Counter-Currents
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 575
Third Meeting of the Counter-Currents Book Club
F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power
Counter-Currents Radio
You can buy F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power here.
189 words / 2:10:27
Our latest livestream was the third meeting of the Counter-Currents Book Club, where author F. Roger Devlin, Greg Johnson, Travis LeBlanc, and Counter-Currents Program Director Cyan Quinn discussed F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power. The stream is now available for download and online listening.
Topics discussed include:
00:03:57 Summary of Sexual Utopia in Power
00:14:04 On the superiority of monogamy
00:18:43 On racial differences in breeding patterns
00:27:22 What is “hypergamy”?
00:38:34 On the collapse of birth rates in South Korea and Japan
00:41:24 On Thomas Fleming and Chronicles magazine
00:45:14 In Defense of Women by H. L. Mencken
00:46:41 Woman: A Vindication by Anthony M. Ludovici
00:48:27 Are modern sexual identities biological or social?
00:56:42 How could we return to normal sexual relations?
01:00:09 Enter Travis LeBlanc on strippers and pimping
01:11:14 On home economics
01:25:40 On MGTOW and incels
01:42:12 On the implications of women’s suffrage
01:50:17 On representative democracy
01:55:09 The erosion of male authority in the family
01:55:56 On the implications of dating apps
01:57:13 Why aren’t more women White Nationalists or WGTOWs?
To listen in a player, click here or below. To download, right-click the link and click “save as.”
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
22 comments
That was really good! CC has been on a roll last couple of weeks. I want to get the book now. I notice a lot of the high earning women I work around have become careerist cat ladies. It’s a highly repeatable phenomenon. Women don’t respect a man who makes less than them. But then a tiny number of men make more than they do, and those men are of course in the market for trophy brides. Hence there is this large group of high earning women, taking a good salary from males, who have no offspring. These are high iq women, so their good genes are lost to the world. It’s a highly dysgenic trend. Then there’s a subset of these wamen doing sperm donors, which is better, but has its own problems.
Women after a certain age, say 25, are primarily concerned with status and money, I’ve noticed too. One older lady I know responded to me once,”yes, money is our skinny!” Lol.
What, Trav is nothing like Greg. Totally different style. Trev is like Greg.
I didn’t listen to this, because I’m not a masochist, so I’ll have to limit my response to comments.
Women don’t respect a man who makes less than them. But then a tiny number of men make more than they do, and those men are of course in the market for trophy brides. Hence there is this large group of high earning women, taking a good salary from males, who have no offspring. These are high iq women, so their good genes are lost to the world. It’s a highly dysgenic trend.
When is this movement going to recognize that the data do not support this narrative?
I will repeat this as many times as I need to:
The more education a woman has, the more likely she is to marry, and to remain married for life.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-most-educated-women-are-the-most-likely-to-be-married/
https://themarriagerestorationproject.com/why-does-the-divorce-rate-decrease-as-education-level-increases/
Since it doesn’t seem to be sinking in, I’ll spell it out for you. Evidently, professional women are finding men to marry, either because they don’t care as much about money as you say, or because there are plenty of high-earning men for them to choose from.
Less-educated women are not having more children because they are more likely to get married; they’re just having more accidents. (And of course Devlin spews hatred at them for that, too.) As ever-more reliable birth control methods become available, their fertility is rapidly declining and will continue to do so.
If you keep parroting this lie, I’ll have to conclude that you are just what post-modern Leftists say you are. I’m afraid my classical education has given me a rather unrealistic view of White men as honest truth-seekers willing to follow the evidence where it leads. Well, this movement has knocked you off your pedestal in my mind, to my great sorrow.
Your comments are all over the place. In one you say you admit women who’ve had many partners have lower value, then you proceed to give some “evidence” (Huffington Post…? Really?) which seems to contradict your claim, then you seem to assert the evidence is true.
You also at several points attack the person. The bottom comment too seems to be exasperated at the female-critical viewpoint then seems to assert the view that traditional roles are better and today’s women are too promiscuous !
Which is it?
These comments aren’t helpful. I also completely disagree that the female-criticals simply desire unlimited fornication for men with no consequences. If you even read a precis of the book you’d know that his theory is the current bad situation (for both genders btw) is due to the 1960s sexual revolution and promise of unlimited sex for men is what brought about this problem.
There is a subset of the manosphere – the Roosh V , Return Of Kings crowd – who do basically want that – completely disingenuous to mix up them with trad right wing or WN people.
Most people on the far right would like to see traditional gender roles, an end to the gender bender agenda, and both men and women having long steady relationships with children. If you’re WN you have an interest in this cos it’s pretty important that the white race is having babies.
