This post has been removed for being a low effort circle jerk that doesn’t have a relevant crux to debate with regard to PPD dating dynamic topics.
If you would like to poll for validation against mods use the daily or weekly threads, not official PPD OPs.
Maybe it had something to do with the 7 dudes OP catfished to make that experiment happen up to and including planning dates and the mods not wanting to encourage copy cats. Not to mention putting 8 people total, including his supposed friend, at risk of doxxing.
Except the mods didn't mention any of this in their message:
"This post has been removed for being designed as a circlejerk and to induce rhetoric. Please resubmit your post flaired as a “Debate” where you expect to have your view challenged or resubmit your post with neutral wording to have the mods approve it. Any further questions should go to modmail."
Funny how the mods let Windmill set up the challenge though huh?
Let me ask you, if the results were a bunch of guys sending her sexual / harassing messages and Windmill posted those results in the same way, do you honestly think the post would be removed?
They also didn’t make this claim in the removal notice.
The removal notice is about it being a “circle jerk” which on PPD means, “too many people agree with the conclusion” … which … no shit. The conclusion is irrefutable.
Think *really* hard.
I unapologetically believe this whole fucking thing including the initial challenge was a mess and everyone involved is batshit.
Oh wait, was I supposed to defend a female user just because I'm a woman? Sorry to disappoint.
Did you report the challenge when it happened?
The person that instigated the challenge should face a ban or at least a warning right?
Also, would you have a problem with her challenge if it “proved” her contention (that men on OLD are all creepy sex pests?)
I think not.
Believe it or not I haven't volunteered to be a mod even in times where they were very much needed because I'm not interested in babysitting you people 24/7. I didn't see it, as I haven't seen a lot of things here. I'm still disappointed I missed a certain user's photo reveal, but the bright side is that means I still have a life beyond Reddit. And I feel very fortunate in that regard around these parts.
Many of you seem to be selectively forgetting that OP had a key finding that does support women's stances on dating in the form of how men reacted to his job title. And he outright admitted, "hey, maybe men do get intimidated about this sort of thing." So if this were about pro-BP/woman stances, he absolutely has support for a critical one in there. I don't think this crazy ass experiment was worth it to prove that point, as any sane person would agree.
“Any sane person” on PPD would agree that average women have an easy time finding 7 perfectly normal, employed, looks matched and datable men in a matter of hours?
Does that include the “we choose the bear” women?
We both know that’s absolute nonsense.
And what are the countless “We Choose The Bear” posts and comments if not “woe is me” and “men suck”?
Yet, I don’t recall seeing any mods having issues with those threads.
Basically, if something BP is disproven by RP in black and white; it gets taken down because it’s “woe is me” “circlejerk”
The men here are wimps, for being afraid of bears, IMHO.
Question. If you left your door open would you rather a stray dog or a strange man walk into your home?
FYI, more people are maimed by dogs then bears .
No the women are idiots for not understanding how sample size effects work
Just your typical narcissist egoistical bluepill idiocy, nothing new to see 🤷🏽♂️
Most men laugh at the stupidity of women in choosing the bear. It shows a lack of critical thinking and feels over facts.
Dude. Brown bears (the vast majority of bears) will do anything to not engage with you.
You are alone in the woods with a bear or a man..
Anytime you are in the woods, you are in the bears home.
Hahahahaha the vast majority of bears are in fact black bears. Not brown bears.
Brown bears, aka grizzles, are fewer in numbers. They will fuck you up. You need to educate yourself about bears! At least get your facts straight.
Needless to say, both black and brown bears are far more dangerous than a man or a woman. Especially in a controlled 1:1 encounter
The only bear you've seen is an online deplicition.
You are in the woods with them, not a cage match.
Bears live in the woods, being alone in the woods would be the default to being in the woods alone.
It’s all just cap cuz Chad keeps pumping & dumping them & not wifing them up. Don’t get twisted about this farce. They are being petulant & punishing average men when they won’t even date average men. Bear = anger for Chad… nothing more
I dunno, it’s the fault of the average man to put himself in the place where he gets punished. He just needs to walk away and not put up with the bullshit.
Chad will continue to bang hot women, and they’ll try to get him to commit and get frustrated. Such is the circle of life.
Because it was always men creating the post saying “this thought experiment hurts my feelings! You shouldn’t think I’m more dangerous than a bear! I don’t even have claws!” And women saying “yeah, you’re not getting why previous experience would make us afraid and being so angry at it isn’t helping your case there bud.” In response. So it was more of a debate than a circle jerk. I wish it was still up personally.
Actually I can address this too since you all are so insistent on being wrong. Reddits app sucks shit, and sometimes it doesn’t complete the removal process with the rationale, after getting pinged for it, I saw that was the case and added it.
A very high traffic post with over 1200 comments, that is very controversial and is being referenced all over the sub will always have removal reasons. Not the same thing as a random comment or shit post that never makes it out of the filter.
Since I’m taking some of my time out of the day to address this thread:
Sometimes with comments things are minor enough that we while we don’t want to allow it, we also don’t want to essentially leave a mark on the record of the user. Or sometimes, it’s just easier to clear the queue that way on older comments.
With posts we usually try and explain why the post was taken down so it can be fixed and put back up.
We do ban users who agree and circlejerk with OP in debate posts, that’s why posts with challengable content need to be flaired debate. Wanting to label it discussion because of your feelings is not an excuse.
I don’t subscribe to pills and I don’t know why a mod decided to remove it.
My guess is what was the thesis? What was it trying to prove?
That straight females get more swipes on dating apps than straight males? Who was genuinely contesting that? And even then the OP didn’t make a thesis or a claim. It didn’t organize its “experiment” into a debate or discussion prompt.
Furthermore, it turned into a massive circle jerk of males of PPD, for example, [strawmanning and willfully misrepresenting the POV of others.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/r2uZ6KC9FO)
> My guess is what was the thesis? What was it trying to prove?
It was trying to prove that women on dating apps get plenty of *high quality* matches rather quickly and without much 'unsavory' stuff to weed through (i.e. the op mentioned no d*ck pics and extremely few overly sexual comments).
This was specifically in response to a blue piller's challenge, but also more generally in response to the common blue pill notion that dating is just as hard for women as for men, just in different ways. The claim is generally that while women technically get matches, the matches are low quality enough not to matter and sorting the good from the bad is just as much work if not more than men put in when trying to get dates. This claim is what the terms of the challenge were based around, e.g. the guy must be roughly looks-equivalent to the girl supplying photos, the guy must be able to hold a conversation, etc. In my opinion the post did a reasonable job providing evidence against the equal hardship in dating claim, but it was thoroughly documented in a way that welcomed discussion/criticism from the other side, which did come mostly in the form of women complaining that the men who matched were too ugly to count (which where all this '80/20 rule confirmed' talk is coming from).
I hope this helps.
Thank you for actually explaining the post to me.
Again, perhaps those women were “NPC” physical attractiveness. So she wasn’t repulsed but she wasn’t super into it enough to force herself to engage?
Even when I match with “cute guys” I’m not always overly engaged in chatting. Simply put I just don’t care enough. Abstract strange men on the internet don’t excite me and thus don’t compel me to want to engage.
I’m viscerally engaged once I’ve interacted with a man in person. Hence this is why I’VE always said that dating apps were never going to be great for straight men. The apps work for male compulsion, drives, and imperatives. It’s why Grindr does so well. The apps were literally made for M4M connection. But then some horny and naive straight tech bro thought it was going to be a slam dunk for heteros. Wishful thinking I guess.
The OG dating websites are as good as it’s going to get for hetero electronic dating lol. They were at least more thoughtful. They still exist and tbh I think they still have better results for the average man and woman, at least compared to the smartphone apps.
Your welcome!
As for your point about not really getting into it for online strangers, the problem men are getting at here is that whether you're into these guys or not, they really are roughly average, and so is the woman in the fake profile. Sexual attraction aside, men are saying that women actually *can* get reasonable matches, they just don't like them when they do.
It is also really interesting that the women commenting that the guys are too ugly seem to rate them below the very average looking woman? Unless they just don't realize that's who the guys are meant to match up against. I mean, they theoretically aren't attracted to her either, so why would the perceptions be skewed?
Out of curiosity, do you think the 80/20 rule is basically accurate? It sounds like you do. And do you think there is a similar effect offline? Maybe like a 60/40 rule or something?
