Top products from r/PurplePillDebate

We found 65 product mentions on r/PurplePillDebate. We ranked the 340 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/PurplePillDebate:

u/cxj · 8 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

TLDR: Your experience of musicians is shaped by their performance to you, which they know is necessary to get ahead. You are not truly an "insider" to their world, largely because its mostly a boys club. Rather, you are a resource who can only be utilized if musicians make you like them. This is why you are being told and shown the things you want to hear.

Having toured in many bands and occasionally rolled in some fairly high profile circles as well, this aligns a lot with my experiences. However, the key here is that I find your experience of these guys believable, but I am also aware there is a different reality you have not, will not, and are not supposed to experience. Touring music is largely a boys club, especially rock and hip hop. Even at the low level, musicians are performers, and part of that performance is appealing to the audience down to the micro level. That includes appealing to people like you, who would be appalled by a lot of the private conversations I'm sure the nice sweet alphas you meet have. The top musicians would not be where they are if they failed to follow one of the crucial 48 laws of Power: think as you like, but act like others. This book is massively popular within the hip hop community to the point where Roberte Greene even wrote a book about 50 cent. Greene's work, especially 48 laws, is the heart and soul of true redpill imo.

My point here is that a lot of what you are experiencing is a performance unto itself. As u/Atlas_B_Shruggin has said, artists and musicians are often "show ponies" lol.

>Again, this might be just my theory, but it seems like, if you don't HATE women, like TRP does, you don't feel threatened by feminity, you also don't mind women being independent and completely liberated.

No shit, who but a liberated, "independent" woman would fuck an unshowered, unshaven, broke ass dude who lives in a van 8 months out of the year, knowing full well this will only last one night because he is constantly on the road? Also, the feminism these dudes are often encountering is the "sex positive" kind that benefits them because like you said, they are attractive and cannot meaningfully offer commitment.

>All over the internet you read that "a rejection is not a rejection" and that you have to push a girl till she gives up.

Tons of band dudes have this mentality, but it doesn't mean pester an obviously uninterested girl or literally tear her clothes off. It means if you get a no, deescalate and build more comfort before trying again. Lost track of how many t imes I've had to explain this. It's really not a tough concept.

>I explained I'm not interested in sex outside of a relationship, it was met with a complete understanding (and it was one of the guys of the "smoking hot rock star" type too).

A) you got lucky, this could have gone much worse
B) this guy DGAF's because he knows there's other pussy out there, he may have even gotten laid that same day before or after you.

>Once you are really attractive, you don't have to use tricks to become a center of attention.

LOL performance is ALL tricks to become the center of attention. Great performers have simply internalized them one way or the other. You think a good puppeteer lets you see the strings?

>As for said partners, often they are really pretty girls, but - an interesting fact - some musicians pick girls/women who are by no means considered physically attractive, but have certain achievements in their (usually artistic) field.

This happens sometimes, but those girls are almost always getting cheated on with the type of girl you think they don't want for some mind blowing reason. Their gfs are often even aware of it and don't care. Some of them even have another sidepiece, often for weird reasons like not liking to have to sleep alone while their man is on the road, which he usually is. Musicians have unspoken "open" relationships sometimes, with the dude cheating for variety of ONS and the girl having one consistent back burner dude for emotional intimacy/companionship/sex while he's gone.

>I suppose once you have a confidence of a rock star, you don't feel the need to show off that you are able to get a super hot teen babe, huh?

Once again, I am truly mind blown about female projection here. Women simply cannot accept that the motivation for fucking/dating teen babes is almost purely physical pleasure and showing off is a secondary benefit if at all. Women date men to show off status, men date women to fuck a good looking body.

I've known all types of musicians. Ultimately, band dudes are the scum of the earth and should be avoided by women looking for long term commitment and a family. Yes there are exceptions, but chances are you are just enjoying the performance ;)

EDIT: One last example I'll add is the recent wave of outrage at Warped Tour pop punk bands over the last few years. A huge amount of their fan base comes from tumblr, which of course has the unspoken assumption of feminism being a part of their bands views, so of course the bands champion this cause. Then, inevitably, almost every band has a scandal of some girl leaking screen shots of some band member scamming on 15 year old smokin hot jailbait, and the scene goes berzerk as though this hasn't been par for the course on Warped Tour since its inception. The difference is the audience now has evidence of it that can spread in a viral manner, and are mad that their perception of the band was obviously inaccurate.

u/starseedlove · 3 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

Thanks, good additions as well.

Iron John -

> Perhaps a love and affection they have never experienced, but can only imagine? As one would imagine heaven. Or some other end state, when there are no end states.

Yes absolutely. For me, as an INFP personality type, I have an inner knowing of an idealized form of love. It's like a union of the divine masculine/feminine. In orgasm, it's like touching the void - getting a glimpse of heaven. I'm also attracted to BDSM where they are consciously exploring altered states of consciousness through sex. So perhaps NiceGuys are just more sensitive/intuitive type of men who through nature/nurture have a proclivity to want a more transcendent experience of love.

> They do seem to have an intense need to be seen as better than other men. But at the same time they are men, so they are not better than other men, in a generic sense. We are all men. We all share male desires. Lacking or pretending to lack male desire, does not make you better than other men. It makes you a eunuch.

Yes. It stems from a belief that they are flawed and not good enough as they are (like most humans). Once he begins to accept his own darkness, normalcy, and most hated parts of himself, he will begin to ground himself in reality. It won't actually remove his idealistic nature of love, it will actually just make him a lot less anxious and needy. He won't need a woman to validate his existence, but he can still enjoy their company.

> Fall from grace? The grace of denial?

Yeah that's one way of describing it. To accept their inner evil so to speak. I'm still healing from this fall which started happening years ago. So I can't say what it looks like on the other side. But I just know it will be ok.

u/hyperrreal · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

>I'm not quite happy with my dating life, but I'm not sure there's a way for me to be happier. I still feel like I'm doing the best I can... Which is a sad thought, as I'm not doing very well, of course...

