving homeless steal or if housing is a need why not squat and/or break in and take over, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/26 02:57 AM
0

Of course not. The opposite is true, a woman who actually cares about you is ok with you flirting and/or fucking other women if she knows that makes you happier.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 11:59 PM
1

That's only true when she loves you but doesn't trust you, so she's afraid to lose you. As in you can get too close to somebody else and leave. In that case, of course, she will just want to supervise/participate/watch and in this case you still get variety but only in threesomes. Otherwise, the argument is just almost self-evidently incorrect.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 11:56 PM
1

Yes, just not as men.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 08:50 PM
1

Wait what? Did I say in my opinion? Pretty sure I didn't. Can you quote/link?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 08:45 PM
1

I was not. You were and you are the one who started making it personal and talking about me. I am simply talking about the concept and point out what things are. There's nothing disrespectful in pointing out that someone's decision is disrespectful if that decision is disrespectful. I'm not telling you what to do or not to do. It wasn't even your decision, you said you discussed it. I'm simply reminding of the fact that dropping the family name is disrespectful. That's all.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 08:05 PM
–

Soldiers. Not men or women. Other countries. Whether those soldiers happen to be men or women is irrelevant. Because they didn't fight for their family and didn't represent it in wars. Again, that's historically speaking. Now, they can do whatever they want. One of my cousin's has his mom's name. I wouldn't mind having it, too, but that's not what I was given. Also, many women are single mothers and do pass on their name. Last I heard something like half or almost half of kids in the US were bor…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 07:48 PM
1

That's not a nuance. That's just some people choosing to be disrespectful and others not choosing. That's in agreement with what was said earlier. No nuance here. We could be, if you understood you were wrong after you typed your first sentence (explained how you can arrive that in the previous paragraph). But you still didn't acknowledge it, so it's hard to say if we're done.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 07:46 PM
1

Again, it's not what they are considered, it's what reward they get for it. No, they don't feel many or valued as men if they are sexually rejected. It doesn't matter how they are considered. They are not valued as men if they are sexually rejected. It is true, I explained why above.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 07:44 PM
–

I'm not believing anything. I'm talking about how things are, not about what I believe in. There's no nuance in dropping your family name. If you drop it - that's because you don't want to be associated with that family name. No, I wouldn't be, since I'm not basing my words on what I feel/think/see. I don't know. Are we? Or do you still not acknowledge that you're wrong?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 07:42 PM
1

I did talk to him, can't now because he is dead. And I don't have any mental disorders to pretend I can talk to dead people. Of course it has everything to do with me. I had a father and maybe will be a father. I live in this society, am educated, and can evaluate when something is disrespectful. So I do that. I'm not telling anyone what to do - if they want to be disrespectful, they can be disrespectful.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 07:38 PM
–

No, it's not just from Titanic. Pretty much every war, men would go fight to protect them. No, it's not killing people. It's getting killed so women can live. Exactly, yes. That's why they want to pass them on. It's their father's name and not it's their name and now as fathers they want to pass it on.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 07:36 PM
–

Cool, then I guess it's an English/American version of what they do in Mexico. Of course, not. Of course, they are. That's why "women and children" etc. That's why men go/went to war and not women. And stuff like Mulan didn't really happen much. So women were more than happy to not go to wars, then why would they define the name? Yes, that makes their names less important historically. And their names are their fathers' names anyway, so it's like there's men's and women's names. There are just f…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 07:13 PM
–

Of course not. He didn't tell you and you have no idea what he would tell you if he could, since you can't relate. So listen to men and most alive dads or most dads who were dead and explicitly said what they think about it. It's disrespectful to the family. Why else is that sentiment even famous? It's not new, I didn't make it up.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 07:07 PM
–

Not more of an impasse than if you were saying that the earth is flat and refused to hear reason. If it's an impasse, it's only because of you. Again, your own choices are good. Throwing away your family name is not self-respect. It's disrespecting the family. It can be both in one case - if you family was abusive or something and you actually want to disrespect them or cut them off. Then yes, it's also self-respect.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 07:05 PM
1

Wtf are you talking about? They are not forms of value, they are things he can be valued for. We are not talking about what they are valued for, we are talking about how they are valued. Again, they are not valued for having sex. They are valued by having sexual access. Yes, they are valued for acting as a father etc. But they are not valued as men if they are sexually rejected, i.e. sent the message that their genes are not desirable and them being a father is not desirable.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 07:03 PM
–

Of course he didn't because odds are he agrees with me. And even if he doesn't, most dads do.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 07:01 PM
–

Yeah, I'm not say it's worse, I'm just saying it's disrespectful. And of course it is disrespectful, the fact that some folks are disrespectful and don't do the traditional thing doesn't make it less disrespectful. That's literally either selfish or otherwise signaling that they don't want to be associated with that family.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 06:50 PM
–

Glad you finally understood you were wrong. Takes most people a lot longer. Good job!
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 06:41 PM
–

It has everything to do with it. And changing names without parents/family approval is wild. I changed my first name myself because my family told me. Again, it's up to them to name me, so if they decided to change it, it's up to them. I don't just say it, it is what it is. No, people aren't the vehicle, that's why they make their own choices when they decide what to do with their lives. It's just that some of them are disrespectful like changing name, and some are not like not becoming a shoema…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 06:40 PM
1

No, that's not what happened. Other men stood up for women and men who enforced rights and had the power to give them, gave them. Women were almost never oppressed by men. Both men and women were oppressed by those with power who often happened to be men because of the successions laws, but still they had spouses, mothers, and daughters who were just as oppressive. No, it's feminists. Both men and women were oppressed. They can. They still owe it to the society, though, as explained in the previ…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 06:37 PM
1

Again, Idk how slow you are but I repeated it many times. It's not about what they are valued for, it's about how they are valued. If they aren't given access to the most important man's role (father) or the process that makes them that role - then they are not valued as man. No, masculinity is not just about having sex. I covered it, too. It's necessary but not sufficient. A man who is sexually rejected is not valued as a man. A man who is not sexually rejected may or may not be valued as a man…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 06:28 PM
–

It feels like you do need to keep hyphenating, since after you do it with two words - they are now one full word, so you can't just drop parts of it. I don't know. They could in a parallel universe where women built the society and men are a weaker and protected sex. Or these days nobody is stopping anyone from taking wife's name or giving kids their mother's name. For example, one of my cousin's has his mom's last name and his brother has his dad's last name.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 06:23 PM
–

Which relationship? A relationship with the family that raised is important, too. Either way, depending on the culture you might have to lose your father's family name anyway if you're a woman. But a man who'd do that? That's very disrespectful to his family and a huge red flag. But if you're into that kind of stuff, you do you, of course.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 06:20 PM
1

No, not stupid shit about swipes, although even that is not stupid. But no, there are actual published peer-reviewed studies. Many of them were posted in this sub. And yes, there are studies comparing what women prefer for hookups vs LTR/marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 06:18 PM
1

People with normal libido don't want to sleep with hobos and want to sleep with their partners. My point stands, what you said changes nothing.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 06:17 PM
1

All of them did especially combined with everything else we already know. But most importantly - they hooked up with them and not with others. So of course they are attractive, otherwise why would they hook up with them? Unless you're claiming it wasn't consensual and rape took place. Then it's on you to prove.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 06:16 PM
–

Making up the new name is wild. As if the family name was an accessory lol. So disrespectful to the ancestors/parents.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 08:21 AM
–

New surname is an interesting idea, I was thinking about it, too. But ultimately decided it would be extremely disrespectful to my father and other ancestors. But I guess if someone hates their father, it's a viable option. Would have pretty much the same line of thought if my children wanted to change the last name to a new one.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 08:18 AM
–

Yes, obviously. One family - one surname (also known as the family name). Hyphenating is kinda stupid, because if everybody was doing it - then last names would become too long after a few generations. Maybe something like what they do in Mexico would make sense, though. As in the mother's last name lasts one more generation and last names don't become too long with every new generation, even though everyone is doing the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 08:15 AM
1

There's no scientific proof because social sciences are not sciences. Plenty of studies of what predicts sexual success, though. If you still haven't seen those posted in this sub, then it's probably too early for you to be typing.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 06:50 AM
1

Yes it does. They are still attracted to them more than to hobos. And yes since they aren't thaat attractive many men are in dead bedrooms and we hear plenty of stories from men that she did something with an ex but won't do with him (while barely hearing anything similar from women). So yes, no contradictions and everything agrees with what I'm saying.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 06:49 AM
1

They were posted here plenty of times, if you don't know these things you shouldn't be talking, you should be listening and learning. I won't do your homework again. I posted plenty of links and you posted zero proof of your claims. What else do you think predicts sexual success and what women prefer if not appearance?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 06:47 AM
1

Of what exactly? Of people not liking giving blowjobs to homeless strangers?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 05:34 AM
1

No, most people don't already like going down on hobos. They only like doing it on their partners. Similarly, when you do something with one partner but not another - that's because you want to see if you like it with that partner but don't want to see if you like it with another.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 05:33 AM
1

Of course there is. Plenty of studies showing what qualities women prefer for short-term vs long-term relationships and what qualities predict sexual success.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 05:32 AM
1

Correct. That's exactly what I've been saying since the beginning! They can be valued as protectors, leaders, fighters, fathers, male mentors, and providers. Just not as men.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 04:27 AM
1

Absolutely did. It was made by men and didn't have rights to give until it was made and those rights were made up. Either way, that's irrelevant since we are talking about what is between women and society. Society gave women what it didn't owe to give them, so now women do, indeed, owe or even if they don't, they should return the favor and give society what they don't owe.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 04:26 AM
1

Of course it does. 24% is the minority of 100%. There's all the links (6 or so combined now) plus other well known facts I referenced. All of that combined clearly proves the point. There's still zero links or any proof of your affirmative claim though. Still waiting. Promiscuous minority of men is top men. Because it just so happens that unlike women a man can't just decide to be a part of that minority and that minority overwhelmingly consists of attractive men.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 04:22 AM
1

Exactly. It means you like that stuff and that's why you do it. Easy demonstration - you like doing oral with your husband/bf but don't like doing it with a hobo down the street.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 04:20 AM
1

Exactly. Attractions makes you not disgusted by that stuff. That's why you're not disgusted to try it with someone but then disgusted to try/do it with someone else. Case in point, something simple like just vaginal sex or a blowjob. You are attracted to your boyfriend and aren't disgusted doing those things, but you would be disgusted by even a thought of doing them with some homeless stranger.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/26 04:19 AM
0

If that advice is not effective, then it is harmful to men. If they'd get better results doing something else, then time-wasting advices are harmful.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/26 08:36 PM
1

Irrelevant. Has nothing to do with with my previous comment or with yours. Get back to your point if you have any arguments. Horniness being a feeling has nothing to do with appeal to emotion - see logical fallacies for more. It's about how you try to make an argument. And you didn't address the second paragraph which points out that you still have no argument about something is not okay or more important than something else. Saying that something is not okay or that it's not okay because it's n…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/26 08:27 PM
2

Would need some proof of that. Pretty sure it can get you over the threshold if you are otherwise below it. Either way, we are talking about the needs of the many which as we know are more important than individual needs or needs of the few. It's not like for the most of history - and even now - most people are doing only what they want.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/26 06:01 PM
–

I don't think you understand what an ideal partner is. How is it a perfect female partner if you can't have sex with her or at all? Then what's the point of her being female? And it wouldn't be perfect if you could only have sex with her, but now it's not even with her?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/26 05:49 PM
-1

Society didn't owe women to give them right etc. So now that they get all that, they indeed do owe it to society to raise birth rates. Or whatever else society asks.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/26 04:57 PM
2

Because sexual desire can be caused by things other than appearance, of course.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/26 04:44 PM
1

No shit, that's why the conversation is happening to begin with. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing, it's about who's right and who's wrong. So, if you all you can say is that you disagree, then I suppose you have no argument. So you concede and the question is closed. I'm glad you could learn something new, though, you had a wrong idea of how it works, but now you know. That's exciting.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/26 04:41 PM
1

If I was just wrong then you would easily demonstrate it, but you failed to do so. That's because I'm 100% right and you are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/26 04:39 PM
1