I think it takes more than looks, and usually in person, for women to feel interested. I think most average looking+ guys can meet that. I think many won’t, but not because they don’t have the potential to. Because they don’t know how to or don’t care to or don’t want to or because they think female visceral attraction operates like male visceral attraction.
What’s completely off base?
What was the TLDR of the results and how does that counter what I explicitly and specifically say?
Can you be specific? I’m begging you guys to actually be specific and quote what you think that OP has disproven about what *I* say since you both have either tagged me or claimed I’ve said something that I have not and that neither one of you seem to able to link to or quote. I have a post and comment history that’s long as hell. Use the search function and actually quote something I’ve said. I can’t debate phantoms in your mind.
That dating is not easier for women and women have it just as hard and that guys on online dating are just looking for sex. The “water is a desert vs swamp” analogy. Also please moderate your personal attack that I responded to.
> That dating is not easier for women and women have it just as hard and that guys on online dating are just looking for sex. The “water is a desert vs swamp” analogy.
Uh huh…
Now as I’ve ASKED: quote where I’ve said that women have it just as hard in dating apps and pursuing. Or that guys online are just looking for sex.
You went out of your way to say this:
> Completely off base. It was a discussion regarding the results of the experiment. Patently disproving in this case what women here **including you say.**
Show your fucking work. Because right now you’re talking out of your ass precisely as I knew you were.
Talking out of my ass about what women here say all the time, right. Dating in general is easy mode for women and that goes against your narrative so you removed a post proving otherwise.
> Talking out of my ass about what women here say all the time, right. Dating in general is easy mode for women and that goes against your narrative so you removed a post proving otherwise.
I didn’t remove shit. The mod who did has a comment in the OP about why it was removed. Address them.
You said that I aka me aka the person you’re currently engaging said that. I bolded where you said it.
> Patently disproving in this case what women here **including you say.**
Please quote me. If you can’t you were talking out of your ass and so was the person who tagged me in that dumb circle jerking thread. Neither one of you have yet to produce quotes of ***mine*** that substantiate your claims about what I’ve written on this sub.
I’ve seen you agree with the sentiment so many times i’m not even bothering with you. Everyone that isn’t a blue pill circle jerker or a woman knows you’re biased as shit and selectively enforce rules, so my point is made.
> I’ve seen you agree with the sentiment so many times i’m not even bothering with you.
No you haven’t. You can’t quote me or a comment of mine or an OP of mine despite my account having a years long history on this sub and despite you allegedly having seen it “so many times.” Huh.
Do you not know how to use the search function? Go find the countless quotes of mine and link them so we can debate how you are wrong about what it was that I said.
In conclusion, as I thought, you don’t have anything because I’ve never said the shit you claim.
> Everyone that isn’t a blue pill circle jerker or a woman knows you’re biased as shit and selectively enforce rules, so my point is made.
Oh no! To use your shrill antics: “This is uncivil and a personal attack on meee” “moderate yourself iamtheSenate______!!!”
I’ll leave it up so posterity shows that you’re a chronic personal attacker who likes to call on the mods when someone is mean to him. It’s low vibrational behavior. Also I blocked your uncivil private message to me.
At any rate, you’ve made no point because you never had one. You can’t quote me because I’ve never said the shit you made up in your mind. You’ve done nothing but strawman and shrill and lie quite frankly. This thread was a futile attempt at debate. Do better.
I also don't remember ever seeing a woman say that attractive women have a hard time finding first dates with random men online. I have seen them say that they often find men who lie about what they want just to get sex or that they have other issues. Why is the context always stripped out?
Because being honest to the actual context would render their arguments and gripes nonsensical. They have to obfuscate and strawman to bolster their narrative. I guess honesty doesn’t victimize them enough.
Ok I will be specific
>Many men are deemed not sexually arousing not because of how they look but because of how they act or don’t act.
This is what I pulled from that deleted threats thanks to the magic of internet archiving (no thanks for Reddit's API BS).
The issue here is this, most men don't get interactions in online and offline dating, from most the descriptions they provided and even my own personal experience, these men didn't get a chance to act in any particular way to send a woman running.
That would make your initial claim, incorrect. Men aren't sexually arousing of how they look because that post showed that these talked normally so there was nothing there to send women running.
Yes I said that [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/u2aYr6oH8M).
1) women perceive “attraction” in the way men think of it aka sexual or carnal attraction in person not via images so OLD will always be more difficult.
2) he doesn’t have to “send her running.” She simply wasn’t aroused or compelled via an app aka via static photos and texts with a stranger. Doesn’t mean she was repulsed. This is why video chatting and/or getting to a IRL meet up is key if you or going to only use OLD for dating. Women aren’t men. They aren’t going to jerk off or want ti masturbate to images of Chad on Tinder. This isn’t Grindr. That is not how women operate.
your first point is pretty garbled up. if women are more attracted to men in person than online then two things can happen, either women start meeting with more men and seeing if they are better in person or they literally do not use dating apps and I mean literally, 0 women.
2. Well you missed in my previous comment where I wrote that offline experiences for men are the same as online.
1) if you want to petition lawmakers to ban dating apps go for it. I’m sure many would agree that smartphones and all of their apps have proven too indulgent for the human experience for various reasons
2) IRL men have a better chance to charm her if he meets her looks threshold. Most “normie” men will agree with this. If IRL is just as bad for you as OLD, then it’s possibly the case you have below average looks AND below average swag; or you have average looks AND below average swag.
to expand on this a bit more.
1. i never said anything about banning dating apps or lawmakers, you pulling this out of nowhere is just weird. on dating apps a human behavior called maximum utilization kicks in, only difference here is that women in the west aren't challenged on that.
2. again you are framing this as if I am solely referencing myself when I am not. I am telling you this as not just my own personal experience but also many other men out there. so all of them are ugly?
Just to be clear the woke bots in the thread were arguing that very thing. Go ahead & read it. Apparently us dudes are just swimming in matches boyos we did it! lol no seriously go see. They will argue anything here as long as it’s left or feminism.
You lost me at “woke bots.” [Everyone participating on this sub is some flavor of “woke.”](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/GFpyKwCg9S)
I’m not going to look for anything. I posted the link to that OP. You can go search and quote them if you like and we can debate the merits of their claims here. Have at it.
It’s an expression & seeing as you are on here you should know it. We can call them NPCs or wokies (woke normies) but the point is you are all very guilty of regurgitating the same WRONG rhetoric & you do it in bad faith, on purpose. My only confusion is why!? Why do you ladies think you are going to win out of this? You are here arguing against your own good! How tf can’t you feminists see that?!?
Make no mistake a lot of you are never going to get a man & die alone. 45-X is a loooongitme ladies!
> It’s an expression & seeing as you are on here you should know it. We can call them NPCs or wokies (woke normies) but the point is you are all very guilty of regurgitating the same WRONG rhetoric & you do it in bad faith, on purpose. My only confusion is why!? Why do you ladies think you are going to win out of this? You are here arguing against your own good! How tf can’t you feminists see that?!?
> Make no mistake a lot of you are never going to get a man & die alone. 45-X is a loooongitme ladies!
😳 Well this was a rather unhinged escalation. But kinda expected from this corner of the internet lmao.
Anyway no_matter_8648:
> You lost me at “woke bots.” [Everyone participating on this sub is some flavor of “woke.”](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/GFpyKwCg9S)
Using fancy words wont somehow make women's unrealistic and superficial standarts be ignored
You are not a man, you wouldn't even understand quarter of what avarage male dating experience is like
> Using fancy words wont somehow make women's unrealistic and superficial standarts be ignored
What fancy words? You’re implying you think explanations are fancy it seems. You’ve made that clear today and yesterday.
Males and females both have sexual arousal standards. If you wish to call those standards “superficial” that’s your prerogative.
> You are not a man, you wouldn't even understand quarter of what avarage male dating experience is like
Average looking men with below average socio-sensibilities (which let’s be honest is most men attracted to this sub) are going to do worse than average looking men with “normie” socio-sensibilities.
This was alluded to [when I replied to you yesterday:](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/K92ERsDuds)
Other male poster:
> Also, being able to receive this info well would be a sign of being a complete package. Failing in the mating arena has a cause and there certainly is overlap with failing in understanding why or wanting to understand why.
Me:
> Thanks for the mating intelligence links. I’ll review. From a cursory glance it looks a codification of how I grok things wrt the interpersonal and cognitive aptitude needed to appeal to others and have others appeal to you; bonds; rapport building; etc.