If you want to improve your outcomes, you need to change what you're doing. But I think before you get to that point, you need to adjust how you relate to yourself.

>I try to be honest with myself. I don't quite understand why I would "live in the present," when I know full well that there is a tomorrow. I knew since high school that I wanted to go to law school, and I did it, and it seems to be going well for me. I plan. It's who I am. I'm critical of myself when I have something to criticize, because if I'm not, that's dishonest, isn't it? I should know my weaknesses, and account for them, right?

This is what I mean by intellectualization as a defense mechanism. I know it well. Here's an analogy that helped me. Think about how most really hot girls live their lives. They get by on their looks. They focus on their looks. They invest in their looks by going to the gym, curating an impeccable wardrobe, tanning, spending hours on makeup, growing their hair out, etc.

Sure there are exceptions, but in general most people that are gifted in a specific area, tend to over rely on that talent. This is equally true of intelligent people, who place too much importance on being smart, and not enough importance on being themselves. And there is a distinction between your conscious, higher mind, and you as a person.

Getting in touch with your whole self (your sexuality, your unconscious, your body, your emotions) in the present isn't dishonest. Always living the future is. Because it's an escape from where you really are.

Some good books on this are:

The Mindful Path to Self-Compassion

Healing Your Aloneness

Iron John

Anyway, I know how hard this stuff can be. I've worked on it for years and will likely never be finished. And if you are a smart person it can even be harder because your mind will be able to invent very compelling rationalizations for avoiding growth.

u/Kralee · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

No mentor

Never discussed dating or sex with my family. Did not do well with girls in high school and could not figure out why. Got even worse in 1st year uni when I realized I actually have no idea how to talk to or attract women.

Had many Chad friends who were hooking up with tonnes of girls and I was so jealous but was too proud to ask for how it's done. I'm certain they couldn't explain it all though.

Went to the internet and found "The Game" by Neil Strauss. Read the whole book in a night; could not believe what I read. Read it again the next night.

Found the Mystery Method and downloaded all the free content possible.

And to my surprise I started attracting girls, and found myself getting respect from my chad-esque friends who were now seeing me more on their level as far as dating goes. Truth be told all the PUA stuff I think did was give me confidence, the ability to recognize social cues of attraction and interest, and a general idea of what to say and when to say it.

u/Merger-Arbitrage · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

It's too much of a mess to even bother dealing with.

I'll repost a recent comment of mine:


RP Demagogue A

>The Alpha Traits are those associated with classic “manly man” strengths. Power, dominance, physical ability, bravery, wealth, cool and confidence. Oh and good genes. These are the things that attract women and turn them on sexually. The Alpha Traits are linked to the dopamine response in women.

>The Beta Traits are those associated with the strengths of being a nice guy / “family man”. Kindness, being a good listener, the ability to help with the children, dependability, thoughtfulness, compassion and patience. These all create a sense of comfort and safety for the woman, and relax her because she feels that if she became pregnant, the Beta Trait male isn’t going to abandon her and the baby. []


>Alpha – Socially dominant. Somebody who displays high value, or traits that are sexually attractive to women. Alpha can refer to a man who exhibits alpha behaviors (more alpha tendencies than beta), but usually used to describe individual behaviors themselves.

>Beta – Traits of provision: either providing resources or validation to others, women (and perhaps men). Beta traits display low value to women if they are are put on too strong or too early in meeting- giving without equity. Beta can be used to describe individual behaviors, as well as people who have an overwhelming amount of beta properties (opposed to alpha).

These are not the same (in particular, see "Beta" definition), unless you want to perform mental gymnastics.

For shits and giggles, let's see what someone said about Rollo / Rational Male aka

RP Demagogue B's definition of Alpha (Amazon book review):

>"The author's most relied-upon term, "alpha", is not given any definition at all through the first twenty percent of the book, until he gets to a chapter in which he promises to address the definition of "alpha", but in which no such definition appears. (He spends the chapter -- and three more following it! -- talking about how hard the term is to define, without defining it.) "


Instead, focus on the what is the cornerstone issue of PUA and TRP: attraction.

  1. Attractive traits/behaviors

  2. Unattractive traits/behaviors

    And for the special retards who can't figure it out, you can make sub-list of "attractive traits for casual sex."
u/SRU_91 · 2 pointsr/PurplePillDebate




Why Women Have Sex

>In their ground-breaking book, clinical psychologist Cindy Meston and evolutionary psychologist David Buss investigate the underlying sexual desires of women and identify 237 distinct motivations for sex.


Citing this research, Mark Manson explains this phenomena in his book Models:

>A vivid experience drove this unpredictability home for me a few years ago. I was in a club in Boston approaching a number of women. At the beginning of the night I approached a group of girls who were not very impressed by me. So I stepped up my jokes to try to elicit more of an emotional response out of them. It worked. One of them looked me dead in the eye and said, “You are the creepiest guy in here. Give it up.”
>Not an hour later I was talking to another group of girls in another part of the club. They were enrapt by some story I was telling, laughing at my jokes, beaming smiles. One of the girls took me by the arm and said, “You are the hottest guy, you know you could have any girl in here, right?”
>Same club. Same night. Same guy. Same sense of humor. Same stories. And chances are, similar girls. Completely opposite responses.


>The first difficulty in understanding female sexual attraction is that women can become attracted and aroused both physically and/or psychologically. This split between physical and psychological arousal is unique to women as men are sexually aroused and stimulated primarily physically. This split in sources of arousal makes it hard to perform controlled experiments and therefore test different factors that may influence how a woman feels.
>For instance, you may be able to show 200 women pictures of big burly men and ask them how attracted they are to them. But you aren’t able to control their predisposed belief about physically powerful men, the extent of their desire to be dominated, the sexual mores in which they were raised, their sexual histories with burly men, their emotional states at that very moment, their ovulation cycles, when the last time they had sex was, whether they just had a fight with their boyfriend, etc. And even if you were able to control such things, they’re so fluid and subjective that you can’t measure them.


