r/PurplePillDebate

I'm a 30 year old guy with a pretty decent sex drive. Based on what I've read, it seems to be a commonly accepted fact that women don't want to have sex as much as men do. But I've had 4 girlfriends in my life, and 3 out of 4 of them had higher sex drives than me. Most of them wanted to have sex multiple times a day, and gave me permission to just use them for sex whenever I wanted because they were always horny. There have been times when they've wanted to go 3 times in a day which is too much for me, even though I would say my sex drive is quite high already. Is this just a coincidence, or is the average woman actually hornier than the average man?

you see men try understand what type of men your into. we spend a lot of time on seeing your behaviour and trying to come to conclusion.

how much time you spend learning about men?

do you change thing you do based on opinion from men? or would you? ever?

do you or have you ever try find out where men are and go there to try to meet them?

how intentional do you do any of this?

if not why not.

Supposedly, there's a " full custody bluff" social media trend with cherrypicked videos

Single fathers have a 41% chance to be cohabiting with someone new compared with 16% for single mothers, according to Pew Research.

In fact, this is basically what single mothers have to do to be as dateable as single fathers with kids, according to a Belgian study from 2017, where sole physical custody reduced the mother's reparenting rate by 63%, vs 33%.

So combine all this with data showing that more men wish they spent more time with their children than mothers, and data showing that the number of single fathers is growing, and I'm guessing the average man's response to this is probably "she can try that"

The parent who is willing to use custody as a weapon is not the parent that should have it; well done, ladies.

The Greater Male Variability Hypothesis in evolutionary psych is a concept based on a pattern we commonly see comparing men and women on a number of traits. If we chart the normal distribution bell curves of any trait (e.g. IQ), women are more likely to have a higher peak at the mean, whereas men have a larger spread towards both ends, i.e. there are more men at either extremes.

Btw this doesn't mean the two extremes are 50/50, or that the mean between men and women will be the same.

The smartest people are more likely to be men, the dumbest people are more likely to be men. The richest and most powerful people are more likely to be men, the poorest and homeless are more likely to be men.

This also applies to intersexual dynamics, which is why its often said theres 3 genders in dating: women, low value men, and high value men. People often advising men on this sub are conflating the experiences and capabilities of the two types of men, especially when their data is based on the "average".

And so when people say "Men should do X and Y", it makes no sense because "Men" are not a monolith, whereas women are more likely to decide based on their own interests, society as a whole (including men) is more likely to do the same as well.

This is because it was never men vs. women, it was civilization vs. civilization, women and men would cooperate together to further the goals of the community. Then Feminism came along with a narrative that painted women as prisoners and slaves of men.

This daily thread is designed to be a place for all the funny discussions on PPD.

Feel free to post off-topic questions, information, points-of-view, personal advice and memes in this thread. Here you can post everything that doesn't warrant its own thread or just do some socializing. Personal advice posting, research posts, non-TOS breaking rants, links to other locations with limited context as conversation topics (must use np links for reddit), and things would be considered low effort posts are allowed in the daily thread.

Do not bring other PPD threads into the daily thread. Do not post PPD threads deserving of their own post in the daily thread. The intent of the daily thread is not that it should replace PPD and become a place where users can avoid the rules of the subreddit. Attempting to do this will be considered circlejerking and moderated as such.

Black Pill/Incel Content/Woe-Is-Me is still banned in the daily thread. Witch hunting and insults are also still banned in the daily thread. Relegated topics must still go to in the weekly threads for those topics.

Comments are automatically sorted by NEW - you can post throughout the day and people will see your comment.

If you'd like to see our previous daily threads, click here!

Please Join Us on Discord! Include your reddit username, pill color, age, relationship status, and gender when you get in to introduce yourself.

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

A while ago I had a discussion where a woman argued that it couldn't have been a "pump and dump" because they continued seeing each other and had sex multiple times afterward. She believed that if a man doesn't disappear immediately after the first time, then it isn't a pump and dump. I disagree, and here's why.

A lot of people misunderstand what a pump and dump actually is.