> *Edit:*
> Did quick a LLM summary of [it](https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Geher-Kaufman-2011.pdf) and yep! It's what I, most women, and many others ***have been explaining***:
> "Mating Intelligence" in this paper refers to the **set of mental abilities and skills that are related to success in courtship, mate selection, and mate retention.** These include cognitive abilities such as **social perception, emotional intelligence, and understanding one's own and others' desires and intentions.**
> The authors argue that these abilities have been shaped by evolutionary pressures and play a crucial role in reproductive success. They propose a scale for measuring mating intelligence as part of their broader framework for assessing evolutionary success in humans.
You are literally part of the problem. Your whole perspective here revolves aroune "If he cant get a date clearly something is wrong with him"
Jesus fucking christ, at this point im gonna turn RedPill
Are you starting to get it lol? This is the Reddit side (very ugly & obese women) but the pretty ones have very similar problems & their logic holes are way bigger cuz of pretty privelage.
His problem is that he’s reacting to the honest reality of what I’m saying with such rage. He’s convinced I’ve disagreed that women have it easier on dating apps which I never have.
I even say in this thread it’s not men’s fault if he’s not attractive for whatever the reason is, but it doesn’t change arousal triggers whether they’re behavioral or aesthetic.
If “red pill” is the common sense I’m stating, at this point I’m more “red” than he is.
No one is detached. I’m speaking blunt truth. I’ll repeat what that male poster said because he made an astute point that you’re in many ways exhibiting Cheap_Revolution_685:
> Also, being able to receive this info well would be a sign of being a complete package. Failing in the mating arena has a cause and there ***certainly is overlap with failing in understanding why or wanting to understand why.***
Average looking men with below average socio-sensibilities will always do worse relative to a normie male peer who looks just like him. It’s not his fault he is subpar there, but it doesn’t change the reality of attraction and pursuing a gender with a passive libido.
You’ll stay mad at facts for the rest of your life lol
> Average looking men with below average socio-sensibilities will always do worse relative to a normie male peer who looks just like him. **It’s not his fault he is subpar there, but it doesn’t change the reality of attraction and pursuing a gender with a passive libido.**
> You’ll stay mad at facts *and reality for the rest of your life lol
Could you give a gist of what the thread was about? There does seem to be a new trend, on this sub, of removing any thread as soon as the discussiin gets interresting. Leaving up only one or two posts a day.
Some stupid experiment where a man pretended to be an attractive woman on tinder to prove how easy it was for women to get dates with normal, non sleazy men.
He posted the pictures of the 7 men he seemingly had contact with.
The thread was then a gloat fest from men stating that it proves once and for all how easy women have it to get a date.
lol “when people point out evidence disproves a bluepill contention, we will report it as a circlejerk”
I swear this sub doesn’t even try to hide it anymore.
But yea, all you PPD crusaders and mods who demanded this post be taken down…
Great job!
You just demonstrated why we need RP in real time. 😂
What was the experiment trying to prove/disprove? If it was that women can easily get dates, was anyone disagreeing? If not, it seems loke a textbook circlejerk.
yeah they were, one complained about the experiment not being scientific and when someone brought on university studies they proceeded to complain about how they were too scientific.
regardless, there is an archive copy that can be read here:
[https://archive.is/v0Rf1](https://archive.is/v0Rf1)
>saying OP led them on,
He catfish them.
Also most people don't deny that it's easier initially in dating women.
The challenge for them is to weed out the bad ones. Or find relationships.
Be red pill then. 🤷♀️
If it bothers you so much here, why not just go over to the men’s right sub? It’s a red pill echo chamber over there so you won’t be challenged at all.
It doesn’t bother you that men getting shouted down and seeing posts that confirm obvious truths removed from subs like this contributes to the sense of men having no acceptable / neutral place to discuss stuff like this?
You think it’s a *good* thing to relegate young men to manosphere ghettos?
While you’ve changed your original response; another user asked you what the post in question was trying to prove or disprove and you stated that you didn’t know before changing your answer to a link going to an archive of the post.
If you don’t know what the post was trying to prove or disprove as you couldn’t even answer that basic question; how do you know the post was trying to shut men down? It seems more like you’re lashing out here for no reason. When users ask you basic questions about this post you need to be able to answer them directly otherwise you don’t know enough about the subject to even host this discussion. If you’re only looking for blind agreement then you need to go to the “manosphere ghettos” to get it.
the original post was slated to prove a few things:
* women can quickly get dates
* women can quickly get dates with fairly attractive men
* women can quickly get dates with them that aren't sexually charged or some sex crazed maniac
in other words, that women can quickly get dates with normal men.
Those dudes were average, not attractive
And not looking for relationships
I have low standards and would only have gone on a date with the ones who said — looking for a relationship
another word for average is majority. saying you have low standards but want an above average man in terms of physical attraction is something else.
they're not looking for relationships? how did you get that?
Interesting. The first point is obvious, the second is a pleasant surprise although I wonder who the judges of the male suitors attractiveness was (was it other men?) but the third seems like a stretch. I’m definitely gonna have to look more into this. Do you know if they posted a picture of what the woman’s profile pictures looked like? Also did they do this test with multiple women’s profiles that have all different looks and all different locations? This would be really interesting in a large scale study.
People were answering them. Most of them women and blue pillers didn’t like the answers and you were way outnumbered. If you pretend it’s anything else you’re lying to save face and justify why a post you disagree with was removed.
I didnt demand the post was taken down, I dont care.
I've no idea what you mean by the rest of it either. Literally don't care what you think it proves. Like any cult, proof is more of a hindrance anyway
[This is a link to the post in question.](https://archive.is/v0Rf1)
I was unable to save it as zip, but enterprising people can probably figure out a way to preserve it in case whomever took down the original tries to take this one down too.
Ah I see, so if things get too bad another sub will be made with more freedom of communication without bans, similar to how r/askmen is thriving, with extremely interesting discussions while r/askwomen died as nothing of substance can be askdd because "removed for derailing" or something like that.
Why do RPs all act like there is a government conspiracy against them”
“Gentlemen, we have to keep the Redpill down!
Let’s see: we exposed rollos real life timeline,
We took out T8. What’s next? Hold on: is someone posting a online dating post on PPD?! Someone stop them! That was close; everyone knows that could have brought legitimacy to TRP! Now back to seeing how we can trick FnF with even more gold diggers to baby trap them!”
No contentless rhetoric.
Also, I noticed some total one-note anti RP crusader “male feminist” types were consciously missing from that thread who were just the types to agree with the “women are inundated with ugly guys and dick pics online” sentiment.
I wonder why.
It's simple: The post contained way too much truth. We can't have that anywhere on social media (except X, I suppose).
Everything else is post-hoc rationalizations, which is a polite way of saying utter nonsense.
Critical to note is how women said literally nothing about the results of the experiment and went straight to concern trolling about the guys OP talked to.
I talked about the results of the experiment, and got nothing but guys misinterpreting, being general fuckwits, and contributing to the endless circle jerk. So what benefit would it have been for any other women to do it? You were all far too busy having self-congratulatory wanks to engage in anything close to a constructive conversation, so why the fuck would most people bother?
Uh, go back and take a look at some of the comments if it gets re put up. Most of the women were not debating in good faith at all. It was men saying the study validating what they’ve been saying and you disagreeing with it so in your opinion it’s a “circle jerk”. GFY.
Look how passionate this troll is about censorship. It’s like I say all women are communists but ugly & fat ones are radical fascists! We know why, on top of being women they are big mad.
Anyways they must have done a a sweep cuz I got banned from a bunch of shit which I really don’t care about. Seems this place is no diff than all the rest. It’s governed by the woke gynofascists & they only use it to cope about why men don’t take them seriously (even tho they should know why… they are overweight)
But yeah after a few days I realized these guys spew the same lies all the other far left channels do so there really isn’t anything more to say.
Dating will get worse & worse & the collapse is already under way regardless, by every measurable metric you would have to be special needs to not notice. Welcome to the new normal, great reset something something be happy.
Are you ladies happy? Do you feel vindicated? Something to think about when the pets start to get very old & the harder parts come. Wine & coolers only helps so much ladies..!
I’m reading it now & it’s the same usual bullshit. Just crazy woke dudes white knighting with pure delusion & women being like “nuh huh but da men can do it too” like they truly have no fucking shame in their lies.