>In one experiment, a researcher measured bio-readings of blood flow in women’s vaginas as they watched various film clips. During the film clips, the women were asked to indicate how sexually aroused they were by the clip. Not only did the bio-readings return no discernible patterns of arousal across the film clips (everything from conventional porn, to kink films, to male-on-male homosexual sex, to innocuous nature clips to films of chimpanzees mating), but also the women themselves were often oblivious to their own arousal levels. For example, straight women often completely misjudged their arousal by homosexual sex, and homosexual women were unaware of their arousal by straight sex. And that’s not even to mention the chimps mating.

The primary researcher (a woman) entered the experiment hoping to draw conclusions about what women prefer sexually. Not only did she come to no conclusions, but she lamented in the paper that the experiment only created more questions about female sexuality than it began with.


> You wrote: IRL I see guys with the personality of a wet bag get plenty of pussy just from their face alone.

So really, this is just your anecdotes of attractive guys getting laid versus my anecdotes of attractive guys not getting laid. There are also non (physically) attractive guys who get laid. A lot of varied experiences for varied people with varied tastes and preferences in short.


>You wrote: Looks matter for a man, but as the above studies show, it's to a lesser degree.

As a man, I can tell you that looks certainly matter for me. Most of the male friends I've had in the past would have been very quick to agree also. They probably matter to you also.

u/TheGreasyPole · 3 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

I've got something that hardly anyone ever reads, but it way shorter than a book...

It's a bit dry... But if you want to know what science has discovered about male/female attraction (and know how to use google scholar to follow up areas of specific interest from the citations it uses) it's a great starting resource as it's the meta-analysis of the field.

Evolution of Human Mate Choice

OTOH, if you actually want a book. The best resource I ever found about female sexuality attraction (focussing on the long term) was

Married Man Sex Life Primer by Athol Kay

u/mashakos · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

I am going to apologise in advance if this sounds unclear but this is me trying to articulate a world view I have developed over years of contemplating the existence of mankind and reading volumes of what others have concluded (this, this and this among others)

Before societies and civilisations were formed, groups existed by meeting the challenges of basic survival:

  • If we do not collect enough food, we will die of hunger
  • If we do not remain vigilant in our defences, we will eventually die from predators and attackers picking us off
  • If we do not construct means of conflict resolution and resource distribution, we will die from killing each other

    Each of the above led to an exponential growth in all the areas of human development:

  • hunting to secure more sources of food, cooking and curing to extend the life span of edible food.

  • tools to augment the physical capabilities of humans (hunt and attack from a distance, or make clothing and housing),

  • skills and arts to improve on the methods of the above

  • oral written recording, social structures to better manage groups and train future generations in the collective knowledge

    Groups therefore developed systems and tools to more efficiently meet these challenges.

    The more these groups grew into societies and civilisations, the more efficient their methods of survival, the larger the distance between the group and these dangers.

    Societies reach a fork in the road where they have two choices:

  1. Remain on the path of continuously improving their methods of survival. Improve their technology, defences, distribution mechanisms.
  2. Settle into an equilibrium with their environment and focus inward on goals they previously could not entertain. This could include wealth, pleasure. It can also include spirituality, cultural or individual identity

    I have concluded from my years contemplating this cosmic riddle, that taking the second path which leads to an equilibrium generally leads to the society leaving it's survival capabilities to stagnate and atrophy. This might sound like I am saying the society is decaying but it's actually the opposite, they have reached such a status in terms of organisation and command of their environment that they can exist and thrive in a stable state almost indefinitely.

    That is, until they come into contact with a civilisation that remained on the hard road of honing the mechanisms of survival. Building on the fundamentals of survival (by that I mean tool building to production, skills to science, tribal councils to political machinery) do not lead to equilibrium, they lead to conflict yes but ultimately growth and strength.

    To sort of clarify:

    the native americans and their culture had a full command of their environment, they no longer feared nature and their fellow man posing an existential threat to them. As a result they diverted their attentions inwards, towards the meaning of nature, spirituality and identity. That was great when they were the only ones roaming the lands in full command of it. Unfortunately, having not built on their already solid base from 20,000 years of survival skills/mechanisms in the americas, they left themselves defenceless in the face of a civilisation that was forged in the fires of centuries of chaos, war, conquest and disease. Technology, politics and the art of war are not these monoliths that are thrust upon humanity. They are incremental advances over centuries by hard work, risk taking and sacrifice from millions of society's best and brightest. The fatal flaw that the native americans committed was that their best and brightest gradually turned away from working on the basics of survival and instead chose to focus on the metaphysical. The rich and beautiful culture they accumulated was useless as tools in the face of gunpowder, iron and germ warfare.


    How does this relate to the trends in western countries in relation to restructuring the systems of gender identity? I believe that it is a small thread in a grand tapestry of ideologies meant to create an artificial form of equilibrium, drawing the energies of its citizenry down a path diverting them from building on those tools/mechanisms based on the basics of survival and into the metaphysical/spiritual. The general consensus being that society has reached a peak that leaves them unchallenged by outsiders: the advances of previous generations in science, technology and military prowess have been perfected, are no longer a pressing matter for society at large.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with seeking an equilibrium or focusing on the metaphysical, it is the vector that society is set to follow, the vector veering away from the basics of survival, which is the danger.

