Using Women’s Beta Blacklisting Words Against Them

Women love to cavalierly toss out all-purpose smears like “creeper” and “stalker” to ear tag the beta males solemnly grazing around them who rumble a little too close to the edge of their pen enclosures, because a punchy insult is always preferable to a more articulate rationale for describing the ways in which the innocuous characteristics of the beta male are so dismaying and unattractive to women, the sex, if you will ponder, which prides itself on its wellspring of compassion.

Interestingly, this reflexive psychological burp of women can be retrofitted by the cunning womanizer as a tool to disarm women’s natural defenses against putting out too easily, or feeling regret for having put out too easily.

Reader walawala recounts a text exchange which demonstrates this inverse psychology tactic:

just had a text exchange with a girl I just banged last night by maintaining frame…

Me: cab driver just spit a loogie into a roll of toilet paper

Her: thanks for sharing

Me: keep change lah

Her: I just googled you and found a story you were quoted in

Me: u cyber stalker

There was a danger here that walawala would get sucked into this girl’s frame when she opened that can of worms about googling him. His response was classic frame control: “u cyber stalker”. (Note alluringly aloof lack of punctuation.) By using one of her natural womanly words of exclusion against her, he effectively put her in the defensive crouch, where she is tempted into qualifying herself to him. Most women, because their modernist Western egos are so rapaciously overinflated, cannot resist this temptation.

A very quick and dirty way to break a girl’s frame, or reinstitute the primacy of your frame, is to accuse her of being a creep or a stalker. Women respond viscerally to these accusations because they are intimately familiar with the power of these slanders to utterly castrate beta males and render them harmless environmental accoutrements. The last thing you want is women categorizing you as a harmless accoutrement. And sometimes, the only way to avoid that is to give them a taste of their own exhilarating medicine.


  1. I don’t think walawala is dating “western girls” lah


  2. I’ve done that before. It was in the order about how she cared about me only by my looks instead of my personality.


  3. So you were joking when you said that I’m a psycho stalker? I’m relieved. Women too are hurt by the word ‘stalker’ but maybe in a different way. We don’t want to be seen as crazy.


  4. Also known as fighting fire with fire, also known as game.

    If a girl accuses you of stalking her (and not in the ‘get away from me’ kind of way), an AA response is ‘I don’t stalk, I investigate’.


  5. “Creeper” and “creepy” are both great to use on chicks. Not only do they flip the script, but also imply that you’re attuned to girl-code.


  6. How could the girl respond to “u cyber stalker” if she wanted to maintain frame control?


  7. P.S. The worst beta blacklisting attack I’ve witnessed is two wives accusing their husbands of being closet homosexuals for each other. I kept wishing one of them would say, “Honey, stop projecting your urge for more anal sex onto us. Jesus, you just got some three hours ago,” or some shit like that. But, they failed miserably and just mumbled stupid yeah-yeah-whatever shit back.


    • Be a man and shame them next time you are forced to witness such a scrote-shriveling retreat. Ideally by example before words.

      CH had an old fictional short story where the man advises another man whom he just cuckolded to treat the slot the way she deserves. This easygoing mentoring skill is one players will have to acquire if they ever want to extend their game wisdom or influence beyond an interesting “hobby.”

      Those betas don’t deserve their cunty wives’ treachery any more than you did before you encountered the red pill. So be a pharmacist. It will do your soul, and the culture, unfathomable good. It’s exhilarating to be devastatingly righteous. Men want to be you, women want to be with you.



      • Matt, I agree and I did mention it to them, but the anti-force is strong. Some dudes like me think game is dick-head tactics and there’s cognitive dissonance about listening – THIS IS THE MAIN REASON I THINK HEARTISTE SHOULD LINK TO DAVE FROM HAWAII RELATIONSHIP GAME WEEK POST ON HIS MAIN NAV BAR. That post is the bridge that betas need to get over the cognitive hump.


  8. I also enjoy labeling HB’s as nerds and dorks.


  9. on November 20, 2012 at 3:41 pm RappaccinisDaughter

    Beta blacklisting…a neat turn of phrase. And I’ll agree that “creeper” and “stalker” have gotten a bit shopworn from overuse. Just because the guy sent you three texts in a row doesn’t make him a creeper.

    But I maintain that the terms do have a proper application. I’m betting many of you who get out a lot have had this happen, because I’ve watched it happen to male friends of mine: You meet a girl whom you don’t find attractive but who is clearly attracted to you. You are polite to her, if a bit standoffish, but she doesn’t get the hint.

    You make an excuse and go talk to someone else. There she is, butting in to the conversation. You turn your back to her. She sidles around to the front. You start to get a little curt with her, but you’re constricted by social mores in just how rude you can be.

    Now she’s going around to your friends, pumping them for information about you as she simultaneously pouts and whines that you’re not paying attention to her. Maybe she tries to flip the script and call YOU a creep.

    Uncomfortable, right? Annoying, at a minimum. Well…


    • on November 20, 2012 at 6:35 pm Hugh G. Rection

      Uncomfortable: Right. Annoying, at a minimum. Creepy? No. That would be the ugly wanna-be cougar or hideously fat chick grabbing your ass or crotch, for example. It just seems to me that women love hyberbole, always draws attention.


    • Your false equivalence is a pastime of the left, and it should be beneath you.

      The crucial difference between a man creeper and a woman creeper is that the former is universally rejected, and the appearance of being thought as one is consciously avoided by all rational men insofar as they have the ability to detect their own ineptitude; whereas the latter is tolerated if not universally accepted and consciously pursued by women with no ability to gauge their own market value because (and only because) their solipsistic behavior is encouraged by their acquaintances and by the culture.