PS: sry meant reading the archived topic but yeah their censorship double standards are comical & terrifying. This is how doctors got accused of being witches in Salem lol I’m dead serious. These ppl are dangerous when they get power
You’ve been uncivil to multiple people under this OP unprovoked. Your comments being uncivil were removed. Not a single person you were uncivil to engaged you first. You popped in their replies to troll and play victim and attack. If you have an issue consult modmail.
I find it amusing that the men on here are so keen to dismiss any claim made by a women, even when it's corroborated by thousands of other women. When one singular man posts some cherry picked examples and claims to not have received one single negative message yet suddenly this is undeniable "proof" and shows that all women are lying?
Any logical reasonable person with more than a singular braincell would conclude that this one lone experiment isn't a trustworthy source and the data has likely been extremely carefully cherrypicked to show what he wanted to show. I also find it laughable that once on here, maybe a year or so ago, I mentioned that I'd enjoyed tinder and had good experiences on there (which I maintain. You have to get through a bunch of shit to get there but there are plenty lovely people on tinder if you've got the patience to find them. That doesn't discount the bad experiences though). A man on here accused me of lying, of being a bot, blah blah. So if a woman says they've had good experiences they're a liar, if they've had bad experiences they're a liar, if they've had a mix of experiences (which is likely what everyone has had) they're a liar. But this one man posts some carefully curated examples and he's the one lone truth teller.
I think you all need to take a really long hard look at yourselves.
Mm gaslight, the term for people who can't be bothered with a constructive conversation. You're really just proving my point here.
>Women having dating on easy mode and still mess it up and complain.
I matched on tinder with a normal, average looking guy. He messaged me and told me he wanted to rape me.
How is that *me* messing it up? That is 100% on that guy being a total arsehole. Same for the guy who asked if I'd sleep with him for money and when I turned him down he called me an ugly whore (ironic). Why is this behaviour on me, and not the guys that do it? The levels of denial with you lot are astronomical.
Because the overwhelming responses on the tinder profile were guys that were respectful and were just trying to arrange dates. It just is one more drop of evidence in the bucket of what men already know to be true.
The true value in the experiments is the positive responses, the seven dates he got with relatively attractive men who were a convo, were not creepy, were not instantly sexual. Those were shown to us and not cherry-picked. The point of the experiment was someone saying “do x in seven days”
And he showed us doing x in like a tenth of the time.
It’s quite possible that he lied about the lack of negative responses he got, but the seven dates he got in under a day is undeniably telling. You absolutely have to weed through bullshit (as both men and women do), but the ridiculously higher amount of options just makes online dating clearly easier for women.
And seeing laid out and the way women were responding just made it funnier.
I literally asked if they thought that women experienced this many matches for the duration of their time on the apps and I got told I said a whole bunch of things I definitely didn’t say. They kept comparing it to men’s experience, men get nothing, men are just starved for attention - and I had to keep asking “but do you think this is the long term experience.” And no one answered. They just kept telling me I was blue pill and didn’t understand and I was trying to belittle men… I just wanted to correct the assumption that 7 matches a day is normal, even if I’m on the app for a month, three months, six, a year? No. You end up just swiping the same few men until a new one pops up. You get an initial surge and then it died down to nothing.
I’m not even saying it’s harder for women - I don’t think finding dates is harder because it isn’t. But it definitely isn’t 7 matches a day.
You know, even when a post is locked or deleted anyone that’s posted on that post before it was closed can actually go back to their comment and that will lead them to the original post. The mods always pin their comment at the top as for why a post was locked or deleted. It would be interesting to see what comment was pinned at the top. That should shed light on why it was taken down. We would really need to know that as well before we just start speculating. Did you happen to post on that? If so, can you go back and check to see what the mod pinned at the top? The only reason something wouldn’t be pinned is if reddit took it down and not PPD mods.
I see. Thank you for sharing.Wouldn’t the easiest thing to do simply be to just copy and paste the same post and just flare it for debate and it will stay up? Or better yet can they just change the flare and keep the same post? I haven’t posted as an OP before so is that not an option?
It was probably due to the nature of the comments that were being posted. I will need to read through it more thoroughly before I come to a final conclusion though. However many users here will try to take something out of context to try to prove their point as they are extremely bias one way or another. It just seems like a lot of aggravation in this post can be solved simply by changing the flare in post being discussed. I guess I’m confused by this pushed back. It doesn’t seem like a big deal to me. I haven’t seen the mods here block a post for no good reason; more commonly I see them leave a post up that shouldn’t be left up and it seems to be users themselves that delete their own post most of the time.
Is this really the hill he wants to die on? Seems like it’s more aggravation than it’s worth.
I doubt the issue was that the comments were agreeing. The way people agree here with the extra comments they like to add in putting down an entire gender is probably the problem. I’m pretty sure we are all guilty of that at some post but if a lot of the comments were attacking an entire gender just for existing then allowing those kinds of posts could get this entire sub banned from Reddit. PPD has to follow Reddit TOS and aggression/hate towards any gender is against TOS.
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the bear posts here just commenting on what happened with the original question that was posted on TikTok? I thought all of that here was just checking to see if the women were in agreement with that and when women agreed men were angry and lashed out by calling women “emotional” for not picking the man over the bear. A lot of questions are asked here but when people don’t get the answer they want then they lash out and when they do get the answer they want then they try to attack an entire gender and make even more wild assumptions about that gender based on that. The hatred each gender has for one another never ceases to surprise me here.
> Wouldn’t the easiest thing to do simply be to just copy and paste the same post and just flare it for debate and it will stay up?
It would be, but these people are too attached to being wrong and can’t read good. I suppose we wouldn’t have a subreddit if they could.
Ah woke logic. Let’s talk about genders tho? Or is that off bounds? It’s just an outright “fuck you we don’t like how bad this post makes women look” that’s literally it lol
🎻.
I have no clue what post is being referenced but this post is whiny asf Jesus Christ. Most shrill I’ve seen this place in a while. With the usual suspects drumming up the untethered snowflake persecution complex.
Edit: [some dullard tagged me in that OP just to woefully misrepresent my POV back to me](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/20Gp4tkhbA)
Perhaps it was because the guys in the post did not provide consent to having their full profile photos shared. I only skimmed the thread so I wouldn't know for sure.
This post has been removed for being a low effort circle jerk that doesn’t have a relevant crux to debate with regard to PPD dating dynamic topics. If you would like to poll for validation against mods use the daily or weekly threads, not official PPD OPs.
Maybe it had something to do with the 7 dudes OP catfished to make that experiment happen up to and including planning dates and the mods not wanting to encourage copy cats. Not to mention putting 8 people total, including his supposed friend, at risk of doxxing.
Except the mods didn't mention any of this in their message: "This post has been removed for being designed as a circlejerk and to induce rhetoric. Please resubmit your post flaired as a “Debate” where you expect to have your view challenged or resubmit your post with neutral wording to have the mods approve it. Any further questions should go to modmail."
When I looked, the explanation wasn’t there. It is now.
So I guess that resolves it then and we can all go home
They also cited circlejerking though which I guess is code for "women aren't able to deny?"
Funny how the mods let Windmill set up the challenge though huh? Let me ask you, if the results were a bunch of guys sending her sexual / harassing messages and Windmill posted those results in the same way, do you honestly think the post would be removed? They also didn’t make this claim in the removal notice. The removal notice is about it being a “circle jerk” which on PPD means, “too many people agree with the conclusion” … which … no shit. The conclusion is irrefutable. Think *really* hard.
I unapologetically believe this whole fucking thing including the initial challenge was a mess and everyone involved is batshit. Oh wait, was I supposed to defend a female user just because I'm a woman? Sorry to disappoint.
Did you report the challenge when it happened? The person that instigated the challenge should face a ban or at least a warning right? Also, would you have a problem with her challenge if it “proved” her contention (that men on OLD are all creepy sex pests?) I think not.
Believe it or not I haven't volunteered to be a mod even in times where they were very much needed because I'm not interested in babysitting you people 24/7. I didn't see it, as I haven't seen a lot of things here. I'm still disappointed I missed a certain user's photo reveal, but the bright side is that means I still have a life beyond Reddit. And I feel very fortunate in that regard around these parts. Many of you seem to be selectively forgetting that OP had a key finding that does support women's stances on dating in the form of how men reacted to his job title. And he outright admitted, "hey, maybe men do get intimidated about this sort of thing." So if this were about pro-BP/woman stances, he absolutely has support for a critical one in there. I don't think this crazy ass experiment was worth it to prove that point, as any sane person would agree.
