The type of man who deserves to be alone

Should I explain this?

I shouldn’t have to explain this. I’m not going to. It’s too easy and he’s too thick.

If you don’t read it, it’s the sexual version of this:


If you can see what’s wrong with this picture in his ‘story’, congratulations, you’re more mature than he is. That is a male, but not a man.

It causes me to wonder how many of these people we immediately label as narcissists are in fact male borderlines, because they don’t have an identity, they follow the social trends with no opinion of their own, following what others say they ‘should’ be doing, complete with other people’s deadlines, and this is indicated by how they want to switch it up, play dress up and try on all of them. As if it’s a choice, what person you are.

Also: good women don’t wait around for a boy to figure out what a catch they are, they Next him before they waste their youth and take the next bus that comes along. A better bus, a bus with a future. Good women are scarce resources, especially in this century, and he expects the MMP to be a place where he has the power….?

Idiot isn't as much a person as a process of doing things wrong

MMP and SMP are complete opposites. 

These people will end up on the shelf like the feminist trying to ‘Have it All’ and they deserve to be. Anyone who treats people like toys and puts them down, leaves them and expects they can come back in at a later date and pick them up again is in for a life-ruining surprise. The worst thing isn’t never finding the One, it’s rejecting them because you didn’t know what you had. Move too early, end up with the wrong person, move too late, end up rejected and alone.

The dating pool shrinks past 30, also when most people hit the Wall pretty firmly. Their potential is either actualized or wasted at this point and that’s why marriages were arranged with slightly older men, because they have to prove their role as providers before a woman buys in. But expecting you’ll have your shit together by (age) is stupid, it’s excusable as a teen because you have no life experience but I keep seeing this from people in their 20s. Most people die before that happens and it’s very rare with the best planning and behaviour. Making and limiting your important life decisions based on fantasies is retarded.

I’ll make a bet. He takes advice from Roosh and co.

aka He takes life advice from somebody with a shit romantic or non-existent marital life.
Do these people take diet advice from fatties?

Oddly, he’s demonstrating hypergamy, thinking he can infinitely trade up like a video game and eventually marry the Best Woman if he holds out long enough. Nope, the good people get snapped up sharpish. This is what I like to call The Illusion of Scarcity. It isn’t about how many men/women there are, it’s about the quality for the thing you want (marriage). Not to mention, he has an anxious-avoidant attachment style to a woman who is clearly indifferent, so even if he got married, he’d get divorced, I’d bet good money.

As for his own SMV, I’ll leave this here.

19 responses to “The type of man who deserves to be alone

  1. Having given it some thought, I can’t see why K-selects are generally so het up about r-selects, I have to be honest. It’s fun to pick their brains, especially when they are in complete denial that K-selection exists, or are pretending to be K-selected themselves. But there is no reason to worry about them or their presence.

    People like that have always existed. In many ways, they have made our genetic pool stronger. They can have K-select siblings and children themselves. They are often aware that they do not leave the teenage urge to mate abundantly until they are quite old. They are generally fine with K-selects, even if they do not understand us. The idea that Jon could have dated many women, but still have a “lockdown sexuality”, where as long as he is bonded to one, another is not an option, or that I could have genuinely not experienced sexual desire for anyone before Jon (attraction to others, yes, but never anything worth acting on, more like “oh, he’s OK, someone will do well to marry him”) is just bizzarre to a psychopathic couple we know. But you can still associate with them and talk to them.

    R-selection doesn’t rub off on you, or change how you function. You can still be friends with them. Societies have comprised people with different motivations and desires since the dawn of humanity. As long as our culture aligns, it doesn’t matter that we’re a K-select, traditionalist, self-sufficient married couple with kids and our friends are r-select, industrialist, consumers in an open DINK relationship. If anything, all of us get something out of the association.

    Liberals are an issue. Out of control culture or instinct of any description is an issue. Attempts at dominating the narrative are an issue. But natural human patterns are neither here nor there.

    • They’re a degenerative influence. First, there was one liberal in conservative, respected academia. One. It’s like a cockroach ,there’s never just one.
      Passing themselves off is a serious divorce risk, marriage is serious business for K-types. The law doesn’t protect us anymore.
      Nah, he doesn’t actually want to marry. He’s like those Jewish women who have a list of requirements and think of it as something to obtain, like a dishwasher. I’ve seen those referred to as scantron husbands/wives. They don’t actually care who it is, and as they age, the list expands.
      R-selection affects the culture which affects the local law and your children. But the culture doesn’t align, their dopamine fix won’t allow them to settle down. Think of the codgers who keep re-marrying, they make a mockery of it. If the house next door is full of PnP druggies, that’ll bring down the neighbourhood.
      A little of each is fine, but society has already gone too far r for any more of them to be a good thing.

      • No, we’re just pandering to them. When we pandered to K-selects we wound up with a society that was “too safe”, resulting in higher productivity and low divorce, but also massive class divide, overpopulation and high death rates in the lower classes and overexploitation of available resources (human and material], which eventually caused the whole empire game to be run to the ground. Now we pander to r-selects we have birth control, better healthcare and some support for the working classes, but also an insane welfare system, low marriage rates, easy divorce and a negative birth rate. And eventually the welfare system will collapse in on itself again and we’ll go back to imperialism, complete with shoddy healthcare and extreme poverty.

        You can’t win, whoever gets the most say will fuck things up in some way or another.

      • I don’t see how those things are a problem. Nature is red in tooth and claw. Technology is developing and with less materialism, there would be less consumption anyway. I overheard that Germany sought WW2 because its own welfare system implemented after defeat in WW1 was about to collapse and that explains their Empire building expansion.

      • I would say that high and young mortality, constant labour and operating under a plutocratic tyrant are bad for the around 95% of people who owned no property at all despite almost all working and paying tax healthily. Plus, conformity guardians of any breed are also to blame for disenfranchisement of many sorts and restrictions placed on healthcare.

        Actually, Germany did not seek WWII and the tensions were related to Germany leaving the gold standard and other international economic structures.

      • Two words: peasant’s revolts.
        Were it not for the poor die-offs, nature’s culling events, we’d all be uglier, shorter, dumber and have worse health. We’re the winners from that scenario, why slag it off?
        The issue with healthcare is price. It never drops thanks to being tied to medical research. Snake oil after snake oil, and healthy people tend to foot the bill.
        Good point, but they did expand knowing that wasn’t allowed.

      • Dying of cholera and malnutrition at the age of 5 isn’t eugenics, it’s just inopportunity. Living as a waif because your parents have money to feed you and a servant to clothe you isn’t eugenics, it’s literal dysgenics. Plutocracy is the inevitable result of both capitalism and K-selection run rampant, but plutocracy is as degenerate as welfare.

      • The difference between good welfare and bad welfare, good nobility and bad nobility are mere matters of enabling.

  2. PS: I’ve found that some of those people most vehemently against cultural K-selection are natural K-selects themselves who resent their inability to:
    -date multiple people comfortably, as our environment demands
    -attract and retain high MMV partners
    -remain with one partner for any length of time
    Rather than accept they are not r-selects, not good enough or simply serial rather than lifelong monogamists (both being forms of K-selection), they instead deny that K-selection actually exists.

    • K-types are defined by constancy. Those sound like mild K poseurs. Our version of signallers. Their pair bonding ability is somewhat damaged but not enough to be r, yet they convince themselves lust is love, simply.

      • Au contraire, the only thing that makes you K-select is parental investment and the only thing that makes you r-select is infant abundance. Everything else is mere correlation.

        People who are not attractive enough to get the partner they desire (or any partner at all] can still be K-select, they just lack the means. People who wish to obey the current environment and mate abundantly can still be K-select, as K-selects are highly risk-averse people who are vulnerable to social pressures. And people who are serially monogamous can still be K-select, but their core biology moves them along when no child is produced, or when the 7 years required to raise the child have passed. All can still have a primary sexual mechanism for pair bonding and parental investment, making them K-select.

      • Disagree, K-types are happy to settle. R-types keep holding out for more until the market rejects them. From the ones I’ve seen on the shelf. I see it as brain structure and behaviour. If they behave like an r, they’re an r-type. Knowing it by its fruit. Brainwashing culture isn’t an excuse, sexual consent for example is entirely 100% a choice, wherever you are. R-types have been making themselves sterile when they have sex too, another marker. That’s too evobio, they’re too spergy, you never stop being a parent the 7 year thing was intended to explain migration patterns, which modern humans lack.

      • You can disagree all you like, but words have meanings and K-selection and r-selection exclusively describe the child-oriented aspect of animal reproduction. Grey areas and other variables do not change reality or language definitions.

      • Actually, it’s equally as complicated in all species. Frogs are r-select, having many infants. But some frogs go to extraordinary lengths to preserve each young, such as carrying tadpoles inside their own flesh. Wolves are K-select, but if a non-alpha breeds there are cases of the alpha female taking on the pups and ensuring a higher survival rate. Nature is blurry. Likewise humans. All you need to be K-select is high parental investment. The rest is flexible.

      • OT slightly: I was just reading about fatherless households and I’m loathe to trust people who only present one side of the stats. Have you EVER seen stats, esp from the MRAs about motherless homes? I wonder if it exists.

      • Some studies show them to be pretty much the same. Some studies show a slight improvement in mental and physical health of children with single fathers vs single mothers. But these studies also seem to be conducted in places with very high standards for would-be single fathers versus would-be single mothers. My niece is a perfect example: her mother was an alcoholic with mental issues. No trouble legally denying my brother custody and visiting rights. When they finally “discovered” her mother’s problems they tried every excuse possible to put her in care rather than with her father: a mentally healthy, employed, physically capable young man. Under such measures is it any shock that more women “slip through the cracks” than men? Would go a long way to explaining the different study results.

      • And how few women abandon their children.
        Yet who do the manosphere blame for deadbeat dads? They assume 99% were pushed away by the mother, when support stats beg to differ. I can’t stand adults who reject their duties.

1. Be civil. 2. Be logical or fair. 3. Do not bore me.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s