      Creepers are easily dealt with, but it requires a nanogram of generosity and human empathy.

      You make an excuse and go talk to someone else. There she is, butting in to the conversation. You turn your back to her. She sidles around to the front. You start to get a little curt with her, but you’re constricted by social mores in just how rude you can be.

      The cuntly woman’s response to rudeness is her own version of it, amped up (being as “rude [as] you can be”). Didn’t mom teach you how to kill them with kindness?

      The creepers and the stalkers and the groupies all deep down understand their damaged value. The problem with women creepers is that they have been told to “go girl!” their whole lives and to ignore the judgment of the outside world — we are living in the nadir of the aftermath of the self-esteem debacle. The RomCom movies teach them that they are hot as long as they remove their glasses, that there is a cute pixie in every unpleasant beast just waiting to be liberated from her 100-lb fat suit.

      Women think that only men can be creepers because men handle the female version so well, and therefore the creepesses’ asocial lurches become less visible. Men handle stalkers better because they are the propositioning sex, genetically prepared to manage rejection. There is your nanogram of empathy. Women believe that engaging an overzealous fan (“You turn your back to her. She sidles around to the front.”) diminishes her value, but this is an insecurity that derives from misunderstanding the real dynamic. Attention from men, even needy men, doesn’t diminish her. It reinforces the value most men already see, since so much of a woman’s sexual worth is visible. If a woman was secure in the knowledge of her worth, she wouldn’t be defensive about acquiring groupies so much as experienced in the most efficient way to deal with them.

      The most efficient way to deal with fans isn’t to ignore them but to sate their attention needs quickly and with the minimum cost possible. The more efficiently you get them to acknowledge the value gap, the more of this takes care of itself. The unpracticed snot, who clearly does not have much experience with stalkers, will think the direct rhetorical question “What makes you think that (someone like) you have a chance with (someone like) me?” will suffice to rid her of a pest — a pest that, incidentally, is alerting the world to what a shallow person she is. But the stalker already knows this.

      What motivates the persistent creep is the need to express himself more than the logical chances of his sparking a relationship with you. Does the construction worker wolf-whistle because he thinks that will get him a date, or is he engaged in that anxiety-relieving sigh we all must practice in the presence of beauty? “Check that ass out, bro!” We all have an automatic inclination to share our discovery of virtue with anyone and everyone who will listen. “I know this little shop that serves the best espresso…”

      The insecure snot mistakes this relief of anxiety as a public challenge to her value, and springs into defensive mode. On the other hand, the secure person who is used to attention recognizes and defuses the anxiety with warmth and generosity. Shmoes are always surprised at how “real” or “down-to-earth” celebrities are because they have learned through experience how to gently handle over-the-top gestures of appreciation. People with no inner-conception of high attractiveness expect every high-value person to be a diva just because he or she can be.

      Unless stalkers are truly mentally imbalanced (the woman’s first resort explanation for the not immediately explicable), they will cease the open signs of infatuation the moment their beloved signals their existence and leaves the judgment mercifully implied. Just be gracious. A man’s conscience will do all the dirty work. But a woman’s conscience? Trust me, lady, we have the far harder time being generous against your entrenched entitlement mentality. Even so, magnanimity remains the most effective neutralizer in just about every circumstance.



      • on November 21, 2012 at 9:32 am RappaccinisDaughter

        “The most efficient way to deal with fans isn’t to ignore them but to sate their attention needs quickly and with the minimum cost possible.”

        Oh, Matt, how I wish this were true. I’ve tried it and it backfired in a very big, bad way. But if it’s working for you, then all the power to you.


      • No man in this thread, even at his prime, will experience even 10% of the unwanted attention an 8+ chick dressed sexy will get on any random day and ESPECIALLY at a bar, so it’s difficult for them to wrap their heads around it.

        For extremely hot girls it would literally be impossible for them to get anything done if they even politely brushed off every “fan”, let alone gave them any sort of not just “positive attention” but “not express and harsh rejection”. This is why a lot of them will purposely look at the ground when they walk around, they’ve learned it opens far too many unfortunate doors to dare make eye contact with people as they go through their day. This is also why they develop bitch-shields.

        Again, most guys will never understand the barrage of unwanted attention hot chicks are forced to deal with simply because they were blessed with good looks and take pride in their appearance.

        It’s like Leiningen vs the ants. “Why don’t you just step on them? I had a few ants in my kitchen once and I stepped on them.”


      • No man in this thread, even at his prime, will experience even 10% of the unwanted attention an 8+ chick dressed sexy will get on any random day and ESPECIALLY at a bar, so it’s difficult for them to wrap their heads around it.

        I know this is next to impossible for one-dimensional poseurs to “wrap their head around,” but: speak for yourself. What do you know of the men “in this thread,” much less what they are/were/will be at their prime? Your wild guesses at the quality of those who depart from your belabored parochialism expose you more than us.

        In other words, we know who we are. You don’t. And your fantastical straw men don’t come close.

        Your attempted hot-girl’s-eye view of the world exposes you still further. Some stubborn omega traits apparently can’t be scrubbed with a thousand Owen Cook seminars. “For extremely hot girls it would literally be impossible for them to get anything done if they…” acted like normal human beings? This is a fancy way of pedestalizing top-level women, claiming they are beyond our comprehension and therefore exempt from our expectations. Your meta-omega awe in the presence of beautiful women is your excuse to inflate their egos categorically. What kind of sincere “neg” are you capable of devising, much less practicing, if you still believe the myth of a hot girl’s plight? Baby, you are just so transcendent and untouchable that those mere mortals can’t even “wrap their heads around” your existence. But I get you, baby. I get you.