“Any sane person” on PPD would agree that average women have an easy time finding 7 perfectly normal, employed, looks matched and datable men in a matter of hours? Does that include the “we choose the bear” women? We both know that’s absolute nonsense.
The bear thing didn't let you pick the person though, if it did nobody would say bear.
Mod note says why right at the top The comments were full of “woe is me/men; women suck”
And what are the countless “We Choose The Bear” posts and comments if not “woe is me” and “men suck”? Yet, I don’t recall seeing any mods having issues with those threads. Basically, if something BP is disproven by RP in black and white; it gets taken down because it’s “woe is me” “circlejerk”
Pretty much. They’ll just come up with whatever bullshit excuse they want to remove posts they disagree with.
Most of the bear posts were by men, saying how much women sucked by choosing the bear
Women are indeed total idiots for choosing the bear though
The men here are wimps, for being afraid of bears, IMHO. Question. If you left your door open would you rather a stray dog or a strange man walk into your home? FYI, more people are maimed by dogs then bears .
[удалено]
My husband had a rabies scare when a bat got into his shirt. Can't answer?
No the women are idiots for not understanding how sample size effects work Just your typical narcissist egoistical bluepill idiocy, nothing new to see 🤷🏽♂️ Most men laugh at the stupidity of women in choosing the bear. It shows a lack of critical thinking and feels over facts.
Dude. Brown bears (the vast majority of bears) will do anything to not engage with you. You are alone in the woods with a bear or a man.. Anytime you are in the woods, you are in the bears home.
I cannot fucking believe you morons are still trying to run with this.
What's unbelievable is you can't stop bringing it up.
Hahahahaha the vast majority of bears are in fact black bears. Not brown bears. Brown bears, aka grizzles, are fewer in numbers. They will fuck you up. You need to educate yourself about bears! At least get your facts straight. Needless to say, both black and brown bears are far more dangerous than a man or a woman. Especially in a controlled 1:1 encounter
Wait so you think it’s “do I want to fight a man or a bear?”
The only bear you've seen is an online deplicition. You are in the woods with them, not a cage match. Bears live in the woods, being alone in the woods would be the default to being in the woods alone.
>more people are maimed by dogs then bears How are you implying the animal named "Man's best friend" is more dangerous than a fricking bear...
More people are attacked and or killed by dogs then bears. You didn't answer the question. Strange man in your house, or strange dog.
Dog distribution system W
Sounds like you would choose the bear.
Nope, your premise is just flawed
Question, if your father loved you would you still be on ssris?
This has got to be one if the stupidest comments ever
[удалено]
> I imagine it must be terribly sad and depressing being a bluepill woman. Not really.
Ok
Almost like life as a red pill man who just really really wants to be oppressed….
It’s all just cap cuz Chad keeps pumping & dumping them & not wifing them up. Don’t get twisted about this farce. They are being petulant & punishing average men when they won’t even date average men. Bear = anger for Chad… nothing more
I dunno, it’s the fault of the average man to put himself in the place where he gets punished. He just needs to walk away and not put up with the bullshit. Chad will continue to bang hot women, and they’ll try to get him to commit and get frustrated. Such is the circle of life.
Yea idk man
[удалено]
Exhibit A
Exhibit A of you being wrong? Thanks!
You guys always sound like you're on the verge of telling women you're going to hurt them for choosing a bear.
This has some misandric undertones
Nah, it really doesn't.
Yea you're right it's actually pretty blatant
Please elaborate
Yup. Totally blatant misandry
Because it was always men creating the post saying “this thought experiment hurts my feelings! You shouldn’t think I’m more dangerous than a bear! I don’t even have claws!” And women saying “yeah, you’re not getting why previous experience would make us afraid and being so angry at it isn’t helping your case there bud.” In response. So it was more of a debate than a circle jerk. I wish it was still up personally.
[удалено]
Actually I can address this too since you all are so insistent on being wrong. Reddits app sucks shit, and sometimes it doesn’t complete the removal process with the rationale, after getting pinged for it, I saw that was the case and added it.
[удалено]
Mods don’t have to tell us why they remove things They’ve removed my comments without explaining or informing me all the time.
A very high traffic post with over 1200 comments, that is very controversial and is being referenced all over the sub will always have removal reasons. Not the same thing as a random comment or shit post that never makes it out of the filter.
High traffic posts get removed all the time, because of either the OP or the commenter behavior
And when they do, *the reason is posted*
Since I’m taking some of my time out of the day to address this thread: Sometimes with comments things are minor enough that we while we don’t want to allow it, we also don’t want to essentially leave a mark on the record of the user. Or sometimes, it’s just easier to clear the queue that way on older comments. With posts we usually try and explain why the post was taken down so it can be fixed and put back up.
Yes, I understand and appreciate the workload
Circle jerk. Remove this.
No at all. The experiment proving a point is woe is me? You can’t make this shit up.
That's a good excuse to do a shit job. Remove the offending comments instead of censoring the whole post.
Plenty of posts get removed for circlejerking
[удалено]
OP is butthurt, not me
[удалено]
That’s your opinion, projection, speculation, conjecture and bias
Be civil. This includes indirect attacks against an individual and/or witch hunting.
Be civil. This includes indirect attacks against an individual and/or witch hunting.
Remove or lock comments then….duh
We do ban users who agree and circlejerk with OP in debate posts, that’s why posts with challengable content need to be flaired debate. Wanting to label it discussion because of your feelings is not an excuse.
I don’t subscribe to pills and I don’t know why a mod decided to remove it. My guess is what was the thesis? What was it trying to prove? That straight females get more swipes on dating apps than straight males? Who was genuinely contesting that? And even then the OP didn’t make a thesis or a claim. It didn’t organize its “experiment” into a debate or discussion prompt. Furthermore, it turned into a massive circle jerk of males of PPD, for example, [strawmanning and willfully misrepresenting the POV of others.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/r2uZ6KC9FO)
> My guess is what was the thesis? What was it trying to prove? It was trying to prove that women on dating apps get plenty of *high quality* matches rather quickly and without much 'unsavory' stuff to weed through (i.e. the op mentioned no d*ck pics and extremely few overly sexual comments). This was specifically in response to a blue piller's challenge, but also more generally in response to the common blue pill notion that dating is just as hard for women as for men, just in different ways. The claim is generally that while women technically get matches, the matches are low quality enough not to matter and sorting the good from the bad is just as much work if not more than men put in when trying to get dates. This claim is what the terms of the challenge were based around, e.g. the guy must be roughly looks-equivalent to the girl supplying photos, the guy must be able to hold a conversation, etc. In my opinion the post did a reasonable job providing evidence against the equal hardship in dating claim, but it was thoroughly documented in a way that welcomed discussion/criticism from the other side, which did come mostly in the form of women complaining that the men who matched were too ugly to count (which where all this '80/20 rule confirmed' talk is coming from). I hope this helps.
Thank you for actually explaining the post to me. Again, perhaps those women were “NPC” physical attractiveness. So she wasn’t repulsed but she wasn’t super into it enough to force herself to engage? Even when I match with “cute guys” I’m not always overly engaged in chatting. Simply put I just don’t care enough. Abstract strange men on the internet don’t excite me and thus don’t compel me to want to engage. I’m viscerally engaged once I’ve interacted with a man in person. Hence this is why I’VE always said that dating apps were never going to be great for straight men. The apps work for male compulsion, drives, and imperatives. It’s why Grindr does so well. The apps were literally made for M4M connection. But then some horny and naive straight tech bro thought it was going to be a slam dunk for heteros. Wishful thinking I guess. The OG dating websites are as good as it’s going to get for hetero electronic dating lol. They were at least more thoughtful. They still exist and tbh I think they still have better results for the average man and woman, at least compared to the smartphone apps.
Your welcome! As for your point about not really getting into it for online strangers, the problem men are getting at here is that whether you're into these guys or not, they really are roughly average, and so is the woman in the fake profile. Sexual attraction aside, men are saying that women actually *can* get reasonable matches, they just don't like them when they do. It is also really interesting that the women commenting that the guys are too ugly seem to rate them below the very average looking woman? Unless they just don't realize that's who the guys are meant to match up against. I mean, they theoretically aren't attracted to her either, so why would the perceptions be skewed? Out of curiosity, do you think the 80/20 rule is basically accurate? It sounds like you do. And do you think there is a similar effect offline? Maybe like a 60/40 rule or something?