    Hope that clarifies my initial reply.
u/Criticalthinking346 · 2 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

Wow, not my experience but than again I have spontaneous sexual arousal like 15% of women and 80% of men. My (39f) sex life with my hubs (38m) is fucking awesome. Most women aren’t “LL” they have what’s called responsive sexual desire, along with 20% of men. Unfortunately most haven’t read come as you are which is sad because mixed match desire types can work well together if they try.

u/pickup_sticks · 2 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

Eh, it goes beyond sexual strategy. You can use it to get better insight into how such imminent people as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Barack Obama reached the commanding heights. They all did it differently, but some of the principles they used are universal. They chose to leverage their respective strengths differently.

Not just males either. Oprah Winfrey, Martha Stuart, Madonna - they all use various principles of persuasion to their advantage. The 48 Laws of Power is good exploration of these principles in a historical context.

u/prometheangambit · 2 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

Nice. Great post. I couldn't agree more. So I'll just help (circlejerk?).

The intuitive, irrational, and crazy part of my personality I only just started developing as I realized I mistyped myself as an INTJ for over 20 years (unhealthy INFJ for that long). The book Antifragile by Nassim Taleb points out the valuable Dionysian part of our nature and just how fragile these social-economic models are in the face of time.

When BP asks "Fine. RP works, but will that make you happy in the long-term?" the jaded RP reply is "Probably not, but what choice is there for men like me?" Others live and die by the Redpill, but can anyone really believe Chateau Heartiste is a happy, healthy, secure individual? No extreme personality and total rejection of the Other emerges from a healthy psyche. You can't take a man who naturally values long-term mating into a short-term mating box and not expect -- nevermind. You already get it.

u/hedonism_bot_69 · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

Ive been reading you posts and you should really check out the book I mentioned.

There have been plenty of studies that show women dont handle high pressure situations as well as men. They dont crave the responsibility and stress like men do. That's why by default men have to be leaders in the world. But Being a GOOD leader isn't a selfish act like most feminists see it. It is one of the most selfless acts, it is an act born from sacrifice. It means staying up late working so you and your own can eat better, it means making necessary decisions that are not immediately popular, it can mean something as simple as picking where to eat. I see this all the time, do you know why women defer to you always about this? Because its such a primitive instinct to be fed. They trust your judgment and feel safe around you, they know you will do the right thing. It is a badge of honor.

u/[deleted] · 4 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

>Now that boychild is old enough we have family passes to all the big Chicago museums.

Mr. Abrams' maternal grandfather designed the hoist that takes you into the coal mine at Science & Industry. YOUR WELCOME

I don't have "hobbies," per se; I don't knit or anything. But I have pastimes!

  • Trail running, around 120 miles/month, although I don't think I'm on track to do that this month. :-(

  • Cooking and culinary history. I have hundreds of cookbooks and have read them all cover-to-cover. I taught myself to cook with this book, and then I had to teach myself how to cook Indian food, because I love it and Mr. Abrams refused to go to Indian restaurants when we were first married due to bad experiences in college. He is perfectly willing now, but I still cook it quite a bit.

  • Also museums. I can't wait to get back to DC. This exhibition was showing when we started dating, and we hit it every weekend until it closed. No ragrats.

  • Military history. It has been my job for many years, but I would also read about it even if it were not my job.

  • DIY. I grew up working class, with my parents doing everything around the house, and I have not outgrown that habit. When the GFCI outlets or the garbage disposal need replacing, or when walls need to be painted, or when faucets or light fixtures need to be switched out, I am the one who does it.

  • Sketching. Not as much as I would like, but it is what it is.

  • Baseball. I played with my friends in high school (pickup games; I wasn't allowed to play Legion with them and didn't really want to) and I used to be up-to-the-minute on every stat you can think of. I have fallen off on that somewhat, but I will still shout you down about who is the best pitcher of all time. (Hint: Walter Johnson.)
u/JackGetsIt · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

Satoshi Kanazawa is a good start. He doesn't hit on all your points but he does address a few. There are a few posts on redpill that go through all the peer reviewed connections. It might take me a while to find the best. Here's an easy start on Satoshi.

I believe the "Red Queen" also covers this stuff as well. I've bought the book but I haven't read it yet. It reccomended often in redpill discussion but I only have so much reading time.

u/TehGinjaNinja · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

>Thank you for that article, it did clarify your argument about cultural communities in America immensely.

I recommend picking up a copy of American Nations for yourself; it's quite illuminating. Our Patchwork Nation (book & website) and The Nine Nations of North America are also worth a look, but they are a bit ahistorical and place too much emphasis on economics rather than culture.

> I have to ask what the intentions are behind rejecting science...

With "science" lets be specific, as people (conservative or otherwise) tend to accept and promote scientific findings which confirm their biases. When people complain about conservative opposition to "science" they typically mean the following:

Rejection of Evolution

This position is assumed by many Evangelical Christians who embrace Biblical Litteralism. It is an article of their faith that the Bible, which states humanity was created in it's current form, is the true and inerrant word of God.

I think it's noteworthy that this issue has become more controversial, not less, over time; i.e. there are more people in America today rejecting evolution than there were in the 80s and 90s. I believe that for many Evangelicals rejecting evolution has become a necessary affirmation of their faith as part of the broader fight against Liberal cultural imperialism, which tends to be secular.

Rejection of Climate Change

The environmental movement in America is largely based in the liberal cultures of the Left Coast and Yankeedom (digression: I hate that name and tend to think of Woodard's "Yankeedom" as 'Greater New England'). In fact, the Left Coast was dubbed "Ecotopia" in The Nine Nations of North America, because of the importance of the environment to that culture.

This means that the primary proponents of climate science are the cultural enemies of America's Conservative cultures. By itself that would make the science suspect to those cultures.

Addressing the issues raised by climate change will require even more use of the federal government to enforce a cultural value of the aforementioned liberal cultures (specifically, environmentalism). It should come as no surprise that Conservatives increasingly suspect it's simply all propaganda meant to justify ever more cultural imperialism by the left.

