Thread: The Great Regression

Definition

Describes the regression of the modern woman's mate selection and relationship behavior to pre-civilization standards; namely that women increasingly pursue men based on instinctual lust oriented around male traits that optimized her survival circa 30,000 BC such as dominance (physical and social dominance). In plain English, they now want "bad boys" and "players", not gentlemen.

Also, she increasingly wants to sleep with Alphas, even if that means sharing him with others, rather than date men with Actual Value and based on compatibility. In addition, she narrows her preferences back to her instinctual default settings - that is the top 6% of men (as judged by these anachronistic standards for ideal male mates). The basic cause of this is feminism's erosion of Traditionalism and the end result is that modern women share the same sexual strategy with their pre-civilization cavewoman ancestors.

(useful dates: Pre-Civilization/Paleolithic Era -- 2.6M years ago to 10,000 years ago; Era of Traditionalism -- 10,000 years ago to ~1970; Post-Traditionalism -- 1970 to today).


Explanation


Once Upon a Time

Human civilization began in earnest in 10,000 BC. Before this, the Paleolithic Era witnessed over 2M years where man survived in the wild; this environment and lawlessness shaped human behavior and therefore genetics and preferences. Men and women both developed mate selection criteria and relationship behavior that was optimal for that time. Women sought out out dominance in men - physical dominance (height, muscles) and social dominance (respect, submission of other men). Pursuing such men might improve their odds of survival in a brutal world that rewarded opportunism and cruelty; it might increase the likelihood they would eat that night.

Along came civilization, with its rules and laws. Increasingly, bad boys who didn't play by the rules found themselves unemployed or in jail. They no longer could succeed by imposing their dominance as they did in the wild. But a woman's attraction for these men never disappeared. Civilization was made possible by something in addition to the Law. That something is Traditionalism. Traditionalism overwrote a woman's hardwired preferences with cultural encouragement to pursue a different kind of man, and a different kind of relationship.

On Traditionalism

Traditionalism refers to traditional roles assigned to men and women. The complementary roles encouraged men and women to co-habitate for life, monagamously, and create a stable environment for child-rearing. It made marriage possible. Men historically were never interested in marrying women. During the Paleolithic Era, the long stretch of time before human civilization began in earnest, there was little resembling marriage. Men were polygamous and rarely committed.

It was traditionalism that came along which didn't merely make impositions on men to marry to be respectable; it made women respectable enough to be married. It stigmatized hypergamy, it counseled women in useful skills, it oriented women around being Ladies- the kind of woman that man would actually want to be around with for the long term. Women were counseled to pursue upstanding, productive men; men with Actual Value; men who would treat them well and stay with them long-term. Their father and family was essential in choosing the male partners because otherwise women would select based on their instinctual preferences, which were ill-suited for modern civilization.

The notion of a Lady was a socially constructed personality women adopted to make men commit for the first time en masse; Love was a socially constructed emotion (with some basis in biology) that has been shattered by many things, but including the effect of casual sex in diminishing pair bonding in women. Men would marry Ladies- but that is a certain class of woman, with a long-term orientation, with decency, with class, with a commitment to his interest. With abilities such as knowing how to cook a meal. And an attitude to contribute meaningfully to his life.

Feminism's Erosion of Traditionalism

Feminism did away with Traditionalism and traditional gender roles. By removing traditionalist guidance to women, women have defaulted to their primitive instinct, and unsurprisingly are pursuing men and relationships in the way they did pre-traditionalism.

Feminism banned slut-shaming. It also removed the father and family from guiding the woman towards suitable long-term mates and appropriate dress and relationship behavior. It claimed that women should own their own sexuality- which might make sense in theory, but in practice it meant women discovering that slutting it up earned them the attention they craved, even if it didn't ultimately lead to positive outcomes (and it even earned them points as a "feminist".) It encouraged women to "listen to themselves" (their instincts) and get what they wanted and not be reigned in by patriarchal traditionalism which sought to make them a "good housewife" to any man. Women responded by claiming "the heart what the heart wants" and similar expressions - all code-phrases for pursuing primitive instinct without social stigma. Though the idea of society influencing the female mindset on relationships seems heavy handed, it became apparent that women deciding for themselves often meant lousy outcomes for women and men alike (at least in terms of quality of LTRs). Nevertheless, this the current and likely future.