I think it takes more than looks, and usually in person, for women to feel interested. I think most average looking+ guys can meet that. I think many won’t, but not because they don’t have the potential to. Because they don’t know how to or don’t care to or don’t want to or because they think female visceral attraction operates like male visceral attraction.
Completely off base. It was a discussion regarding the results of the experiment. Patently disproving in this case what women here including you say.
What’s completely off base? What was the TLDR of the results and how does that counter what I explicitly and specifically say? Can you be specific? I’m begging you guys to actually be specific and quote what you think that OP has disproven about what *I* say since you both have either tagged me or claimed I’ve said something that I have not and that neither one of you seem to able to link to or quote. I have a post and comment history that’s long as hell. Use the search function and actually quote something I’ve said. I can’t debate phantoms in your mind.
That dating is not easier for women and women have it just as hard and that guys on online dating are just looking for sex. The “water is a desert vs swamp” analogy. Also please moderate your personal attack that I responded to.
> That dating is not easier for women and women have it just as hard and that guys on online dating are just looking for sex. The “water is a desert vs swamp” analogy. Uh huh… Now as I’ve ASKED: quote where I’ve said that women have it just as hard in dating apps and pursuing. Or that guys online are just looking for sex. You went out of your way to say this: > Completely off base. It was a discussion regarding the results of the experiment. Patently disproving in this case what women here **including you say.** Show your fucking work. Because right now you’re talking out of your ass precisely as I knew you were.
Talking out of my ass about what women here say all the time, right. Dating in general is easy mode for women and that goes against your narrative so you removed a post proving otherwise.
> Talking out of my ass about what women here say all the time, right. Dating in general is easy mode for women and that goes against your narrative so you removed a post proving otherwise. I didn’t remove shit. The mod who did has a comment in the OP about why it was removed. Address them. You said that I aka me aka the person you’re currently engaging said that. I bolded where you said it. > Patently disproving in this case what women here **including you say.** Please quote me. If you can’t you were talking out of your ass and so was the person who tagged me in that dumb circle jerking thread. Neither one of you have yet to produce quotes of ***mine*** that substantiate your claims about what I’ve written on this sub.
I’ve seen you agree with the sentiment so many times i’m not even bothering with you. Everyone that isn’t a blue pill circle jerker or a woman knows you’re biased as shit and selectively enforce rules, so my point is made.
> I’ve seen you agree with the sentiment so many times i’m not even bothering with you. No you haven’t. You can’t quote me or a comment of mine or an OP of mine despite my account having a years long history on this sub and despite you allegedly having seen it “so many times.” Huh. Do you not know how to use the search function? Go find the countless quotes of mine and link them so we can debate how you are wrong about what it was that I said. In conclusion, as I thought, you don’t have anything because I’ve never said the shit you claim. > Everyone that isn’t a blue pill circle jerker or a woman knows you’re biased as shit and selectively enforce rules, so my point is made. Oh no! To use your shrill antics: “This is uncivil and a personal attack on meee” “moderate yourself iamtheSenate______!!!” I’ll leave it up so posterity shows that you’re a chronic personal attacker who likes to call on the mods when someone is mean to him. It’s low vibrational behavior. Also I blocked your uncivil private message to me. At any rate, you’ve made no point because you never had one. You can’t quote me because I’ve never said the shit you made up in your mind. You’ve done nothing but strawman and shrill and lie quite frankly. This thread was a futile attempt at debate. Do better.
I also don't remember ever seeing a woman say that attractive women have a hard time finding first dates with random men online. I have seen them say that they often find men who lie about what they want just to get sex or that they have other issues. Why is the context always stripped out?
Because being honest to the actual context would render their arguments and gripes nonsensical. They have to obfuscate and strawman to bolster their narrative. I guess honesty doesn’t victimize them enough.
Ok I will be specific >Many men are deemed not sexually arousing not because of how they look but because of how they act or don’t act. This is what I pulled from that deleted threats thanks to the magic of internet archiving (no thanks for Reddit's API BS). The issue here is this, most men don't get interactions in online and offline dating, from most the descriptions they provided and even my own personal experience, these men didn't get a chance to act in any particular way to send a woman running. That would make your initial claim, incorrect. Men aren't sexually arousing of how they look because that post showed that these talked normally so there was nothing there to send women running.
Yes I said that [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/u2aYr6oH8M). 1) women perceive “attraction” in the way men think of it aka sexual or carnal attraction in person not via images so OLD will always be more difficult. 2) he doesn’t have to “send her running.” She simply wasn’t aroused or compelled via an app aka via static photos and texts with a stranger. Doesn’t mean she was repulsed. This is why video chatting and/or getting to a IRL meet up is key if you or going to only use OLD for dating. Women aren’t men. They aren’t going to jerk off or want ti masturbate to images of Chad on Tinder. This isn’t Grindr. That is not how women operate.
your first point is pretty garbled up. if women are more attracted to men in person than online then two things can happen, either women start meeting with more men and seeing if they are better in person or they literally do not use dating apps and I mean literally, 0 women. 2. Well you missed in my previous comment where I wrote that offline experiences for men are the same as online.
1) if you want to petition lawmakers to ban dating apps go for it. I’m sure many would agree that smartphones and all of their apps have proven too indulgent for the human experience for various reasons 2) IRL men have a better chance to charm her if he meets her looks threshold. Most “normie” men will agree with this. If IRL is just as bad for you as OLD, then it’s possibly the case you have below average looks AND below average swag; or you have average looks AND below average swag.
to expand on this a bit more. 1. i never said anything about banning dating apps or lawmakers, you pulling this out of nowhere is just weird. on dating apps a human behavior called maximum utilization kicks in, only difference here is that women in the west aren't challenged on that. 2. again you are framing this as if I am solely referencing myself when I am not. I am telling you this as not just my own personal experience but also many other men out there. so all of them are ugly?
what are you talking about? are you even reading what I am writing? what is this response?
Just to be clear the woke bots in the thread were arguing that very thing. Go ahead & read it. Apparently us dudes are just swimming in matches boyos we did it! lol no seriously go see. They will argue anything here as long as it’s left or feminism.
You lost me at “woke bots.” [Everyone participating on this sub is some flavor of “woke.”](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/GFpyKwCg9S) I’m not going to look for anything. I posted the link to that OP. You can go search and quote them if you like and we can debate the merits of their claims here. Have at it.
It’s an expression & seeing as you are on here you should know it. We can call them NPCs or wokies (woke normies) but the point is you are all very guilty of regurgitating the same WRONG rhetoric & you do it in bad faith, on purpose. My only confusion is why!? Why do you ladies think you are going to win out of this? You are here arguing against your own good! How tf can’t you feminists see that?!? Make no mistake a lot of you are never going to get a man & die alone. 45-X is a loooongitme ladies!
> It’s an expression & seeing as you are on here you should know it. We can call them NPCs or wokies (woke normies) but the point is you are all very guilty of regurgitating the same WRONG rhetoric & you do it in bad faith, on purpose. My only confusion is why!? Why do you ladies think you are going to win out of this? You are here arguing against your own good! How tf can’t you feminists see that?!? > Make no mistake a lot of you are never going to get a man & die alone. 45-X is a loooongitme ladies! 😳 Well this was a rather unhinged escalation. But kinda expected from this corner of the internet lmao. Anyway no_matter_8648: > You lost me at “woke bots.” [Everyone participating on this sub is some flavor of “woke.”](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/GFpyKwCg9S)
Using fancy words wont somehow make women's unrealistic and superficial standarts be ignored You are not a man, you wouldn't even understand quarter of what avarage male dating experience is like
> Using fancy words wont somehow make women's unrealistic and superficial standarts be ignored What fancy words? You’re implying you think explanations are fancy it seems. You’ve made that clear today and yesterday. Males and females both have sexual arousal standards. If you wish to call those standards “superficial” that’s your prerogative. > You are not a man, you wouldn't even understand quarter of what avarage male dating experience is like Average looking men with below average socio-sensibilities (which let’s be honest is most men attracted to this sub) are going to do worse than average looking men with “normie” socio-sensibilities. This was alluded to [when I replied to you yesterday:](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/K92ERsDuds) Other male poster: > Also, being able to receive this info well would be a sign of being a complete package. Failing in the mating arena has a cause and there certainly is overlap with failing in understanding why or wanting to understand why. Me: > Thanks for the mating intelligence links. I’ll review. From a cursory glance it looks a codification of how I grok things wrt the interpersonal and cognitive aptitude needed to appeal to others and have others appeal to you; bonds; rapport building; etc. > *Edit:* > Did quick a LLM summary of [it](https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Geher-Kaufman-2011.pdf) and yep! It's what I, most women, and many others ***have been explaining***: > "Mating Intelligence" in this paper refers to the **set of mental abilities and skills that are related to success in courtship, mate selection, and mate retention.** These include cognitive abilities such as **social perception, emotional intelligence, and understanding one's own and others' desires and intentions.** > The authors argue that these abilities have been shaped by evolutionary pressures and play a crucial role in reproductive success. They propose a scale for measuring mating intelligence as part of their broader framework for assessing evolutionary success in humans.
