TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Xeno505 Archive

View 0 posts and 39 comments by Xeno505 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)
6

Cell phones can torpedo that if you don't play the game - if you really want to go this route you need to present the plausible deniability aspect of it and present it as a situation that naturally unfolded. "Tell you what - Let's take (time constraint) to find your friends and if we can't find them then i'll (transport home) with you." And then just bring your A game and escalate, escalate, escalate.
/r/seduction24/01/13 04:30 PM
2

Work on your shit-eating grin.
/r/seduction22/10/12 02:26 AM
2

You will get out what you put in, friend.
/r/seduction24/08/12 06:52 PM
74

"I wouldn't." DAMN SON.
/r/seduction26/05/12 09:42 PM
2

I prefer to think of it of as soon as I have the thought "she's pretty" BOOM my feet are already moving towards her. No time to say no.
/r/seduction23/05/12 05:06 AM
1

You may be experiencing this. Best thing to do is to laugh it off.
/r/seduction07/04/12 06:04 PM
2

If women say they don't get along with other women and they prefer hanging out with guys, this is usually slang for "I'm constantly surrounded by drama with my female friends." This in turn is usually slang for "I create shit-tons of drama."
/r/seduction04/04/12 08:49 PM
7

If we can get to the point: This was posted here to reinforce 3 important things: 1) Women, especially women who believe (correctly or incorrectly) that they are attractive, have things bought for them by men all the time who are hoping to win their favor. This DOES NOT WORK and only inflates their perceived self-value. You want YOUR value to be inflated. Not hers. Think of it economically. 2) Women can be a LOT crazier than they let on. 3) If women don't get along with other women, that is a HU…
/r/seduction03/04/12 03:46 PM
1

Don't get me wrong - it's not so much a "she hasn't slept with me so she can't give me an honestly good review bitches and whores etc" rationale, it's just that I've been around for the part where girls who don't really know each other talk about the man in question, and the fact that the girl recommending him hasn't considered him as a romantic partner seems to really throw a monkey wrench in things for his potential partner. It's very odd, but it's pretty much for that reason and only that rea…
/r/seduction31/03/12 01:23 AM
1

No offense, but I wouldn't want a girl who hasn't slept with me to wing for me. The most effective thing you could do for him is, as was suggested, set him up with a friend and then give the friend of yours tips on how to best interact with him. If he is into seduction at all (which I suspect he isn't - bring him on down here) the best thing you can do for him is be around him and act like he's interesting/funny/the shit - other girls will see this and pick up on this - it's a demonstrator of va…
/r/seduction31/03/12 12:35 AM
2

Okay, first of all, I hope you understand the implications of messing around with a girl with a boyfriend. It can be a minefield at the best of times, and if your conscience isn't 100% clear about it, then err on the side of caution and evac. Even if your conscience is clear, things may explode on you. Trust me, I've been there. There are literally BILLIONS of women on the face of the earth here - avoid oneitis and quite frankly, there are easier targets. This goes DOUBLE for the fact that her b…
/r/seduction29/03/12 05:24 AM
-5

"If I had a nickel for every dead fish who told me that one..."
/r/seduction26/03/12 10:24 PM
2

Why did you disengage? Did you legitimately have to go to the bathroom? Imagine you're trying to get a fire started. The fire won't actually be started until you successfully close. The opening is choosing the site and preparing the ground. The escalation, the shit test, the kino, all that, is setting the kindling, the tinder, the balled-up newspaper. And going in for the close is striking the match. If you walk away from a half built fire, you're not actually trying to get a fire started - you …
/r/seduction20/03/12 01:57 AM
1

What went wrong, exactly? What would you do differently and what will you do differently the next time a similar situation comes up? Is this the end of the world or will life go on?
/r/seduction27/02/12 05:25 AM
1

I got shut down hard by a girl who I was pursuing in my extended social circle. I'm not all that certain what went wrong - I think it may have been an issue of rapport before attraction, because every time I tried to escalate things didn't feel quite right. Touching her generally didn't go well. Time to cut my losses and back off - either wait for her to come knocking or let her lie. Probably the latter. The night wasn't a total loss, though - earlier, as I was moving to get a beer at the bar, I…
/r/seduction26/02/12 11:34 PM
-4

They were all — each and every one of them — good enough to find someone love, and, I think you’ll find, something worth considering the next time you’re certain you don’t have anything to say. Next.
/r/seduction16/02/12 08:40 PM
-8

dodging the point You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means. the lines are not being represented as good They are being marketed as good. Particularly to men that have no idea how to talk to women. I would wager that most, if not a very large portion, of the nearly 45,000 subscribers to this subreddit are past that stage of the game, and as such, these openers are pretty much worthless to us. When we start out, we're not concerned with what we're saying. We're c…
/r/seduction16/02/12 08:27 PM
-10

I am not dodging the point. The point I'm making is that, while a large part of the equation is simply biting the bullet and making the approach, the opener is not a null variable.
/r/seduction16/02/12 07:44 PM
3

The opener should not shortchange you, though. These ones are mostly palpably worse than a very neutral "hi.". Mostly because they're either creepy unless you put a hell of a lot of spin on them, or they turn you into the "dancing monkey" (i.e. a sideshow, and not the man in control of the situation).
/r/seduction16/02/12 05:16 PM
18

The philosophy is good, the openers not so much - they're either too tryhard, too court jester, or straight up dumb.
/r/seduction16/02/12 03:37 PM
9

Good. New: I'm not that kind of girl.
/r/seduction25/01/12 12:08 AM
2

Touché. Second one feels slightly more like you're in command of the situation though for some reason I can't quite pin down - I think it's because the language is speaker-centric.
/r/seduction24/01/12 06:30 AM
8

Second one works better. First is too supplicating. When in doubt, go direct.
/r/seduction24/01/12 06:14 AM
0

Yeah, right, and the U.S. and Israel aren't in bed either.
/r/seduction23/01/12 07:19 PM
7

There is no good way out of this one. You either drop her or you drop your other sets. I know it's not the answer you want to hear, but you can't unsay that to her. Even if you somehow manage to damage control it well enough, she's going to remember that you reneged on that one. That is going to hurt you in the long run, no two ways about it - it's going to make you seem indecisive, impulsive, and a whole other host of undesirables. You could try to say oh hey jk about that whole boyfriend thing…
/r/seduction05/09/11 01:24 AM
126

And in that case just abort completely. Be smart and know when to cut your losses.
/r/seduction27/05/11 09:45 PM
1

While on its face I do agree with the fact that prior consent should not be able to be obtained for acts while unconscious (because both consenting partners need to be able to know what's going on in order to give consent - consent is not carte blanche, consent is I-agree-with-what-is-presently-happening-to-me), I do not like the particulars of that case one little bit.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 06:30 PM
2

What you're describing is not patriarchy but discrimination. There's a difference between the two.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 01:15 AM
3

1) Yes. 2) No. 3) Yes. 4) No. 5) No. Sexism and inequality are knives that cut both ways. If I hear the word "patriarchy" from a feminist that's a good signal that it's time to stop arguing with them because they're delusional. There isn't some male-dominated illuminati specifically making sure that women don't become CEOs or any stupid shit like that. I'm not so sure that either side experiences more discrimination, but what I am reasonably sure of is that sexism against men is more institution…
/r/MensRights27/03/11 07:22 PM
1

No, I see one of them committing genocide against the other and using their corpses as fuel.
/r/MensRights27/03/11 07:11 PM
3

Part of the problem is that men are viewed as the initiators/predators/requestors of one night stands and that women are always on the responsive end. What happens when these roles are reversed and what role does alcohol play on the initiating and responding partner?
/r/MensRights20/03/11 07:29 PM
7

Piglet hit the nail on the head. There is a big difference between drunkenly agreeing to do something and drunkenly attempting to stop forced sex.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 05:15 AM
8

This is a variation of "she-was-asking-for-it-because-she-was-drunk" and that doesn't fly here. There's a difference between getting drunk and having sex and getting drunk and being raped. In my jurisdiction, anyways.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 02:22 AM
0

This is all hypothetical. First, you need to assess the accusations - not all women are the lying whores men make them out to be, and they're not all honest altruists as all women would have you believe. If YOU, given all the evidence you have at your disposal, believe these accusations do OR EVEN COULD hold water, here's how you proceed: If you think the accusations are 100% bogus, let him know people are dragging his name through the mud and be done with it. If you think they might be legit, A…
/r/MensRights16/02/11 02:06 AM
10

Nobody understands sarcasm on this subreddit, I find.
/r/MensRights07/02/11 12:21 AM
2

I just about lost my shit. This is outrageous.
/r/MensRights09/01/11 12:21 AM
2

I actually don't have a problem with this if it focuses on the issues of women in countries that are actually oppressing them, like Saudi Arabia and all that. I have a feeling it'll be strongarmed into another wing of Western feminism though.
/r/MensRights31/12/10 05:43 PM
6

If it were a civil suit, then yes, the loser would have to pay. But the problem comes with the fact that the matter is criminal, and that opens up the door to the state paying hefty legal fees every time there's an acquittal, which means incentives for convictions is increased, which means miscarriages of justice multiply. However, I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to sue the complainant for fees brought by a false claim. EDIT: Canada has a loser pays system in civil law. Can't speak for …
/r/MensRights27/12/10 03:14 AM
1

Anonymity until conviction as an option for the defendant seems better to me.
/r/MensRights18/12/10 11:47 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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