Rejection of "Social Science"

On this front I have a lot of agreement with Conservatives. Much of "Social Science" seems, at best, to be a pseudo-science, heavily influenced by the biases and assumptions of its practitioners. Much of it also emerges from Universities based in liberal cultural regions, which explains why conservatives reject it.

Put simply, when it comes to the conservative "rejection" of science, what they are really rejecting is the arguments of Liberal Cultures, even when those arguments are right. The sad truth is, it doesn't matter if you've got the facts on your side, when the people you need to persuade can't trust you.

Scenario: two people come to you, asking you to choose a side in their argument. One is a trusted community leader or the representative of an industry that provides something you value and employs thousands of people. The other is someone who holds your beliefs in contempt and who promotes values you find offensive. Who would you believe?

Rejection of Healthcare

The great irony of the current health care debate is that the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) was based off a plan from the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank). So why are Conservatives so adamant in rejecting it?

Again, it's a matter of trust. All they can see is an effort to bring healthcare under the control of the federal government, and thus under the control of the liberal cultures.

If a conservative President had proposed the plan they would have supported it. Instead they are opposing it, because they don't trust the intentions of the people pushing it.

Rejection of Education

I actually went to the trouble to look up the Common Core standards which conservatives are up in arms about. Frankly, I found them so vague and innocuous that I suspect they were only passed as a "feel good" measure to make it look like the administration was taking education seriously.

Nothing in them innately challenges conservative cultural values, so again I believe it's simply a matter of trust. It looks to them like Liberals using the federal government to indoctrinate their children, so they are fighting it tooth and nail.

>there are instances in which the conflicting values of a larger nation must be resolved

Very true, but unless you are going to use force, such resolutions require compromise and compromise requires trust. The cultural imperialism of America's liberal cultures, their open contempt for conservative values and their willingness to use the federal government to enforce their values on conservative communities, has destroyed any hope of establishing such trust.

>The fight for Civil Rights was an extremely controversial movement at the time, and many communities rejected it as progressive imperialism, which it certainly was. It was also the minority demanding change from the majority. If you look at it like that, making many people change for few might seem unfair but that is an extremely limited way of seeing. First of all, what exactly did the majority have to give up?

What the majority had to lose, was exactly what it did lose: the national consensus. In the wake of the Great Depression the Democratic party forged a political consensus between Americas various cultures, which allowed the nation to progress economically and stand united in the face of foreign threats.

That consensus, which prevailed into the early 1960s, saw America rise to the status of a global super power, entailed the strongest sustained economic expansion in our nation's history (before and since), and vastly expanded the middle class. That consensus was based on a social contract which entailed the liberal cultures ignoring the racist policies of the south.

Look at where we are today: declining global influence, rising economic inequality, and extreme political dysfunction. We have arrived at this situation precisely because the national consensus was sacrificed on the altar of liberal cultural imperialism.

That being said, it wasn't the passage of the Civil Rights Act which dealt the fatal blow. That act was, in many ways, simply an evolution of the national consensus. It was the product of a democratic process; passed by an elected congress and signed into law by an elected president.

The legalization of abortion, deregulation of contraception, and abolition of school prayer, were qualitatively different. They were forced on the nation by un-elected judges. These decisions were not the product of a national search for consensus and they galvanized the formation of the religious right, without which the Republican party would not have an effective electoral coalition.

> It is infinitely less expensive to fund contraceptive services than to pay for pregnancy and childbirth

This is actually a very short sighted view. Since the wide spread adoption of contraception ,western nations have seen a marked demographic decline. If it weren't for immigration the U.S. population would be declining. Nations with aging and shrinking populations face stagnant or negative economic growth (see Japan).

Unfortunately, importing relatively uneducated workers from the third world to replace highly educated and productive first world workers who refuse to reproduce, is not a viable long term solution. Western nations might soon have to consider banning contraception in order to ensure their long term viability.

>insurance companies already "subsidize" men's sex lives, by covering erectile dysfunction drugs like Viagra. That insurance companies were already covering those drugs was part of the reason why the Employment Equal Opportunity Commission ruled in 2000 that insurance companies providing prescription coverage could not exempt birth control.

That's a specious comparison. Erectile dysfunction is a medical problem requiring treatment. Fertility is not a disease, it is in fact a sign of health in premenopausal women. Comparing one to the other is like comparing reconstructive surgery with purely cosmetic surgery.

It's worth noting that the EEOC is an appointed body, not an elected one. Their rulings are not the product of a national debate in search of a consensus.

>Actually all the Planned Parenthoods in my area provide a big bag of free condoms to any person who asks for them.

Bully for them, but are they being required to by federal law? It's fine for an institution to promote your values in your culture. It's not alright for the federal government to coerce institutions in other cultures to enforce values which conflict with their own.

>>Men pay 70% of the taxes in this country

>And I'm gonna need sauce on this please.

Good catch. This figure is repeated often in the manosphere, so I cited it without confirmation. I think it emerged from this British report, but I can't find comparable numbers for the U.S. Given the disparity between male and female income in the U.S. it's likely men are paying more in taxes than women, but I can't find any hard numbers.

u/you_done_messed_up · 10 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

I wish there was good, easy to link advice to give the thousands of men on /r/deadbedrooms besides red pill stuff.

There is red pill "light" in the form of

u/reluctantly_red · 2 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

The interesting part of the book is how it compares Canadian culture to that of various regions of the United States. Canadian culture turns out to be most like Massachusetts and least like the deep south. To make this comparison the author had to first describe the various regional cultures of the United States.

An American author did a similar examination with similar findings in this book

u/the_calibre_cat · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

>Evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years.

I love it when liberals invoke arguments that, in other arguments, creationists invoke. Basically, humans have been around for more than thousands of years (2 million, approximately), human civilization has been around for more than thousands of years, and honestly? If we can see significant changes over thousands of years, we can see less significant changes over hundreds of years - and we do.