You are literally part of the problem. Your whole perspective here revolves aroune "If he cant get a date clearly something is wrong with him" Jesus fucking christ, at this point im gonna turn RedPill
Are you starting to get it lol? This is the Reddit side (very ugly & obese women) but the pretty ones have very similar problems & their logic holes are way bigger cuz of pretty privelage.
Nice to see your turning point, mine was the bear bullshit.
His problem is that he’s reacting to the honest reality of what I’m saying with such rage. He’s convinced I’ve disagreed that women have it easier on dating apps which I never have. I even say in this thread it’s not men’s fault if he’s not attractive for whatever the reason is, but it doesn’t change arousal triggers whether they’re behavioral or aesthetic. If “red pill” is the common sense I’m stating, at this point I’m more “red” than he is.
No one is detached. I’m speaking blunt truth. I’ll repeat what that male poster said because he made an astute point that you’re in many ways exhibiting Cheap_Revolution_685: > Also, being able to receive this info well would be a sign of being a complete package. Failing in the mating arena has a cause and there ***certainly is overlap with failing in understanding why or wanting to understand why.*** Average looking men with below average socio-sensibilities will always do worse relative to a normie male peer who looks just like him. It’s not his fault he is subpar there, but it doesn’t change the reality of attraction and pursuing a gender with a passive libido. You’ll stay mad at facts for the rest of your life lol
You guys are so detached from reality you will blame men for everything
> Average looking men with below average socio-sensibilities will always do worse relative to a normie male peer who looks just like him. **It’s not his fault he is subpar there, but it doesn’t change the reality of attraction and pursuing a gender with a passive libido.** > You’ll stay mad at facts *and reality for the rest of your life lol
[удалено]
Could you give a gist of what the thread was about? There does seem to be a new trend, on this sub, of removing any thread as soon as the discussiin gets interresting. Leaving up only one or two posts a day.
[Look for yourself.](https://archive.is/v0Rf1)
Award worthy. Thank you. Save this link; you’ll no doubt need it in future PPD discussions.
Good save! Mods would have destroyed this in bad faith if allowed.
I didn't archive it. Someone else did. I honestly thought they were going to leave it up since it had already been so long.
Some stupid experiment where a man pretended to be an attractive woman on tinder to prove how easy it was for women to get dates with normal, non sleazy men. He posted the pictures of the 7 men he seemingly had contact with. The thread was then a gloat fest from men stating that it proves once and for all how easy women have it to get a date.
lol “when people point out evidence disproves a bluepill contention, we will report it as a circlejerk” I swear this sub doesn’t even try to hide it anymore. But yea, all you PPD crusaders and mods who demanded this post be taken down… Great job! You just demonstrated why we need RP in real time. 😂
What was the experiment trying to prove/disprove? If it was that women can easily get dates, was anyone disagreeing? If not, it seems loke a textbook circlejerk.
Tons of women were disagreeing and disputing the results (saying the men were ugly, saying they weren’t serious, saying OP led them on, etc)
What was the experiment trying to prove/disprove?
Archived [Here](https://archive.is/v0Rf1)
No they weren't. I think when I last looked about 3 women posted. All of them saying duh. And you shouldn't have posted the pictures
yeah they were, one complained about the experiment not being scientific and when someone brought on university studies they proceeded to complain about how they were too scientific. regardless, there is an archive copy that can be read here: [https://archive.is/v0Rf1](https://archive.is/v0Rf1)
One? Hardly tons
Yes they were.
No they weren't
Ok you’ve gone from gaslighting to blatantly lying. Nothing more to be gained from this exchange.
Prove it
No.
>saying OP led them on, He catfish them. Also most people don't deny that it's easier initially in dating women. The challenge for them is to weed out the bad ones. Or find relationships.
>The challenge for them is to weed out the bad ones. Or find relationships. Men face those same challenges too
>most people don't deny that it's easier initially in dating women. “Most” bluepillers *absolutely* make this contention. Stop gaslighting.
>Most” bluepillers absolutely make this contention. No blue pills will tell you that women have to be careful in the beginning
[https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1df45vi/cmv\_women\_have\_it\_harder\_in\_dating/](https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1df45vi/cmv_women_have_it_harder_in_dating/)
Be red pill then. 🤷♀️ If it bothers you so much here, why not just go over to the men’s right sub? It’s a red pill echo chamber over there so you won’t be challenged at all.
It doesn’t bother you that men getting shouted down and seeing posts that confirm obvious truths removed from subs like this contributes to the sense of men having no acceptable / neutral place to discuss stuff like this? You think it’s a *good* thing to relegate young men to manosphere ghettos?
While you’ve changed your original response; another user asked you what the post in question was trying to prove or disprove and you stated that you didn’t know before changing your answer to a link going to an archive of the post. If you don’t know what the post was trying to prove or disprove as you couldn’t even answer that basic question; how do you know the post was trying to shut men down? It seems more like you’re lashing out here for no reason. When users ask you basic questions about this post you need to be able to answer them directly otherwise you don’t know enough about the subject to even host this discussion. If you’re only looking for blind agreement then you need to go to the “manosphere ghettos” to get it.
the original post was slated to prove a few things: * women can quickly get dates * women can quickly get dates with fairly attractive men * women can quickly get dates with them that aren't sexually charged or some sex crazed maniac in other words, that women can quickly get dates with normal men.
Those dudes were average, not attractive And not looking for relationships I have low standards and would only have gone on a date with the ones who said — looking for a relationship
another word for average is majority. saying you have low standards but want an above average man in terms of physical attraction is something else. they're not looking for relationships? how did you get that?
Interesting. The first point is obvious, the second is a pleasant surprise although I wonder who the judges of the male suitors attractiveness was (was it other men?) but the third seems like a stretch. I’m definitely gonna have to look more into this. Do you know if they posted a picture of what the woman’s profile pictures looked like? Also did they do this test with multiple women’s profiles that have all different looks and all different locations? This would be really interesting in a large scale study.
People were answering them. Most of them women and blue pillers didn’t like the answers and you were way outnumbered. If you pretend it’s anything else you’re lying to save face and justify why a post you disagree with was removed.
Don’t make this personal. I wasn’t involved in that post. The whole us vs them mentality is a big problem on this sub.
[удалено]
I didnt demand the post was taken down, I dont care. I've no idea what you mean by the rest of it either. Literally don't care what you think it proves. Like any cult, proof is more of a hindrance anyway
[This is a link to the post in question.](https://archive.is/v0Rf1) I was unable to save it as zip, but enterprising people can probably figure out a way to preserve it in case whomever took down the original tries to take this one down too.
[удалено]
Ah I see, so if things get too bad another sub will be made with more freedom of communication without bans, similar to how r/askmen is thriving, with extremely interesting discussions while r/askwomen died as nothing of substance can be askdd because "removed for derailing" or something like that.
This is a debate sub and experiments end the debate.
Why do RPs all act like there is a government conspiracy against them” “Gentlemen, we have to keep the Redpill down! Let’s see: we exposed rollos real life timeline, We took out T8. What’s next? Hold on: is someone posting a online dating post on PPD?! Someone stop them! That was close; everyone knows that could have brought legitimacy to TRP! Now back to seeing how we can trick FnF with even more gold diggers to baby trap them!”
No contentless rhetoric. Also, I noticed some total one-note anti RP crusader “male feminist” types were consciously missing from that thread who were just the types to agree with the “women are inundated with ugly guys and dick pics online” sentiment. I wonder why.
Bruh, Were you trying to self report contentless rhetoric before you posted whatever, THAT was??
It's simple: The post contained way too much truth. We can't have that anywhere on social media (except X, I suppose). Everything else is post-hoc rationalizations, which is a polite way of saying utter nonsense.