Why? You obviously don't read the links. There's enough info in the links posted earlier as explained above. Here's some more: https://www.rutgers.edu/news/why-are-young-adults-having-less-casual-sex https://web.archive.org/web/20210303192658id_/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2378023121996854 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jomf.12723 All points to the fact that it's the minority of men who are having casual sex. Either way, you are the one making a positive claim, …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/26 04:38 PM
1

No, it's not. It's stating the fact that privileged people want to maintain the status quo that lets them have their privilege and not share it with others. No, "X is not okay" is not an argument. Again, no argument, just a stream of emotional statements. Again, legal/illegal is not an argument. And again, have to substantiate the claim. If you claim that something is not moral or not okay - you have to explain why. Try again.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/26 04:33 PM
1

Of course I did, anything that has more than 1 partner in like 2 years is casual immediately. And in general, clearly we know the percentage of men in LTR/marriage, so everything else is casual.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 06:00 PM
1

Then you want to try with them what you wanted to try with others. Or if you don't then they aren't. You are just saying they are, but the measurable metrics prove otherwise.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 05:58 PM
1

Of course not, they are proportional to how much you are attracted to a partner. If you are attracted less then of course you want to do less with them. That's the whole point.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 05:57 PM
2

That's because of how things are now. That's because those men are not needed so women can desire - and use - them for other things and there's no pressure/incentive to really take care of them sexually. That's why casual sex is better. It's better in terms of validation. Of course, in general a relationship where there's no doubt he is desired is better. Why wouldn't it be? Love is a relatively recent invention.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 05:17 PM
1

Again with the appeal to emotion. How about you make an argument if you have one?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 05:12 PM
1

Right and desirability can be because the man is great or because he's better than not having one. Sure, then can add some child-free tax. See? You have some good ideas. After all, all the government cares about is birth rate, not happiness and dating for romance and such. That way instead of complaining that they can't afford to have a child, people will complain that they can't afford not to have it. Attraction doesn't have to be just physical or primarily physical like now. When there are inc…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 04:02 AM
0

Just saying it doesn't make it logical or true. WHY is it always more important? The law is not a proof of anything. Slaves was all good according to the law. The law is just a list of things that society enforces for whatever reason. A general/philosophical statement like "x is always more important than y" has to be substantiated logically.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 03:57 AM
1

No shit, things are not required to be the same in analogies. Only sex is the same as sex and only hiring is the same as hiring. Them being different doesn't matter, the idea is the same - people are made to do something they don't want to do.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 03:48 AM
1

You can find it in your comments, you don't need mine. As of right now you conceded that discussion. That discussion doesn't matter. Address this one. So far my point holds. You are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 03:47 AM
1

Right, you tried it with one partner and didn't like it with that partner. And so now no new partner is as attractive as the one you have tried it with to try it with them to see if you like it with them. That's a classic alpha-widow like scenario, trp predicted it 15+ years ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 03:45 AM
1

No, that number is irrelevant. We are talking about who's having casual sex, not who's having sex at all. Reread everything again. I already explained it step by step. The conversation is not about who's having sex at all/in general. The conversation is about men having casual sex - that's what the original comment was about.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 03:42 AM
1

Not if they are sexually rejected. Then they are told they are appreciated but aren't actually appreciated. I explained it in detail and with analogies above. Almost correct. It's not confined to it but it necessarily includes it. Right, you can. But instead you keep repeating false things to remind that your things are already refuted. Why do that?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/26 03:29 AM
2

Good. So all we need to do is to incentivize them to make the choice that benefits the society. Kinda like we did with affirmative action etc. No, not really prostitution. That's a separate thing but sure why not. Nah, what I'm talking about is creating incentives/pressure to date/marry. That's basically what's going on now. E.g. everything is getting too expensive to survive being single.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 03:44 AM
1

The link you posted. In the comments following it I explain what that link shows.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 03:41 AM
1

Mmm that's not true, otherwise you could also say if they don't want to hire you they won't hire you. But they did. They were incentivized or threatened enough to do it or to want to do it. Same applies here.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 03:40 AM
1

That is irrelevant and changes nothing. Address this discussion, not some other one, which you conceded unless you can find it, of course. My point holds. You are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 03:30 AM
1

Sure, then you never tried them with anyone and they are out of scope of this discussion. We are talking here about things that were tried.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 03:29 AM
1

Proof? Link? You are wrong, I already told you where you can verify that more than 1% agrees with me.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 03:28 AM
1

No, that number is irrelevant. We are talking about who's having casual sex, not who's having sex at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 03:28 AM
–

Then there's no such thing as talking someone into hiring someone. But there is. So you're just wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 02:51 AM
1

You posted it above. I explained step by step how the study you posted shows that. Feel free to reread, if you have any particular questions - ask.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 02:50 AM
1

You got a notification whenever I replied. If you didn't reply then and can't/won't find it, then you had nothing to say then, so you just technically conceded that debate. It doesn't matter. Focus on this debate. You still didn't answer. Quit sidetracking. As of right now, the point that your point doesn't hold still holds
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 02:24 AM
1

Correct, and if something disgusts you with one partner it doesn't mean it will disgust you with another. That's why you want to suck someone's dick but don't want to suck someone else's dick. We already covered it. Rephrasing it doesn't change anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 02:21 AM
1

https://preview.redd.it/yetbi0hxk9vg1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=0fe4b3fc1a709f2b07d0c4d1fc31983d09ceb5e4 This has nothing to do with you and your boyfriend. We are talking about concepts, nobody cares about you. No, I'm not the only one with this issue. I already referred you to places where you can verify that.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 02:20 AM
–

If it was practical to make people hire you, then it's just as practical to make you want to sleep with someone. Or just to make you sleep with someone, since I don't think they made them want to hire someone, they just made them do it.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 02:19 AM
1

No, that's not the only thing it says. And having had no sex has nothing to do with this conversation. See the number of who had casual sex recently and see the partner distribution. Clearly you don't need to be very smart to understand that if most men have very few partners then they aren't having casual sex outside of an occasional exceptional case. And the fact that a small percentage has high numbers clearly shows that there are top men who are getting it.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 02:18 AM
1

Exactly. So therefore your previous point is dismissed. Dark triad men are then chosen for casual sex BECAUSE dark triad traits are attractive themselves. So you were wrong, it's not that men who are into casual sex are worse, it's that women pick worse men for casual sex because what makes them worse is more sexually attractive. It follows from the very study you linked.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 02:15 AM
1

Of course it's your choice. If you don't like this partner as much as the one you tried it with in the past, don't try it with them. So in other words, you now agreed that you changed your mind from your original claim/OP and people are not entitled to sexual equality, including men and women.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 02:11 AM
1

No what? Yes, the bad/dark triad men are more attractive for casual sex. That's the whole point. If they were just more physically attractive then them being worse would have no predictive power, which is not the case. Do you not understand how stats work and what the study you linked yourself means? Then why link it?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 01:32 AM
1

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2378023121996854 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7293001/ https://ifstudies.org/blog/promiscuous-america-smart-secular-and-somewhat-less-happy And plenty more sources you can find, of course, if you are intellectually honest and care about how things are. And you don't even need no surveys, go to any mainstream dating sub or dating app sub and see what men say there. Or you can get dating app data to see how men do there. In the end, everything p…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 01:24 AM
1

No is gaslighting you or talking about you in particular. Yes, you don't like something with the partner you tried it with. We already covered that. You don't know if you don't like with another partner, though, until you try it with them. Just like any other sex. Plenty of examples when you don't like sex with someone, but you don't just quit having sex. Even more, you can not like sex and then like it the next time with the same partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 01:14 AM
1

Correct. And as we established and showed in many examples, not liking something with one partner doesn't mean you don't like it with another. Whether it's due to attraction or chemistry, doesn't matter. Why would a man want to be a partner you don't like it with? Or even worse, you don't like the idea of trying it with to see if you like it with him when you wanted to see if you like it with someone else. Maybe it's due to technique, then again - that requires practice which starts with at leas…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 01:12 AM
1

No, I will not do your work for you. Not to mention that other notification has nothing to do with comment. If you can't reply to things where they first posted and not multiply comments, that's on you. Reply to the previous comment.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 01:10 AM
1

Almost everyone who works there, of course. We are all pressured to work somewhere, some of us end up there. No, they can't just stop at any time. If they do, they become homeless. Right, great. Now do the same in dating/sex. If housing is a resource, then so is sex/dating. It's really obvious after clowning on the "sex is not a resource" claim. The exact same logic applies to housing and healthcare as shown in the comment you are replying to.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 01:07 AM
1

I already did. You are the one trying to appeal to emotion in the last 7-10 comments or so. Still didn't explain why you have the right to some things people use their bodies to do but not to other things. The last two relevant things you said (which were both wrong) were that sex is not a need (of course it is, not only survival needs are needs and it's even more important than some of those to some) and that sex is not important (which again is wrong in general).
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/26 01:04 AM
1

What does it have to do with what I'm saying? How about you stop trying to appeal to emotion and make a logical argument. Appeal to emotion doesn't impress anyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/26 11:13 PM
1

No, you are wrong. First of all, the way she worded it along the lines of people in general pursuing what they want necessarily means that if someone is not pursued then in general nobody wants them. Like there's no mathematical picture where that's not the case. It was not about personal experience. Personal experience would "my friends and I pursue what they want". not people IN GENERAL pursue what they want. And yes, if you are not pursued you are not wanted (in general!) follows from people …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/26 10:57 PM
0

My point is very simple. You have to prove claims. You can't just say that consent is more important before being horny without any explanation. It could be more important, but it could also be less important or equally as important depending on the circumstances. No idea, but that's why I'm not claiming anything. If you do or agree with the claim - then prove it. Because so far it sounds to me that all you (and the original commented) do is appeal to emotion.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/26 10:53 PM
1

Huh? Nobody is talking about anyone's personal experience. We are talking about her claim about "people" "in general".
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/26 10:46 PM
–

Mmm no Idk about that. If you can make people that don't want to hire you hire you, then I don't see a problem in making anyone who doesn't want to do something do it. But of course, there's a better solution. Make them want to sleep with you for whatever reason.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/26 10:45 PM
1

That's incorrect, as explained above. You can sign out and see. Either way, doesn't matter. I answered your question - I did not delete any messages. Why are you still typing?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/26 10:43 PM
1

I'm not a product. You clearly don't see women as people, you see them as objects. Incorrect. I see people as people. People do things for other people. People do more things for people they like more. You literally are. I already said NO. No, I literally am not. I specified multiple time is that the whole point is to see if you want it. If not - then you are attracted less. It's very simple. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. Well I wouldn't date you or sleep with you in the first place 🤔…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/26 10:38 PM
1

Right, that's why I'm only talking about the stuff that she only doesn't like with other partners, but still likes/liked the idea of trying it, which is why she tried it with other partners. Then again, your claim breaks immediately when we consider a virgin, who doesn't like sex yet and men in general do try to have it with her. So you are just plain wrong and we didn't even need to see what evidence you have for your claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 07:28 PM
1

Oh ok, if you don't like being touched like that in general, then you never tried. Then of course if you did try it then it's not that you don't like the idea, you do but you didn't like it with that partner. So the only question for any current partner after that is - are they attractive enough for you to want to try it with them too to see if you like it with them.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 07:25 PM
1

Yes, with that partner. That's already covered above. What exactly can't you grasp? Do you need more examples or something?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 07:23 PM
1

Yes there is. Stats clearly show it when you see what percentage of men had casual sex in the last year, for example. Even more clear if you look at the sex partner distribution.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 07:22 PM
1

Ah so what you meant to say is that women pick worse/dark-triad men to reward with casual sex. Because all men want it. The study is not about that. The study is about men "engaging" in it. So yes, now it's all clear. Women prefer worse people for casual sex. But then why complain? That's what they wanted and chose. Nobody stopped them from hooking up with better men.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 06:45 PM
2

That point has nothing to do with this exchange. This is about them allegedly treating you worse being a problem. Them being worse was never an argument, they aren't worse or better. IT's about the treatment. And so, the argument doesn't stand because women choose to have casual sex with men who want casual sex thus consenting to this treatment.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 06:43 PM
1

That does not answer the question explicitly. It does imply, however, that you have no arguments and that's why trying to appeal to emotion.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 06:14 PM
1