For most men, getting sex isn't effortless. Even very successful men have to put in time and effort to meet women. For the average man it's much harder, and for men at the bottom of the dating market it's even more difficult.

So why would a man immediately cut off a woman after sex if:

the sex is good,

she's pleasant enough to spend time with, and

he doesn't already have several other women lined up?

There usually isn't much incentive to do that.

A pump and dump isn't defined by whether the man ghosts after one night. It's defined by his intentions from the beginning.

Some men will date a woman while already knowing they have zero interest in a serious relationship with her. They enjoy the companionship, the sex, and the attention, but they never intend to commit. The relationship continues only as long as it's convenient or enjoyable for them. Eventually they lose interest, meet someone else, or decide it's no longer worth the effort, and they move on.

That's what many people are describing when they say things like "men are emotionally unavailable," "young men don't want to commit," or "men only want one thing." The issue isn't necessarily that he vanished after the first hookup, it's that commitment was never his goal in the first place.

Without knowledge whats really in the head of the Men its always unknown if it was a failed young relationship and pump and dump, every men knows that basic romantic things lead to more and better sex, high oxytocin is flowing in him (coused by the sex) so there is some real bit of feeling and at the worst/best point, maybe he had real true feelings at the start.

A Pump and Dump can last months and thats a hughe shifting point in a Dating debate, some storys woman had wasnt real dating it was a pump and dump

Edit:

I wont replay to any more "pump and dumps is just X" wehn X implies thath both parties agree to it

On the other Hand its say a lot if woman try to rationalize that they guy wants only sex is in reality some fancy Millenial/Genz Z word

A little more clear

Sitationship, friends with benefits, and so one all implies both parties aggree to this

If the woman thinks its Dating and the men know he will leave its a pump and dump

So, let’s talk about hypocrisy. We have a lot of men who keep making posts about how no one will choose them, they have no options, etc., etc.

Now I just seen a post on a different thread where a woman was asking about odds on her getting swiped right on the dating app she’s on, as an obese woman, even said she wasn’t technically obese, just more curvy with a little extra weight. And almost every man in that thread told her no, she wouldn’t get picked.

So here’s my question, you all claim that women don’t want you because you’re ugly, out of shape, and whatever other excuse you use. What makes you any different than this woman who can’t get picked? And why should any woman pick a man she isn’t attracted to, when you all won’t do the same either?

I’m asking because attraction and attractiveness seems to be used as this catch all phrase,

For example: Quotes like “Being nice doesn’t make a man more attractive!”

So are men happy being considered attractive but no one wants to be around him? 

Are men happy being considered attractive but doesn’t want to fuck him?

Similarly, does what to fuck him, because he’s attractive, but wants to take things slow to get to know him for a couple of months?

Would guys be fine hearing “He’s so hot….but he’s a broke ass bum and I can get someone just as hot but with money”?

Women generally bear more risk in relationships. If an unexpected pregnancy happens, the physical, emotional, and often career-related consequences fall disproportionately on the woman. Even without children, women often end up taking on more domestic labor in live-in relationships.

Because of that, I don't see the benefit of living together without the legal and social commitment of marriage. If we've already dated for 1–2 years, communicated well, met each other's families and friends, and handled conflicts together, I don't think living together is necessary to know whether we're compatible.

To me, if a man genuinely knows he wants to spend his life with a woman, I'd expect him to move toward marriage rather than an indefinite live-in arrangement.

I know many people disagree, and I'm genuinely curious why. If you support live-in relationships, what benefits do you think outweigh the risks—especially for women?

Meaning that you have access to sex/men that you could have and desire but realize this will damage your relationship prospects, because of the tabooness of the sexual act, or the man, or how you feel you will be perceived by other men.

And the experience will ultimately be a temporary dopamine rush and so you restrain yourself from those men. And choose a more suitable man instead.

Ill preface this all by saying i dont even care that much about female attention. I get more than enough attention/likes/regular dates on hinge and tinder but meeting them person first (instead of the app) can be a nice change of pace.

The issue is if you don't already have a social group, the majority of women aren't interested in engaging with a random guy walking up alone to introduce themselves. This is an obstacle im looking to overcome.