It should also be noted that more interacting samples increases the rate of mutation, and tests of fitness - which is exactly what happened during the agricultural revolution. More food meant more humans meant more evolution, and this is the premise behind the book The 10,000 Year Explosion discusses.

>By that logic, if choose to rob a bank, to home and fuck my wife and get her pregnant, my kid has a higher chance of growing up to be a bank robber. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

No, not whatsoever, since that crime was likely motivated by aggression and a lack of respect for social norms that is behaviorally coded for somewhere in your genetics - and that will be carried on if you planted your seed in a woman who bore your child.

Rather than ridiculous, it's basically "the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior," which apart from being true within generations, is pretty fucking true across generations thanks to our awareness of genetics, which demolishes blank slate theory that nonetheless dominates the cultural signaling apparatus.

u/homo_homini_lupus · 2 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

Actually, evolution happens very quickly as populations are isolated and new technology emerges cf. cochran and harpending's "10,000 year explosion"

Those are fictional characters. To say that honor is a masculine virtue isn't to say all men display virtue.

u/analt223 · 3 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

Oh so you are one of those about the fed and not something like "there arent enough jobs to employ every man and woman in most (if not all) countries"

Ok. Your links from some other subreddit don't do anything more scientific than i did. They just said things without any data models either. The first link says "declining union strength" as a reason. I agree that its a massive problem, but to play devils advocate I'll just say "correlation is not causation". It also mentions globalization. Again, I agree. But fun fact, adding 50% of the population of a country into the workforce IS a form of globalization.

And yes, "correlation is not causation" is becoming just some "lala cant hear you" or "i dont like it so shut up". Before social media took off it was used primarily for situations i explained above. And your "links that completely explain everything no questions" didn't do the same thing.

EDIT: These two books (written by two very different authors from an ideological basis) show what im talking about somewhat.

u/IIHotelYorba · 2 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

Although there are definitely guys on there who know what they're talking about, TRP on Reddit is a specific and odd bird that doesn't even totally mesh with the sites they draw from.

Keep in mind that the latter link is from Owen Cook who runs RSD, far and away the PUA industry leader for around 10 years now. All TRP and PUA is derived from what he came up with, as he invented the idea of teaching natural game. Just listen to the first 5 or so minutes.

u/ee4m · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

The economic research Elizabeth Warren did found married middle class people are not wasting their money.

>Harvard Law School bankruptcy expert Elizabeth Warren and financial consultant Amelia Tyagi show that today's middle-class parents are increasingly trapped by financial meltdowns. Astonishingly, sending mothers to work has made families more vulnerable to financial disaster than ever before. Today's two-income family earns 75% more money than its single-income counterpart of a generation ago, but has 25% less discretionary income to cover living costs

>The number of families declaring bankruptcy or receiving a foreclosure against their house has shot up dramatically. Presenting carefully researched economic data to support their arguments, the authors contend that, contrary to popular myth, families aren't in trouble because they're squandering their second income on luxuries. On the contrary, both incomes are almost entirely committed to necessities, such as home and car payments, health insurance and children's education costs. When an unforeseen event such as serious illness, job loss or divorce occurs, families have no discretionary income to fall back on. The authors recommend a number of useful societal solutions to get families out of this trap, such as legally prohibiting credit card companies from charging grossly unfair interest rates and exposing banks that employ a loan-to-own strategy that steers minority customers to higher mortgage rates with an eye to future foreclosures. Warren and Tyagi point out that families buy homes they cannot afford in order to live in a neighborhood with better schools. Their proposed solution, however-to institute a public school voucher system with wider choice-is less carefully thought out. Overall, however, this is a needed examination of an emerging social problem.

u/an_absolute_rose · -1 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

If you want to know what it's like to be a man from a female perspective read this:

If you want to pretend like you care, continue arguing for arguing.

u/Mattcwu · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

I wish that I was enough of an expert to accurately analyze this. However, the book A billion wicked thoughts and this link both present the research. (with different opinions than me) Perhaps you look at the data and come to a different conclusion than we did.

Why do women want those 5 types of men for their fantasies, what do they have in common?

I saw this data and abstracted competent, dangerous, and powerful. Perhaps you see different traits.

u/cipahs · 0 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

Yep women are totally attracted to feminine men, to men that are open with their emotions, that are not stoic, that have jobs like being a teacher.

With my fraternity brothers, we don't care if one of us cries, we give him support, we talk about our feelings and our problems. But guess who finds that behavior unattractive, guess who looks upon a crying man emotional man with disdain.

to quote an anonymous, "My wife and daughters would rather see me die on my horse than fall off of it."

The only reason my friends and I do 1/2 the shit we do is because women find it attractive, it was up to me i would get a history and education degree and teach highschool history, but guess who doesn't get laid. So I'm going economics and finance, LOOK at the JOBS men go into.

Hard STRESSFUL >>>high paying<<< take a gander why. Most of my friends dislike their majors but guess what's sexier an account executive or a teacher TO THE MAJORITY OF ATTRACTIVE WOMEN.

I women just starting going buckwild after a teacher, GUESS WHAT HAPPENS, more men go into teaching. If the education major pulled more than the econ major frat star football player then guess what ---> more men will go into education.

u/LittleHelperRobot · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

Non-mobile: The Red Queen

^That's ^why ^I'm ^here, ^I ^don't ^judge ^you. ^PM ^/u/xl0 ^if ^I'm ^causing ^any ^trouble.

u/disposableboyfriend · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

Books about evolutionary psychology. Two that come to mind:

u/gopher_glitz · 2 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

Someone should write a book about this....oh wait

u/bala-key · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

> Always hide your work. Women don't want to know how hard you work for anything.

Law 30: Make your accomplishments seem effortles

u/CreightonWAbrams · 2 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

Last night I made farfalle Alfredo, which is Thing 2's absolute favorite. Thing 1 can take it or leave it. Thing 3 ate four bowlsful and immediately lapsed into a carb coma.