Cavewoman Sexual Strategy Redux

Once again, women value men with traits of dominance above all else. They value height, muscles, men who dominate or bully other men, hints of roguishness or defiance, men with violent or criminal backgrounds. The Jungle Woman would not recognize a gentleman if he existed back then; such a personality had little appeal to her instinctual nature (behaving like a gentleman was folly since women could be had without commitment, just like today; and all the more so for those who shunned gentlemanly ways).

Absent any stigma for pursuing the wrong kind of man, absent any social condemnation for inviting a negative relationship experience, absent any financial or social consequence for getting knocked up and having a thug's kid, there is no feedback loop, no guard rails and women go from one bad experience to another, never learning, never accepting responsibility, all the while repeating to themselves "the heart wants what it wants!".

The primary form of female 'relationship behavior' is showing skin to attract male alphas, usually men above them in SMV, and engaging in casual sex. That is, until they want a long-term provider to pay for their kids and provide them a socially acceptable environment of marriage, merely to meet whatever remains of higher respectability for women with kids within the institution of marriage (not to mention financial security).

Changes in Behavior

The best way to think about how women's actual behavior has changed because of regression is to understand that their relationship behavior now mirrors how they acted in the jungle tens of thousands of years ago. Commitment is not an important part of their mindset. Cheating is something that "just happens". Considering what a man thinks or feels because of her callousness? Not a thing when she can vine-swing to another man.

Traditionalism imbued women with a sense of mutualism, a reminder that treating herself and others with dignity and respect would matter in the long-run. We have cataloged much of this behavior in MGTOW Awareness of the Actual Nature of Women ("The Modern Regressed Woman has a Jungle Mentality unconducive to Relationships"). A regressed woman's only value is her reproductive value (or sexual value now that we have protection and birth control).

This is why becoming the kind of lady that a man wants to be with for the long-term is off her radar. Learn to cook? Who cares. Know how to relate to a man and provide value in some way? Hah! A regressed woman is turned off by a man's weakness, even if he must take some time to get over a loved one's passing or loses his job - because in the jungle, it was each man and woman for themselves. Building a long-term relationship of mutual respect? In the jungle, a woman always tested her man for fitness, so today that means endless shit-tests. She is motivated almost solely by Tingles, and that means a man's availability is a downside. A married man must create the appearance of female options and must also signal his unavailability by giving the impression he may not be around forever. This is the "relationship game" that has become popular and touted by people such as Athol Kay. This is what's needed for a man to maintain a relationship with a modern woman; who's very instincts are misaligned with LTRs due to regression.

In the jungle, it's each person for themselves and what they can exploit out of others. So she's not thinking about "us", she's thinking about her. In short, the modern regressed woman is NOT relationship material. Anyone who thinks they've found an exception to this rule often rues this judgment within a year, but a max of 3 years from saying "I do".


Female Status: The Respectable Wife (traditionalism), Tingles-High (post-traditionalism; ie: now)

The feedback loop during Traditionalism and Post-Traditionalism differs for women. Before, the goal of a woman was to be the kind of lady that would be a good wife and mother. That is the kind of woman who could hold her head high in public. Everything she did towards that goal would receive approbation from others. In contrast, today women receive short-term highs from sexual validation (Tingles). Unlike the past, there is no goal; there is just riding the carousel and getting instinctual highs along the way. In a way, the culture has done more than regress the sexual instincts of women to pre-civilization, it has amplified her pursuit of Tingles through an oversexualized culture that implies that a woman who is not actively having sex (esp. with top men) is not truly living.

Whereas their cavewoman ancestors were answering to their instincts, modern women must both contend with their instincts and social/cultural pressure towards casual sex, even if self-defeating in the long run. With sexual validation coming to the fore for women, the earlier idea that women had to pay their dues to become ladies has been put aside. Women could get laid without any other virtues; surely marrying a "lesser" man than those she got railed by, would also require nothing more than spreading her legs -- at least long enough to get the ring.

A Modern Woman's fitness for LTR

The Regression has also impacted the value that women bring to the table in terms of being a quality partner. Feminism has made women think they can adopt an unpleasant, selfish personality and still be marriageable. Needless to say, they've been led astray.

Articles about how to "Please your man" are infrequent today; and when published, they are often viewed by women as quaint. Women receive little instruction about how to act in a feminine, dignified way; but plenty of picture of Miley Cyrus riding a giant penis. Ask a modern woman about being a lady, and she'll laugh, maybe describe it as being a "Stepford Wife". The object of the modern woman is her OWN agenda; a view that's incompatible with being the kind of woman a man would want to commit to for the rest of his life.