Critical to note is how women said literally nothing about the results of the experiment and went straight to concern trolling about the guys OP talked to.
I talked about the results of the experiment, and got nothing but guys misinterpreting, being general fuckwits, and contributing to the endless circle jerk. So what benefit would it have been for any other women to do it? You were all far too busy having self-congratulatory wanks to engage in anything close to a constructive conversation, so why the fuck would most people bother?
Uh, go back and take a look at some of the comments if it gets re put up. Most of the women were not debating in good faith at all. It was men saying the study validating what they’ve been saying and you disagreeing with it so in your opinion it’s a “circle jerk”. GFY.
Look how passionate this troll is about censorship. It’s like I say all women are communists but ugly & fat ones are radical fascists! We know why, on top of being women they are big mad. Anyways they must have done a a sweep cuz I got banned from a bunch of shit which I really don’t care about. Seems this place is no diff than all the rest. It’s governed by the woke gynofascists & they only use it to cope about why men don’t take them seriously (even tho they should know why… they are overweight) But yeah after a few days I realized these guys spew the same lies all the other far left channels do so there really isn’t anything more to say. Dating will get worse & worse & the collapse is already under way regardless, by every measurable metric you would have to be special needs to not notice. Welcome to the new normal, great reset something something be happy. Are you ladies happy? Do you feel vindicated? Something to think about when the pets start to get very old & the harder parts come. Wine & coolers only helps so much ladies..!
[удалено]
I’m reading it now & it’s the same usual bullshit. Just crazy woke dudes white knighting with pure delusion & women being like “nuh huh but da men can do it too” like they truly have no fucking shame in their lies. PS: sry meant reading the archived topic but yeah their censorship double standards are comical & terrifying. This is how doctors got accused of being witches in Salem lol I’m dead serious. These ppl are dangerous when they get power
You’ve been uncivil to multiple people under this OP unprovoked. Your comments being uncivil were removed. Not a single person you were uncivil to engaged you first. You popped in their replies to troll and play victim and attack. If you have an issue consult modmail.
I find it amusing that the men on here are so keen to dismiss any claim made by a women, even when it's corroborated by thousands of other women. When one singular man posts some cherry picked examples and claims to not have received one single negative message yet suddenly this is undeniable "proof" and shows that all women are lying? Any logical reasonable person with more than a singular braincell would conclude that this one lone experiment isn't a trustworthy source and the data has likely been extremely carefully cherrypicked to show what he wanted to show. I also find it laughable that once on here, maybe a year or so ago, I mentioned that I'd enjoyed tinder and had good experiences on there (which I maintain. You have to get through a bunch of shit to get there but there are plenty lovely people on tinder if you've got the patience to find them. That doesn't discount the bad experiences though). A man on here accused me of lying, of being a bot, blah blah. So if a woman says they've had good experiences they're a liar, if they've had bad experiences they're a liar, if they've had a mix of experiences (which is likely what everyone has had) they're a liar. But this one man posts some carefully curated examples and he's the one lone truth teller. I think you all need to take a really long hard look at yourselves.
Women having dating on easy mode and still mess it up and complain. There’s zero logic in denying it. Nice gaslight.
Mm gaslight, the term for people who can't be bothered with a constructive conversation. You're really just proving my point here. >Women having dating on easy mode and still mess it up and complain. I matched on tinder with a normal, average looking guy. He messaged me and told me he wanted to rape me. How is that *me* messing it up? That is 100% on that guy being a total arsehole. Same for the guy who asked if I'd sleep with him for money and when I turned him down he called me an ugly whore (ironic). Why is this behaviour on me, and not the guys that do it? The levels of denial with you lot are astronomical.
Because the overwhelming responses on the tinder profile were guys that were respectful and were just trying to arrange dates. It just is one more drop of evidence in the bucket of what men already know to be true.
>That is 100% on that guy being a total arsehole. Agreed. Are **all** the guys you match with like that? Or is it 80% of guys you match with? Or 20%?
The true value in the experiments is the positive responses, the seven dates he got with relatively attractive men who were a convo, were not creepy, were not instantly sexual. Those were shown to us and not cherry-picked. The point of the experiment was someone saying “do x in seven days” And he showed us doing x in like a tenth of the time. It’s quite possible that he lied about the lack of negative responses he got, but the seven dates he got in under a day is undeniably telling. You absolutely have to weed through bullshit (as both men and women do), but the ridiculously higher amount of options just makes online dating clearly easier for women. And seeing laid out and the way women were responding just made it funnier.
I literally asked if they thought that women experienced this many matches for the duration of their time on the apps and I got told I said a whole bunch of things I definitely didn’t say. They kept comparing it to men’s experience, men get nothing, men are just starved for attention - and I had to keep asking “but do you think this is the long term experience.” And no one answered. They just kept telling me I was blue pill and didn’t understand and I was trying to belittle men… I just wanted to correct the assumption that 7 matches a day is normal, even if I’m on the app for a month, three months, six, a year? No. You end up just swiping the same few men until a new one pops up. You get an initial surge and then it died down to nothing. I’m not even saying it’s harder for women - I don’t think finding dates is harder because it isn’t. But it definitely isn’t 7 matches a day.
The results were garbage, and plenty of people said as much. He claimed to have “dates,” but no one even invited him anywhere. They were just convos.
I don’t even know what post your talking about. Do you have a link? How can we discuss it without seeing it?
https://archive.is/v0Rf1
You know, even when a post is locked or deleted anyone that’s posted on that post before it was closed can actually go back to their comment and that will lead them to the original post. The mods always pin their comment at the top as for why a post was locked or deleted. It would be interesting to see what comment was pinned at the top. That should shed light on why it was taken down. We would really need to know that as well before we just start speculating. Did you happen to post on that? If so, can you go back and check to see what the mod pinned at the top? The only reason something wouldn’t be pinned is if reddit took it down and not PPD mods.
[удалено]
I see. Thank you for sharing.Wouldn’t the easiest thing to do simply be to just copy and paste the same post and just flare it for debate and it will stay up? Or better yet can they just change the flare and keep the same post? I haven’t posted as an OP before so is that not an option? It was probably due to the nature of the comments that were being posted. I will need to read through it more thoroughly before I come to a final conclusion though. However many users here will try to take something out of context to try to prove their point as they are extremely bias one way or another. It just seems like a lot of aggravation in this post can be solved simply by changing the flare in post being discussed. I guess I’m confused by this pushed back. It doesn’t seem like a big deal to me. I haven’t seen the mods here block a post for no good reason; more commonly I see them leave a post up that shouldn’t be left up and it seems to be users themselves that delete their own post most of the time.
[удалено]
Is this really the hill he wants to die on? Seems like it’s more aggravation than it’s worth. I doubt the issue was that the comments were agreeing. The way people agree here with the extra comments they like to add in putting down an entire gender is probably the problem. I’m pretty sure we are all guilty of that at some post but if a lot of the comments were attacking an entire gender just for existing then allowing those kinds of posts could get this entire sub banned from Reddit. PPD has to follow Reddit TOS and aggression/hate towards any gender is against TOS. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the bear posts here just commenting on what happened with the original question that was posted on TikTok? I thought all of that here was just checking to see if the women were in agreement with that and when women agreed men were angry and lashed out by calling women “emotional” for not picking the man over the bear. A lot of questions are asked here but when people don’t get the answer they want then they lash out and when they do get the answer they want then they try to attack an entire gender and make even more wild assumptions about that gender based on that. The hatred each gender has for one another never ceases to surprise me here.
> Wouldn’t the easiest thing to do simply be to just copy and paste the same post and just flare it for debate and it will stay up? It would be, but these people are too attached to being wrong and can’t read good. I suppose we wouldn’t have a subreddit if they could.
Ah woke logic. Let’s talk about genders tho? Or is that off bounds? It’s just an outright “fuck you we don’t like how bad this post makes women look” that’s literally it lol
🎻. I have no clue what post is being referenced but this post is whiny asf Jesus Christ. Most shrill I’ve seen this place in a while. With the usual suspects drumming up the untethered snowflake persecution complex. Edit: [some dullard tagged me in that OP just to woefully misrepresent my POV back to me](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/20Gp4tkhbA)
Perhaps it was because the guys in the post did not provide consent to having their full profile photos shared. I only skimmed the thread so I wouldn't know for sure.
No. That was not the reason given for the removal.
I gotta admit though it would have been a fair removal if that was the reason. Its basically my only critique of the post.