Marcella Hazan's pork loin in red wine vinegar tonight. You salt and pepper a pork loin roast, brown it on both sides in a snugly-fitting saucepan with a little butter and olive oil and then, while it's still hot, pour in red wine vinegar to come up about halfway. (Stand back, the steam will make your eyes sting.) Throw a bay leaf in, clamp the lid on, and turn the heat down to low. Simmer until the pork reaches an internal temperature of 150 or so. DO NOT OVERCOOK OR IT WILL BE DRY LIKE SAWDUST.

This was one of the first recipes I cooked out of this book, way back when I was first learning to cook, in the late 1990s. I had just started dating Mr. Arthur and didn't know a thing about cooking because my mother never cared much about food and my dad only wanted to eat the same five dinners in a rotation. Mr. Arthur's family cares about food A LOT and I knew I had to raise my game. This is the single best cookbook I own, and I own hundreds, and opened my eyes to so many concepts: technique, simplicity of ingredients, et al et al.

This recipe is only three ingredients, not counting the oil and butter and salt and pepper, but it's one of the best things I have ever eaten.

Edit: A lot of recipes tell you to cook your pork to 160 or 170 degrees, lest you poison yourself with trichinosis, which is rubbish. At least in the US, there hasn't been a trich outbreak in decades, and you can actually see trich with the naked eye. If your pork is covered in swarming creepy-crawlies, throw it out and don't cook it at all. Trich is also killed at 137F. So if you're cooking pork loin or tenderloin, which does not benefit from long cooking the way that shoulder or belly does, cook it to 150 degrees and call it a day.

u/Littleknownfacts · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

>It's neither agreed upon (you have no evidence past a few people, a tiny % of poster here) nor specific enough. Too many vague definitions. Useless.

Useless for you. Not for the rest of us.

>1) First of all - PPD is here to discuss TBP vs. TRP. So it would make a little too much sense to use their definition.

No. It's here to discuss RP.

>2) OK - let's say I let that slide... who are you making this definition up for? Are you the next RP blogger guru? Even they can't figure this shit out.. see Rololololo's embarassement:

No. This has just been my observations and what model makes sense based on what everyone here says. I just put it together into words for a single post. I probably wasn't even the first one to see it in the model. But everyone throws out definitions they think works best, other people read them and add that information to the model that they use in their heads (or don't), eventually the good ideas are reconciled and the bad ideas are eliminated. Literally how this works.

>>"The author's most relied-upon term, "alpha", is not given any definition at all through the first twenty percent of the book, until he gets to a chapter in which he promises to address the definition of "alpha", but in which no such definition appears. (He spends the chapter -- and three more following it! -- talking about how hard the term is to define, without defining it.) "

Yes I read this paragraph the last four times you've posted it. I still don't care.
>No, you literally had no clue how it worked. You got it all backwards. Now you're flat out lying. You don't get to come back from that flop.

You left off a comment:

>You can't even figure out if beta is "something something" or "just bad." Come on. You don't speak for all participants here, while I can clearly see what they are saying. And it's all different.

I can for 100% certainly tell you that beta is not just bad.

I don't speak for the participants here. Their up votes speak for themselves. You see how my comment is way at the top of the list? That means I've got more upvotes than other people's definition. That means they like and agree with it.

>I mean your illustrious community!

It's going fairly well, despite this one obnoxious prick who drags up arguments from months ago as an attempt to ad hominem. You'd think if he really believed in his point he would just be able to argue within the confines of this debate and not drag in old arguments like a naggy house wife.

u/gasparddelanuit · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

> You always have a choice, unless you are literally being enslaved.
> If someone is married at 20, has a baby and is pregnant with the second one, and has no job of her own she really can't leave her husband easily.

If she’s married in the West she’ll be entitled to all kinds of provisioning in the event of a spilt, such as alimony, child support, assistance from the state etc. In any case, that’s not the man’s problem. You seem to be arguing on the belief that men should be looking out for women and not themselves. Men should look out for themselves first and foremost, just as women look out for themselves. No more pussy passes. No more Mr Nice Guy, to steal Robert Glover's [book]( "Title") title.

> So? Agreements under duress or ignorance are often ruled null and void in law.
> So the man agreeing to monogamy is an agreement under duress because of social pressures that favor monogamy, but you've also mentioned that a woman agreeing to her husband having a mistress is not an agreement under duress despite the fact that in the case we're talking about she has no other financial options to leave him, especially if they have children? That's just hypocritical.

Because of the artificial social pressures that unreasonably demand men’s fidelity, I say that the moral obligation for men to be faithful is weak, assuming one even care about this from a moral point of view. What a man does with that belief is up to him.

The difference is that a woman accepting her husband’s mistresses imposes no severe restrictions on her own conduct, as is the case for her husband when expected not to look at other women. Also, as I said before, women usually have the choice to leave if they are not happy.

> She could leave and did eventually
> exactly. I was talking about women who had no options to leave so this example isn't the same as the one I'm discussing.

You specifically referred to her, but the same options usually apply to other women, especially if men are stupid enough to marry them.

> In Continental Europe, no one explicitly says anything, but it is assumed that men of means will have mistresses in addition to wives.
> Women are also expected to have affairs in many parts of Continental Europe. As I said the culture there is different from the USA, their relationships are mostly presumed to be open relationships in both directions. I also think they don't vow to exclusivity in their marriages either.
> Those Parisian women, who would become my friends, didn't simply tolerate their husbands having affairs. They actually expected them to. Why not, when they were enjoying illicit sex themselves?