        You don’t pick up hot chicks. You just discovered a way to orbit them more effectively. You don’t flatter them. Your entire subconscious is a flattery. You advanced your techniques while allowing the foundation below you to rot.

        But of course none of this has anything to do with actual circumstances or actual women. You are just lamely attempting (again) to pull rank by instructing the inexperienced plebs how women “really” “are.” This time the joke’s on you. You thought your observational credibility was strong enough to negate a core philosophy of game, one that every rookie interiorizes on day one: don’t put pussy on a pedestal.



      • Matt.

        Us wise commenters do know something about the men of this thread. What they typically look like, their income brackets and their extracurricular, demographics, etc.

        Hell, since I’ve been traveling all day I went and did some research on you and was able to find your identity and YES, you seem to have much in commen with a lot of the chumps that pose here.

        THERE you are

        Please leave the social observations to those who go out and not to those who bask in the fame of their high school glory.


      • If you are not on a celebrity, the attention you get is nothing like the attention an 8+ sexy chick is like.

        Even if you had a semi-famous rock band, girls would still have to recognize you before they flocked you. An 8+ complete nobody in a tight minidress can go to the grocery store and get creepers approaching, especially if she makes eye contact etc.

        You could be a doctor who’s saved millions of lives and discovered the cure for cancer. But when you go to a nightclub, the chick with the fake tits and slutty dress is getting in first.

        This is just reality. I’m not judging your worth as a man, don’t get so emotionally invested in what I’m saying lol this is just how it is. Try leaving your house once in a while.


      • “THERE you are

        That’s just rude and false.

        Gentlemen, meet King A:


      • Bitter bitter bitter. This is how you imps tell on yourselves. You only allow positive reinforcement because you’ve isolated yourselves from real criticism. You should know that the act doesn’t fool everyone. I am doing you a service.

        Spend your energy figuring out what I’m trying to say rather than on increasingly elaborate ways to dismiss it. Your allergy to criticism is how I know the omega still lives in you. It is your worst fear to be called out on this; no wonder you can’t stand to face the possibility.

        Stop regurgitating web links and videos, forget your idiosyncratic experiences and observations, and use your brain. If it really were so “hard … [being] a beautiful girl,” she wouldn’t purposely max-out her visual advantages, like I said above. Those kind of women (and men) — if you knew them — do indeed develop “repeatable and effective methods against infatuation, whether that is through disguise, isolation, or protection.” Woe is me, all this attention from all these losers! Like they never saw tits and ass spilling out of a tube-top and miniskirt!

        Infatuation is more than tallying the number of pick-up attempts in a half-hour. If a girl is awkward at neutralizing her biggest fans, then she never had the quality of attention you think she does, regardless of quantity. Experience would have forced a solution. My comments were only tangentially about how well she (or he) fends off the herd. They were about the most efficient way men and women of highest-level magnetism deal with “creepers,” “fanatics,” and “stalkers,” the maintenance of which is the cost of doing business.

        And the bottom line is, if you get a “fan” once or twice in your life, rudeness and abruptness may work — you can devote your resources to that occasional capital cost. You can directly handle every incident separately, rather than developing a system that works. Hence your and RappaccinisDaughter’s erroneous idea that scaling up the rudeness works. Well, it doesn’t work because being curt is negative attention, the acknowledgment that the stalker has gotten under the object’s skin. The fanatic regards such a reaction as an acknowledgement of intimacy; positive or negative is irrelevant.

        However, if infatuation/attachment happens with just about every person you meet, you have to develop assembly-line efficiencies to handle the volume. That’s where your rising-beta mindset falters, for lack of imagination. Killing them with kindness raises your status from B+ approachable to A+ untouchable — i.e., the infatuated intuits on their own that they’re “not good enough” for you — and the problem takes care of itself, especially when easier alternatives exist for them. If you are petty instead, the infatuation can turn dark and vengeful. So rather than neutralizing the attention, he or she simply turns it negative, and perhaps amplifies it.

        That is the dynamic unless the stalker/creeper has an artificial steroid-boost of self-esteem (or liquid courage), which is why entitled fat women are more persistent than the average male in pursuing their untouchable crushes. Men simply are forced in this feminist culture to be more self-aware. Like princesses raised for entitlement, Game and PUA training (and the simple sexual aggressiveness of men) also helps dull this awareness for self-esteem purposes. That gives them access to the most untouchable members of the opposite sex — low self-esteemers disqualify themselves from the A+’s and aim for the B’s instead, leaving the field to the courageous approachers. The “unapproachable” tens are approached with confidence, she is not used to the herd-crush, and unlike her sister sevens and eights, she is in uncharted territory, ripe for plucking. As long as you can overcome her well-honed anti-infatuation defenses.

        Those are the basics. If you are ready for the advanced lesson, then we can talk about how all women are at best visual B+’s and only acquire their “untouchable” status after a personal interaction. Celebrities are not always the most beautiful people, but they acquire depth and untouchability because we see them perform and read their personal interviews. We don’t know whether the striking girl at the bar is an 8, 9, or 10 because we have no intimate access from a distance. She could have funky teeth, raspy voice, obnoxious personality. She could smell. She could have three black kids from three men.

        This is where the PUA article of faith, that a woman’s attractiveness is 97% physical, is permanently misleading. The error distorts your philosophy up and down, making it more beta than you have the wit to admit. The highest attractiveness includes the whole package — physical, mental, historical, personal, and virtuous — but you reduce ranking to a single (albeit important) criterion because you have no tools to deal with that last 30-40% of non-physical magnetism. Hence all the crowing about fucking “HB10” sluts, and hence all the preposterous claims that every woman is a secret whore waiting to be coaxed into the open by a magic show.