Feminism stirred up such victimhood and resentment in women towards men that their thought of "What can I do for my man" is anathema. To be a true woman, she must consider her own needs only -- anything less is "submissive, Stepford" behavior. Feminism has women believing there is no "right way" to be a woman; being a woman is anything YOU want (the consideration of what men want from you is archaic).

In Conclusion

Traditionalism was the pillar that gave women moral character and encouraged their higher human nature above the lower animal nature. What biology instills in men such as reciprocity (in service of productive endeavors with other men), and morality (to ensure mutual benefit in civilization), women required from the culture. With feminism eroding traditionalism in our culture, women are taking cues from a dark place of their instinctual memory and a culture (they are highly suggestible to) that encourages their short-term gratification over all else. Feminism has regressed women from thinking with their prefrontal cortex to the more primitive regions of the brain (at least on 'matters of the heart') responsible for age-old survival instincts.

The Great Regression began as feminism was introduced to the Western mainstream around 1970. Men continued to be taught to act like gentlemen, but meanwhile women were looking for something else. This caused a massive disconnect between the genders.

The Great Regression explains why women are the way they are today: unfeminine, masculine, confrontational, practicing unrestrained hypergamy, value arbitrary traits (tattoos, aggressiveness) over provider qualities, become uninterested in pleasing their man, and generally become unmarriageable material. PUA, MGTOW and all other Red Pill cultures are male responses to this regression that has been effected in women. The red pill, in all forms, is awareness of this relatively rapid change (or regression) in female behavior and describing a particular male strategy in order to exploit or avoid it, or else.

What woman today waits for their husband at the door with a dry martini. But you saw stuff like that in old black and white movies of the past. Try telling a woman today to just that. She will laugh in your face.

Men are picking up on the red pill. So much so, that the blue pill world is trying to counter the Internet. I remember reading about a high school that was giving boys classes on how to be a gentleman. Then there is the good man project web page. Trying their hardest to turn men into good little betas.

Originally Posted by The_Joker

I remember reading about a high school that was giving boys classes on how to be a gentleman.

How to be a Gentleman translates to:

"How to be Celibate"

The blue pill world ignores the Great Regression. At the same time, some of the red pill world assumes the Regression never happened, but that women have been a constant throughout time. I'm hoping this theory, if accurate and withstands scrutiny, becomes more widely understood.

Originally Posted by Jagrmeister

It was traditionalism that came along which didn't merely make impositions on men to marry to be respectable; it made women respectable enough to be married.

That's the best defence of traditionalism I've ever seen. As a non-traditionalist oriented guy, that takes a lot for me to admit. Excellent work Jagr.

Even with some traditionalist mores instilled in women, many will indulge in hypergamy, even if it means sharing a man, as long as society does not punish it specifically.

For example, the documentary series "The West" talks about mormons (who are polygamous) in the 19th century. According to the documentary, most married men had only 1 wife. However, the church higher ups had many. The president of the Church of Latter Day Saints and governor of Utah, Brigham Young, had 55! These are certainly 'traditional' women in the sense that their lifestyle consists in large part of child-rearing and cooking/cleaning. An unrelated, but interesting bit of information in the series is that in at least one aboriginal tribe, men were ridiculed by women (and didn't get any, obviously) if they were not warriors, i.e. have not gone into battle. This social conditioning persisted even when the chief of one tribe instructed all men to remain peaceful, which led to the eventual downfall of their clan, as some of the men killed innocent people to achieve warrior status. Even in that culture, males were disposable.

It would seem that hypergamy is a strategy that exploits excesses of resources among men most efficiently. For example, let us assume we have a paleolithic tribe of 5 men, and 7 women. To keep it simple, no children. More men than women since men die in battle. Each man produces, on a regular basis, a certain amount of food portions (1 portion feeds 1 person). Let us assume that none are in 'relationships' but that they are forming (again, this is a simplification and won't capture the intricacies of relations, so let us assume each woman is loyal to their man).

We have the following initial state:

Man	Food portions
1	1
2	4
3	2
4	2
5	3	total 12

A system with hypergamy will allow males with more resources to secure more sexual pleasure (different mates), so that the system naturally becomes in equilibrium with resources distributed to women for what is essentially sexual services

Man	Food portions	Loyal females
1	1	0 (incel)
2	4	3
3	2	1
4	2	1
5	3	2

If we view hypergamy as a system that is trying to achieve equilibrium, then it is not surprising that the wealthier/higher-status the man, the more women will be satisfied in a polygamous relationship with this man (a stable amount of mates). If you disturb the equilibrium, say a woman leaves Man #4 for Man #2 (who is higher status due to bringing in 4 portions), then each mate of Man #2 is fed on 3/4 of a food portion, while 1 full portion is available from Man #4: therefore it is inevitable that the system return to its balanced state as it makes financial sense.