No, men and women are different. Men have more of a need for variety and alternative sexual outlets. Women don’t have this need anywhere near to the same extent and have no interest in other men if they are into their partner. If they have illicit affairs in these circumstances, it is usually because they want to get revenge on their partner, not because they hunger after such escapades naturally. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

> I mean, if you marry a rock star, it’s unlikely that you’re going to be the only woman he sleeps with for the rest of his life.
> If a guy marries a HB10 it's also unlikely that he will be the only guy she sleeps with for the rest of his life, but we still see guys complaining that their wives are having affairs (which they should, and they should also leave cheaters imo). It's almost like people are held to the promises they made in their wedding vows if they vowed to be in a monogamous relationship!

Not if the HB10 is still into her guy over that period. Of course, if he ceases to be attractive to her, she will be tempted to branch swing, but not while she is still attracted to him.

Male and female sexuality is different. Given this, the identical promises that they are held to in monogamous relationships are not equitable.

u/biblesjedi_mindtrick · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

> It's that I was sooo ashamed for fucking half the college frat and enjoying it,

Actually, it's men who fantasize about women fucking half the college, not women. Here's some neuroscientists who studied internet porn searches & studied female fantasies.

The researchers noted male erotic fantasies of becoming a woman, and fucking lots of men. Men pay to watch huge gang bangs. Women write erotic fantasies of having sex after proving "it's not just sex" to him.

>Wife: "Thank you for understanding my plight. It's not that I thought my husband was an unattractive beta who I married primarily for resources,

Of course the man should be ANGRY as hell if he is betrayed like that. However, day-in and day-out, what is the evidence she never desired him & was just "using him". Only a fool would throw out 7 years worth of data because of one thing that happened during school years. Any rational investigator would realize need for more proof. Something is wrong if you leap to the most horrifying conclusion, and stick to it regardless of other evidence.

u/pnadlerlaw · 35 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

Why do people rape?

  • (70-78% of all rapes) socially delayed persons seeking intimacy (not physical sexual pleasure). These rapists do not want to identify as a rapist. They usually ambush a victim, drug a victim, or otherwise incapacitate a victim. The “set-up” is premeditated and planned over a period of 3-6 months, as is the “exit.” These rapists usually have a conversation with the victim, asking if the victim is enjoying the act, apologizing, reassuring that they are not looking to hurt the victim. Child molesters fall within this category, using a family’s trust and the child’s inexperience and naïveté to both avoid detection, preserve some illusion of consensual intimacy, and feel as if they are not harming their victim.

  • people who feel powerless displacing their negative emotions onto weak and vulnerable victims by intentionally sexually violating the victim in order to feel powerful and make the victim feel powerless. Less common, but not exactly uncommon either. These rapists are out for vindication. These rapes are less premeditated, usually with a mere hours or at most a week of planning. The exit is not thoroughly planned, usually resulting in physical harm towards the victim (assault or death). The rapist is looking to exert his power over someone weak and powerless. These rapes usually do not involve a weapon or drugs. Physical force is used to force the victim into submission, often in excess of what is necessary. The rapists looks for symbolic sexual acts that represent power over the victim (e.g., anal).

  • (less than 1% of all rapes) sadists who derive pleasure from the victim’s pain, suffering, and psychological destruction. These rapes have the highest likelihood of resulting in death. Sadists look for egotistical, confident, self-assured and proud victims. The taller the victim, the harder she will fall, the sweeter the sadistic reward. Sadistic rapes share many commonalities with torture first degree murder, and may last for hours or days. Sadistic rapists are the most likely to become serial rapists. Rapists want to see their victims psychologically broken and feeling dehumanized. Victims are usually starved, dehydrated, and present physical trauma. Bodies are discarded symbolically in areas where one would discard garbage or objects of insignificant value.

    Most rapes are carried out without a weapon. The most common weapon used, when a weapon is involved, is a knife. Firearms are rarely used in the commission of a rape.

    Those are the FBI’s three archetypes for criminal profiles for sex criminals.
u/tidderfodnimpot · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

Why do people rape?

  • (70-78% of all rapes) socially delayed persons seeking intimacy (not physical sexual pleasure). These rapists do not want to identify as a rapist. They usually ambush a victim, drug a victim, or otherwise incapacitate a victim. The “set-up” is premeditated and planned over a period of 3-6 months, as is the “exit.” These rapists usually have a conversation with the victim, asking if the victim is enjoying the act, apologizing, reassuring that they are not looking to hurt the victim. Child molesters fall within this category, using a family’s trust and the child’s inexperience and naïveté to both avoid detection, preserve some illusion of consensual intimacy, and feel as if they are not harming their victim.

  • people who feel powerless displacing their negative emotions onto weak and vulnerable victims by intentionally sexually violating the victim in order to feel powerful and make the victim feel powerless. Less common, but not exactly uncommon either. These rapists are out for vindication. These rapes are less premeditated, usually with a mere hours or at most a week of planning. The exit is not thoroughly planned, usually resulting in physical harm towards the victim (assault or death). The rapist is looking to exert his power over someone weak and powerless. These rapes usually do not involve a weapon or drugs. Physical force is used to force the victim into submission, often in excess of what is necessary. The rapists looks for symbolic sexual acts that represent power over the victim (e.g., anal).

  • (less than 1% of all rapes) sadists who derive pleasure from the victim’s pain, suffering, and psychological destruction. These rapes have the highest likelihood of resulting in death. Sadists look for egotistical, confident, self-assured and proud victims. The taller the victim, the harder she will fall, the sweeter the sadistic reward. Sadistic rapes share many commonalities with torture first degree murder, and may last for hours or days. Sadistic rapists are the most likely to become serial rapists. Rapists want to see their victims psychologically broken and feeling dehumanized. Victims are usually starved, dehydrated, and present physical trauma. Bodies are discarded symbolically in areas where one would discard garbage or objects of insignificant value.

    Most rapes are carried out without a weapon. The most common weapon used, when a weapon is involved, is a knife. Firearms are rarely used in the commission of a rape.

    Those are the FBI’s three archetypes for criminal profiles for sex criminals.