It's not about fine or not fine? Why are you bringing emotions into it?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 04:01 AM
1

Huh? Yes I did, they are presented above and you conceded. I messaged because I got the notification but then it had nothing. At least glad that you graded yourself and agree that it was an L. Another thing we agree on.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 03:58 AM
1

Oof had nothing to parry with but still couldn't acknowledge you lost and posted an insult instead so it got deleted? At least be more sneaky so I can read before it gets deleted and not waste time clicking the notification and finding nothing.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 03:36 AM
1

Huh? Must be replying to some other comment as this has nothing to do with the topic.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 03:32 AM
1

Lmao there isn't much of a reason to speak to anyone online. Except you are in a debate sub so the reason anyone is posting anything here is to debate. If you can't or don't want to debate, then don't post in a debate sub. Pretty simple. Nope, I have everything, not that I was pressed to begin with. Most importantly I described how things are and you can't parry the argument that either dating is a human right or some other things that are human rights can't be human rights. Now that we establis…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 03:32 AM
1

Sure, you can insist on being wrong. Many people stand by what they said even after someone points out they were wrong. E.g. flat earthers. No, then the riot is preferable. And of course, not of course. Until not so long people married for resources and security which would be marrying prostitutes according to you. Yet, the sheet was shown after the first night. And if they weren't virgins, they still didn't really sleep around before, let alone after. It's already happening and it will get wors…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 01:41 AM
1

? How is that relevant? Mutual is mutual, not what you said it was. Which, going back one more step, shows that you were wrong talking about selfish. Etc etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 01:38 AM
1

Ignoring them won't them go away and let's use correct terminology. You are not ignoring them, you are conceding. It's great that we concluded that part of the debate. Now to the last point. Whether it's real is not important right now. What's important is too see if it's about bodily autonomy or not. If it is, then great. Then we refer back to my previous points that you can't parry. As for men not being responsible for their spawn, that's an issue to solve for sure. If a woman only slept with …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 01:33 AM
1

Yes, and the way they are appreciated for it as men is by having their dicks sucked and their babies born. If they are sexually rejected, then they aren't valued as men. And yes, again, sex is necessary but not sufficient. It's not the only thing they may want depending on the man. That was explained multiple times above. Scroll up and reread. You are literally repeating the same thing again and again even after it was shown to be wrong or explained already.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 01:29 AM
1

No. It's not having control over who you do have sex with as you claimed. It's having control over who you do not have sex with. That's a huge difference and you are wrong. I already pointed it out and explained multiple times before. No, many men don't complain about interest from anyone to begin with. They get no matches at all. Those who do might complain that it's only from uggos etc, but that only proves my point, not yours, unless they also have options they are eager to say yes to. Only t…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 01:26 AM
0

Nope. Not how it works. Not gonna waste time on details until you agree on the concept or prove it wrong. Yes, I do have an idea. First you need to either agree that an act between two people can be a human right or agree that other things that involve more than one person are not human rights. We'll go from there. That describe the things accurately, you meant to say.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 01:21 AM
1

Nope. Just because they say so doesn't mean they value men as men. A company throwing a pizza party and saying that they value you instead of paying is not them valuing you even though they say so. Yes, that's the source of their worth. Are you stupid? That's not what is discussed. The discussing is about are they valued for it. Not whether they value themselves. If they are considered valuable men, they get their dicks sucked and their babies born. If they aren't actually valued, then they get …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 01:19 AM
0

Huh? No shit, I'm not running for office, why would I have a detail plan? The details can be specified now that we established that the conceptual approach is correct. Now we can discuss the details if you want.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 01:17 AM
1

No, coercion is not rape. Rape is rape and coercion is coercion. Then all marriages are prostitution because security and resources are involved in different degrees. And resources are the main reason for divorce. So that is a useless definition as it doesn't define anything. Therefore stick to the actual definition, where prostitution is the direct exchange for many. Explicit, not implicit. Not that it changes anything, of course. Then that will be the problem of those who don't want them. Why …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 01:14 AM
1

See definition of mutual.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 01:11 AM
1

Most men are not rejecting any women and definitely don't get to pick from women they want. So they have no control over who they have sex with as you claimed. So you were wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 01:11 AM
1

No, not when they are considered that. Only when they are rewarded for that in a way that is specific to them being men. Therefore, if they are sexually rejected, they aren't valued as men. Only as protectors etc who happen to be men.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 01:10 AM
0

Exactly. Because the environment we created is such that that person is either pressured to do it or is compensated enough to do it. Great. So do the same to dating. Make people more likely to choose it. Sure, they won't be forced. They will be strongly encouraged. No one should be forced to work where they don't want (but not IF they don't want, funny how that works huh). They still are pressured to find some job. Ideally, they like it, or at least it pays something.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 01:09 AM
1

No, are you slow? I invented something as opposed to nothing as you claimed. Clearlyu not penicillin. I literally said I used general I for illustration the very comment you are replying to right now. No, a mutual experience is one both have. You don't get to invent your own definitions.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 12:45 AM
1

They are created in exchange for compensation. You can only take them because conditions and incentives were created for those people to use their bodies for stuff you feel you are entitled to. Apply the same to dating. No, their bodies aren't. But what their bodies can do is if those are things created by bodies are to take. No, it's only rape if they are forced violently. Many people have it for example to avoid not having it cause not having it is less fun than having it. Many have it for res…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 12:43 AM
1

I actually did, you have no idea who you're talking to. But I'm using the abstract/general I here, of course. Yes, they are probably just compensated to do it. Or brainwashed to think it's important to do it. So great, apply the same thing to dating. No, it's not. It's a mutual experience that both people will share. Wanting someone else to have an experience is the opposite of selfish.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 12:37 AM
1

Then neither should you or anyone else. So please, hands off the penicillin I invented and the houses I've built. No, you are the one not making sense. Some things that are products or parts of activities by other people are rights and others are suddenly not. Oh no, I I I I me me me me again. It's all about you. We should have everything designed around and made for selfish people.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 12:31 AM
1

What opinion? So now you are saying people don't pursue what they want? Doesn't make much sense does it? If that was true, then how would they get it? Again, no, it's not about "feel", it's about "know". There's no reason to assume something when facts show what they show. It's almost like the occam's razor.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 12:28 AM
1

Building a house is not a thing. Making medicine, researching medicine, prescribing medicine - all are not things. Why would you only look at things when they are related to more? Nope. And what is and isn't rape is up to the definition anyway. Yes, sure, they would still be able to say no if they are okay with consequences. Where you'd rather be is immaterial. I'd rather be somewhere else too, but it's about what's good for the many, not for me or you.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 12:26 AM
1

You're delusional. It's extremely important and most if not all of what men do is to get more of it or with a more attractive partner. It might not be important to you, but we are not discussing you. If people would be better off without it, then great, give it to those who need it, don't hoard it. You know you can give a lot of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 12:24 AM
1

No, they don't. Those stories don't prove that they do. Those stories is you doing this: https://preview.redd.it/bqmhepaxpuug1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=b15a7d2c715c61693e211ee83c4156fabc4c9b5b Just because some men got to reject some women, doesn't mean they have control over who they have sex with. It would only be true if most men (i.e. men in general) had multiple options they could choose from (and reject others). That's not the case, so you are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 12:22 AM
1

? What? It literally follows from what you said. "People, in general, will pursue what they want." It follows from this that nobody wants men. The steps are explained above. Why are you backtracking?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 12:21 AM
2

Huh? Building a house is not a thing. Giving medical care is not a thing. Insulting is a thing how? It's literally a concept and not a thing. Government prostitutes are great and should be a thing (and already are in Europe somewhere, Netherlands iirc), but nope, not good enough. We need more. We need healthy dating and people pairing up soon enough. So create conditions where they are encouraged to. Or strongly encouraged to. There's no reason why sex should be hoarded by people when others can…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 12:20 AM
3

Yes, it is a need. Yes, it is extremely important. A lot more important than many other needs. And no they didn't. As in they did, but not all of them. So those things are correlated with survival, but don't cause people dying directly. In fact, it goes right after the needs that are about direct survival. Even more important that some of them. E.g. sex > roof over head. No point in having a roof if it's just for me. Would rather have a harem in a cave.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 12:17 AM
1

Hhuh? Yes what? Yes, there's a difference? Sure, I already said that. So then we agree on that. Good. Then you are proven wrong. What does how women are at taking rejection have to do with anything? It's irrelevant to this conversation. And those anecdotes are especially irrelevant. Most men never reject women, so stories of a few outliers don't show anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 12:15 AM
1

Not only what for having sex? Valued? Can you not read or something? That's what I'm saying. They aren't valued for having sex. They are valued by having sex. Yes, they are considered valuable for protecting etc. But if all they get for it is thank you or money etc, then they are valued as protectors, providers, etc. Not as men.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 12:11 AM
3

Right, so the government incentivizes them to share or sell. That's exactly what I'm saying. Then it needs to do something to incentivize dating. Maybe revisit rights or other laws that could improve the situation. No, housing and money are not resources like oil and coal. They are measure of someone's labor, i.e. their bodies. I'm not trying to do anything. I'm looking at options. The only thing I'm doing is showing you that if sex is not a resource, then other things produced by people's bodie…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 12:10 AM
0

Yep, checked above, it says that you are wrong and to see above, where it shows that you are wrong. Thanks for clearing that up. Yes, they do have that right. In fact, we long ago agreed that housing, food, healthcare, etc are human rights. But those things are fruits of someone's labor performed by their body. So people absolutely have the right to use someone's body to survive. Exactly. It doesn't matter how it got there. It is there now. And it is someone's body and can't be killed. Doesn't h…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/26 12:01 AM
3

But then with that first sentence alone, wouldn't you immediately get that it necessarily means that nobody wants men? As in, otherwise they wouldn't be the ones to approach in more than 50% of cases? Well, they don't think they are unwanted. They know. I mean, why would they think otherwise? That's what they hear and experience most of the time from most women.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 11:52 PM
4

Yes. So if they are human rights and someone is forced to teach or treat someone they don't want to, then how is dating different? Oh they are not forced? Conditions are created for them to want to do that? Good, then the same approach can be applied to dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 11:51 PM
2

It's about both and if it's many enough, then it doesn't matter who. Or you went too far west and now you are in the east. What you are saying is absolutely not a thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 11:49 PM
0

No. Whoosh. But maybe it can help with that for those who want that. Either. Both. There's no "government". People do those things, it's their labor and no one is entitled to it. Government can promise that it will pay such people so that others can always get those services. That doesn't change the principle, though. So government incentivizes someone with the resource to share it or sell it. Same can be done with sex. Pretty simple. Yes, it is. Or other things related to someone's body are als…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 11:49 PM
3

I think you are right though, people are pursued when they are wanted. I wanted to show you that most men are not wanted. That they have to pursue and earn being wanted or get what they want. Just to give you an idea. Yes, you are right and it's good that you are here in good faith. I'm not attacking you or anything, I was just trying to show what follows from what you said. And yes, sure, I believe you know many women who pursued their partners as well. That doesn't contradict what I'm trying t…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 11:13 PM
4

Sure, but not to death. Not having roof over your head might lead to something but not to death too. Not directly. People lived and evolved while being malnourished and having no roofs for thousands of years. If you show me where it is on the pyramid of needs, then we can discuss it. I can show where sex is. It's a lot more basic than many other needs you care about and want to be defined legally.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 10:58 PM
0

How is what? If the number rounds to double digits rather than to 0, then that's not what most men would call a good girl.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 10:56 PM
–

So people in general pursue what they want, but people in general don't not pursue what they don't want? Sounds like a cope, tbh. And "it looks like a lot of women won't approach" directly contradicts "people, in general, will pursue what they want" Oh is it super possible? So like, the fact that no one approaches those men doesn't mean that it's super impossible that there are women who want them, but it means that it's super possible that there are those women? Yeah idk about that. Don't you s…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 10:54 PM
0

No, you are not. See above. No, that's telling her what not to do with another human's body that is inside her body. She could do plenty with her body to not let another body inside. What happens after the body got inside is that it's no longer just about her body. She has the right to remove them if that doesn't lead to their death, sure, because at that point that would be a dead human. So yes, if the baby died/ pregnancy terminated, then she can remove the cells. Of course. Sure, you can take…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 10:52 PM
2