As for your claim about highly educated women marrying- this is bogus, and the overwhelming evidence is that the more education women have access to the more birth rates drop.
You also admit you didn’t even listen to the broadcast or read the book/articles so you’re just venting and it’s pointless.
In one you say you admit women who’ve had many partners have lower value, then you proceed to give some “evidence” (Huffington Post…? Really?) which seems to contradict your claim, then you seem to assert the evidence is true.
You need to calm down and read more carefully. I said that women with perceived lower mate value have more difficulty securing a marital commitment, and are therefore more likely to have numerous sexual partners before they finally find a husband. I don’t think multiple sexual partners reduces a woman’s potential as a wife and mother in the slightest. To the contrary, I think a few pump and dumps make women all the more grateful for a loving partner.
then you proceed to give some “evidence” (Huffington Post…? Really?) which seems to contradict your claim, then you seem to assert the evidence is true.
What difference does it make whether it’s the HP or some other rag that reviews the study? The study is what it is. Go look at it if you’re skeptical. If the study contradicts something I said, please explain.
The bottom comment too seems to be exasperated at the female-critical viewpoint then seems to assert the view that traditional roles are better and today’s women are too promiscuous !
Which is it?
You’ll have to ask her. All I can say is that I don’t believe that today’s women are “too promiscuous.” I think they’re about as promiscuous as they have to be to get a desirable husband.
What you fundamentally don’t understand is that men, not women, set the moral tone regarding casual sex. Indeed, where men are scarce, it’s difficult to get them interested in monogamy at all. When women have the upper hand, they are in a position to demand commitment. Is this study cited in Devlin’s book?
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-09536-001
Have a look at college campuses. Aren’t some of them like 60% female at the undergraduate level now? Why aren’t young men using all that dating market power to promote monogamy? Because they don’t want to, that’s why. That’s going to lead to a lot of casual sex, but not for the reasons you think. I would be 100% on board with a strict 50-50 rule for undergraduate admissions, precisely to remedy this imbalance. Also, no boys in girls dorms or vice versa. Would that suit you?
I also completely disagree that the female-criticals simply desire unlimited fornication for men with no consequences.
M’kay. So, you think promiscuous women should be avoided as marital partners. What consequences did you have in mind for men?
Oh right, none.
If you are correct that men are willing to surrender their sexual freedom for the good of our people, why do I hear crickets chirping anytime I suggest anti-fornication laws? Or birth-control bans, clearly the most direct remedy for low birth rates?
BTW, “female-criticals” lol my achin’ sides. I guess newspeak for control-freaks and sadists.
Most people on the far right would like to see traditional gender roles,
What do you mean by that? The devil is in the details.
an end to the gender bender agenda,
Ok. I think we’re agreed on that much.
and both men and women having long steady relationships with children. If you’re WN you have an interest in this cos it’s pretty important that the white race is having babiOK.
Quite. The problem is that it is taken as incontrovertible fact that women are responsible for delayed marriage and lower birth rates with no evidence whatsoever. (No, Devlin’s “female hypergamy” theory is not evidence.)
I have my own pronatalist policy ideas, but noone cares because the point is to subjugate women. Any solution that doesn’t provide a sex slave to every incel psychosadist in the White world is not fit for purpose.
I personally think the vast majority of women would much rather stay at home than work a full-time job with children. For that to be a viable option, DINKS will have to be progressively taxed to the point that they cannot drive up the cost of housing. Also, women must have alimony and child support rights. Without these, she is a hostage who can be abused at will.
(BTW, any liberals reading this, especially men, whose sincerityis less likelyto be questioned, should make it a point to talk with their elderly female relatives about their lives during the Rhodium Age of Benevolent Utopian Patriarchy before they die. Write it all down. Reactionaries are going to try to rewrite history and pretend none of it ever happened. They already are actually, but it will only get easier as time goes on. I really would rather not dwell on women’s victimhood, as it is divisive and largely in the past, but apparently, our rights are still up for debate. War is (or will be) upon us, whether we want it or not.)
As for your claim about highly educated women marrying- this is bogus, and the overwhelming evidence is that the more education women have access to the more birth rates drop.
Look, I’m sorry that you don’t like where the evidence is leading, but that doesn’t mean you get to ignore it and demand that others ignore it. These trends have been apparent since Charles Murray documented problems in the White working-class in Coming Apart.
No, highly-educated women don’t usually have 8 children as in hellholes like Niger. When you have nothing to invest in your children, your best bet is to play the odds with quantity over quality. I don’t think that’s what White people want.
The fertility apocalypse predicted for educated women has simply failed to materialize. Birth rates for the most educated women are going up while lower-class birthrates fall. Israel has managed to attain an above-replacement level birth rate among educated women without any dehumanizing backlash. I see no reason why Whites can’t do the same.