        You exaggerate the value of your conquests to confirm your one-dimensional approach, when in truth, the highest-level women are out of your reach. What’s a self-respecting PUA to do? Redefine the criteria of woman so that landing high numbers of relatively easy lays becomes the peak of manly accomplishment. Now place him in the echo chamber of “the community,” and simple observational logic ceases to pertain. Logic itself becomes omega! Indeed, the only “reason” for anyone would disagree is because they are asocial shut-ins! QED! Weak weak weak.

        Fool yourselves, fine. But stop corrupting others.



      • YaReally: the attention is unwanted, but it’s not an injustice that attractive women have to put up with a lot more unwanted attention than men do. It’s a justifiable cost of their higher standards (otherwise the attention wouldn’t be unwanted). It comes with the territory – you want to be attractive enough to fuck and keep the coolest guys? Fine. But there’s a cost – that guys who don’t meet your standards will be attracted to you an make moves. Women shouldn’t be able to have their cake and eat it through shaming male desire. I read once that “creepy” is to a man what “nigger” was to black people… time to own that word. I’m a huge creep, and proud of it.


      • lol I’m not judging it. I’m not saying ohh wahhh poor women men should leave them alone.

        I’m saying if you’re a girl that’s X amount of hot, you get Y amount of attention. That’s just how it is. I don’t operate in “but I want the world to work THIS way”, I operate in “this is actual reality”.


      • Ok I don’t think anyone is denying that hotter girls get hit on more (and they do, a lot), and if they are denying it they’re wrong.

        But: your comment before implies that because hot women get hit on a lot, theyre entitled to dismiss unwanted approaches harshly (basically by stigmatising the men as ‘creepy’ or whatever).

        I’m saying it’s unjust that society legitimises this behaviour that helps remove a lot of the cost hot women pay for higher standards. They ought to have to put up with being hit on of they dress sexy and go to bars without lashing out and marginalising men they don’t want to fuck. They have the right to do it of course, but they should be criticised for it.


      • Kind of like women who show a lot of cleavage – like half an inch from the nipple – but are annoyed if you look at it.

        If they don’t want men looking at their cleavage and breasts, why do they show so much flesh?


      • This is actually perfectly logical. The big cleavage woman wants to show it to be attractive to the TOP men, the ones that outrank her on SMV, at least when she is not showing the cleavage.

        Unfortunately – for her – it also attracts the attention of men who do NOT outrank her, and she will – reasonably – find this annoying, although it is the price to pay for being both attractive to begin with and then signalling availability by choosing the cleavage. What is NOT reasonable in the general case is to designate the label “creep” or similar to those who show her attention but are not attractive enough for her. In many cases, the designation of “creep” has nothing to do with truly offensive behavior, the test is “would she consider the same actions “creepy” from a man very attractive to her?”



      • Because she’s showing the flesh in order to stand more of a chance of getting the men she’s attracted to. She’s simply not considering doing it for the men she’s not attracted to, but she puts her… ahem… ‘goods’ out in the public domain anyway. The problem is there’s a cost involved, and women who take offence at your looking are basically saying they don’t want to pay the price. Well, tough shit!

        By the way using words like ‘creepy’ and ‘stalker’ devalues the deviant behaviour those two terms used to describe. The Subway Masturbator or even a serial rapist is hardly in the same league as some guy a girl isn’t attracted to who hits on her.


      • “creepy” is to a man what “nigger” was to black people

        And “racist” is to white people.


      • The big cleavage woman wants to show it to be attractive to the TOP men, … Unfortunately – for her – it also attracts the attention of men who do NOT outrank her, and she will – reasonably – find this annoying

        Sexual harassment statutes are enjoyed by two rival factions of women: young women who want to keep betas from hitting on them, and older women who want to keep the alphas from hiting on the younger women.


      • I agree with Thor and alighttreading

        the only difference between sexual harassment and courtship is weither the woman is interested in the man

        the exact same behavior in the man she is attracted to she will describe as romantic, while from the beta this same behavior will get him being called a creep and threats of being accused of sexual harassment


      • This is the C-girl/reformed beta understanding of A+/alpha problems.

        I’ve tried it and it backfired in a very big, bad way.

        You “tried it” — how many times? How often is fending off attention necessary, and what are the automatic habits you have developed to deal with such persistent problems?

        The A’s and B’s have to develop repeatable and effective methods against infatuation, whether that is through disguise, isolation, or protection. The B+ is just flawed enough to be approachable and subject to more harassment than the intimidating A+, whose untouchable perfections are a passive defense against self-selecting and self-aware pests. If they are dressed for the red carpet, attention is part of the gig. They essentially invite the reaction and, with enough experience, begin to expect the reaction. If you think that acting petty and being abrupt suffices to keep at bay the forces you purposefully unleash, you are either overestimating your value or unfamiliar with the management of a high-attention dynamic.

        My point wasn’t that you haven’t found a solution to your relatively rare stalker problems. Becoming “curt” after a faux attempt at being “polite” can work in isolated cases. Courtesy or empathy can indeed “backfire” when you don’t know what you’re doing, your boundaries aren’t clearly established, and your displeasure/condescension is apparent. “How can I help you?” can be delivered patiently or caustically. Your tone can be ice or warmth while saying, “I am enjoying the night with my friends.” You are not talking about real “creeper” problems so much as you are erroneously multiplying your experience and solution right through an important category shift, and in doing so you call for the general culture to sympathize with an idiosyncratic and relatively infrequent predicament. This overinterpretation is the mark of female solipsism in our self-esteem age.

        High value men and women are rude because they can be, not because they have to be — as the C-level/former-chump fantasies from a distance insist. It’s just more tempting for second- and third-raters to express their fantasies of power by mistaking the availability of a method for the effectiveness of that method.

        Acting like a diva makes them think they are worthy of being catered to like a diva. The game advice to mimic one’s superiors without becoming superior reinforces this social blunder. From the other side we get bloated uglies imitating the nigger and strutting their stuff (upon stuff upon stuff) proudly at slutwalks. Self esteem gone wild. With none of its practitioners curious about what constitutes a true claim to esteem.

        “All the power to [me]”? We agree on something then.



  10. a little over a year ago, i was dating a russian girl who was a cocktail waitress at a restaurant/bar. i had to day-travel for business and on the way back, i stopped off at the restaurant. when i arrived, i ordered a drink from the bartender and sat at the bar for a rather long time while the girl (intentionally) fluttered around the restaurant without making eye contact with me. i was, obviously, annoyed because i was being ignored, but also because this behavior was uncharacteristic (we had been happily dating for some five months or so). eventually, she came over and kissed me and we made small talk. at the end of small talk, she said “just try not to be creepy” in a sorta-jokey, sorta-not way. i had no idea where this came from, but, knowing the underlying meaning of the statement, i went from annoyed to livid in less than an instant. however, i managed to keep my composure as she walked away and while i finished my drink and paid. then, i simply left. within 5 minutes, she was calling me phone. i thought ignoring may have been the most prudent course of action, but instead i answered. she was feigning incredulousness at my departure, but i just flatly stated that she knew exactly why i left and that i wouldn’t tolerate that sort of behavior. she continued to proclaim ignorance, so i said that her suggesting i was being creepy was shitty and that i wouldn’t abide it. she protested that she was obviously kidding and that i took it the wrong way. but, i pressed forward and said don’t fucking call me creepy ever again or we’re through. she started crying and begged me to come back. i refused. she asked me to go wait for her at her house. i refused. she asked if she could come over to me house when she was done. i relented and agreed. subsequently, we had wonderful sex. afterward, in the shower, she quite surprisingly (and transparently) told me that she loved how i stood for something and she couldn’t push me around.

    i wish i could pinpoint the source of the creepy comment. i assume i must have seemed overeager by unexpectedly showing up at her place of work, but given somewhat long history we shared, it didn’t occur to me that this would be problematic. in any event, whatever the source of the creepy comment, i knew it was a death knell to the mutual attraction we shared so i went super caveman about it. i’m sure that some people might find my approach to be overly sensitive and would have suggested some aloof, “agree and amplify” approach, but i honestly don’t think that would have worked as well in this scenario.

    anyway, i guess the tl:dr point is that i was called creepy, i subsequently left and demanded i never be called that again or we were through and i ended up having a variety of positive events occur as a result.


    • It was a shit test, obviously, which you passed.


    • Just a guess here. She probably phrased what she meant wrongly. (How good is her English?)
      If it was apparent to the patrons that the cocktail waitress already had a boyfriend, she might see that as affecting her tips. If she had said “pretend we’re strangers” with a wink, I could understand, and even could be parlayed into some role playing kink.


    • reading this, knowing how these foreign women sometimes joke and the context of being a waitress in a bar, she may have had guys stalking her or following her so in her weird way made some off-hand “joke” that from my read of your description, you took wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too seriously.

      Something about what she said rubbed you the wrong way.

      Her calling you moments later and crying seemed to indicate she knew she went too far.

      I think maybe you read too much into it? Unless there is something more to your story or interaction, the context of this seems to be more about her and her work experiences with guys who just showed up.

      A better reaction to the “just try not to be creepy” I would have replied with “try not to be too slutty…and get me something big and brown”…


      • He handled it exactly right. This is a Russian girl, so she wants and expects a strong man and that means a man who has pride and expects a woman to respect him. It pays to go off on them occassionally and unexpectedly to gain and maintain hand.


    • If you had only gone out once or twice, or this was your first time going out or whatever, I’d say you over-reacted.

      But because you already have a solid established relationship (reagardless of how “serious/official” it is, you’ve been fucking for a few months), this was a good move. It creates the drama and lets her experience the full range of emotions she needs to keep interested:

      Contrast that with the beta guy who would go “umm okay sorry 😦 is it okay if I sit here? sorry…” who she would inevitably lose attraction for and quit fucking.

      It’s okay to give girls drama, they LIKE drama. You just have to be high enough value to them for it to work. It’s the same as guys who first learn game and are all “you wish you could have me, I have high standards” and the girl is like “uhh okay, I don’t care (shrug)” because they don’t have any value to her yet…VS the super attractive guy who she literally CRIES because he won’t take her phone number.

      So ya, I think in your particular situation, you played that solid. Especially with a Russian chick who expects men to be like this lol:

      What Would Putin Do? lol


  11. This is actually quite rational. Give a puppy a bone – or even a cut
    of meat – cost between about zero and a couple of dollars.

    Getting involved with (and any time between now and eventually having sex with) the “wrong” type of man costs a large chunk of her next 18 years or more.

    So how could you expect it to be different.?



  12. Because of my interactions with other blogs my name has suddenly been switched from Thor to thorodinfrey. Not my intention. But I am still the same guy with the same face.



  13. Not exactly using their words but flipping the script…

    I mentioned something to a girl after looking at the web page for the salon she works at.

    Her: are you stalking me?
    Me: i can’t my stalking rotation is full right now
    Her: haha


  14. on November 20, 2012 at 4:18 pm anonymous does not forgive

    OT: Doug Farrar of Yahoo confirmed for blithering manboob. Baltimore WR Jacoby Jones confirmed for alpha.–nfl.html


  15. What does it mean when a woman calls you weird ?


    • Either that you really are weird, in the traditional sense of the word, or you have a hobby/interest/quality/personality that she doesn’t understand, perceives to be outside the mainstream, and finds annoying.


    • You give her an alpha vibe, but you never go for the kill, which appears beta.


  16. on November 20, 2012 at 4:53 pm Days of Broken Arrows

    Creeper and stalker have come into use only because the two old words women used to use to shame men became cool: nerd and geek.

    Feminists like to bleat about how there are lots of words to degrade women, but none to degrade men, but I think that’s projection. The media seems to do nothing but degrade men (loser, basement dweller, impotent) and women pick right up on it.


    • on November 20, 2012 at 6:40 pm Hugh G. Rection

      Don’t forget deadbeat. I love to use that in debates with single moms.


      • The RSD guys are testing this stuff out right now. Calling girls deadbeat white-trash whores, dogs, making them bark, calling them cunts, worthless, my personal fav is Julien’s “your life is going to just be a trail of used condoms and abortions”, etc.

        Julien talking about it:

        Julien doing it:

        Tyler doing it (small snippets at the start of both of these clips):

        Is this a good strategy? Don’t know, it’s probably not optimal. Will it work on every girl? Probably not, but based on experience I’d bet it works better the hotter the girl is. Would I ever use it? Probably not, unless I just wanted to test it out for fun/research…it doesn’t really fit my personality.

        Either way, if you want to find social scientists pushing the limits of what you can say/do with regards to pickup just to see what works and doesn’t work, RSD is light years ahead of everyone else.

        Cue the guys choking on the red pill saying “those girls were all drunk sluts, that wouldn’t work on any of the 10/10s that *I’M* surrounded by daily.” lol


  17. Heartiste scores again. Much in the same way that fags entrap girls in their snare by using feminine speaking weapons (irony, sarcasm, gossip, push-pull, etc) the same works on women.

    Remember: women always remember the “queen bitch” from high school who ran rings around her socially, and will spend her life trying to out position her in the female hierarchy. Totally obsessed with her. Insert yourself in that equation and she’s obsessed with you.


  18. on November 20, 2012 at 5:27 pm Johnycomelately

    Freudian game at its best, all chicks have mental hang ups and if you can tap that vine of discontent you’ll get a torrent of self justification.

    My favourite is, “Why are you so sad.” Or “Why does so and so (has to be a female) think she is better than you.”


  19. I keep getting both terms hurled at me by women whom I have no interest in…


  20. I overheard a fifteen-year-old girl describe Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men as “this creepy guy”.

    He was killing people with a cattle gun.


  21. update:

    She replied to “U cyber stalker” with

    Her: ‘you love it”

    Me: who doesn’t love being googled?


    • I’d have not texted anything after she wrote “you love it” because you entered her frame, albeit a friendly frame, plus you overextended the subject. Gotta take her skipping from trope to trope, metaphor to metaphor, subject to subject. Yes, they do have superficial minds.

      And it’s good to leave them hanging. As I wrote here in 2009 or so (and G Manifesto wholeheartedly agreed), “don’t be afraid of dead air.”


    • what if you replied with “i’m used to it” or something in that vein?


    • I would have escalated.

      “u cyber stalker”
      “you love it”
      “this explains why i saw you looking thru my window while i was in the shower ;)”

      Now there’s a roleplay frame (she’s your stalker) and you can smoothly slide into innuendo and sex-talk (“i knew you were there that’s why i was putting on a show”) etc. and avoid the friend zone. It’s more than 5 words but like I say, moving the interaction forward toward sex and using solid game (setting a role-playing frame and escalating to a sexual vibe) is more important than the length of your txt.


      • @ya really. good post. i think that would have been “over-gaming”. Earlier that same day, she sent just randomly sent me a photo of her in black stockings just…well because she felt like it.

        To go the route you suggested would have been a bit too much. She wants to fuck. She just likes to get the tingle of a clever text exchange.

        But more broadly, since learning this stuff, i’ve had girls I’ve just met sending me sexy photos of themselves, just escalating more and fucking me on the same night they met me.

        For those here saying things like texting is gay or whatever, they’re living in an age of rotary dial phones and answering machines…texting is key.

        @ya really….

        I got another text from a girl I’ve been gaming by text that i met on ok cupid but haven’t met yet.

        It goes like this:

        me: in town next week

        her: see u next week then

        me: cocktails. wear heels

        her: wowwww. yep but u go ur home i go mine after cocktails

        me: what makes u thiknk id want to take u home?

        her:no no no u got it wrong..i just said it…

        me: ur buying first round

        her: i just gave the clue in first round

        I’m not sure what that last reply of hers means. But the point here is if you reframe…they’re chasing you.

        Clearly this girl wants to bang me. She just wants to get an excuse to do it that gives her a free pass.


      • @Ya really and @daniel

        Good replies. But firstly, THe night before I’d banged her after very tight and successully game that include a meet up, escalation, text game.

        She was gagging for it and made up an excuse to come over and fuck me.

        To paraphrase Rodney Dangerfield “What am i sweating for I got the job!”

        Also, this girl voluntarily sent me a shot of her posing in black silk stocking—just because she wanted to.

        These are clearly shit tests to see if I take beta bait.

        So I think at some point my response had to reward her, my “Who doesn’t love to be googled” was just that level of assholeness without over-gaming.

        But yes, your suggestions are on the mark. Context is important in my case.


      • “Context is important in my case.”

        Ya, your wife sending you a txt is different than a random Internet girl you haven’t banged sending you a txt, I just work with the info I’m given lol

        This is why Field Reports on PUA sites tend to be extremely/excessively in depth and will describe the history with the girl and how they met etc etc. a lot of game depends on what your current value to her is.

        All good tho, glad it worked out, and ya the new girl wants to bang. “What makes you think I’d want to take you home?” was solid. I don’t know wtf she’s saying about clues in her next txt cause her txting is shitty/2nd-language, but I would just change subjects to avoid the logical debate about when sex will occur. Change her mood, not her mind. My buddy and I laugh at the number of girls we’ve run into who will be taking off their shirt straddling us as they say “we AREN’T having sex tonight though” lol


      • (to be fair you weren’t actually asking for advice or anything, just sharing an update, so there was no reason for you to include more details and it was my own bad responding lol 🙂 but I’m more just trying to get across to people reading the thread that you should always be looking to escalate out of logical talk with new girls)


    • better reply: “kinda creepy”


  22. I flip the script all the time w/women, but it never occurred to me to do this. Can’t wait to try it.


  23. I have never “texted” or read a text message in my life, though I know some middle-age men are doing it because there is a big billboard in my town with a middle-age guy on it who is “texting” while driving and admonishment not to “text and drive”.


  24. My favorite reply if accused of stalking:
    “gotta pre-screen out the psychos. life lesson #6”

    I’ve had a couple psycho exes who just couldn’t let go. Strangely, this seems to DHV, especially since one was a physician and another was a stripper. Not sure which one was crazier, but the doctor was scarier in her stalkernicity.

    So fun to see the eyes light up (in person) when they find you’ve had some psycho ex-stalkers. Totally backwards to my way of thinking back then, but now I understand women and it makes perfect sense.


  25. Both of my parents were both dangerous freaks. Apparently they were mutant. violent human-beings- with deformed bodies, and souls, and wayward spirits.
    I mean, they crafted their Wills & Bequeathments for my brother and me to consisting mainly of pre-paid long-term- capitol gains credit/ They created a scene where,what was given was … if I make no smart investments I would get shit: but any good idea of mine that pays off will pay-off , tax-free, to,me. even to 6,7.8 figures.
    They are dead now, Berte and Barcuse Miss them ; yes a lot.


  26. You guys are trying to be too clever. She disrespects you? Dump her ass, on the side of the road, right there. Walk.

    Much simpler and far more powerful than a witty retort.


  27. Can we get an example of non Malaysian/Singapore game please LAH.


  28. I like his turn around. I think his retort of calling her a stalker never actually needs to be too suave. Girls have a natural gag reflex to beta fakery. Sometimes, being too suave makes you come across too well rehearsed. Sometimes allowing oneself to be aloof even when you mess up makes you seem more natural.

    I feel, that on a primal level; many girls when they think of a man think of a cave man who is so aloof; he just takes what he wants. Unfortuantely, or maybe fortunately; we have to use a dynamic and persuasive version of verbal communication. Frame is non-verbal, 90% of communication. In my mind your ability to shoot the shit is indictive of your ability to persuade with the remaining ten percent.

    Imagine an MMA fighter with great verbal game. Sort of like a gladiator who shoves a woman’s shit tests right back in her face and could rock her world or leave her.

    A woman nowadays is never really fucking you; but the rockstar version of herself you bring out in her mind. Once you give her that thrill; she does not care if you are a poser; as long as you leave. Often I think this works for most people. Sort of the same thing as a man who gets a hooker that wants to avoid marriage and dating altogether. He pays her to leave; this for a woman is the same as having you relinquish her guilt of a ONS by leaving just your mental image in her mind.

    If you are the real thing, naturally or having built your inner game yourself; you have no need for extra gimmicks. Although one can get by with 300-500 words of a foreign language; it is hard to maintain an awesome conversation in it without knowing much more to add nuance.


    • “A woman nowadays is never really fucking you; but the rockstar version of herself you bring out in her mind. Once you give her that thrill; she does not care if you are a poser; as long as you leave. ”

      Yes. True.


  29. […] Women love to cavalierly toss out all-purpose smears like “creeper” and “stalker” to ear tag the beta males solemnly grazing around them who rumble a little too close to the edge of their pen enclosures, because a punchy insult is always preferable to a more articulate rationale for describing the ways in which the innocuous characteristics of the beta male are so dismaying and unattractive to women, the sex, if you will ponder, which prides itself on its wellspring of compassion. Interestingly, this reflexive psychological burp of women can be retrofitted by the cunning womanizer as a tool to disarm women’s natural defenses against putting out too easily, or feeling regret for having put out too easily. Reader walawala recounts a text exchange which demonstrates this inverse psychology tactic: just had a text exchange with a girl I just banged last night by maintaining frame… Me: cab driver just spit a loogie into a roll of toilet paper Her: thanks for sharing Me: keep change lah Her: I just googled you and found a story you were quoted in Me: u cyber stalker There was a danger here that walawala would get sucked into this girl’s frame when she opened that can of worms about googling him. His response Source: Chateau Heartiste   […]


  30. Dont know if this video has made the rounds here yet, but its worth a look. Pay special attention to the last girl interviewed. Game is validated once again. Are all women heartless bitches ??


    • I don’t believe women are heartless bitches, what they are displaying is their nature…but it proves that their emotions are weaker than a man’s. They don’t fall in love the way a man sees love.

      And why going aloof is the way to go.


      • The Red Pill:

        A Paradox of the Universe. Until you commoditize females, treat them like fuck-meat, females won’t respect you.


      • I believe most women are heartless bitches.

        But as I have said before in another thread, those same women can have enormous amount of empathy/compassion for something or someone like little turtles in the Amazon forest or ” minorities” such as illegal immigrants.

        super kind and humane one minute and heartless bitches the next.

        the loving boyfriend is usually the recipient of the the heartless bitchiness

        They are like Dr Jekill and Mr Hide


      • on November 21, 2012 at 10:07 am Days of Broken Arrows

        “They are like Dr Jekill and Mr Hide…”

        No, Canadian Friend, they’re like children. If you remember being a kid, you remember the casual cruelty kids display toward each other and also their whiny sentimentality toward their puppies and goldfish. This is women.

        Back in the days up to when Freud emerged, women were thought of as “tall children,” so to speak. If you go back to thinking about them the way our forefathers did, their behavior makes total sense. Don’t expect male logic or anything related to that. Our generation has been deceived into thinking women are “equal” because they were given voting rights, etc.


      • Women are ( well not all of them but most of them ) between a child and Dr Jekill

        and I suppose just as when they have a one night stand they think; ” it just happened” as if they had no control,
        when they behave like heartless bitches for no good reason they must think ” it just happened ”

        because in their dysfunctional mind they see themselves as never accountable

        I LOVE women but I can not stand their irrational behaviors.

        as they say “can’t live with’em and can’t live without’em”


      • on November 21, 2012 at 5:23 pm Hugh G. Rection

        When they did something wrong, “it just happened”, they had no agency. When they did something right it’s because they are smart, strong and independent.


      • What a man sees as a heartless bitch…a woman sees as following her feelings. That’s what their nature is. That’s what the red pill showed me. It’s like calling a tornado a heartless bitch for destroying one house and missing another.

        And if you think that’s a stretch because humans can make decisions…I’d argue making a decision off an emotion is just as random as what house a tornado runs into.


      • the tornado analogy makes sense,

        just as if I get bitten by a snake I can not really blame the snake for being a snake…


      • OMG don’t forget to vote you guys


      • OMG even if we’re just random emotional unaccountable tornados and don’t you dare judge us, vote you guys we got to vooote


      • I vote to have you put in a padded room as not much you say makes sense


      • OK, either you get it or you don’t.


    • Most men who get dumped are betas.
      And I’m done feeling sorry for them. Betas get what they deserve.


      • Is that because an Alpha always dumps the woman first ?? Please explain .


      • Women seldom dump alphas, except if they become beta in the relationship, or if they cheat repeatedly, or have love affairs, or if they are too emotionally distant (workaholics…)…

        There’s also a small pool of harlots who enjoy mixing semen and they cheat on alphas and betas alike. They are statistically irrelevant though, except in Yareally’s world.

        The alphas according to this blog’s definition (ie dark triad womanizers) either dump first or manage to get dumped. Traditional Natural Men Alphas lack game and emotional intelligence to establish rapport with women. They might have a greater risk of being dumped or cheated on, but it remains fairly lower than betas’.


    • lol’ed HARD at the end of the last girl’s interview! That’s what it’s like for them. She doesn’t even register that it’s retarded/selfish.

      Validation of social proof, pre-selection, jealousy plotlines, etc in action.


  31. Text game…in spoken form.


  32. O/T, here is a long clip of an alpha guest on a talk show completely tooling his beta host. A lot of material here.


    • At 31:15, chick in the audience wants to fuck.


      • (referring to comment in m od)


      • @PA….negs the 5. Then she starts responding. Then he turns to his nerd host and fist bumps “That’s how you do it”.

        This guy exemplifies the “Always Be Gaming” mantra,….

        If you can do it with a homely chick in a Google shirt, you can do it with a chick in a halter and short-shorts…


    • Omg these interviews where an entertainer goes to a tech/social company are so painful to watch. There’s another Google+ interview and a Facebook one, I forget the people. Nerds! I’m a comp sci major. Painful.


  33. on November 21, 2012 at 8:49 am Amanjaw Marcuntte

    Here’s a beautiful case study in Alpha/Mangina dynamics.

    Football player goes charming bastard on sideline reporter:

    In response, Manboobed sports reporter gets all white knighty.

    Thankfully, he got eviscerated in the comments. That’s what you get for trying to force-feed feminism to football fans.


  34. Ha, this is great! my oldest daughter started calling some dudes “stalkers” even though they aren’t actual stalkers. she does it less once i started asking her what exactly made them a stalker. do i need to call the police? or does she just not like that boy and can’t think of a better way to say it?


    • Women calling boys/men they don’t like
      ” stalker” is similar to liberals calling conservative “racists” for absolutely no good reason

      it makes as much sense as shooting down a mosquitoe with a Bazooka


  35. on November 21, 2012 at 11:00 am Full-Fledged Fiasco

    Beta of the year?


  36. Interesting.

    If I see a lovely young honey walking by and decide to chat her up, only to get the cold shoulder, I might try this out. It beats whipping out my cock and saying “suck on this, you cunt”.


  37. If they get tiresome with the creeping thing, try texting “Quick, look behind you.” then a few moments later, “Too slow. Bye.”


  38. Called a stripper a creeper last night. Awesome.


  39. The manosphere really needs to stop trying to make the word “creep” iakin to a real slur like “nigger” or “cunt.” The fact that you find it so ridiculously offensive just further demonstrates your total self absorption and isolation from the real world.