How is it not as much if you have no numerical estimates? No good girl has the count higher than like 5. But yes a bad girl can be just starting and still have a low count just because you happened to meet her before it went higher. Still, that argument is bad. "Can have" is about possibilities, not probabilities. Outliers don't prove anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 10:50 PM
2

No, they don't. Only if that lasts very long. People can live years being malnourished. No, I won't be. Doesn't feel the same at all. It's not about an orgasm, it's about the experience.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 10:48 PM
1

Again, if it's a new woman they just start dating, then yes a young woman would be preferred. Everything is already explained above. Those men would happily date women older if those women didn't leave them at some point (or they left those women, but most breakups/divorces are initiated by women).
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 10:47 PM
6

The money needed to become an attractive dating option or to hire a sex worker is also a resource. The law system that makes men attractive options - also a resource, no? Guess, it was figured out in the past when the conditions were made where women needed men. Of course not. It's the result of someone's labor and no one should ever be ok pressured into just giving it to someone. Sex is absolutely a resource and there's plenty to go around. In fact, women rarely run out of it until they reach a…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 10:45 PM
5

So? You are also not going to die from being hungry and being malnourished. You are not going to die from not having a roof over your head. And yes I definitely do suffer. Or are men's mental health and suicide rates are not important again? Needs are not only survival needs. There are other needs, too.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 10:42 PM
1

When women weren't chosen to be hired or to have credit cards by men who had the power to hire or give them bank accounts, they didn't just accept that they aren't hiring-material. Neither should men.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 10:40 PM
2

??? You clearly contradict yourself, don't you see it? If a woman can be ruined by a single man, then clearly a higher count means it is more likely that she encountered such a man. How do you not see it and didn't immediately stop typing after the 3rd sentence?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 10:30 PM
2

Not being a virgin doesn't mean you are not sexless. Having eaten once, doesn't mean you aren't hungry.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 10:27 PM
14

Healthcare is not a resource, it's an activity where one party provides service to another that one should ever be ok pressured into. Housing is not a resource, it's an activity where one party builds/sells housing to another that one should ever be ok pressured into.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 10:27 PM
3

Then how is healthcare a human right? That's also an act between two people, where one provides service to another.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 10:24 PM
1

Not how it works. Before they have to prove your wrong, you have to carry the burden of proof and provide evidence of your claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 10:23 PM
4

Why? Saying it as if it was self-evident kinda sounds like the privileged maintaining the status quo where they can still enjoy their privilege.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 10:22 PM
6

Then is it true to say that if no one pursues you then in general nobody wants you?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 09:34 PM
4

Woah why would you insult an entire group of women like that? No, not all of them are bigots and ageist and dislike men for something they can't control. Maybe not even most. Seeing people dating people their age doesn't prove your claim. It is simply explained by the fact that people are usually surrounded by people their age, so they end up talking to and dating other people their age.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 09:24 PM
1

It just did.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 09:23 PM
1

The same reason why I want to see the price history when I buy something or the requirements when I apply somewhere. I need to be sure I'm not being a chump. And no, that's not cuckish. It would be cuckish if I was getting off to it, which is not the case here. Then you wouldn't try it. If you did try it, then you did like the idea of trying it with a certain partner. Pain etc is subjective. That is just with that partner - doesn't mean you won't like it with another. And again, nobody is trying…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 09:22 PM
1

That is wrong. Again, you can see it not only in this sub but also in mainstream subs. For example, the good old hookup vs husband material discussion of the last year or so. Your boyfriend can't be trusted here because he has an incentive to lie, most likely.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 09:16 PM
1

No, if you did it then it doesn't gross you out. You just didn't like it with that partner. Or did like it with that partner, but don't like the idea of trying it with this partner, in which case it's the partner that grosses you out, not the stuff.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 09:16 PM
1

Again, there's more to attraction. If it's a new woman they don't know, then yes she will statistically be young. Think about it, if a man walks into a room with a bunch of women he doesn't know and approaches them based only on what he sees, then if you do this experiment many times, you will see that yes, they tend to prefer young women. That's simply because they look better. That's true for any man. But then there's more to it than just looks - and that's true for any man, too.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 09:15 PM
1

No one is trying to make you do anything. We are talking about the stuff that is proven to not gross you out. If it did, you wouldn't want to try it with another man. So if you did and now don't want to try it with this man, then it's this man that grosses you out, not the stuff. And we just don't want to be that man. We want you to be happy and to be with a man that doesn't gross you out.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 09:12 PM
0

No, incorrect. You are telling her what to do (not do) with another body that happens to be inside hers. She can do tons of things with her body that would prevent this situation to begin with.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 09:11 PM
1

Again, it's not why they are valued it's how they are valued. They aren't valued for not being sexually rejected. They are valued by not being sexually rejected. Yes, it is. Again, they are not valued for it, they are valued by it. It's like saying oh you don't have to have money to be well paid. No, you don't. But if you are well paid, then you do have money. If you they aren't giving you good money, then you are not well paid. How are you still struggling with this?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 09:10 PM
1

What? That makes no sense of course they turn women down otherwise they wouldn't complain that women turn them down? Literally zero sense. Of course they don't turn women down and that's why they complain that women turn them down. If women were coming at them than they would just accept some of them and wouldn't care that other women turn them down - they would have enough sex already. Yes, there's difference. I just explained it above. Men have control over who they don't have sex with, women …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 09:08 PM
–

Just buy a house if you're homeless, never mind that conditions aren't the most conducive. But yeah, how convenient to support the status quo when it benefits you and to make it responsibility of the underprivileged to find a way. Check your privilege.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 09:05 PM
–

They are because they get what most men can't or usually don't get.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 08:56 PM
–

Can't claim that without proof. Show your evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 08:55 PM
–

So then don't have casual sex and you will never have to interact with those guys. Pretty simple, no?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 08:53 PM
–

But women don't want those men who do that anyway right? So then what's the problem? Or are you saying that men that women want do that, too? Well, then maybe women should listen if they want those men? I'm confused and fail to see the problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 08:52 PM
1

Nah, that's on them. The empty boat theory
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 08:48 PM
–

Yes, largely nobody disputes them and those conspiracies are ignored. They are not discussed in media, people talking about them aren't banned from entering Australia, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 06:36 AM
–

We want to live, not survive.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 06:34 AM
–

So men couldn't be blamed for not giving women rights etc for a while because if they did then women wouldn't choose men as much (as proven by what's happening now)? In fact, if no one can be blamed for doing what's best for themselves, do you suggest men should backtrack and encourage women to choose them doing whatever it takes?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 06:23 AM
2

The part that says men are oppressors as a group.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 05:39 AM
5

Yeah when you think egalitarianism is misogyny, that's when you know it's time take a step back and check what you actually support.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/26 05:38 AM
1

Exactly. If you hate the idea, then you won't even try. But if you don't hate the idea, then you will want to try it with some partners but not others. The only question is which type of partners is the current one.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 07:33 AM
1

No, of course not. You can see it not only in this sub but also in mainstream subs. For example, the good old hookup vs husband material discussion of the last year or so.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 07:32 AM
1

No, I don't interrogate them. I ask them. Can you not read? Did I say by interrogating or by asking? You should read the entire comment before replying. I already showed how you don't know what things you don't like with every partner until you try them with that partner. Yes, you do in this conversation. That's literally what I'm replying to - you said that if you are expected to do what you did with others, then he is expected to do what others did with you. Which is of course wrong, he is onl…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 06:54 AM
1

Nope. They delete messages without notifications all the time. And if you were right and they give violation msg then why didn't I get one? You should stop talking about things you are not qualified to talk about.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 06:48 AM
1

Sure, they can be losers. Being valued as a man doesn't mean they are valued as humans, as protectors, etc. Where did I say that? I specifically said necessary but not sufficient many times.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 03:30 AM
1

Nope. They almost never turn women down because most of them aren't propositioned by women. Not desiring women is not controlling who they have sex with. At most they have control over who they don't have sex with, which is completely different from what you claimed. Yes, which I already covered in the first paragraph of the comment you replied to. Again, why even type this when the answer to this is literally in the comment you are replying to?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 03:30 AM
2

I think in this case someone else is telling them what they can't do with a body that is inside theirs, they say nothing about their body.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 01:50 AM
1

Again, I already explained it many times. They are not valued FOR having sex. They are valued BY having sex. Yes, they are valued for being protectors etc. But if they are sexually rejected, then they are valued as protectors etc, not as men. No, they are not determined by it. They are valued by it. Yes I already said this. What's your point? Of course a mother doesn't value her son as a man. She values him as her son.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 01:42 AM
1

Ok, you already acknowledged you were slow earlier, but seriously? This slow? Yes, I already covered this. Sex is necessary but not sufficient. Yes, men value other things. If a man is not sexually rejected, doesn't mean he's valued, but if he is - then he is not valued. Of course, there could be some negligible exceptions where men don't value sex and are happily virgins. But we neglect the negligible and are talking in general. Of course not. Men don't even have control if they have sex at all…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 01:38 AM
1

Yes, of course. Why would we/they want to see and ignore men who don't match our biases. I think, you don't understand why even pay attention and observe this. It's not about confirming biases, it's about getting laid ourselves.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 01:31 AM
2

The idea here usually is that yes aging is normal and they just want her to age while being with them. A random new aged woman is not attractive, but an aged woman they've been with for years is still the same woman they love. How does it not make sense?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 12:42 AM
2

Please, provide proof. Most cases I hear about are due to women having lower libido or otherwise not wanting to have sex with their partners, not men.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/26 12:17 AM
1

It's because genders are equal, but some genders are more equal than others (or rather one gender is more equal than the other one).
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 11:46 PM
1

No, if you log out and check you will see. They deleted them because you don't know how to argue and call people retarded when you are losing the argument. Of course, they don't care about your ad hominem and your logical fallacies, they only care about the word retarded.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 11:10 PM
1

There's literally no such thing as too logical. There are no degrees to it, it's a binary spectrum. Something is either logical or illogical. Yes, many people care about those things, credentials etc. But using them only to evaluate an argument is a logical fallacy. A particular argument can be good or bad regardless of someone's history and disqualifying them based on that is not just.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 11:09 PM
1

I already did 🤦‍♀️ No you did not. If you did, why would I ask? Do it or show where you think you've done it. And how do you know this info? I dont just go telling them this 🤦‍♀️ You should. I know by asking and expressing how great it is to have a relationship built on trust and how I would be heartbroken if I found out she lied or hid something about her sexual past. Unless she's a sociopath, you'll know all you need. Either way, if she likes me more than others, then she should want to bring …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 10:58 PM
1

You are. Sexual equality of opportunity. Plus, it's an indicator of whether you are attracted to them as much or are settling for them. And in this discussion, yes you are if you are testing who you are attracted to more. Like wtf is that denial? You yourself said that they are supposed to do what someone else did, so I'm just showing how that is non sequitur here and should only be a thing if you are also supposed to do what others did with him.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 10:49 PM
1

Obviously it's if they know. To know for sure, they could ask. Some thing they can figure out from your stories. Either way, what they can and should expect is that if you are into them more than you were into exes, then you will bring it up yourself. You should if you are into them. Why wouldn't you want to do stuff with them that you wanted to do with others if you are allegedly attracted to them more or as much? Of course you would.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 10:46 PM
1

That means you don't value him as a man, just as a human/image of a man. Yes, it does in the big picture. It's not about you and it's fine if you don't value him as a man. It's about his perspective. If enough people don't sexually reject him, then he's valued. It doesn't have to be every single person obviously.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 10:45 PM
1

Pick a lane. Are you talking about traditional views of what men are or not? Either way, there's no contradiction. Even if you include these negligible minorities, nothing changes. Men still value sex and if they are sexually rejected, then they aren't valued as men, regardless of their orientation. Even more so if their orientation is not traditional, since in that case we're talking about other men accepting them - and they are in the same position themselves so they know very well what's up. …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 10:43 PM
1

Ok? So your question about "why blame" is answered. What are you arguing about now? That's the whole point - you think about what's best for you, not what's best for the many or even for the people who are doing the blaming. Of course they would blame you.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/26 10:38 PM
1

Of course it does. The act of penetration for one's sexual pleasure does. Fingers and other parts aren't erogenous zones. Strap-ons aren't parts of bodies and have no nervous endings at all - penetrating with them or even with fingers is almost like a medical procedure. No, only penetrating with a dick means someone is penetrating you for their direct sexual pleasure. Women reject bisexual men because they don't want to be fucked by someone who was fucked by another man. That's a reasonable stan…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/26 08:32 PM
1

Yes, the first part is true. But the last paragraph is wrong. Men here seem to think if a woman does a sxual act with a man then she should do it with the next guy or she doesn't like him as much as the first guy. However women should then be entitled to sexual equality as well, and compare acts he did with previous women. If he did an act with a previous women he should do it with her too if she wants to. These two go together. But this Women can also expect that men treat them the same or bett…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/26 08:29 PM
1

Looks like it's because you break rules insulting people, so they delete entire pieces of conversation. Maybe stop breaking rules and address the argument instead of throwing insults.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/26 08:26 PM
1

No, I'm categorizing people based on genitalia and that trait is not sex-neutral. No, it's not a double standard because they are different groups. They both can be penetrated, yes, but only one of them can penetrate someone. So it's reasonable for that someone to have different standards for those who penetrate them and for those who don't. Pretty simple, I'm not sure why you are still struggling with this.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/26 08:25 PM
1

Men don't give a shit if women orgasm. Anal doesn't make majority of women orgasm. Only 9% of women can orgasm from anal. Men request stuff all the time that doesn't give women pleasure 🤦‍♀️ ok say she requested Sounding, then he should do that or he's not as attracted to her as the other men. Show the evidence of your claim, first of all. Second, yes that's my entire point - you have to compare acts people request. You can't say that if they request something someone else requested and got you …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/26 08:22 PM
1

Looks like the comment got removed for some reason without any notification. So have to repost. Good thing I found it happened. ? What? That's not how it goes both ways. They aren't supposed to do what other people did with you. But they are supposed to do what they did with other people. I don't see how fisting their ass applies, though, your fist is not an erogenous zone and fisting somebody doesn't feel sexually good or results in an orgasm. But yes, if you want to compare partners, you can d…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/26 08:19 PM
1

You're obviously not a true scotsman if you put sugar in your porridge. Weak argument. Try again. How about you discuss the point instead of trying that weird ad hominem. Yes, of course you would want to get to know someone before playing. No shit. But munches are cringe. Get to know someone one-on-one is reasonable. That's why on the same platform you chat and set up a date/meet. But getting to know someone when there's a crowd of people and the only reason they meet is because they are into ki…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/26 08:14 PM
1

No, they were thought of as scientists. Yes, these scientists happened to be men. But since the world didn't want them to procreate or have a chance to procreate and become fathers, they were not valued as men. Women didn't want to be anywhere near their genes or dicks. Yes, they are. All people are. But women might need something else to be valued as women. That's a separate conversation and I'm not a woman and won't be talking for women. Again, it's not a characteristic, but yes a sexual inter…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/26 08:04 PM
1

Yes, they can identify other things. Yes, sexual is not the only way to be valued as a man, but it's a necessary way. If a man is sexually rejected - then he's not valued as a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/26 08:01 PM
0

Something being rational is not an excuse or a reason to do it. Stealing is rational when someone has something you want, for example. Scabbing/strike breaking is rational. Etc. Things can be rational short-term but irrational long-term or from a different perspective. Or when it comes to how it affects others. In that case, others will blame you. Why wouldn't they?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/26 07:05 PM
-3

So that's what we need to fix the birth rate crisis if it goes too far. Great idea!
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/26 07:01 PM
1

Men don't give a shit if women orgasm. Anal doesn't make majority of women orgasm. Only 9% of women can orgasm from anal. Men request stuff all the time that doesn't give women pleasure 🤦‍♀️ ok say she requested Sounding, then he should do that or he's not as attracted to her as the other men. Show the evidence of your claim, first of all. Second, yes that's my entire point - you have to compare acts people request. You can't say that if they request something someone else requested and got you …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 05:21 AM
1

? I don't delete any of my comments.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 04:46 AM
0

Why wouldn't I? No, it's not men who choose not to be friends with women. Usually, it's women who can't be friends. I explained it above.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 02:27 AM
1

Wtf is that argument? Yes, sex is sexual and respect is respectful. No, it's not basic and it's definitely not human rights. Are you just making stuff up? Nobody has a right for my respect. Yes, I can compare them and I just did. They are both human needs and respect is actually higher in the hierarchy, meaning that sex is a more basic and important need than respect.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 02:26 AM
1

Nothing is owed to you in friendships then. Sex is not special among other needs. And of course you wouldn't say that about other needs. For example, you won't say respect is not owed to you in friendships. So why would you say it about sex? No, the truth is that that's how you define friends. It's people who want to meet each other's needs. I mean, of course you can say what you say and be intellectually dishonest and say that only sex is not owed or be intellectually honest and say that no nee…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 02:22 AM
0

What idea? Yes please what? I made no suggestions and presented no ideas. I simply described how things are.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 02:20 AM
1

No, of course not. She should only do it if she is your friend just like you should do it for if you are her friend. That's already covered. What if someone just doesn't want to give you respect? Then they are just not your friend. No, again, as I already explained it's not women owing anything to men. Men owe them the same thing. Maybe by friends you mean something more like casual acquaintances or drinking buddies or something, I'm talking about friends friends.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 02:12 AM
-2

No, if you are in a relationship or physically can't perform, then that goes under "unable". Then you just can't meet their needs and they couldn't expect you to. Like if they are hungry but I have no food to give them, I'm still a friend, and they know I would share food if I had any. No, you poor thing are illiterate and can't see that sex is just a need like any other. And no, nowhere did I say that the same rule doesn't apply if the human doesn't have tits and vagina. It applies both ways. I…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 02:08 AM
-2

Huh? Wym "so don't". That's non sequitur. Why wouldn't I want sex from women if I don't want it from men? They are completely different and there's no link.' Indeed, it is crazy to think you are someone's friend when you refuse to meet their needs that you can meet. If someone disrespected you, you wouldn't call them your friend.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 02:02 AM
2

Men and women can't be friends not because men want sex with those women eventually. That's normal. Why wouldn't you want sex with someone you are having fun with. They can't be friends because women usually don't want them back. Of course they aren't friends if they know you have a need (or even a want) and can make it happen but choose not to. Works with anything from the hierarchy of needs. For example, respect is a need. If your friend needs respect and you could respect them but you don't, …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 02:00 AM
-6

How are you someone's friend if you won't meet their needs when you are able to? Imagine, someone needs respect and you don't respect them. Are you their friend? Not really. Sex is just another need on the hierarchy of needs.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 01:58 AM
1

No, it's not just my opinion. It's what men need. Yes, if they are having sex they can still be not respected etc. If they aren't, though, and it's not their choice, i.e. if they are rejected - then for sure they are not valued as men. It's already explained multiple times above. No, they were respected as scientists, not as men. They just happened to be men. If women made the same discoveries, they would be respected the same way. And either way, we are talking about being valued as men/being h…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 01:40 AM
1

Of course not, I already said that. Yes, there is plenty of ways a man can feel like failure, no one is saying otherwise. It's irrelevant. We are talking about how men are valued as men and not as people who happen to be men. If he's sexually rejected, then he's not valued as a man. If he is not sexually rejected, he might still not be valued as a man. No contradiction here. No, how is that by my definition? I literally explained how it's not by my definition. No, it's not the only valuable thin…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 01:38 AM
1

Nobody is talking about genders. The trait can be gender-neutral, but we are talking about people they date and have sex with. And the sexes are very different. The mechanics of sex is different, the power dynamic is different. If someone is gonna penetrate me and enter my body, they better not let anyone else do that to them. It's very reasonable to have that standard based on what genitalia they have. So no, it's not a double standard. Different standards for different groups dating which is d…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 12:25 AM
1

Are you stupid or something? Again, I'm not saying that men are values as men for having sex. No. Men are valued as men if they are having sex. What do you not get? Not being sexually/romantically rejected is how he gets the feedback from society/world that he is valued as a man/potential father. Omg, it's like walking in circles. Yes, those are low value men as in humans who just happen to be men. They are not low value men as men if they aren't sexually rejected and get the sex life and the dy…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/26 12:23 AM
1

Of course not. Again, it's not about what he's valued for, it's about how he's valued. If an engineer quit at my place of work and I started doing their work, they can say that they value me as an engineer because they value me for performing those tasks, but if they don't pay me the engineer salary, then no, they don't value me as an engineer regardless of what they say. No, that's not by my definition. How is it by my definition? My definition absolutely doesn't include him paying because then…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 11:39 PM
1

Sure. As I said, sex is necessary but not sufficient. If he's not sexually rejected he can still not be valued as a man, but if he is sexually rejected then he for sure isn't valued as a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 11:36 PM
1

Correct. Different values are confirmed by different things. Value as a man is confirmed by being wanted for a man's role, i.e father, which requires sex. Sure, not just sex. But if there's no sex, then he's not valued as a man. Already said that earlier. Yes, sex workers are paid for it. So that example doesn't work. Men who get laid for free are valued. They are chosen to get laid for free when many men aren't. That's because they are more valuable as men.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 11:27 PM
1

I'm focusing on what is different because I'm showing that these are different groups. And if they are different groups, then why would they not be held to different standards? Again, I'm not arguing about whether it's hypocritical. I said it in the very first comment. I'm arguing that it's not a double standard. And yes, you don't need to accept the same trait in men and women, since men and women are different.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 11:25 PM
1

No, they are not the same group, though, because if you are dating one of these groups then you suck a dick and if you date the other then you don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 06:53 PM
2

Men don't give a shit if women orgasm. Anal doesn't make majority of women orgasm. Only 9% of women can orgasm from anal. Men request stuff all the time that doesn't give women pleasure 🤦‍♀️ ok say she requested Sounding, then he should do that or he's not as attracted to her as the other men. Show the evidence of your claim, first of all. Second, yes that's my entire point - you have to compare acts people request. You can't say that if they request something someone else requested and got you …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 06:51 PM
1

Yes, again, he's not valued for having sex. He is valued by having sex. If he is sexually rejected - then he's not valued as a man. He's valued as something else and happens to be a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 06:33 PM
1

Again, it's not about what determines value. It's about what confirms it. A man is not valuable as a man because he's having sex. A man is having sex because he's valuable as a man. If he isn't, then he is not.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 06:32 PM
1

Of course not, I explained it above. No, as you said yourself - two groups, not one. Bisexual men and bisexual women. Why would two different groups be held to the same standard?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 06:31 PM
-1

That's not monogamy, that's nulligamy. And indeed that's crazy. That's why relationships should be monoandrous, not monogamous.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 07:51 AM
–

Why are you typing this after I already explained to you that you were wrong in a comment? Yes, the first part is true. But the last paragraph is wrong. Men here seem to think if a woman does a sxual act with a man then she should do it with the next guy or she doesn't like him as much as the first guy. However women should then be entitled to sexual equality as well, and compare acts he did with previous women. If he did an act with a previous women he should do it with her too if she wants to.…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 07:46 AM
1

Pegging and toys would also work but the act other men allowed was fisting say. So the new guy isn't as attracted to her if he doesn't try it 😺 No, they don't. For the same reason as fisting. They work as acts requested by men, but you were using fisting as an act requested by a woman. Come up with a different act that stimulates a woman and makes her orgasm. Irrelevant whether its done to the guy or the guy does to her. That was never a part of your argument. Can't make excuses up. 100% relevan…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 07:40 AM
1

That is correct^ And they only know if they enjoy it with that man after trying it with that man. So if they want to try it with some men but don't want to try it with other men, then you know which of these they find more attractive. Don't be the latter.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 07:18 AM
1

It's horrible to enter for men. Nobody really wants you there and the only advice is go to munches which is super cringe that they even exist. Let's get together based on nothing but our shared sexual preference but the whole thing is non sexual.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 07:17 AM
1

Then 1) it doesn't require a whole fist, a finger would be enough and 2) it doesn't work as an example for what you are trying to say, since it's not an act a man did for her, but an act she did for a man. Therefore, she can't expect it from Henry if she did it for Jack. It is now something Henry should expect from her if she did it for Jack. If Henry is interested, that is. No. Just because you repeated it it didn't suddenly become true. No, they don't owe you sexual equality because you owe th…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 05:48 AM
1

Good. Now you did. If you did it originally this conversation wouldn't happen, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 05:26 AM
1

Then why split up the thread and answer two times to one comment? Weird.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 05:16 AM
1

If that was only a moment, you would realize you were wrong a few days ago..... Mmm no, how is fisting erogenous if it's on a man? As in, a man is requesting it? In that case, if she's done it with another man but this one is not requesting it, then she doesn't need to do it. She can offer, of course. Should even. First of all no, if men think women owe them sexual equality, that doesn't mean they owe women sexual equality. I'm not arguing that they don't, but you can't claim that they do withou…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 05:07 AM
1

Why would you mix threads and reply to one comment under another?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 04:50 AM
1

It doesn't what? What doesn't what? My last sentence doesn't use "does", so I have no idea what you are talking about. Again, no to me it's not about having sex, not about masculinity even. Again, I'm not talking about why men are valued. That's irrelevant. I'm talking about how they are valued. If they aren't getting what they want, then they aren't valued as a man. They can be valued for the same qualities that men are valued but then they are valued as someone who has those qualities and happ…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 03:29 AM
1

Incorrect. Roles and stereotypes are exactly about gender being the same thing as biological sex. Either way, the point holds regardless, as explained above. Whether stereotypes hold and it's about bio sex or if it's about gender roles and different from sex. As shown above, in both cases the result is the same. If a man is not getting what he values as a man, then he's not valued as a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 03:27 AM
1

Ah ok, well at least you are aware that you are slow and openly acknowledge it. That's good. Yes, that's value as leader, provider, etc. Not as a man. They just happen to be a man. Men care if they are rejected. We are talking about value as a man. Yes, if they don't want to have sex with him, then they don't value him as a man. And not everyone is supposed to want it and value him that way. But from his point of view - if not enough people want sex with him, then he's valued as a man (by the wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 02:52 AM
1

No, it's still true even if we don't. Value as a man does, yes. If no one sucks his dick, no one values him as a man. No valuable/high-value man dies a virgin or doesn't have a satisfying sex life. If that's their life, then they are valued for other things and just happen to be a man. See necessary and sufficient. Not having sex is not the only thing that means they aren't valued as a man, but it's definitely one of those things. So, no contradiction and is irrelevant to my point.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 02:49 AM
0

Double standard doesn't apply here at all. Like, it's not a part of this conversation. These are different standards for different people. Of course, you won't have teh same standard for yourself and for people you are trying to date. You don't even have the same standards for people you are trying to date and for people you are not trying to date. A double standard would be if you have different standards for different members of the same group. For example, different standard for two different…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 02:44 AM
1

No, it's not. If a soccer team is not rewarded by the world cup or medals, then it's not valued as a soccer team regardless of what they think and decide. What does that have to do with anything? The second paragraph is entirely irrelevant to my point.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 02:39 AM
1

Again. Are you slow or something? I'm not talking about what gives him value, I am talking about what shows his value as a man. Or in other words, how he's rewarded for his value. If he's rejected sexually, then he is not valued as a man. Simple. Ok, if they do matter, then you can't say that man/woman is not just about sex and separate gender and sex. Because that's the stereotype. That sex and gender is the same thing. In many languages it's the same word, too.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 02:38 AM
1

No, you were not. You were saying that if A1 then B1. Those two are not related. You are doing again. That's not rule A1, that's rule B1 you are referring to. And rules B are about doing actions to match what somebody who is not involved in a relationship was doing. So like, very unreasonable and should definitely be considered only after test A which is about actions by someone who is now in that relationship. So all they need to do is just do something they've done before, unlike test B where …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 02:35 AM
1

Yes, but not sure why you keep bringing fisting up. We were talking about sex. Fists are not erogenous zones and if someone wants to fist someone else, it's not about sex, it's just about control. But yes, that's how it works. And of course, you can't say she should fist him if she fisted someone else because he wants anal that she had with someone else. These are 2 separate sets of "rules". They are independent from each other, if one applies it doesn't mean the other one should apply. Instead,…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 02:30 AM
1

No, you were not. You were saying that if A1 then B1. Those two are not related. If you want to consider it "according to rule A1", then rule A2 must apply, but not necessarily any of the B rules. Those rules should apply together (if at all) regardless of rules A.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 02:22 AM
1

No, you don't get it. These are some of the reasons why men could be valuable. I am talking about how they get the feedback from the world and how they know that they are valued. If they get no sex, then they aren't valued as men.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 02:20 AM
1

Nope what? If gender is not just about having sex, then it's irrelevant to say that "gender roles and stereotypes remain". Pick one. Either way, if a man is rejected sexually, he's not valued as a man. He's valued as a function.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/26 02:19 AM
1

Nope what? What do you still not get? There are two couples of rules that should work, but you are trying to mix them. I'll break it down for you. Let's say X1 used to date Y1 and is now dating Y2 who used to date X2 before dating X1. Sexes are irrelevant and interchangeable. Test A: checking if someone is attracted to the current partner as much as to their previous partner (e.g. from Y2's point of view - is X1 attracted to Y1 or to Y2 more). Rule A1: If X1 tried something with Y1, then they sh…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 08:25 PM
1

LOL you complain how you had to deal with some dynamic because of the factors you can't control, then insult men based on the factor they can control even less. You can somewhat choose how fat you are, your style etc, but they can't choose their age.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 08:11 PM
1

But are you sure that these particular women were sleeping around when younger? Maybe at least some of them are actually consistent and always dated for marriage or didn't date at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/03/26 08:07 PM
0

Women are also a part of the same society, so no, then men aren't putting pressure any more than women. Can say that society puts the pressure on women, but not that men do it. And men specifically don't do it. Not when it comes to dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/26 05:46 AM
–

Yes, that's true. As people frequently acknowledge - there's a huge power gap in such relationships. A younger woman has a lot more power and can easily replace an older man. So of course it's reasonable for him to pay if he doesn't want to be replaced/kicked out. Unfortunately, women coerce vulnerable men all the time.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/26 11:15 PM
–

No, that's illogical. It doesn't matter if they are dating and doing it themselves. Even if it works for them that doesn't mean it works in general. They are either right or wrong regardless of whether they are young and whether they are dating. It's funny you mention flat earthers, because that's exactly whom I had in mind. Yes, your logic here is the flat earther's logic. That's how they argue - based on personal observations and experiences. Oh so you didn't go to space and saw the earth isn'…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/26 11:13 PM
2

No, I'm not. I'm simply using the definition of a word. You made it an ideology. Or media or whatever. It's really only about not getting laid. I did. Trump's government is absolutely not a fascist government. It's literally not more fascist than any other government of the last few decades. No, I simply used countries to show that it was worldwide, and not just operation paperclip. You know the Japanese guy who was torturing prisoners in unit 731 or whatever the number was, never got punished, …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/26 11:09 PM
2

That's an irrelevant general statement. Men did not pressure women to put into their own looks, and definitely not when they were children.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/26 11:04 PM
–

Yes, that happens, too. It's just as frequent and as annoying. Also, it's not about man and woman on the pic. Both men and women try to "debate" like this.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/26 11:03 PM
1

No, both. As I said, if she has to give the same opportunity to both guys, than a guy has to give her the same opportunity as he gave to his ex. But it's not like he has to give her something her ex gave her. What don't you get? Yes, that's valid. But that's parallel to her giving him what his ex gave him, not her giving him what she gave her ex. That's what you keep mixing and that's wrong. Again, two ways to compare: from her POV and from his POV. No, that's not what the conversation is about.…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/26 11:01 PM
1

No, I am being clear. Again, if you don't understand something - just ask. No, not how it works. Her doing the act on guy A doesn't mean she should be able to do the act on the second guy B if we are talking about B's POV and are trying to see if she likes A or B more. If B didn't ask, then she shouldn't be able to do it. But if we she is the one who wants to see who will do more for her - A or B - then yes, she should be able to do it if B wants to compete with A. That, however, means that in t…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 08:59 AM
3

This can never be justified, no. It's not asked in this context, it's always asked to then tell a person they are wrong. As for arguing with boomers, not every boomer is wrong and if they are wrong it's not because they are boomers. If shake a hand doesn't work, then you simply prove it, show studies or whatever. That way you also verify that it doesn't work in general, and not just for your and your friends and/or in your imagination/world view. For all you know it does work. You never tried. O…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 08:53 AM
1

Yes, and when doing so you are illogical. I explained it in detail above. That's comparing apples and oranges. No, fixing act on man A doesn't mean should be able to do it on man B, unless you are doing my second scenario and this is the POV of X. Which is not the topic of this conversation, since we were talking about partner 1 checking partner 2 likes them as much as their ex, not proving that they will do for partner 2 as much as their ex. Yes, I was reading what you said properly. No, I did …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 08:46 AM
3

Right, so just strawmanning it is not giving details. No, that's not an ideology. That's just inability to get laid. It's absolutely not inherently misogynistic. Seems like you don't know what it is and are just using buzzwords you heard somewhere. No, at this current stage it is still not fascism. No totalitarian state, no leader cult, no economic control, still democracy. "Attempted to use" implies that the use was not successful which immediately shows that the state is not fascist. Yes, that…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 08:41 AM
3

Doesn't change my point. But makes you look completely silly. You can't claim it's "always" driven without proof. And one example of an incel or a trump supporter not driven by what you say proves you wrong completely. And comparing this government to fascism is wild. You should visit eastern europe some time and see their WW2 museums. Yes, you are doing the same thing. You didn't explain in detail. You might think you did, but what you said is of course wrong because it's based on a claim you h…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 07:41 AM
1

Yep, you definitely have troubles with logic. Yes, you are saying it and it's non sequitur. This is comparing apples and oranges. Assuming fisting is somehow something that lady X wants/that benefits her, although fisting is a stupid example since she doesn't get any sexual stimulation from it, then she receives and guy A gives (unlike giving/receiving as in penetrating/being penetrated). So, it's X<-A. X didn't give it to A, so doesn't need to give it to B. On the other hand, if she was giving …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 07:37 AM
1

Who pressured them? Not men. Women could always get laid and/or find a date without looksmaxxing. We all know how most women get enough matches on the apps etc while most men don't do well.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 07:19 AM
1

If budgets are separate, then 50/50 obviously. Or, in general, proportional to what you use, but both benefit from rent/bills equally so 50/50. Think about it, if you to a restaurant with a group of friends, do you split the bill proportional to income? No, everyone pays for what they ordered or split equally. Unless, of course, they agreed in advance to cover someone. For example, they didn't want to go because they couldn't afford it or aren't getting paid until next week or something and thei…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 07:15 AM
1

No, that's not what Madonna-Whore complex is. You are trying to project afbb, but it just doesn't work because "whore" doesn't get what "wife" wants and doesn't get. Basically wife is af here which is consistent with what women want. Men aren't settling for wives usually. Wives get everything a mistress would get and more. We don't see wives complaining that a man experimented in the past but won't try something with her.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 07:08 AM
3

No, he's right and you are wrong here. "Often driven" is not an argument. You are doing the same thing as people dismissing opinions of sex workers. And no, sex work is not a profession in the same way as other professions are professions.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 05:35 AM
0

Yes, you are correct. That's a textbook logical fallacy called poisoning the well, it belongs to the ad hominem group of fallacies. Someone's opinion is valid and someone's argument is either good or bad regardless of who they are. It can't be dismissed based on who presented it and if the only argument against it is that, then that's just losing the argument/debate by default.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 05:34 AM
11

This one: <image> Oh, also trying to make it personal. Asking if you are single or how long have you been married or whatever clearly in an attempt to dismiss or discredit the point based on who you are. But that's not gender specific, that's just a classic ad hominem.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 05:19 AM
2

No need to read the post. Just based on the title most people already agree with you. Of course the black blue pill is a solution.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 05:17 AM
1

Nope. What you are saying makes no sense because you are comparing apples and oranges. I'm saying that you can compare apples to apples but also oranges to oranges. Both these comparisons are fair, but apples to oranges is just non sequitur. No, it's not what you were saying. You were saying if Guy B did something with/for Lady A then guy C has to do something with/for lady A, when it's Lady A who did something with for Guy B who should do something with/for guy C if he is interested. It's a hug…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 05:14 AM
1

No, again, these are completely different things. The same applies to me means I should do with her what I did with other women. This is about comparing how much we like/want each other compared to previous partners. What you are saying is I should do with her what she did with other guys. This applies if she should do with me what I did with other women. This is about comparing if we want each other as much as our previous partners wanted us. Do you not see the difference? They are two separate…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 04:50 AM
1

Of course. Which is why you as a man absolutely must make sure that she wants to do with you what she wanted to do with others. If she doesn't - then you know she wanted others more. Of course not. No, you are the one who can't grasp what's going on. And you still didn't answer what part exactly.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 04:00 AM
1

No, it's not. It's just being dumb and breeding strawmen. And this particular husband might have more filters, too. Nobody said it was the only filter. And having that filter does not mean that someone is a horrible husband. A good husband can have that filter, too. Some do, some don't. Absolutely no reason to make this statement. It's like true Scotsmen don't put sugar on their porridge. No, they don't. Again, a baseless claim. Most men aren't asking for it to be hard and don't need it to be ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 03:59 AM
1

Nah, that would mean you are kinda dumb if you drop the correct approach just because of the men you personally see or because of your interpretation. And you're probably not dumb. There's literally no reason to think that it's just about competition otherwise. None. No, that's not just to have a prize. That's because they are hotter, that's it. You sound like those women talking about men being intimidate or insecure when those women aren't chosen for being a boss babe or having a hoe phase. Li…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/03/26 12:13 AM
1

Huh? No, they want to do stuff that feels good to them and hopefully to the woman. Many women either enjoy some of that stuff or enjoy making their partner feel good. If they are attracted to that partner, of course. That's how you know. For example, oral sex. Nobody feels sexual pleasure when their tongue is stimulated, but they just find it hot to be pleasing their partner. So now the question is - are you the partner they want to please or are you the partner they don't want to please? Are yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/26 11:39 PM
1

Which one?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/26 11:08 PM
–

No need to repeat. That's already one of the reasons men prefer if woman has no sex past.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/26 02:19 AM
1

Multiple ways. It's a discussion to have. I'm not running for office and have a ready to go program. You could create conditions where it's really hard to be single after certain age (kinda where this economy is going, actually), you pass the law that explicitly says to pair up before some age or else, etc. Yeah no, that's not what women need to do or would do. It's like saying if peeing standing up was illegal, it would limit women the same as men since they also can't pee standing up.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/26 02:12 AM
1

What's not? For women to coerce men? But you do expect men to be monogamous or to not pursue some acts a woman won't initiate herself. And that's her giving him an explicit or implicit ultimatum - drop it or we break up. That is coercion by definition.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/26 02:07 AM
1

? What? That's not how it goes both ways. They aren't supposed to do what other people did with you. But they are supposed to do what they did with other people. I don't see how fisting their ass applies, though, your fist is not an erogenous zone and fisting somebody doesn't feel sexually good or results in an orgasm. But yes, if you want to compare partners, you can do this. Which, of course, applies both ways and he then could request you do something another woman has done with him. It just …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/26 02:04 AM
1

On what grounds do you claim that what you said is true in general? In general = generally true. Generalizations require evidence, trends, something. You can't just say something in general. It's like, idk, I say if we put 10 cats and 10 dogs on an island, cats will eat dogs. And you say what evidence I have, and I say I'm just talking in general. Makes no sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/26 12:57 AM
1

These are not external limitations. If a man is weak he is also limited and can't force anybody to do anything even if it was legal. We are talking about external limitations enforced by society.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/26 12:50 AM
1

Good. So if men are limited and can't do anything they want to do and use any way they naturally would use to get women or to get the sex life they want, then why shouldn't women be limited?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/26 12:49 AM
1

Right. So you think it is, yet you think it's okay for women to coerce men but not for men to coerce women. Weird.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/26 12:47 AM
1

Right, so nothing is wrong in principle. And I mean, in that scenario men are distributed, too. It's very symmetric.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/26 12:01 AM
1

No, again, sex is not what they are valued for. Sex is how they are valued. If they get no sex, then they are not valued as man. Simple. If they are valued by being paid or praised for protection and provision, then they are valued as protectors and providers, not as men.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/26 12:00 AM
1

That's irrelevant. If it was relevant, then these stereotypes would mean that it's about sex, not gender, which reduces the question to what was already explained above. What is it then? It's an adult male human. And yes, male means he has sex with female humans. That is, if he's valued as a man, of course. Value as a man is reflected in sex. If a man is rejected sexually, then he's not valued as a man. He's valued as whatever role he performs and could paid for that or praised for that. But not…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/26 11:58 PM
1

Exactly. So not men. So why claim it's just a competition when men don't say that and you have no proof that that's the case? Still no evidence that it's just a competition. All of that is irrelevant. No, why would it mean he's a horrible husband? Non sequitur. Not to mention, that again, nobody is talking about it being the most important thing. You need to look into necessary and sufficient. Wanting a car with wheels, doesn't mean it's just about wheels or that checking if a car has the wheels…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/26 11:55 PM
1

Which one and which part exactly. None of the previous responses answer the question or challenge anything in the first paragraph.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/26 11:50 PM
1

No, that's not equal opportunity to try it with her, the opportunity she granted somebody else. Of course, we never said that underrepresented groups had equal opportunity in something because they could leave and try something else. That's not how equal opportunity works. Of course, its' about liking it with him. There's no such thing as not liking it in general. Many people don't like sex with some people or wouldn't even try it with some people but like it with others. And that, too. So if yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/26 11:49 PM
1

No, it's neither. It's making sure you are not a chump and this is what she says this is. If she says she never loved anyone like that or something of the sort and that you are the best for her etc etc, then there's no reason why she wouldn't want to check if she likes something with you. Or he. Can just ask what they like No. That doesn't answer my question. Answer my question. How is it different?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/26 11:41 PM
1

Exactly. So if they don't want to try something they wanted to try with someone else, then they don't like you as much, since they wanted to see if they like something with someone but don't even want to see if they like it with you.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/26 11:39 PM
1

Incorrect. They can't know if they don't like it with you until they try it with you. More importantly, if they liked the idea of trying it with someone else but don't like the idea of trying it with you, then they are showing you what they think about you. Either way, good thing you agree with the other 2 points.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/26 11:32 PM
1

And good scotsmen don't put sugar on their porridge. Like no, just because you said that, doesn't mean it's true. Need to prove it. Definition of good men doesn't necessarily include not pushing boundaries. You are confusing it with convenient/non-threatening men.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/26 07:09 PM
1

It's only pushing boundaries if it's pushing further than they have ever been. Otherwise, it's just making sure that boundaries aren't more restrictive for you than for other men. And even if it is pushing them further, it can be argued that he offers you an opportunity to show that you are turned on by him and really want him. Also, the rest is just completely wrong. Wanting to have sex sooner doesn't mean he just wants sex. And no, if he just wants sex he can't just get a hookup. Getting hooku…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/26 07:05 PM
1

The now flip it part is based on nothing. Like, you just made stuff up and then said it proves your original claim. Or even the first part - why would you assume that no man will try to have more than one model?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/26 06:57 PM
1

Yeah no. Bad take. Kinda like that episode of IASIP about the paintings where the guy buys a painting for 35 k but then finds out that it's actually nothing special and is probably cheap. "What?! So that painting I bought from you was worthless? Of course not. It meant something to you. It's worth exactly what you paid. I want to sell it back. Okay. In that exchange, it would only be worth what I would pay for it, which is, again, um, nothing." Like no, that's an insult. Presently and right now …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/26 10:34 AM
1

Right and when women didn't have some of the privileges men had, that was something to be fixed.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/26 10:21 AM
1

Is an ultimatum coercion? Or a boundary as in do it/don't do it or I won't be with you?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/26 10:18 AM
1

Not liking sex with one partner doesn't mean you won't like it with another. Many people have sex that they don't like but then still have it with another partner. For example, many women say their first time wasn't that great. Also, most women had casual sex and we know that most of those experiences don't result in orgasm. Yet, they don't quit sex after that. So yes, and it's not about not wanting to do it, it's about not wanting to try it. If you try it however many times is reasonable before…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/26 10:11 AM
1

Nah, if I my budget for a used car is 10k and I get offered one for 10k or even 8k, but find out they offered/sold the same car for 5k to somebody else, I am now insulted and not paying at all. Now I want 5k or less regardless of my original budget.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/26 10:09 AM
1

Nothing wrong with either. You might not know something is even possible and then you see that yeah with that person it was possible at least for someone else. Or if you like analogies, you could expect and accept a certain deal at a car dealership, but if you find out you are offered a deal worse than they offered somebody else, of course you will take as an insult and will walk away.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/03/26 10:06 AM
1

Nope. I provided proof of everything I said. You provided proof of nothing. E.g. still saying I admitted something when you can't even show the link to where I admitted anything, and sounds like you misunderstood something and even after it was explained to you, the room temperature iq chatgpt brain couldn't comprehend it. Also - claimed my link wasn't to the comment I screenshotted and still no proof of that a shot of what the link is for. Then claimed the screenshot is magic - still no proof o…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/26 05:30 AM
2

Correct. And the only liar here so far is you, since I provided proof of all my claims and you made claims without proof. Less blabbing, more proof.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/26 04:16 AM
1

Yes, they used to be back in the day. Now, women can also protect and provide, so these things no longer have anything to do with a value as a man. I mean, paying for those things or whatever is not valuing a man as a man. It's valuing him as a provider or protector. You seem to be confused or something and write as if men are valued if they have sex. No, they are valued by having access to sex. Sex is the measure of their value, not the source of it. If the men is sexually rejected - he's not v…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/26 04:13 AM
1

Yes, sex is necessary to show that he is valued as a man. Yes, this toxic crap is out of date, gtfo with it. Everyone can have and show emotions. Exactly, they can. That's because they value them as provisionner, leader, or protector, but not as a man. And again, they don't value men for their sex life, so they don't need to know their sex life to value it. No, men having the sex life they want is a measure of how valuable they are as a man. Not as a human or a member of a profession.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/26 04:10 AM
2

Because we decided that equality is good. If women shouldn't be forced, then men shouldn't be forced.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/26 03:50 AM
2

Yes, genuinely. Unless it's an actual distribution - and even then - tell me what is wrong in principle? You will probably talk about owning people and slavery and such. With which I wouldn't argue, I'll just continue the analogy. We had a lot of forced labor in the past where people were told what to do, that was immoral and stuff, so it was dismantled. However, the economy still needed labor, so we created conditions such that people would "distributed" where they are needed. They would be pai…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/26 03:48 AM
2

You know nothing about my personality. And no, more than appearances hardly factors in in most cases. Otherwise, appearance wouldn't be such a strong predictor of both sexual success and ltr success. Not to mention, that many other important factors are also external, e.g. wealth, so that they simply pick/prefer who is at the top. And personality? Most men never get a chance to show their personality.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/26 03:45 AM
2

The law. They are limited because they can't do whatever they want or whatever it takes when it comes to looking for a sex partner. Many of their "moves" are illegal. On the other hand, women can look for a sex partner they want without limitations. That's not very fair or equal treatment.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/26 03:42 AM
2

How do women want to approach being scabs and doubling the work force? How do women want to approach being desired by men and being physically weaker than men but still being able to reject most men? The conditions are created where they can do it without retaliation. How men want to approach it is irrelevant. They want for it just be delivered to them and so they don't have to do anything or much. Or some want to be loved for who they are and for their best effort etc. But the point is, that th…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/26 03:39 AM
1

No, not "just". Who said "just"? And no, it doesn't prove that point whatsoever. Even if it was a competition and/or a validation thing, it still wouldn't prove the rest of the point. No, it's not superficial, it's very deep, actually, since it goes in the past and specifically her actions in the past. Yes, they used to and still are. But those women used to not sleep around or even have casual sex, or have children already, etc. Times are different and people are adapting. Of course, they blame…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/26 03:27 AM
1

No, it's only that if he's getting off to it. It's not that at all if he is collecting the information. Who does that? Anyone who respects himself and wants to maximize chances of getting the same or better treatment, as well wants to choose who they want to be with. Why wouldn't sexual past be something that affects how they see a person? How is it different from any other preference/standard/requirement people can have?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/26 03:21 AM
1

Dismissed. Low-effort no-argument disagreement is irrelevant. Of course they should, that's the only way she treats the partner (and sometimes supposedly the love of her life etc) fairly, equally and equitably.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/26 03:18 AM
2

No, I did not. You keep blabbing and still didn't prove any of your claims or disprove any of mine. Just literally said that I magically conjured a screenshot. What a clown. Less blabbing, more proof.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/26 03:16 AM
1

Yes, nobody is wrong. But if they want to try it with someone else to see if they like it with them but don't want to try it with the new guy to see if they like it with him, then he wasn't given equal opportunity to see if she likes this with him.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/26 03:15 AM
–

Nah, I don't want to. I was just curious to see something. I know that it's not really a serious thing and that Freud just wrote about it based on nothing really. And I also know that it is what you said - the problem to see the same woman/wife as a sexual person due to familiarity and having kids and stuff, - not seeing some women as this and other women as that (like the male version of aff/bb). So as one of the few people who uses the term correctly, I figured maybe you remember some authors/…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/26 03:13 AM
–

Yeah, maybe rape technically wouldn't apply here, unless it's defined as sex without full/enthusiastic/informed consent or something like that. In this scenario, consent is not informed. I'm also not sure what the legal definitions of fraud or scam are. But I don't see how it doesn't apply here at least in principle. Specifically scam doesn't imply any documents necessarily, like if you get scammed playing thimbles on the street.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/26 03:08 AM
1

Considering that most men likely never slept with virgins and most women aren't virgins, math isn't mathing here. Virgins definitely go with non virgins.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/26 05:50 PM
1

Then at least it equals scam. But why not rape though? I mean, aren't we talking about consent to having specific sexual acts freely for an extended period of time (+ more than just sex, but still - sex is included).
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/26 05:47 PM
1

Could you show some studies? Just curious.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/26 05:46 PM
1

Correct. And in most cases the thought is that it's immoral to sleep around with men.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/26 04:57 PM
2

No need to narrow it down so much. If a man asked a woman if she is a virgin and she lied, then from that point she got consent via dubious method. She is a rapist plain and simple. This applies to sexual past in general. If a man asked about her past and she lied, then she manipulated him to get consent and so he didn't really consent.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/26 04:38 PM
2

Nope, literally didn't. Showed multiple screenshots and links proving it. You on the other hand are still blabbing, have nothing to counter my screenshots, all you said is the link is not there and screenshot is fake, but provided zero proof of that. No screenshot of what the link was for, for example. Would be easy to do, but you can't, because you lied. Show proof of your claims or gtfo.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/26 05:24 AM
2

Nope. Didn't lie. Less blabbing, more proof. I provided proof of everything I said, you claimed it was a wrong link and there was no original link - and provided zero proof of that. Until you do that, you lose by default.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/26 04:19 AM
2

Nah, they are seeking equality and equal treatment. If someone had an opportunity to try something (especially with a particular woman), then they want that opportunity too.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/26 04:08 AM
1

Nah, you are trying to exclude sex and present a false dilemma. The point is not just to get sex, no. But it's also not to get all those others things but not sex. It is to get what one needs which during a large chunk of life includes sex. Again using the word "only". Nobody is entering a relationship only to do it. But you didn't show that there is anything wrong with doing it. It's not about coercing to do something. It's about giving an opportunity to show that she is attracted as much or mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/03/26 04:06 AM
1

No, blabby, that's not an admission. That's saying that it doesn't matter.. Are you retarded or something? Besides, after I allegedly admitted it (which you still can't prove) you admitted that you lied and I didn't. So if admitting something matters, then you admitted that you lied and I didn't, so wh are you still talking? Less blabbing, blabby. Show proof of anything you are saying.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/26 12:03 AM
1

This^ Even though women say they value commitment more, as you can clearly see when they choose between hookups with hot guys and commitment from hot guys, they choose the hookups. That's why, OP, don't let anyone tell you that it's just casual and the bar for LTR is higher.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 11:59 PM
1

Nope, they are not. Sure, some people still subscribe to them. But some people also still think that the earth is flat. Yes, they are. And especially if you say that stereotypes are true and active, then expectations are also stereotypical which means are based on sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 11:55 PM
1

Not uniquely male, so it's about being a man as in human now. No, we are telling him to become a man that woman will want to have sex with. Or, use it as an anachronism that is based on the outdated toxic belief that men can't have emotions. You pick. Either way, the point holds. Not everyone is supposed to have sex with a man for him to have high value as a man. Not everyone wants to buy something expensive even if they could afford it. No, that's being valued as a protector, as a provisioner, …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 11:53 PM
5

Why are you okay with men being forced to conform and to compete in criteria they don't want to compete in? Why are you okay with forcing men to approach getting sex not the way they want to approach it?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 11:44 PM
2

Nope. Prove it. Show where. Less blabbing, blabby. More screenshots. It doesn't matter who admit what even if they did, since you admitted that you lied and I didn't, but are now switching up and acting like you didn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 11:32 PM
1

Sure and largely men aren't valued as men. They are valued for utility, strength, stoicism. They are valued as strong men, leaders, teachers, etc. But not as men. I'm not sure why you are repeating all the things I already mentioned. Being valued for those things is not being valued as men. Yes, because those statements refer to men as humans, not as men. We already established that. The only thing that shows that a man is valued as a man is sexual success. Other things are the same for men and …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 10:22 PM
4

Why not? Or why would we limit men but not women?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 10:19 PM
1

Yes, these stereotypes are anachronisms. Yes, gender is basically sex if you gonna talk about what is widely used and accepted. Other than a few purple-haired weirdos, everybody agrees that gender and sex are the same thing (literally the same word in many languages) and that man is a person with a penis. If a man is sexually rejected then he is not valued as a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 10:18 PM
2

No, I didn't. If I did - where? What I proved is that there was a link originally by a screenshot, then posted the link to the comment I screenshotted, then you said that comment doesn't exist, so I screenshotted that comment and its address which definitely proved that you lied and I didn't. You still didn't show where that link was going if not where I said it was. And still didn't prove that I magically created a fake screesnshot. And then admitted that you lied and I didn't, so why switch up…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 10:11 PM
1

Right, the anachronisms you listed used man based on things that distinguished men from women. Now, only sex distinguishes them, and these anachronisms are toxic. E.g. "real man = protector". Of course, not. I'm still real if I don't protect you, you don't get to define what's a real man. But you can reward a real man by choosing him for something you only choose men for. And right, a failure of a man who failed to dominate others can't get sex. If he could dominate others, he would have the pow…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 09:39 PM
1

It's the most relevant part now that nothing is gender-specific. Back in the day, when only men could work, say be a doctor or something, being a good doctor would contribute to value as a man. Not anymore. No, but they defined man as a person with male sex organs. It was always defined through sex. Historically, there were things only men could do so sure manliness would include them. That's not the case anymore. No, they aren't valued for how they fuck. They are allowed to fuck if they are val…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 09:36 PM
1

Right, maybe I misclicked when I was replying. The original response was to one of the comments saying stuff like "I have to live" or "have to keep going". The question is why?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 09:06 PM
3

Right, so conditions must be changed so that more than appearance factors in again. So that whatever income those men make, for example, is still relevant. Or stop limiting men to do what they want to do if women are not limited.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 08:58 PM
1

Stop blabbing and prove it. Of course it was, I proved it with another screenshot. You still didn't prove that it wasn't to that place. Less blabbing, more proof, especially since you already admitted you lied and I didn't and are trying to switch now.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 08:57 PM
2

No, I didn't admit that. I explained it many times above. Again, you are lying. Stop blabbing and show proof. Screenshots, links, anything but blabbing. You are the only one who definitively admitted that you lied and I didn't. There's no ambiguity or misunderstanding there, unlike in case where you can't understand how links work.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 07:27 PM
1

Nope. Prove it if I did. This is just more blabbing. Show screenshots and links supporting your claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 07:14 PM
2

No, but see, if redistributing women is unfair and it's fair for women to do what they want, then raping and beating them is fair for men. Is that how it works? What's natural should stay natural?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 07:02 PM
1

What are you owed? You aren't really owed anything and fairness shouldn't be a thing pretty much anywhere.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 07:00 PM
-1

Why not blame it on women if they are the bottleneck? And what's wrong with trying to go back to women redistribution? And I mean, in principle. As in, it's not that it would necessary be done explicitly like "here's your assignment, report by 9am".
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 06:58 PM
1

No, it's wanting to create conditions where women are encouraged to pair up with men. I mean, where you also saying it's "basically wanting men to do/not do X" when the way men would get women was limited? Probably not, you decided that it's good? Because women getting what they want is more important than men?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 06:56 PM
1

Them being masculine stereotypes is historic, just like man being sex, not gender is historic. If we ignore the latter, then we ignore the former, too. These things don't show the value as man, only as human. Sure, society expects and celebrates something. And then it rewards it with access to sex and procreation. Men who don't get those are not valuable as men.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 05:55 AM
0

Nope. You keep saying that but still no proof. Blablabla, it's just more blabbing. Show link or screenshot proving your claims or stfu. No, that link is irrelevant. Nobody asked to show what that made up thing is. Show link proving your claims. I'm not attempting anything. I simply say things how they are. You are just blabbing tho. Still no proof. And unclear why you blabbing, since it's not me, butyou who admitted to lying. I demonstrated it above.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 05:20 AM
1

Yes, they are. Mother and father are something people become after sex. No, not anymore. Yes, it absolutely does. Those other things mean failure as a man as in as a human. I already explained this earlier. No, they wouldn't be called not men or women of course. They are still men and not women. They just have low or no value as men. Men who are rejected sexually are low value as men. They are not valued as men. Maybe as humans.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 05:18 AM
1

Same thing in this context. It's not about who cosplays who. And gender roles are still based on sexual dimorphism - father and mother, basically. No, social and other concerns are sex-agnostic. And male is sex, not gender. You are confused. Either way, sex or gender, man's value as a man is defined by what is unique to being a man and what defines a man. And that would be being opposite of a woman. And in 2026 that would be purely about sex, since women can do everything men can do. The only th…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 03:09 AM
1

No, not much more. And no, strength and aggression aren't uniquely possessed by men. Men just have more of that. And not even man as a gender but men as a sex. We all know about the whole transwomen in sports debacle, so I'm not sure why'd you mention strength when it goes directly against your point. No, he doesn't have value as a man. He has value as a tool/muscle/strong human. Same goes with the rest. Value as a leader, etc. I already explained it above, I don't understand why you are talking…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 03:06 AM
1

Nope. Prove it if I did. This is just more blabbing. Show screenshots and links supporting your claims.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 03:03 AM
1

Nope. You are struggling. I clarified everything I mean and you are still struggling to understand somehow. I lied? Prove it. All you are doing is blabbing. Zero links or screenshots. It's especially weird since you admitted that you lied and I didn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 01:58 AM
1

Yes or etc. Value as man, though, necessarily includes being valued as a man, i.e. for things only men do, i.e. being selected for sex by women. A man who is rejected sexually is not valuable as a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 01:54 AM
1

Nope. It's not. I'm not sure why you are struggling to grasp it. Show exactly where you think I admitted to it, and I'll explain what I meant. Pretty sure I did tho. No, I didn't lie just because you said I did. You provided zero proof of me lying. Zero. And I already told you how to prove I was lying and you weren't. But you failed to do it 10 comments or so after I already told you how to do it. You, on the other hand, did admit that you lied and I didn't, see above. So not sure why you're swi…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 01:47 AM
1

Huh? Yes, it is. And yes, sexual value would be about sex. A man value would be about sex with people who you could hypothetically procreate with. No, gender isn't that much more than sex and what it is still related to sexual dimorphism. Who cosplays who doesn't matter, especially when talking about the negligible minority. If a man is sexually rejected by women than he has low value as a man. Or no value even.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/26 01:44 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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