You also admit you didn’t even listen to the broadcast or read the book/articles so you’re just venting and it’s pointless.
Have you ever had a friend-of-a-friend about whom you know everything there is to know even though you’ve never met him. That’s kind of how it is with Devlin and me. As HB notes below, we hear about him constantly, and I’ve had quite enough over the decade or so I’ve been on and off this beat. If I enjoyed being abused and scapegoated, I’d go listen to the MSM bash White people to get my thrills.
“Aren’t some of them like 60% female at the undergraduate level now? Why aren’t young men using all that dating market power to promote monogamy?”
OK I’m completely tired of the B.S. I was astounded to hear on the podcast that “incels” are rejecting women. Cyan Quinn, can you possibly be serious? Travis, are you there? Incels are “sulking?”
WOMEN are completely rejecting the 80% of men who are “below average” in physical appearance – from the get-go. This is more than just a funny meme from OKCupid. Please see the article at https://www.phyllisschlafly.com/family/colleges/the-new-math-on-campus/ and note that it discusses another article from the New York Times by the same name. Pay attention to the quote from one of the female students who was interviewed:
“Out of that 40% male population, there are maybe 20% we would consider dating, and out of those 20%, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10%.”
All of you are smart, so don’t gloss over what you just read – 80% of men are out of consideration. This does not mean that they get dates and are rejected because of bad manners or body odor, it means that they are completely written off from the start because they are not good-looking enough. Incels are not “sulking” and there is no “movement” – they are just trying to come to terms with this reality without blaming themselves for it.
Why aren’t young men using all that dating market power? Because they don’t have any power. AS YOU KNOW, Lexi. No one is blaming women for the choices they make. Can we blame women for lying about their choices and trying to blame the 80% of men who are completely shut out when many of those men are perfectly decent human beings who in earlier times would’ve been considered good options? YES.
Mr. Fisher, did you read the article you posted? It says precisely the opposite of what you claimed: MEN HAVE ALL THE DATING MARKET POWER ON CAMPUS!
Random quotes by individuals women on college campuses do not prove anything. She might be fighting for 10%, but that is NOT THE NORM!
Everything you say about women here is not only false, it is the exact opposite of the truth. Any particular women might only be interested in 10% of the eligible dating pool, but that doesn’t matter of it’s not the same 10% of men other girls are interested in dating. Do you understand that? Men, not women, are hypercompetitive for the most desirable mates, because they actually agree with each other on who the most desirable mates are!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090626153511.html
And, for the millionth time, about that OKCupid study that proves nothing:
https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/
Here again, we see that it is MEN who are “hypergamous,” not women. Of course, when men do it, you don’t call it hypergamy, because you have defined hypergamy as something women mostly do. By this bizarre sleight of hand, you pathologize women’s more holistic approach to dating as morally inferior to men’s shallow, near-exclusive focus on physical appearance.
I will say about the incels what I have said before, their obsession with sex is profoundly repulsive. One thing PUA gets right is that they need to learn to be indifferent to sex, but for reals rather than pretend. If you’re not particularly good-looking, talented, funny, or rich, you’ve only got one thing to offer: commitment. Say what you will, there is no real, lasting commitment without self-mastery. Even more importantly than that, they need to broaden their horizons. You can’t bond with women if you won’t be bothered to learn about anything that interests them. We don’t GAF about Mariocart, Pokémon etc. Read a book, FCS!
Geez, sorry. I’m only reporting what I observe around me. I totally support women’s education. Please don’t see me as on a pedestal. I’m as low as they get.
I totally support women’s education.
Well, thank you, in all sincerity. I appreciate it very much. I can work with anyone who supports women’s right to an education, as this is what separates men who believe women are actual human beings from those who do not.
Please don’t see me as on a pedestal. I’m as low as they get.
No, you are clearly not. See above.
Geez, sorry. I’m only reporting what I observe around me.
Here is where we run into trouble, DP. You know the story of the Elephant and the Wise Men, right? The only solution to this epistemological dilemma is public evidence that everyone can see, understand, and review. I could tell you all about my own observations, and it would paint a much different picture, but that wouldn’t get us anywhere either.
It is dishonest to accuse highly-educated career women, as a whole, of stealing a job from a man, and then frittering the money away on sexy outfits and bar tabs, when the evidence tells a different story. This remains the case whether your personal experience confirms the data or not.
Hi, Lexi. I didn’t see a “Reply” link next to the reply you sent me. This is my reply to Lexi.