Even in a crowded outdoor patio bar, park (4th of july fireworks), etc. Many women are afraid to engage with a single guy who approached her in front of her friends, even if they find him attractive. You almost feel like you have to make up a story about your friends leaving earlier just to avoid being judged as "the weird guy" who drove out to the bars by himself which is seen as scary/socially weird.

Then there's trying to meet other chill guys to be your boy/wingman. If you're halfway decent looking, most view you as competition rather than someone to include if they already have a group. Everyone is trying to meet the same attractive women, so bringing another guy into the group isn't always appealing unless he has a strong connection of girls, is a comedian, has a boat, or other way of providing massive value. If you're not attractive, youll generally be viewed as a social liability instead. Most of these groups grew up in the city together or have years of friendships through school, family, or work, so breaking in feels almost impossible. Its why many people stay local.

People always say, "Just join hobby clubs or sports." But most adult social groups are centered around sports leagues, board game nights, running clubs, or other niche hobbies. Ive met some friendly acquaintances, over the months but they're usually not groups that are going out to bars, festivals, or nightlife every weekend. The social circles that actually participate in nightlife are often already established and are INTENTIONALLY difficult for newcomers guys to break into.. the establised guys who spent alot of time in these spheres INTENTIONALLY to try to gatekeep and curate to preserve their "status' in the nightlife scene and make it harder for newcombers in new cities.

Meanwhile, women seem to have a much easier path to building new social circles. A halfway attractive woman can make a Facebook post saying she's looking for new girlfriends to grab brunch or go out with, and within an hour shell literally have dozens of other women wanting to hangout. Obviously no guy is posting for friends on facebook lol. Ive seen 100s of fb posts now and its crazy, every time dozens of friends requests from other women. My guess is women have an abundance mindset due to absurd of validation they get (social media/dating apps/irl) and dont view other women as an immedate threat the same way men do.

It feels like the modern dating market has made men extremely guarded and competitive. I never use to remember it being like this. People are so worried about losing opportunities that they're less open to cool friends that they can meet girls together with.

How did we get here as a society?

Nor is it an abstraction, like money or capital or virtue. It's an activity, like ping-pong. When people talk about being "getting sex," "buying sex," "selling sex," etc, they are using figurative language to describe *doing* various sex acts with another person. If I want to play ping-pong, and my friend plays ping-pong with me, you wouldn't say they're "giving me ping-pong;" if I pay them $20 to play ping-pong, you wouldn't say they're "selling ping-pong." If I drug them and serve ping-pong balls at them, I'm not "taking their ping-pong," at least not literally. Metaphors are good and fine and useful and efficient, and the sex-as-physical-stuff metaphor in English makes talking about sex require fewer words, and I'm all for it.

The problem is when people *mix* metaphors, or take them literally and try to stack another metaphor on top. For example, I've seen a lot of dudes on this sub make the argument that women who are socialists--who believe in some degree of wealth redistribution--are hypocrites for only wanting to do sex acts with hot guys. But ping-pong (and sex) isn't like food or money or housing--it's an activity, not a resource, and if I play lots of ping-pong that doesn't mean you have less ping-pong, and if I limit the amount of ping-pong I play with my friends, that doesn't mean they're going to play ping-pong with you. You can't redistribute ping-pong. You also can't really apply other economics principles to ping-pong either. Either two people find it fun to play ping-pong together, or they don't. And if someone wants to get the ping-pong they deserve, regardless or if the other person wants to play ping-pong or likes ping-pong or is having fun, you gotta wonder, like, what does he even get out of ping-pong? Doesn't that defeat the point?

Before anyone mentions it, yeah, I know someone posted something similar on paternity fraud recently, but that post got taken down just as the conversation was getting good in my opinion. So, I'm curious what the consensus is on how paternity fraud should be handled. In cases where it is discovered, what do you think the punishment should be? Should it be:

1. A large fine up to the estimated amount spent on the kid up to that point?

2. A felony charge with an automatic 2 to 3 years jail time?

3. Jail time equivalent to the amount of years the fraud took place?

4. No punishment?

5. Something else?

Feel free to explain your positions.

This daily thread is designed to be a place for all the funny discussions on PPD.

Feel free to post off-topic questions, information, points-of-view, personal advice and memes in this thread. Here you can post everything that doesn't warrant its own thread or just do some socializing. Personal advice posting, research posts, non-TOS breaking rants, links to other locations with limited context as conversation topics (must use np links for reddit), and things would be considered low effort posts are allowed in the daily thread.

Do not bring other PPD threads into the daily thread. Do not post PPD threads deserving of their own post in the daily thread. The intent of the daily thread is not that it should replace PPD and become a place where users can avoid the rules of the subreddit. Attempting to do this will be considered circlejerking and moderated as such.

Black Pill/Incel Content/Woe-Is-Me is still banned in the daily thread. Witch hunting and insults are also still banned in the daily thread. Relegated topics must still go to in the weekly threads for those topics.

Comments are automatically sorted by NEW - you can post throughout the day and people will see your comment.

If you'd like to see our previous daily threads, click here!

Please Join Us on Discord! Include your reddit username, pill color, age, relationship status, and gender when you get in to introduce yourself.

Also find us on Instagram and Twitter!

if I had the choice, I’d pick being born a woman in the West without even thinking twice.

Just looking back at my own life school, uni, random jobs, corporate; i found so obvious double standards. When women mess up, people are more forgiving. There’s more patience, more understanding. When men mess up, it’s more like “figure it out yourself.” Companies openly say they want more women. Getting a job as a woman is much much easier and a man has to probably become homeless. i have never seen a homeless woman where i live (berlin)

Social life is probably the most obvious difference. If a woman wants attention, validation, or just connection, it’s always there. Post a picture, go out, open a dating app, it’s easy. For most men, it’s the opposite. You get ignored unless you’ve already built status, money, or something impressive.

Dating and relationships are another big one. Men are still expected to provide, to lead, to have their life together. Women don’t have that same pressure. They have way more choice, and realistically, more safety nets. If things go wrong, they’re not starting from zero in the same way a man often is. Majority of women are chasing minority of men.

And then there are things people don’t like to mention. Men make up over 90% of workplace deaths. Suicide rates are much higher for men. Homelessness is mostly male. Even in the justice system, men tend to get harsher sentences for the same crimes.

Even stuff like migration or improving your living situation, women can often do that through relationships. I see it all the time where I live. A lot of women from developing countries come here find a nerdy man here and get settled. For man this is a fairytale.

So yeah, from where I’m standing, the system today kind of gives women the best of both worlds: modern advantages plus a level of social protection that never really went away from history.

Hard to look at that and say men have it easier. Don’t tell that women is less safe. Men are also attacked on streets and this argument that a woman is small and vulnerable does not hold in the current system.

For how much of online discourse is dominated by very liberal women claiming to be against the patriarchy and looking to have better relationships than their parents did, there’s still a lot of patriarchal standards when it comes to what men they expect to court them and how they treat men that don’t fit that standard.

Women are able to have their own careers now, make up the majority of college educated people and graduate students, and yet it seems the #1 thing when it comes to what they look for in a man is his job status and money situation. There aren’t enough high paying corporate, law, engineering jobs to go around for all the men. So it’s statistically impossible for every woman to be with a man that makes more than them. I’m not saying a man that has no handle on his money should automatically be entitled to a relationship. But if he has a lower-paying job, as long as he’s being smart with money and showing drive to work towards a better future, that shouldn’t mean he’s worthless in the dating scene.

Because that same man, if he waits until he’s 30 and he’s better off financially until he dates because he has this “lower class men are worthless” propaganda engraved into him 24-7, I guarantee a lot of women that rejected him would flame him for not having much dating experience. I literally had my first breakup because my girlfriend said ”I don’t want to be someone’s first girlfriend at this stage in my life”. So I got rejected for not having relationship experience when you need to be with someone to gain said experience. It’s genuinely disheartening, and for all this talk about how men should try to be more in touch with their feelings, whenever they do express how they feel, a lot of times they get told to “man up” or to “stop being incels/red pill/black pill”.

And then these older women get mad that men their age don’t pick them and want to pursue someone younger. No shit, you rejected him for things that didn’t have to do with his character or who he actually is a a person. Now that’s he’s better off and you want to “settle down” and use him when you didn’t want to commit to him when he was younger, it’s not a good look. Men deserve to be love unconditionally in the same way that women, animals and children do.

Please Join Us on Discord! Include your reddit username, pill color, age and gender when you arrive in the welcome mat to introduce yourself and help people get to know you.

You can also find Mrs_Drgree on Instagram and Twitter for notifications on when good threads are posted.

Somewhere else on Reddit earlier today, I asked a bunch of people about moving from my location to their state. I mentioned that one of the reasons I wanted to move there was that their state had a 50/50 custody policy.

It was the same tumble as on here, with me talking about seeking stay-at-home fatherhood about three days ago: A bunch of people just straight-up asked me, "So you plan on divorcing and stealing 50% custody?"

I responded, "When women ask men who earn more for marriage, is it because she wants to divorce and steal the alimony?" He got like 10+ upvotes; I got like 5 downvotes.

But no response, because there is none, only hypocrisy.

Except it's a deeper hypocrisy:

I believe in a fallacy I call the "fallacy of projected motivations." The word "projection" in it doesn't mean "putting something onto someone that they themselves are doing"; it's just the less-used definition of "putting something onto someone."

You simply take Hanlon's razor - "never assume malice when you can assume incompetence" and say that Hanlon's Razor *itself* is a false dichotomy, and you can't assume incompetence either; there could be an infinite number of possible motivations. You have to prove the motivation as its own separate assertion.

With men, you are allowed to commit a fallacy of projected motivations; with women, people correctly understand the fallacy; even if they don't articulate it, they work around it.

(repost because I didn't respond for 8 hours because I needed to go to sleep, and that got this removed)

“But men will humiliate themselves and turn into jesters for female validation!”

Correction: For hot girls, for easy pussy, and for women with low personality standards.

Guys end up in the situation because they’re asking for too much or they’re asking for something quick.

Now that I got that out the way, lets talk about the main idea of this: a lot of guys refused to humble themselves in two ways. Either lowering their standards or working to be a higher quality guy.

Onto  the whole “My personality cant be the problem! I see jerks who get girlfriends!”

First of all, what do you bring to the table? What do you have of value? What would give people a reason tolerate a terrible personality? Because if your perks can be easily find in a person without your flaws, why wouldn’t a women take that person instead of you?

Too many guys have this fantasy of having endless validation no matter what they do. The vast majority of men do not have the type of looks nor money to get that type of treatment.  And instead of understanding that and adjusting their goals in life, they want to get bitter that they’re not special.

Second, what type of women are you looking for? If youre looking for a shallow, egostical, dysfunctional? Then yes, envying assholes with girlfriends make sense. The assholes are taking the women you want.

Like I said before, women don’t really care that men want trashy women. Just stop acting like it’s society‘s fault that you have a thing for trashy women. Women have been very vocal about women who are garbage, it’s just a matter of whether or not men want to listen. 

Thirdly, guys gotta stop complaining about desirable women having inflated egos and that she’s expecting men to jester. If she’s as desirable as guys describe these egotistical women as, why should she be humble? She’s not losing that many guys due to being a bitch. The fact the guys complaining are still willing to entertain her will inflate her ego even more. You would have to have the willpower to basically say “I dont care how hot she is nor how horny I am, Im not putting up with that shit”.

But keep in mind, to have a woman with a decent personality, you not just have to value personality as your highest priority, you also have to have a decent personality yourself. All of which requires humility to actually have introspection add to actually question whether or not you are someone you would want to be around.

I am trying to see if the female libido is generally just as high as men. I feel like on reddit you do see a lot of high libido women. Even in r/DeadBedrooms a lot of the high libido partners are women. But then there's the stereotype that men want sex more. So what has you experience been as men? Do your partners have similar libidos to you?