Of course, interesting things happen when humans are in large groups, have currency, variable SMV, have specific cultures, and mores, etc. In this sense, modern society will not attain this simplified version of hypergamy equilibrium due to these factors - but the core principle would be the same natural instinct (evening out the benefits received for sex), which can be overridden (or set free) to different degrees by developmental conditioning (by parents and society, based on cultural mores).

Long story short, hypergamy is a primitive impulse that evens out benefits received for sex per female in classic free market fashion. Is humans' natural 'financial sense' responsible for this? Is the reason more women branch swing and trade up only because men innately have a much greater need for sex? Do top 1% SMV men behave in hypergamous fashion? Is the reason most women are hypergamous and men not because the overall demand for men is lower and focused on the very highest SMV men (demand median < mean)? Why aren't most women attracted to men of similar SMV - relating to the OKCupid data that said women judged 20% of men as above average - abundance of options, unrealistic view of the self, lower sex drive, or a combination of the above (personally, I think all)?

Does this mean that females engaging in hypergamy are showing behaviours identical to that of prostitutes - selling sex? Therefore, is selling sex an innate trait to humans (in this case females, who have the big end of the stick in supply/demand) related to our innate 'financial sense' in which we evaluate costs and benefits?

I'll leave with this:

A study conducted by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and published online in the Public Library of Science, attempted to support the meat-for-sex behaviour hypothesis, according to which, in early human societies the best male hunters had the maximum number of sexual partners. Unable to study early humans, researchers studied chimpanzees. Researchers observed chimpanzees in the Taï National Park and concluded that a form of prostitution exists among the chimpanzees in which females offer sex to males in exchange for meat. According to Cristina Gomes of the Institute, the study "strongly suggests that wild chimpanzees exchange meat for sex, and do so on a long-term basis". The data reveals that chimps enter into communities of hunting and sharing meat with each other over long periods of time and females within the meat-sharing community tend to copulate with males of their own meat-sharing community. Direct exchange of meat for sex has not been observed.

While every man has the innate cost-benefit analysis package, it has many flaws, and is sensitive to influence and perception. We MGTOW have used rational cost-benefit analysis to come to our conclusion that relationships with women aren't worth the hassle. Hypergamy doesn't work if men don't tolerate it. How much am I willing to pay for sex in time, money, indirectly incurred costs, and the risk of losing assets? Not much. Not much at all.

In general, it's assumed that with traditionalism comes monogamy; as part of what traditionalism tries to do is cultivate commitment to one partner. Traditionalism with polygamy is an odd bird- though that was an interesting example you brought up.

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.

In a way, following the hypergamous instinct may be like a woman using an ancient map of Pompeii that was developed before a volcano erupted, wiped it out, and before the town had to be rebuilt. The old map may have provided the right routes when it was made; today, it leads to one dead-end after another because the landscape is entirely different.

Originally Posted by jagrmeister

In general, it's assumed that with traditionalism comes monogamy; as part of what traditionalism tries to do is cultivate commitment to one partner. Traditionalism with polygamy is an odd bird- though that was an interesting example you brought up.

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.

In a way, following the hypergamous instinct may be like a woman using an ancient map of Pompeii that was developed before a volcano erupted, wiped it out, and before the town had to be rebuilt. The old map may have provided the right routes when it was made; today, it leads to one dead-end after another because the landscape is entirely different.

Yes, exactly. The drive or drives that worked to spread resources in primitive human groups do not work anymore in modern society, which can lead to negative effects. These drives aren't rational, so they don't properly filter the good and bad outcomes. One example is how women are attracted to confidence. Even if a man is a loser with false confidence (those people who exaggerate all accomplishments and frame themselves as 'all that'), he will be perceived as attractive by many females, and as a faker by most men - so it clearly doesn't work in favour of distributing resources to women in the modern day. However, one can't help but wonder who was the most confident male in a tribe of early humans? Probably the best hunter, or the guy who could beat up all the other men. I bet the least accomplished or strong men would be ridiculed by their tribe and/or unable to challenge the authority of higher-status males. So in such a system, confidence is more likely to correlate with status and resources available for exchange, and could have evolved as one of the cues to attract females.

I would tend to agree -- the smaller the group, the more transparent false confidence is. It's only when we have groups large enough that everyone doesn't know everyone that false confidence can be easily confused with the real thing!

I did a brief study on Mormons during a couple of semesters. What intrigued me
was how many of the "White Knight Mangina Mormon" men were so ready to die
for their cause and "calling", rather than live well and long enough to see it through
to the penultimate achievement, before agreeing to marriage first, and then sex.

So they made up special underwear and eternal marriage. Big deal. Whatever.
The Pope has a special hat. Second verse, same as the first.

It appears this is the Mormon version of Patriarchy. It seems to work fairly well.
Funny Undies == special hat == 55 wives to keep track of him and pretend to
do something valuable to him (more valuable than she did for you today) in
order to obtain his very essence. Sperm. Any woman who gets a child from him
has a legal claim while he underwrites her value.

On the other hand, consider the cost of 55 divorces. Yikes!

In the MGTOW vernacular, I would suggest that perhaps Brigham Young was
the Chad Thundercock of his day. He was never given a clue and didn't want for one.

Clues had not been invented yet in Brighams' day and age. He set up Universities
with his 55 wives. Their hens are coming home to roost, and none of their children can fly.

What do we as MGTOW do?
I suggest this: Nothing at all.

Let it go. This too shall come to pass.
Nothing ever came to stay.

If you want to be truly aware of the Great Regression, check out this video of people going about their daily lives, 114 years ago.

Here's the thing.

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.

Originally Posted by The_Joker

Then there is the good man project web page. Trying their hardest to turn men into good little betas.

Oh, The Good Mangina Project. Docile blue pill dorks to the tenth power. What a joke! They're comedy gold.

It’s Not Men’s Fault That Women Overpay For Makeup & Underwear » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology

http://www.goingyourownway.com/mgtow...eminists-8566/

Originally Posted by SickSadWorld

Here's the thing.

I hate to burst your little bubble, but women aren't sexually attracted to men.

Um, no duhhhhh. Most men know they are being used. It's ok for the blue pill men because they like the abuse.
For MGTOW, it's not ok any more. We already know women can never be equal. Why? Because eggs don't swim.

Originally Posted by SickSadWorld

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.)

This is why women lie. It is the nexus of their being to deceive men. It is both bully manipulation tactics and the spider web mentality with only the
false promise of fidelity and respect in exchange for the use of their body. It is the penultimate tax on life itself.

Originally Posted by SickSadWorld

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.

Here is what you don't comprehend yet. It is an idea which could serve your feminazi trolling well.

Men don't need to fix your shitty situation. We're not coming to the rescue and not spending money on you.
We are Omega. Your paradigm coup failed miserably and we would be embarrassed to associate with you.

You wanted equality, cupcake. Here it is on a silver platter.
Enjoy.

Originally Posted by SickSadWorld

Here's the thing.

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.

Women aren't attracted to men? So all 163.2 million

women in America are lesbians?

What an incredibly ideological thing to say.

Women are definitely attracted to men, but it's always relative.

Ever see that Coca Cola ad with the song that goes "You're so cute I wanna wear you like a suit. I think you look pretty good on me."

Sure, a hot dude is a hot dude, but it counts for nothing unless she can show off said hot dude to jealous girlfriends.

Monogamy provided stability for human culture looking to establish urban centers and agriculture. So, it is often misleadingly said that men were not monogamous. Actually it is more accurate to say it is women that were more promiscuous with top apex men while the other 80% or so of men had to commit to a woman to ensure their genetic legacy. Humans may be a dimorphic species but they are not the same as lions where an alpha prime male fights another alpha prime male for control of a bunch of female lions.

There is no way to change regressive behavior in women because there is no new generation of women to teach the upcoming generation of women what monogamy really means. Basically the reset button must happen for women's nature to be restrained. But when that happens everyone loses in that scenario unfortunately, because women will tear down civilization way before acknowledging their raw animal nature has to be harnessed.

There's a lot here to digest. After this, the 3rd time I've read this , it's really simple. Not complicated at all. Thanks for the work. It's burned into the drive now. I'll go back and read it again , I'm sure.

Originally Posted by SteelEye

There's a lot here to digest. After this, the 3rd time I've read this , it's really simple. Not complicated at all. Thanks for the work. It's burned into the drive now. I'll go back and read it again , I'm sure.

Yeah, The great Jagr writes for us all. Awesomeness and potential in His every word.

I was worse than "beta-tized"... I was rendered "obsolete"....

"How to be a Gentleman". My ex gf bought that for me. I think it's still sitting on her nightstand. Maybe she can get her next bf to read it?