We’ve talked before on Unz. You “refute” me in 2 ways: (A) you might be willing to admit that a given woman is only attracted to 20% of men, but you say that the 20% varies from woman to woman (NOT AT ALL what I’m saying. I’m saying that a given woman has a disgusted feeling of contempt toward 80% of men, and has no qualms – with her extreme superiority complex – of expressing that contempt. And I’ll get to your point about the supposed Incel focus on sex, but my position is that what hurts Incels along with men in general is not a lack of sex but a lack of common courtesy and respect from women. I would not ask for respect from women as I think you would define the word. I believe there are different forms of respect, some of which have to be earned. Here I’m talking about a basic level of respect that I believe each of us owes to our fellow human beings. If I see someone in the street struggling to get up while covered in blood, I will take the time to call 911. Would you, Lexi? Even if you knew it was an Incel or one of the commenters here or on Unz?). (B) You claim that men only care about looks – only men are shallow – while women take a “holistic” approach. Women definitely take a holistic approach – if a man is physically attractive enough (and ONLY then!) then yes, a woman does have LONG list of other requirements. My claim (which is correct) is that an Incel can climb Mount Everest, win a Nobel Prize, know several funny stories AND even read a book (I assume even you DO believe that at least SOME men can read – right?), and yet can still expect to either be ignored or figuratively “spit on” by women during the course of his life.
You can bring in lots of complicating factors. Yes men who are famous might be able to overcome having a big nose or ears that stick out (would getting a Nobel Prize make one famous enough though? That was MY example. James Watson had a hard time finding a woman and getting married, but I’m sure you can tell me what a disgusting human being he is). You mention the behavior of men who own “kingdoms” – yes when you are talking about political power and the fate of nations things get more complicated. I believe several movies and novels tackle that subject (women seem to have a tendency to focus on men at the top and ignore all the others). But no – in general men do NOT practice hypergamy, but they DO respond to hypergamy from women (Taylor Swift has been discussed in the news lately. I hope an NFL player is good enough for her, and I hope Travis Kelce is a good guy, because someone like Taylor really does have very few options, paradoxically. But I like her – because I’m shallow and she’s hot? No, because she seems like a nice person from some interviews I’ve seen. Also I like how she re-recorded her songs).
So to START (I really don’t have time for this, but yes it’s important) I’ll discuss the quote from the “New Math” article. From here on I want to paint with a large brush and ignore extremes like sovereigns of nations or Taylor Swift.
Yes I DID read the article, and NO it does not ACTUALLY say that men have all the power on campus (but the focus is on that supposedly powerful 10%). It says that 80% of the men have NO power whatsoever (and no sympathy from anyone whatsoever, apparently including, disappointingly, Phyllis Schlafly), 10% (half of the “dateable” men) are monogamous (have “girlfriends”) and that the remaining 10% that gets all the focus is out having “hookups.” Now I don’t agree with the men who are having hookups, but I believe they are thinking “it’s not love, she just wants to have fun with my body, and she’ll drop me as soon as someone hotter/richer comes along.” I disagree with that behavior and outlook on life because I believe that relationships are important – and I believe that human reproduction is important – but I have a hard time arguing against the reasoning, because in many or most cases it is correct.
You might argue that the quote from the “New Math” article is just one woman’s opinion (actually I think you DID, “Lexi”). The original Schlafly article was longer and had a comments section. And the New York Times article was in their paper and also posted online, also with comments. So it’s not just one woman. Millions of people read it, hundreds or actually probably thousands commented on it, and while I can’t claim to have read EVERY comment, I did pore over them and did not find ONE comment saying “What’s with this crazy woman saying that 80% of men are too unattractive to date? Women aren’t THAT picky!”
We have to rely on “one offs” that peek through the veil like the quote or the OKCupid study because both women AND the majority of men have dedicated themselves to the rule that women must not be criticized for anything, ever. The truth can be hard to get sometimes, especially when men (as noted in the podcast) are reluctant to complain. I just want to be very clear: I do NOT criticize women for being attracted, or not being attracted, to any particular person. I just don’t think women are being honest. And the message Incels need to hear is: just because you are “ugly” doesn’t mean you are worthless, and just because women have written you off doesn’t mean you have to hate yourself.
And so my concern is less with the 10% “swingers” and more with the 80% of the men who are “Incels.” Not all men who are unattractive and unable to date have a hard time with that. Some men don’t “take it personally” and are able to live their lives with their careers, interests, hobbies and friends. Bachelors have been known to exist, many of whom have had (otherwise) full lives.
But many men have an emotional dependence on women (not women in general but the women they are close to). I believe Jim Goad wrote about this in his recent article “Why I Never Gave Up On Women” (sheesh am I dragging Jim Goad into this? Jim, if you read this, I apologize if you feel I am misrepresenting what you wrote).
But what is worse than that, and my main concern, is that many or most of those 80% of men will not be able to avoid depression and feelings of inferiority (really, “self-hate”) as a result of the treatment they’ve received from women.
Now is a good time to talk about what some “Incels” say, that it’s really not about sex at all.
Jordan Peterson talks about “social dominance hierarchies” and other psychologists have talked about “self-esteem.”
Picture a blackboard with 2 divided panels, one on the right and one on the left. Imagine that this chalk board represents the part of your brain that evaluates your “social status” or really, just your overall “status” (other forms of status might bring wealth, fame or power, but as long as you have the essentials those things aren’t what is important in life).
Imagine that you see “tick marks” on the board (or boards, left and right) like the kind that a prisoner might scratch on the wall marking off the days.
When someone on the street smiles at you, you put a new mark on the right side of the board. When someone you encounter snubs you, you put a mark on the left side of the board. In this way the blackboard is a “record” of your social encounters, and the ratio of the tick marks on the left and right sides indicate your social status. And here’s the trouble for some people (most): the ratio of those tick marks represent whether they can love themselves or have to hate themselves.
Incels are people who are agonized over the fact that their left sides have many more tick marks than their right sides. This causes them intense emotional pain. Many of them kill themselves over it. It is their number one biggest problem and they are unable to shift their attention away from it.
This blackboard model is extremely simple so far but we can make it a little more sophisticated. Note that you don’t have to make a single tick mark for each interaction, good or bad. If the person that snubs you is someone you like and respect, you might feel devastated, and you would have to make multiple tick marks on the left side. If you saved someone’s life and got a medal for it from the mayor along with a ticker-tape parade, you might wear out your piece of chalk from all the marks you’d make on the right side and have to get another piece.
Well, what if a woman had sex with you? How many marks would that be on the right side? Hint: you will want to buy your chalk from a bulk retailer.
Being able to have sex would mean endless marks on the right side (or so Incels THINK, anyway) and the problem that is causing them so much suffering would be solved permanently. This is why the problem Incels have is really not about sex at all. And yet at the same time sex is their Holy Grail.
There are other reasons why it really isn’t about sex even though sex is an important indicator. I’ll mention Jordan Peterson again as I imagine him talking to a client who has difficulty with social interactions. The client is wondering whether there is just “something wrong with him” – if he is simply inferior and can expect to never succeed with social relationships – or if his problem is exacerbated by his “approach.” His approach is nervous and fearful, even though he tries to mask that. Maybe some resentment comes across as well even though he does his best to hide it. If he’s just defective, he has no hope, but if his approach is causing the problems, maybe he can work on that. OR – perhaps he is simply being too negative. Everyone can have struggles with people and maybe he is magnifying his difficulties with a negative attitude. Maybe he just has to stop worrying so much and keep trying.
This is a thorny and complex problem, as twisted as the Gordian Knot. But maybe Jordan Peterson could be like Alexander the Great and slice through it with just one question: have you ever had sex? After a certain age it is “normal” to have had sex. If the answer is yes, then that indicates that the client probably really isn’t just “defective” and that maybe he COULD try a more positive attitude. But if the answer is no, and really no one has ever shown even the slightest interest in him sexually, then maybe he really IS “defective” (and for men who are always rejected “off the cuff” or who are “out of consideration” per the quote, “defective” means unattractive, because what else could it mean when the women doing the rejecting know nothing else about him except how he looks?).
I’ll say some things about “refutation” (A). People generally agree about who is good looking and who isn’t. I can see that Brad Pitt and Denzel Washington are both handsome even though I have no desire to date either of them. But maybe a black woman wants to date black men, and so would not put Brad Pitt into her own personal 20%. Or vice-versa with a white women (I think that is much less likely, though). Obviously there will be SOME differences between the likes and dislikes of different women (but it’s not obvious to Lexi that it’s obvious to me since she has decided that I am defective every which way, including intellectually – without really knowing anything about me).
It’s funny that men get the reputation for being shallow, when this is true: most men find most women to be attractive; most women find most men to be UNattractive. Maybe women really ARE more aesthetically pleasing than men, or maybe it’s makeup that helps. But being physically attracted to a variety of women allows men, if they want to be picky, to focus more on the things that really matter in relationships: kindness, personality, shared values and so on.
But men very much DON’T want to be “picky” (that doesn’t mean they settle either) – think of the song “If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make pretty woman your wife…” Men are VERY happy with “low-tier” women – although they don’t think about them that way, and SHOULDN’T. Just as women might be happy with “low-tier” men, some in that 80%, if they would give them a chance.
This has really gone on for too long. I have entertained you for long enough. I’ll try to hurry along. About refutation (B) I want to say that I don’t believe it’s true per one of Lexi’s links that women on dating apps are more likely than men to contact people they are less attracted to (her other link is broken for me, but if it’s the same one that was posted on Unz, that article was – sorry – laughably unscientific). I asked my wife about what she thinks about all this and she told me that she DID try to date some men that seemed nice but were not very physically attractive, wondering if her attraction would grow (apparently not, although she still liked some of them).
Contacting someone is different from going out with that person – I really don’t think most women do that very often with men they don’t find attractive.
YES I have a wife; YES I still sort of self-identify as an “incel”; and YES that’s a long story. I’ve been married for over 20 years. I AM trying to hurry along and won’t tell the story but this part of it is relevant here I think: my wife says it took me forever to ask her out. I met her in college. She was very friendly and fun to talk to. But I didn’t take that “personally” because I could see that she was kind and friendly with EVERYONE (very unlike the other women). I understand that women feel uncomfortable when they are asked out by men they aren’t attracted to. The LAST thing I wanted to do was discourage a nice woman from being nice – so no, asking her out never even occurred to me and I would have never done it. But through some very bizarre coincidences we kept encountering each other. And some other unusual things happened that showed me she WAS interested in me romantically. I’m very grateful for how things turned out. It was incredibly lucky.
I’m trying to persuade anyone reading this that my unconventional viewpoint is correct. I’ve addressed this to Lexi but I hope others will read it (and I hope Travis and Cyan will come back from their trip to outer space). Thanks for your time.
Interesting discussion and thanks so much for having Roger on. His book is my go-to for recommending to anyone aspiring to understand how we got to this dismal place of gender relations.
Couple things I wanted to comment on: I felt like it was Roger vs everyone in terms of actually understanding the world in the position of a young man looking for a proper wife, ie a woman who will be loyal, modest, bear him children, cook, etc. I don’t think any of the other people on the podcast really understand the depths of depravity of the average western woman and the dearth of marriageable women out here. The only trad women around are foreign, with few exceptions (Amish/Mennonite for example). NJP and PF are much more trad and on point on this front. Men unafraid to be men know that women should not be voting or involved in politics, and no Greg it’s not about being ‘pro-war’ or hyper masculine. That’s weird to hear coming from you, how are you not aware that the left, which is very much the single women sect, are very much pro-war now. They support the regime wars totally. Women are not more anti-war than men, nonsense. They’ll support whatever is popular to support, as they perceive it. They don’t have the courage to have honor and pursue truth if it’ll cost them socially. Those are not the people you want around for leadership of much of anything, unless there is very little social risk involved. Also have you not seen the maps that have been made showing voting results by gender and race? Not just party but issue by issue. Removing women from the voting bloc would immediately move the country considerably rightward, and make our ideas gain steam much quicker.
To add to my earlier point: the nationalist, trad right who support repealing the 19th and other pro-family policies don’t support regime wars for Israel. Women are always going to support the status quo. They are actively repressing nationalist men on a micro and macro level. Women and weak men are our biggest obstacles, as they make up the subversive element due to their agreeable nature and susceptibility to enemy propaganda. I’ve had several women in my own family try and sabotage my marriage because they hate my rightist politics and lifestyle. These types of deceitful and resentful ‘bossbabes’ need to be shut down and shamed, not pandered to.
Also re: Travis argument that any pro-family trad policy must accept the permanent reality that it takes 2 incomes to survive is totally wrong. If you, as a breadwinning head of household man, are competing with other sole income households, that is much better than competing with DINKs and dual income families for housing. Most people get mortgages and you can qualify for a much higher mortgage with 2 incomes than 1. Remove women from the workforce as they were in the past (save for a few fields as Greg was saying) and you’re back to less consumption and more affordable homes due to smaller mortgages. It’s not that complicated, and no we don’t have to accept both men and women working full-time, 9-5 jobs forever. That’s neo-liberal/neo-con feminist bs.
Also there is plenty of data out there about the importance of body count, weird that that’s even a contention here. Women with high body counts don’t make good wives, generally speaking. It hurts their ability to pair bond and be loyal. Too many dicks damages women. Wise men have known that for millennia and there is much data to support that. I also know that very well from my own experience looking for a proper wife.
I intend to post a more thorough reply to this case study in misogynist sophistry soon, but I’ll go ahead and address the body count issue now, since there is new research on the issue for dissident right men to studiously ignore.
Women with high body counts don’t make good wives, generally speaking. It hurts their ability to pair bond and be loyal. Too many dicks damages women.
I have my own theory about the correlation between premarital sex partners and divorce risk. I suspect that women who have had many sexual partners are more likely to have lower perceived mate value. Their inability to negotiate a commitment to marriage is followed by an inability to negotiate decent treatment by their husbands when they do marry. In my experience, girls who marry young aren’t so much extra trad as they are exceptionally attractive. Of course, I can’t prove this, and unlike Devlin et. al. I don’t expect others to accept my armchair musings as gospel truth.
That said, it does appear that women who are married to men who are more physically attractive than they are tend to be less satisfied with their marriages. For men, it is the opposite. If my theory is correct, the less conventionally attractive a woman is, the more sexual partners she will have before she marries, and the less satisfied she will be with her marriage.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.853083/full
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marriage-study_n_4299002
Of course, per Lexi’s Law of Manosphere Misogyny (or whatever I called it), any interpretation of the data that do not favor men is waved off without further consideration, so I don’t expect this time to be any different.
Anyway, there is still no conclusive evidence that premarital sex causes rather than merely correlates with divorce, nor does the data support the idea that women are particularly damaged by it, though that wouldn’t be surprising given the existence of creeps like Rockwell here. It turns out that premarital sexual experience is as damaging to mens’ as for womens’ prospects for marital bliss.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/testing-common-theories-on-the-relationship-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability
Of course, fornication used to be a crime. It was decriminalized on the theory that it was a victimless crime. Now, the manosphere is crying that they are victims of premarital sex, as a result of which they can’t find a “proper wife.” Any time you all want to talk about recriminalizing fornication in order to save our race, I’m up for it. I don’t expect any more takers than I get when I suggest banning birth control, because he point is to control women while leaving men free to do whatever the hell they want, no strings attached.
Thank you for all of your comments, Lexi; all excellent points. I’ve seen the above-named book referenced and quoted so many times on this website, I sighed aloud with exasperation to see that it was being covered as a book club selection.
Personally, I think women are better-suited to traditional roles, and I never fit into the work-a-day world, nor was I able to co-exist with the “mean girls” who rule in it. Every woman I worked for made everything too personal and was intolerant of a female like me who did not want to be a part of the feminist sisterhood. Even so, very few men are worthy of the sacrifice of self and autonomy that are the price women pay for the alternative. In my formative years, the early 1970s, I saw countless “housewives” thrown over by their husbands for someone younger, more attractive and more interesting. These were women who had most likely been virgins on their wedding night; and yet, the promiscuity of today’s young women turns my stomach. It seems to be an unsolvable conundrum.
Have you read Devlins book?
It gets at the roots of some of the problems you allude to here, and no it’s not a misogynist screed.
Idk how anyone can consider themselves a rightist without confronting the dystopia that is modern relationships b/w men and women. We’ve lost all that is sacred now and the natural order has been completely subverted in our culture. Much of it based on the delusions that fueled the sexual revolution.
Rockwell – Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I appreciate your comment, and I agree with its conclusion:
We’ve lost all that is sacred now and the natural order has been completely subverted in our culture. Much of it based on the delusions that fueled the sexual revolution.
My comment was aimed at the comments I read about the book, in the above thread and in others. The book is often referred to, it seems to me, as material with which to attack women in general, regardless of the material actually contained within the book itself.
In conclusion, I’ve come a long way from the second-wave feminist indoctrination that I once marinated in. Women like me were never meant for a public/work life; and I have, paradoxically, found that elusive “liberation”, that Gloria Steinem and her ilk promised, in admitting it. What provokes my ire is being hit over the head with the an endless litany on the failings of modern women.
It is curious way to argue you have which is to disregard every one else’s anecdotal evidence but assert your own, disregard others’ quoted studies but vouch for ones you link to, and continually mock and name call
And block quoting people then sarcastically responding to what they say isn’t intelligent
Youre not arguing in good faith as evidenced by your hysterical language and insults. I don’t know what to call right wing people who are critical of feminism but aren’t manosphere or MRA. Gender critical is what TERFs call themselves so I’m just trying to come up with some thing
The rest of your post is either ill-informed or just flaming and not worth responding to.
I have a theory about women that also applies to jobs. I believe employers who get 100+ applications for a job simply take the first 3-5 or so and interview them.
Similarly with women, I believe women tend to get in a relationship with basically the first man in their life who ticks some kind of box (local, available, rich, fit, whatever it might be – basically, she wasn’t turned OFF).
Or, the first man she comes across when she’s newly single.
In that sense it is basically a lottery (for the man) of being in the right place at the right time.
I believe this is the case because a woman’s entire body and existence is based upon giving birth and carrying a baby, and so for women finding a man to do that with is paramount, and they need to do it fairly quickly.
A man has many things he’s concerned about in his life; having a baby is one of them, sure, but it’s not at the paramount importance it is for a female, for obvious biological reasons.
So women in my opinion basically just get into relationships with the first non-totally-off-putting man they come across. That explains the countless cases of “she’s with HIM?!” style incredulity, and also teenage or early 20s pregnancies only for the relationship to fail.
Of course in the modern age women are choosing their mates, which in a trad society wouldn’t be the case, generally speaking the parents would choose the spouses for both male and female. And this removes the “choose the first guy on the block” thing. I’d argue it’d be more successful, but that does also depend on a few other things like society going along with it and pressuring it to work.
We are so far gone from that now I don’t know what to say about it really.
So women in my opinion basically just get into relationships with the first non-totally-off-putting man they come across.
Lol. As ever, the only thing men agree on is that women are insufficiently deliberative and rational to be allowed to make their own decisions. That may be because they’re too picky, or it may be because they’re not picky enough. That’s beside the point. That women are subject to selection pressures that balance each other out (finding the best vs. finding one before it’s too late) is under no circumstances to be considered, because that would lead to the conclusion that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with women and that would be heresy.
It’s the same story with women’s attire. Rockwell, above, thinks we should wear the same ugly black dress every day like the Amish. Other men would bitch that we don’t do enough to make ourselves look attractive for them like wear makeup and pretty outfits. If we make plans to support ourselves, we’re too focused on our careers. If we don’t, we’re gold-diggers who see men as an ATM etc. etc. etc.
It’s heads I win, tails you lose for women in the dissident right.
Cool, so leave. Leave politics altogether and have babies and take care of them and their father. Don’t like that? Then ur not a rightist.
Cool, so leave. Leave politics altogether and have babies and take care of them and their father.
I assure you, I resent from the depths of my soul every second I have to spend here contending with the likes of you rather than enjoying my wonderful family. Unfortunately, there is no help for it. Your sort are used to controlling the debate with manipulative attacks on the masculinity of men who disagree with you, as here:
Men unafraid to be men know that women should not be voting or involved in politics...
White men cannot take attacks on their masculinity any more than they can take being called “racist.” The result? Men won’t stand up for women around here, so I have to do it myself. I’m immune to your various cheap shots and fallacies.
Don’t like that? Then ur not a rightist.
OK, fine, I’m not a rightist. What I am is pro-White. You clearly have other priorities.
Rockwell, I’m going to give you a chance to educate me about something. First, if all these bought-and-blackmailed White male politicians have always wanted to resist Leftism and move right but were too afraid that White women voters would punish them at the polls, why did they not breathe a sigh of relief when Trump won the election? Why the desire to get back to business as usual instead of building the wall and deporting them all? Enlighten me, please.
Second, White women’s influence within the Democratic party is in decline as their constituency is increasingly non-White. That being the case, how the hell are we to blame for their increasing support for various forever wars?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1478929917699416?journalCode=pswa
During the Renaissance, arranged marriages started going out of fashion. Some societies do make that work pretty well, but I have no idea how. A small amount of hypergamy is OK, and has a eugenic effect. That is, if the bottom 2% of society doesn’t breed, maybe it’s all the better.
On the other hand, far too much hypergamy is very bad. That is to say, if women aren’t settling for anyone who isn’t a billionaire with washboard abdominals, then their genetic lines go extinct because there aren’t too many billionaires with washboard abdominals out there. That might sound like hyperbole, but that’s an exact description of the dude from 50 Shades Of Gray, wish fulfilment crap promoted in popular culture. That sort of thing gives women unrealistic expectations in the same way that porn gives men unrealistic expectations.
I wonder how much thought anyone has given to this idea of “hypergamy” in earlier time periods. Have you ever read King Lear? Pride and Prejudice? In the past, men have demanded, and gotten, enormous bribes from fathers and other male relatives in order to marry young women, whole kingdoms even. The hero doesn’t just marry some random pretty peasant girl. (We all know what he does with her.) It’s a beautiful princess he marries! Is this “hypergamy” or not?
Recent widespread prosperity has freed men from a need to worry about this as much as in the past. We would already be seeing a return to hypergamy (or whatever you want to call it when men do it) but for the fact of artificial birth control. That is, parenthood (and the expenses that go along with it) can be put off until the couple can afford it, which might be never.
I am guilty of prejudgment — prejudice — against the author, F. Roger Devlin; and after listening to the entire podcast above, I am compelled to apologize to the author of “Sexual Utopia in Power”. My apologies, also, to all of the participants. It was an excellent conversation, and I found little to disagree with. Especially interesting were the fresh takes on the question of women’s enfranchisement.
Each of the participants contributed much, and brought valid and varied perspectives to the topic. Cyan Quinn was an especially appealing and thoughtful contributor. Thank you for making this conversation available along with all the other highly valuable Counter-Currents content.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment