TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Plasstik Archive

View 0 posts and 92 comments by Plasstik on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

looks count for fuck all When it comes to attracting women (and people in general), looks count for something, and perhaps sometimes for more than we would like to admit. The important thing to realize is that improving your looks alone won't make you happier, even if you get more attention because of it. Most of us aren't unhappy because we're ugly or fat or have bad acne, but rather the other way around, and when it's genuinely an issue, a little extra attention from women doesn't fix it. TL;D…
/r/seduction22/10/13 09:12 PM
7

This isn't a feminist thing, but is standard throughout almost all academic writing. When referring to a singular person of indeterminate gender, rather than using the incorrect "they" or the ugly "he/she," you're supposed to alternate between "he" and "she." Since the author only does this once, I don't see what the gripe is. Yes, the author might be a feminist, but as it stands, that sentence doesn't give us reason to think so.
/r/seduction21/10/13 04:43 PM
8

Absolutely great post. For all the flak that the seduction community takes from various dissenting parties, I think most would agree that this is healthy advice.
/r/seduction07/06/13 06:35 PM
6

Downvoted for advocating outright lying to two girls simultaneously in the same room. It's one thing to be either immoral or stupid, but it's another entirely to be both at the same time.
/r/seduction22/04/13 10:02 AM
1

Perhaps it seems a matter of semantics, but it's not an issue of being proud of yourself for being a man (which, I agree, is clearly not praiseworthy), but rather being proud of men.
/r/seduction03/01/13 02:30 AM
1

I can see what you're saying. It is, essentially, the same argument as that against nationalism. However, being proud of a certain group to which you belong doesn't imply that that group is superior to other groups. It merely means that that group has done something praiseworthy.
/r/seduction02/01/13 11:58 PM
2

Agreed. Furthermore, I don't even think that being sexually successful ought to be regarded as vital to personal success or happiness, as should be made evident by asexuals. The fact that someone doesn't adhere to traditional gender roles or sexual preferences doesn't detract from their personhood in any way, and everyone should be able to take pride in who they are.
/r/seduction02/01/13 09:46 PM
1

Perhaps, but I think that most users of r/seduction, or at least those regulars who have become familiar with the content, realize that the prevailing sexual strategies proposed by society are horribly misleading and ineffective, and in that regard, have already swallowed the appropriate pill.
/r/seduction02/01/13 07:53 PM
2

Very few people who take offense to this sort of material do so because they are "bluepillers," but rather because it oftentimes has misogynistic undertones. The statement of intent emphasized at /r/TheRedPill (as explained here) is not itself objectionable. However, most people recognize that being a good person should come before being sexually successful, and so there is good reason to condemn misogynistic thinking (where it actually exists), even where it is effective and supported by eviden…
/r/seduction02/01/13 07:39 PM
1

I'm not sure I follow, unfortunately.
/r/seduction02/01/13 05:36 PM
7

As someone who sympathizes with feminist thinkers, I find there to be little value to most of the material presented in the article. However, this did stand out to me: Men are responsible for 99.9% of everything worth celebrating, lamenting, embracing and shunning in recorded history. Good and evil are defined, constructed, and introduced to the world by men. Take your societal position seriously, and never allow women or feminized pussyboys to erode what it means to be a man. Never let them use…
/r/seduction02/01/13 05:09 PM
4

Good thing that's not what the OP called for, then.
/r/seduction26/10/12 10:39 PM
3

I'm inclined to agree with bluehat9 here, OP. In general, this is just a good practice when hooking up with anyone with whom you're not in an exclusive sexual relationship. In this case, it should have been even more a priority because of the context. Why exactly was Jane "donesky" with her husband? Ultimately, the decision is yours, but it's just important that we recognize that forgoing protection in a case like this is not a wise decision. Congrats on the threesome, though.
/r/seduction25/09/12 04:21 PM
3

I genuinely am not sure whether or not you're being satirical. Seven approaches is a particularly slow afternoon at the mall. If you seriously want to succeed, become comfortable with the possibility of something more along the lines of 10-25 approaches (or more, as necessary) per day, everyday.
/r/seduction02/09/12 10:52 PM
1

Onto the next girls, then.
/r/seduction02/09/12 10:42 PM
1

Though I find this hard to believe in full, the only thing that can be said for certain is that you are not doing everything all these other guys are, or else you would be getting comparable results. Based on the example of dialogue you provided, conversation is likely your sticking point. You may need to take steps to become a more interesting conversationalist.
/r/seduction02/09/12 10:37 PM
0

In short, the answer to your question is "No." Hiring an escort would only be a viable solution to your problems if they stemmed from a lack of familiarity with sex, and they do not seem to. Having gone through your post history, I've come to the conclusion that you simply have an unattractive personality. Or, at the very least, you present yourself in such a way that your personality comes across as unattractive. I don't want you to get offended by this, because I don't mean it as an insult. Ot…
/r/seduction02/09/12 10:11 PM
4

This graph was made in Paint by someone whose username is BloopBleepBlorp. You may be taking it just a tad too seriously.
/r/seduction23/08/12 02:34 AM
37

Cajun is by far one of the best PUAs in the Internet's public eye. A link to his most recent AMA.
/r/seduction09/08/12 11:42 AM
1

Yes, the desired effect both can and should be achieved without really involving the arm, or you're very likely to overdo it and pull too roughly.
/r/seduction16/07/12 05:02 AM
-4

Strong username to post content ratio.
/r/seduction24/06/12 07:52 PM
5

In my experience, the term "swagger" is only ever used by people who don't have the quality the word attempts to describe; those who do have that quality never refer to it as "swagger."
/r/seduction24/06/12 05:53 PM
1

http://i.imgur.com/IPL0a.jpg
/r/seduction05/06/12 08:47 PM
5

Not at all. There was just no way to tell from your original post whether or not you were dating the first girl at the time.
/r/seduction02/06/12 11:43 PM
7

Was the first girl your girlfriend at the time?
/r/seduction02/06/12 11:38 PM
5

This. You have to consider, OP, that you're not in a sexual relationship with one person, but rather with three people (and possibly more to come). This is entirely your choice to make, but you shouldn't fool yourself into thinking the risk of getting an STD is the same as in a closed relationship with a single person.
/r/seduction24/05/12 10:02 PM
7

No, he's right. If you're just looking for a way to convey to the first girl that you're unaffected by her rejection, what you suggested would often work, but it is also likely to disadvantage you going into the new set. A better solution is to wish her a good day, take a minute to get off tilt (collect your thoughts and verify you're in the right state of mind to open another set), and continue on to a fresh set.
/r/seduction07/05/12 12:14 AM
1

As far as I know, there are no studies to show that the cited 50% boost has any measurable effects. Generally, however, increased testosterone could increase cognitive and physical performance, lower body fat percentage, lower cholesterol, and lower blood pressure, among some others effects.
/r/seduction18/04/12 03:17 PM
2

As explained in the /r/nofap FAQ, testosterone levels peak around the 8th day and then drop back down to just above baseline. Theoretically, if you were aiming to maximize testosterone, you could initiate an 8-day cycle. However, the idea is not to maximize testosterone, but rather to undo the changes to the brain's reward pathways caused by excessive exposure to porn, which can supposedly take 3-6 months.
/r/seduction17/04/12 12:57 PM
1

I thought perhaps that you were employing sexual innuendo, along the lines of "Well is she better off if she's sore and walks with a limp for a week?" Now that it seems obvious that this is not what you meant, might I suggest you try to adopt the aforementioned maxim? Ideally, we should try to better everyone with whom we interact, and I feel this becomes more important the more intimate the interaction is.
/r/seduction02/04/12 08:44 AM
1

Unfortunately, I can't tell whether or not your comment is tongue-in-cheek. If so, well played. If not, perhaps you should reevaluate your goals.
/r/seduction02/04/12 07:40 AM
6

Ethically speaking, you shouldn't game girls who are in relationships. I know that a lot of guys with great game will tell you that they don't care; they seem to be of the opinion that you can't force someone to cheat. While that may be true, most of those same experts would agree that you should leave every girl you game better off than before you met her. Causing someone to leave their significant other and sticking them with the resultant reputation does not constitute leaving them better tha…
/r/seduction02/04/12 04:01 AM
12

I'm going to comment on this to possibly help avoid some lawsuits. The described "pulling" is not so much a pull, but rather just the motion of making a fist. Run your fingers through her hair, along the back of her scalp. By making a fist in this position, you'll pull her head back "abruptly" without hurting her. The making of a fist will bend your wrist backwards and achieve the desired motion; no actual pulling required. Any additional pulling with the arm itself may just get you sued.
/r/seduction30/03/12 04:54 PM
3

You might, but don't tell me what I'd do. I'd call him.
/r/seduction30/03/12 02:39 PM
1

"Don't hurt yourself," with a smile.
/r/seduction29/03/12 09:42 PM
1

During any particular approach, you could also get shot or stabbed. That such a thing is physically possible, no one doubts. But it doesn't pay to acknowledge such irrelevant and trivial possibilities, and especially not to dwell on them.
/r/seduction21/03/12 07:53 PM
3

I'm aware of that. I was commenting on the implication of responding to the statement "You're such a dick" by saying, "You are what you eat."
/r/seduction16/03/12 06:50 AM
10

Think it through.
/r/seduction16/03/12 04:57 AM
0

Why the fuck do you sound so pissed off? There's a huge zone between AFC and misogynist, and this missed it completely.
/r/seduction14/03/12 09:40 PM
1

This is basically the argument of indirect game vs. direct game. Clearly the OP is for direct game. While there may be merit to the debate, it is indeed an unsettled debate, and there is very little, if anything, presented here to move the debate forward.
/r/seduction14/03/12 04:46 PM
2

Safest bet would probably be a situational opener. If nothing else makes itself available, make a remark about the wait time, lack of space, or bumpiness and say, "Gotta love public transit, yeah?"
/r/seduction13/03/12 12:53 PM
7

"Hey. Is this seat taken?"
/r/seduction13/03/12 12:46 PM
8

Yeah. It's impossible to overstate the crucially important role that your foot plays in every single aspect of game.
/r/seduction11/03/12 07:07 PM
1

Find another one.
/r/seduction11/03/12 05:42 PM
7

If no one else is going to do it, I'll bite the bullet. I think you're mistaken and he is a fairly good-looking guy. With that said, I guarantee that the confidence developed as a stripper works wonders for his game. Or perhaps the confidence is what moved him towards stripping. Either way, he has it.
/r/seduction11/03/12 07:42 AM
7

Though I think you definitely have a valid stance, I could say the same about almost anyone. There's very little to be gained from debates about indirect vs. direct or about inner game vs. skills-based game. There's only one absolutely essential aspect to approaching women: the actual approach. Figure the rest out for yourself, because no one else can tell you how you work best.
/r/seduction10/03/12 07:17 PM
4

The problem with dating an ex's friend is if they're really close, as you mentioned, because the ex will likely cause problems. Outside of that, zero fucks should be given about what anyone else sees as an uncool move.
/r/seduction09/03/12 02:14 AM
2

An entertaining read, but I feel like it should be regarded as exactly that and nothing more.
/r/seduction06/03/12 11:01 PM
2

I'd like to extend the same apology to you as well. I do think it was largely just a misunderstanding due to ambiguity of terms. No hard feelings on this side.
/r/seduction06/03/12 07:47 PM
2

I agree. If a girl is simply saying that you are escalating too quickly, then going to make a sandwich would be juvenile. Not so, however, if she expresses that she is uncomfortable with or unwilling to have sex at any point that night. The confusion, I believe, comes from the fact that "moving too fast" and "slowing down" often hide (or are perceived as hiding) that very implication.
/r/seduction06/03/12 07:41 PM
2

A freeze-out is generally not the preferred method of dealing with momentary LMR, but rather when the woman is very clear that she is not comfortable having sex that night.
/r/seduction06/03/12 07:27 PM
3

It's not, actually, but I would agree that we value sex differently. When I bring a girl to bed, it's because I intend to sleep with her. You claim that this is not strictly the case for you. That's fine. I don't value cuddling for the sake of cuddling like you do. As such, if I'm not having sex with a girl, then I do not need her in my bed and would rather be having a discussion with her over drinks.
/r/seduction06/03/12 07:25 PM
2

First and foremost, let's be clear that LMR implies that she is uncomfortable having sex with you that night, not just that moment. If this weren't true, then it'd simply be a matter of progressing foreplay until she is comfortable. However, when it becomes clear that sex is not an option that night, some people would genuinely prefer to engage in non-sexual activities, and that's perfectly fine. It's not a form of punishment, it's just reciprocal honesty and respect for preferences.
/r/seduction06/03/12 07:22 PM
3

We clearly have differing opinions about the purpose and inherent value of foreplay, and I'm left to conclude that the disagreement stems therefrom.
/r/seduction06/03/12 07:18 PM
2

If you didn't want to stick your dick in her, don't bring her into your bed. But that's not what it's about. We both brought her into bed for the same reason, we just respond differently to LMR. You want to keep her in your bed and whisper sweet nothings in her ear so she'll sleep with you next time; I'm happy to have her put her clothes back on and engage in non-sexual activities. For someone who doesn't need to have sex with women for validation, you really don't seem to understand that.
/r/seduction06/03/12 07:11 PM
3

The idea behind freezing a girl out is that you intentionally cease all sexual activity when she expresses that she's not comfortable with intercourse. This isn't to trick her into having sex, but rather to elucidate the line between having sex and not. Clearly this is not something you would do if you enjoy spooning and want to continue doing so. The only difference between what you and I are suggesting is that you want to cuddle and I don't, so let's neither one of us pretend to be on the high…
/r/seduction06/03/12 07:07 PM
3

If a girl isn't going to have sex with me and I get up to make a sandwich, then I've been both respected her boundaries and been honest about my intentions. If a girl is going to have sex with me and my going to get a sandwich helps to overcome LMR, then all the better. If a girl isn't going to have sex with you and you cuddle with her, then you've respected her boundaries and engaged in what you consider to be a worthwhile activity. If cuddling gets you sex at a later date, all the better for y…
/r/seduction06/03/12 06:57 PM
3

While I find that little personal jab cute, it's kind of beside the point. We've established as part of the hypothetical that neither of us, whether you or I, is having sex in either situation.
/r/seduction06/03/12 06:48 PM
2

Why can't you have a conversation with a women without her being half-naked in your bed? Personally, I have better conversations while dressed and over sandwiches. Since neither of us is having sex in either scenario, why do you care if I fix myself a sandwich? Edit in reply to edit: it's personal preference, then. I would rather have a normal, clothed conversation with a woman than cuddle and play footsies, and so what you're suggesting is useless to me.
/r/seduction06/03/12 06:44 PM
2

What have you got against sandwiches?
/r/seduction06/03/12 06:40 PM
3

It seems to me like you don't understand what a freeze-out is. A freeze out is not some form of harsh, psychological warfare. A freeze-out is exactly what you're suggesting, but you just stop canoodling. A freeze-out is saying, "I understand if you're uncomfortable having sex right now, and I totally respect that. I'm going to throw together a sandwich right quick. Would you like one?"
/r/seduction06/03/12 06:36 PM
1

It's not that I'm worried that you'd get friend-zoned as a result. Rather, it seems to me that the mentality behind it is that which often gets men friend-zoned when applied outside of the bedroom.
/r/seduction06/03/12 06:24 PM
2

If you're half-naked in bed with a woman and are going to claim that any action you take after LMR is designed to do anything but get her to sleep with you, either then or at a later date, then you are at least one of three things: A quitter. A liar. A sociopath. The first two are obvious. The third comes from bedding women with whom you have no real intentions of having sex.
/r/seduction06/03/12 06:23 PM
4

Freezes, in essence, are not manipulative, but a straightforward declaration of honest intent. The only difference between a freeze-out and what you're proposing is that in the former you don't play footsies for the sake of having sex at a later date. If anything, what you're suggesting is manipulative. The seduction community is pro-straightforwardness in every other area, so I can't see the need for the flip-flop in the bedroom.
/r/seduction06/03/12 05:54 PM
7

I disagree with what you're saying entirely. A freeze-out is basically a way of saying, "Look, I respect your boundaries, and if you don't want to have sex I won't try to force you, but if so then I have no desire to cuddle and french kiss for an hour." That's not only your prerogative, but the honest thing to do, whereas what you're suggesting is akin to other mentalities which result in guys getting friend-zoned.
/r/seduction06/03/12 03:36 PM
65

No offense, but your old wing sounds like a prude. It's understandable that he doesn't want you running around and bedding everyone within his social circle, but it sounds as if he expected you to play dead all night. I hope he was a better sport while you guys were winging for each other.
/r/seduction03/03/12 03:11 PM
6

While I can understand how the initial "Aww" might slip out inadvertently, it's not really the best response. You could have then followed up with, "That's adorable. Dear, I chose to let you be with me tonight," with a lighthearted smile. That's just an example. Essentially, any ideal response would have made your time the prize, rather than hers.
/r/seduction02/03/12 10:39 PM
1

I vaguely experienced the reported phenomenon on my first try, before knowing what the outcome should be. After I read the entire post, the effect was much more potent, as I would expect. I'll try it out and report back. Edit: Not mind-blowing, but not a blow-out.
/r/seduction29/02/12 08:00 AM
1

Original: http://www.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/q8tza/john_and_sarah/
/r/seduction28/02/12 06:47 AM
3

That actually very strongly suggests the opposite of what you're saying. A hired actor knows not to look at the camera. Unknowing citizens, on the other hand, are likely to notice when they are being filmed, and it is in the best interest of those filming them to keep them from wondering about the camera.
/r/seduction27/02/12 08:33 PM
18

I know I'm bigger then he is so getting into a fight will not be a big deal. Famous last words.
/r/seduction03/02/12 11:11 PM
1

No problem. And in response to your concern about the "find girl, fuck girl, ditch girl" view of seduction, you can always include the "Always leave the girl better off than when you found her" maxim in your explanation. That's something I believe the skeptics and the general public should be made aware of.
/r/seduction02/02/12 06:31 PM
14

Though I have to applaud the noble intent behind your effort, I feel like you're permitting some stereotypes and flawed ideologies to bias your explanation. Why should we portray it as more admirable to use seduction in search of a relationship than simply in search of sex? We're sexual creatures. A lot of perfectly moral individuals get captured by your definition of "immature dickhead nerds." That's just slut-shaming aimed at men, and we should do everything we can to put an end to it.
/r/seduction02/02/12 05:51 PM
2

It's not wrong, but unless her shift had just started, it wasn't likely for her to have considered herself as having experienced the current weather. To demonstrate this through hyperbole, imagine that you'd asked her about the weather but she hadn't been outdoors in a week. Even if the weather remained constant throughout the week, she wouldn't likely count herself as having experienced the weather of the moment.
/r/seduction02/02/12 04:29 AM
1

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not trolling, because I typically find troll posts humourous. With that said, to list some things you did wrong: Your comment about the weather was almost bound to blow up in your face, given the context. Your neg wasn't a neg and was incredibly tactless. You reached over the counter to touch her on the shoulder. That was a mistake for a plethora of reasons: it was an awkward motion, it was forced, and it's usually socially frowned…
/r/seduction02/02/12 03:58 AM
16

A few questions: What are your preferred ways of reducing approach anxiety after a period of inactivity, or do you guys have any exercises for keeping it down during periods of inactivity? What's your favourite kind of approach or opener? If you had to identify one thing that advanced your game more than any other, which would you choose?
/r/seduction02/02/12 03:43 AM
2

Another off-putting quality you might want to work on is your opinion of your intelligence. I'm sure you're smart enough, but unless you're a child prodigy and on your way to curing cancer, you shouldn't be going around playing up your intelligence as if you're an outlier. Truthfully, anyone who succeeds in an upper-level university typically pulled 90% or higher in all their advanced high school courses, including math. And I don't say this in a condescending way, but because it's actually rele…
/r/seduction01/02/12 09:17 PM
-1

Do they claim to be?
/r/seduction01/02/12 02:23 AM
3

If you read the article, you'll notice that none of the supposed advantages provided were particularly significant. Oh, letting women approach me rather than the opposite will improve my odds by 2%, you say? Great, so long as I'm approached by 98% as many women as I would otherwise approach. Furthermore, it's very unclear from the details provided in the article that any of the perceived effects were anything more than mere happenstance. What were the sample sizes? Was there any form of control?
/r/seduction31/01/12 07:36 PM
2

In a situation like that, it's probably best to either shrug it off or go over-the-top ridiculous. If you prefer the former, then just tell her you're not sure what she means, and act as if she's silly for thinking you have an agenda. If you'd prefer the latter, then tell her something ridiculous, like how you intend to take her to Vegas that very night to get married by an Elvis impersonator before blowing your lives' savings on roulette and cotton candy.
/r/seduction28/01/12 12:58 AM
3

The only important dichotomy here is that between strong men and weak men, not between nice guys and bad guys.
/r/seduction27/01/12 07:47 AM
4

You're not making a distinction between what it is to hit on someone and what it is to approach and converse with someone. In many everyday contexts, the former is creepy but the latter is not. As such, your logic could be applied to any other number of venues and consequently fails.
/r/seduction26/01/12 05:31 PM
2

I'll take a random guess and assume it was the bodybuilding.com Misc section, just because there are very few lines with which they haven't done exactly what you've just described.
/r/seduction25/01/12 09:47 PM
-2

Big talk coming from someone who successfully employs "pedantic" in their online vocabulary.
/r/seduction23/01/12 06:28 AM
3

This is definitely an effective line, but if implemented at the wrong time, it's basically a form of social terrorism. If you've built a significant amount of rapport, but not enough attraction for her to be completely willing to go home with you, then this line essentially says, "If you don't leave with me right now, I'm ending this interaction immediately." Ironically, that more honest version would probably be equally effective if said tongue-in-cheek and wouldn't have that hint of emotional …
/r/seduction22/01/12 09:17 PM
11

Hey, I'm running on very little sleep, so I haven't had a chance to read through the entire thing, but I just wanted to say one thing in the meantime. I don't know if the "Your friend is gorgeous; help me out" line was entirely original on your part, but either way, I think it's an absolutely brilliant thing to say.
/r/seduction22/01/12 12:01 PM
1

To be fair, though, I do want to stress that I think you're got a very good point about how the world is most of the time. Exactly how someone can experience no approach anxiety at all, regardless or whether or not it has to do with fear of rejection, is something I can't personally wrap my head around. Furthermore, it seems like the few people in question can't explain it either.
/r/seduction21/01/12 02:05 AM
3

While I definitely feel like you have an interesting understanding of anxiety and are correct far more times than not, make note of the following sentence: The fear of rejection is prevalent with all of us That's a universal claim, so it only takes one instantiation to the contrary to make it false, and any psychologist will tell you that there are always exceptions. I personally know (and I'm sure many people do) individuals who genuinely do not fear rejection; there's nothing more absurd in th…
/r/seduction21/01/12 01:15 AM
8

I'm very grateful for all the awkward scenarios this comment will cause for those who don't know how to escalate physical contact properly.
/r/seduction21/01/12 12:15 AM
1

I disagree, not in the sense that approach anxiety isn't the result of societal norms, but rather in the sense that people are not irrevocably governed by these norms (otherwise they wouldn't be norms but rather laws). Some people simply don't experience anxiety when initiating conversation, even when there's underlying, sexual intent. However, I think it's largely an issue of how one was raised. As such, if you experience approach anxiety, then it would be misguided to hope to banish it for ete…
/r/seduction21/01/12 12:05 AM
1

I think it's silly to hold it to the same standards as a real study (due mainly to the impracticality, not the premise), but if you really wanted to treat it as such, the experimenter would need to be unaware of why he was being asked to escalate in different fashions.
/r/seduction20/01/12 06:51 PM
1

The fact that anyone actively involved in the experiment is aware of the hypothesis is highly likely to skew the results.
/r/seduction20/01/12 06:37 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter