Thread: The Great Regression

Originally Posted by jagrmeister

Your example with the division of food resources is interesting but I wonder if it's the right example. Generally, a woman's instinct for alpha cock in her 20s is not related to provisioning, but seeking out social dominance. It is clear that approach paid off in the Cro-Magnon era. It is less clear if that following this instinctual memory bears fruit for women today. You will often see multiple women paying for Leroy's food, his car payments, etc. to be around him - in fact, the opposite of resource provisioning. To me, the Great Regression is more about whether this instinctual desire for women for certain traits in men has value today for them and their children. In this light, it's not clear hypergamy evens out benefits amongst females. It may simply lower their quality of life (albeit while giving them primitive instinctual highs along the way), dead-end their love life, take them out of the running to be in an LTR with a man of actual value, and compel them into a life as an impoverished single mom. The calculus of hypergamy applied in modern times looks less sound in that light.

I think you have hit on it but need to account for when these instincts were created and why a little deeper than you have although you have touched on it.

Perhaps it is because back in the Cro-Magnon era provisioning was far more about simply surviving than it was about luxuries and along with "primitive instinctual highs" and "social dominance gains" that came as one thing with the alpha male. However and certainly in modern western nations what you refer to as a "lower quality of life as a impoverished single mom" is in fact a life of luxury undreamed of by even the most privileged Cro-Magnon woman and in fact most women through all of human existence up until only a few decades ago. So with the basics of simply staying alive that concerned and heavily influenced our Cro-Magnon womans instincts (food etc) now guaranteed in our modern societies (and no longer of the slightest concern) all that is left are the "primitive instinctual highs" and "social dominance gains" to influence modern womens choices.

Sure you can say that in today's modern world her "relative" quality of life is lower than it perhaps could be but remember we are talking about primitive and primal instinctual traits from when the concern was simply having a greater chance of surviving/staying alive far more than (if they were at all) about relative luxury. Just look how many men and women are quite satisfied with living on benefits while doing nothing to earn them or improve their lives by actually making a effort and i think that is where we will find the missing part of the puzzle.

Primitive instinctual desires developed to aid in gaining the basic requirements for simply surviving are no longer activated by provisioning because the basics of survival for her and her offspring are provided in abundance due to (relatively speaking) poverty in a modern nation being luxury beyond imagination to those instincts leaving just the desires for "primitive instinctual highs" and "social dominance gains" as the things that activate what is fundamentally a primal survival instinct.

You will often see multiple women paying for Leroy's food, his car payments, etc. to be around him - in fact, the opposite of resource provisioning.

You illustrate it perfectly here when you point out the seemingly contradictory behavior, but its not contradictory and makes perfect sense as the instinct is for basic survival provisioning not modern luxuries.

What we have is a primal survival instinct now only activated by "primitive instinctual highs" and "social dominance gains" and not activated by provisioning due to the relative luxury of modern life. Because with all basic provisions gained for free provisioning (as the instinct defines it) has become valueless and to such a psyche provisions are easily traded for the 2 things still seen as valuable by it.

So maybe we have 2 kinds of hypergamy, the first is the older primitive one based on survival instincts that we are discussing and the second is a more modern one less instinctual and its concerned with greed, selfishness and luxuries gained with as little effort as possible...by manipulating men.

Oh hi by the way its been a while

Originally Posted by SickSadWorld

I hate to burst your little bubble, but women aren't sexually attracted to men.
That is why men either resort to alpha-male approach escalation (bully manipulation tactics), or try to make their home so luxurious women will gold dig them (the spider manipulation approach.)
So until you fix the specie, you aren't going to change their inherent sexual preferences.
I know it sucks, but you ought to spend your time more wisely once you realize this fact.

Well this is not entirely false. Women are not sexually attracted based on looks to most men. So just by looks and dominance alone women will always go for the most handsome and dominant of men and ignore all others. That's just hypergamy 101. But what this person said isn't contradicting the OP, so not bursting any bubbles there. The framing this person is doing is dangerous and highly manipulative though. Making it sound like men choose to go for the betabuxxing strategy as some evil form of manipulation. Women incite the conflicts among men or as people say "drama".

Men either attract women via domination, looks or status. And "fixing the species" of humans is technically not feasible anytime in the near future - if ever. At least not that I am aware of. Traditionalism worked for civilization because it was restricting female sexual selection. That does not necessarily mean that there are no other possible solutions to the problem that is female hypergamy. But it still remains that traditionalism worked. And that the feminist sexual liberation in the present from does not work out for plenty of men.

Unless there is some revolutionary scientific breakthrough, e.g. in neuroscience, a renaissance of traditionalism might be the best and only option for Western countries to resolve the issues that feminism created.

Correct, as long as men at large are bending over society is in a regression spiral. It will only be once we have lost everything that we will abandon this failure of a social experiment and reset will happen. Like a drug addict hitting bottom.