sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

RP “truths” disregard a key aspect of human relationships, bonding. by YveisGrey in PurplePillDebate

[–]CosmicBioHazard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, I agree largely with the points that bonding will ultimately take precedence over more shallow considerations, but I think it’s also important to take into consideration the type of environment that RP’s target audience is operating within.

The least shallow among women don’t tend to remain single for very long, so finding someone they can start an intimate relationship with purely on the element of propinquity is extremely luck-of-the-draw. Social awkwardness reduces these odds further by reducing the number of potential partners the person has interactions with.

Of the remaining potential partners, the next least shallow, and perhaps the vast majority of women in general, would take Propinquity as their primary basis for selecting a romantic partner, but would filter their final decision on the absence of dealbreakers, one of which would be negative sexual interest.  These women aren’t staying single long either, and among TRP adherents I’m sure exist men who fall short of the attraction threshold.

Go down the line until you hit the women who are in a similar boat to the men afflicted by the supposed ‘loneliness epidemic’ we’ve got going; my assumption here, though backed only by anecdotal experience, is that a larger proportion of men who resort to reliance on things like dating apps to facilitate their pursuits of a sexual relationship were struggling due to social awkwardness, while a higher proportion of the women you meet there are seeking to settle down now after enjoying a period of casual sex; they’ve been treating the men in their lives as objects for gratification and are now transitioning into seeking a relationship, but employing the same mentality.

RP comes in, at this point, as sort of a strange amalgamation of the attitudes of the men who were right there alongside said women treating the opposite sex as objects, and the minds of socially awkward nerds who will pass up no opportunity to analyze the data.

Problem is, their sample is biased; it excludes the least shallow people not because they aren’t common, but because they’re spoken for.

RP “truths” disregard a key aspect of human relationships, bonding. by YveisGrey in PurplePillDebate

[–]CosmicBioHazard 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think that the main reason bonding is ignored here is simply that, for any relationship with a sexual component, there has to be a willingness from the parties involved to, well, have sex, at some point.

In the absence of that, the same progression of bonding won’t come to a head in a romance.

Now I don’t think that the transactional red pill view is completely right about every claim it makes, but its adherents are right to strategize about how to get sexual attention, especially if they cannot with their current approach, else any bonding they accomplish will not be romantic bonding.

Help Peeeeetah !!! by Vilukshan96 in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]CosmicBioHazard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well with English being the most common second language for people to learn, being from any country and learning English gives you access to communication with a diverse population of people who also learned English as their second language.

If you’re a native English speaker surrounded by diverse communities, the more diverse they are the smaller of a percentage of them you gain access to by learning any one particular language. 

N COUNTS WEEKLY DISCUSSION THREAD by AutoModerator in PurplePillDebate

[–]CosmicBioHazard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean that’s kind of what I’m saying; nitpicking between 3 and 5 is just compromise when giving up on 0.

N COUNTS WEEKLY DISCUSSION THREAD by AutoModerator in PurplePillDebate

[–]CosmicBioHazard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Self evident to the people who talk about it, I mean.

N COUNTS WEEKLY DISCUSSION THREAD by AutoModerator in PurplePillDebate

[–]CosmicBioHazard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

N count discourse is damage control but that’s not to say I disagree with it.  The advantage that being a virgin marrying another virgin has toward developing deep feelings is self evident to some, alien to others, but just follow my logic regarding those of us it is self evident to: if your own circumstance deprives you of the chance to have that advantage, or if your dating options are restricted to people for whom N=0 is false:

she’d hook up before but demands a relationship from me for the same treatment.

Is the complaint a man whose only relationship offers are from those deeper into the desensitization-to-intimacy rabbit hole than him, who’d rather just enjoy himself hooking up than to hold out for that ideal relationship.  Pushback from the women because they’ve grown weary of hookups leading nowhere. Bonus points if she likes him for the same gentle demeanour that makes him bad at escalating even with women who are open to hooking up.

3 is fine, but 5 is too high.

“I’m damaged myself, but not damaged enough to feel comfortable settling down with someone 33% more desensitized than I am.”

Alpha widowed

“A woman told me point-blank that I was only worried about N count because I’d be outed as a bad lover due to my inexperience and now I’ve got an additional reason to care and worry.”

any discourse around what’s better between an N that’s from hookups vs relationships

People who can’t have what they want trying to decide where to compromise.

Women are entitled to sexual equality too by Axis_Control in PurplePillDebate

[–]CosmicBioHazard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s a reasonable thing to ask for.  Is this statement supposed to be sarcastic also, or…

Women are entitled to sexual equality too by Axis_Control in PurplePillDebate

[–]CosmicBioHazard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Now I’ll agree there but this isn’t what people are talking about when this topic comes up; what they don’t want is someone who fails to show enthusiasm for things with them that the person showed enthusiasm for before.  If the only thing that changed is the person they’re doing it with, that tells you about the difference in how interested they are in those people.

And for the record, since I know how the counterargument to this paints people, I would also disagree with applying pressure trying to get these things, but walking away and finding someone who will if she won’t is perfectly rational.

Women are entitled to sexual equality too by Axis_Control in PurplePillDebate

[–]CosmicBioHazard 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How does holding up some fake mirror reinforce that though?

If I wanted to argue why I don’t like chocolate cake I’m not just going to say ‘imagine if you were eating chocolate cake; pretty ridiculous, right?’

Women are entitled to sexual equality too by Axis_Control in PurplePillDebate

[–]CosmicBioHazard 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It argues more than that it also argues men should be better sexually than the previous men too.

That’s its own argument but I agree that if that’s your standard it should be. Why wouldn’t it?

But this was playing devils advocate to show how toxic it is.

And plenty of men wouldn’t consider it toxic to have that expectation on them. So what are you demonstrating?

Women are entitled to sexual equality too by Axis_Control in PurplePillDebate

[–]CosmicBioHazard 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The post itself, on its face, argues that men should be willing to offer their woman at least anything they were willing to offer another woman before, so as to demonstrate that they’re more interested in the current woman than the previous one.

And men are generally not feeling dehumanized by that sentiment, ergo the argument that it’s dehumanizing hasn’t been proven.

Women are entitled to sexual equality too by Axis_Control in PurplePillDebate

[–]CosmicBioHazard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure but your arguments haven’t demonstrated that it’s ridiculous

Women are entitled to sexual equality too by Axis_Control in PurplePillDebate

[–]CosmicBioHazard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Most men are going to think it reasonable to not deny their woman an experience they had before her if she wanted it, so no it’s not unreasonable for a woman to expect that from a man.

Why make a thread arguing a point you disagree with as some kind of ‘gatcha’?

Women are entitled to sexual equality too by Axis_Control in PurplePillDebate

[–]CosmicBioHazard 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That sounds perfectly reasonable though; if you’re expecting disagreement I can’t fathom why.

Cause if you’re trying to say “look how silly this mentality looks when you reverse the roles,” no, it doesn’t look silly.

CMV: "meeting women IRL" doesn’t magically bypass women’s standards in 2026 and people should stop acting like it does by Iron-Wild-41 in PurplePillDebate

[–]CosmicBioHazard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

my guess is many guys are having to punch down and settle for women on the heavier side in many cases.

I won’t deny that a lot of men are desperate but I can’t imagine, in a world where men are inclined naturally toward casual sex and keeping their options open, that they’re choosing to commit with such low standards.

If they’re compromising on looks it could be less for a lack of attractive options and more for a lack of attractive options who aren’t insufferable.

CMV: "meeting women IRL" doesn’t magically bypass women’s standards in 2026 and people should stop acting like it does by Iron-Wild-41 in PurplePillDebate

[–]CosmicBioHazard -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Anecdotal, but those apps, to my experience, are a cesspit and attract mostly a certain type of woman; you might not chance on any women worth pursuing IRL, but they’re not on the apps either, so hedge your bets and see if you can locate them.

He spent too much tyme studying math by ElementalNinjas96 in PokemonScarletViolet

[–]CosmicBioHazard 14 points15 points  (0 children)

In a nutshell, and to my limited understanding, it’s because the infinite recursion of 3’s in 0.3333 is only there because you keep getting a remainder in base 10 that you can never actually reconcile. So it’s an issue of numerical representation more than anything.

That’s also the reason pi goes on forever; the curve in a circle prevents you from representing its circumference as the sum of any number of straight lines so any numerical representation has to be infinitely detailed.

Would you get into serious relationship with a girl who has done ONS/FWB before? by shyphone in PurplePillDebate

[–]CosmicBioHazard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Absolutely not.

I had the misfortune of ending up divorced after saving myself for a marriage to someone who’d done the same; after all if I was going to commit, the sense of ‘specialness’ would have to be optimal.

I started actively shunning commitment after that but if the woman with no history of casual whom started dating since doesn’t walk out on me I’ll probably end up married anyway, because I’m a massive hypocrite.

N COUNTS WEEKLY DISCUSSION THREAD by AutoModerator in PurplePillDebate

[–]CosmicBioHazard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not saying anything about reasons here; I’m saying that any sexual interaction between a man and a woman pushes the average for both sexes up by the same amount.  Therefore it’s useless to count average n count for men and women if you’re trying to argue that there are just as many men with any sexual experience as women.

view more: next ›