Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.

Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife

View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile

read this...Sexual Utopia in Power

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

read this...Sexual Utopia in Power

Postby gmm567 » Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:30 pm

It is well known to readers of this journal that white birthrates worldwide
have suffered a catastrophic decline in recent decades. During this same
period, ours has become assuredly the most sex-obsessed society in the
history of the world. Two such massive, concurrent trends are hardly likely to
be unrelated. Many well-meaning conservatives agree in deploring the present
situation, but do not agree in describing that situation or how it arose. Correct
diagnosis is the fi rst precondition for effective strategy.
The well-worn phrase “sexual revolutionâ€￾ ought, I believe, to be taken
with more than customary seriousness. Like the French Revolution, the
paradigmatic political revolution of modern times, it was an attempt to
realize a utopia, but a sexual rather than political utopia. And like the French
Revolution, it has gone through three phases: fi rst, a libertarian or anarchic
phase in which the utopia was supposed to occur spontaneously once old
ways had been swept aside; second, a reign of terror, in which one faction
seized power and attempted to realize its schemes dictatorially; and third, a
“reactionâ€￾ in which human nature gradually reasserted itself. We shall follow
this order in the present essay.
Let us consider what a sexual utopia is, and let us begin with men, who
are in every respect simpler.
Nature has played a trick on men: production of spermatozoa occurs at
a rate several orders of magnitude greater than female ovulation (about 12
million per hour vs. 400 per lifetime). This is a natural, not a moral, fact. Among
the lower animals also, the male is grossly oversupplied with something for
which the female has only a limited demand. This means that the female
has far greater control over mating. The universal law of nature is that males
display and females choose. Male peacocks spread their tales, females choose.
Male rams butt horns, females choose. Among humans, boys try to impress
girls—and the girls choose. Nature dictates that in the mating dance, the male
must wait to be chosen.
A man’s sexual utopia is, accordingly, a world in which no such limit to
female demand for him exists. It is not necessary to resort to pornography for
examples. Consider only popular movies aimed at a male audience, such as
the James Bond series. Women simply cannot resist James Bond. He does not
have to propose marriage, or even request dates. He simply walks into the
room and they swoon. The entertainment industry turns out endless unrealistic
images such as this. Why, the male viewer eventually may ask, cannot
life actually be so? To some, it is tempting to put the blame on the institution
of marriage.
Marriage, after all, seems to restrict sex rather drastically. Certain men
fi gure that if sex were permitted both inside and outside of marriage there
would be twice as much of it as formerly. They imagined there existed a large,
untapped reservoir of female desire hitherto repressed by monogamy. To
release it, they sought, during the early postwar period, to replace the seventh
commandment with an endorsement of all sexual activity between “consenting
adults.â€￾ Every man could have a harem. Sexual behavior in general, and
not merely family life, was henceforward to be regarded as a private matter.
Traditionalists who disagreed were said to want to “put a policeman in every
bedroom.â€￾ This was the age of the Kinsey Report and the fi rst appearance of
Playboy magazine. Idle male daydreams had become a social movement.
This characteristically male sexual utopianism was a forerunner of the sexual
revolution but not the revolution itself. Men are incapable of bringing about
fundamental changes in heterosexual relations without the cooperation—the
famed “consentâ€￾—of women. But the original male would-be revolutionaries
did not understand the nature of the female sex instinct. That is why things
have not gone according to their plan.
What is the special character of feminine sexual desire that distinguishes
it from that of men?
It is sometimes said that men are polygamous and women monogamous.
Such a belief is often implicit in the writings of male conservatives: Women
only want good husbands, but heartless men use and abandon them. Some
evidence does appear, prima facie, to support such a view. One 1994 survey
found that “while men projected they would ideally like six sex partners over
the next year, and eight over the next two years, women responded that their
ideal would be to have only one partner over the next year. And over two
years? The answer, for women, was still one.â€￾1 Is this not evidence that women
are naturally monogamous?
No it is not. Women know their own sexual urges are unruly, but traditionally
have had enough sense to keep quiet about it. A husband’s belief
that his wife is naturally monogamous makes for his own peace of mind. It is
not to a wife’s advantage, either, that her husband understand her too well:
Knowledge is power. In short, we have here a kind of Platonic “noble lieâ€￾—a
belief which is salutary, although false.
It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous.
Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have
simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfi ed with the
Summer 2006 / Devlin 11
best. By defi nition, only one man can be the best. These different male and
female “sexual orientationsâ€￾ are clearly seen among the lower primates, e.g., in
a baboon pack. Females compete to mate at the top, males to get to the top.
Women, in fact, have a distinctive sexual utopia corresponding to their
hypergamous instincts. In its purely utopian form, it has two parts: First, she
mates with her incubus, the imaginary perfect man; and second, he “commits,â€￾
or ceases mating with all other women. This is the formula of much pulp
romance fi ction. The fantasy is strictly utopian, partly because no perfect man
exists, but partly also because even if he did, it is logically impossible for him
to be the exclusive mate of all the women who desire him.
It is possible, however, to enable women to mate hypergamously, i.e.,
with the most sexually attractive (handsome or socially dominant) men. In the
Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes the women of Athens stage a coup d’état. They
occupy the legislative assembly and barricade their husbands out. Then they
proceed to enact a law by which the most attractive males of the city will be
compelled to mate with each female in turn, beginning with the least attractive.
That is the female sexual utopia in power. Aristophanes had a better
understanding of the female mind than the average husband.
Hypergamy is not monogamy in the human sense. Although there may
be only one “alpha maleâ€￾ at the top of the pack at any given time, which one it
is changes over time. In human terms, this means the female is fi ckle, infatuated
with no more than one man at any given time, but not naturally loyal to
a husband over the course of a lifetime. In bygone days, it was permitted to
point out natural female inconstancy. Consult, for example, Ring Lardner’s
humorous story “I Can’t Breatheâ€￾—the private journal of an eighteen year old
girl who wants to marry a different young man every week. If surveyed on
her preferred number of “sex partners,â€￾ she would presumably respond one;
this does not mean she has any idea who it is.2
An important aspect of hypergamy is that it implies the rejection of most
males. Women are not so much naturally modest as naturally vain. They are
inclined to believe that only the “bestâ€￾ (most sexually attractive) man is worthy
of them. This is another common theme of popular romance (the beautiful
princess, surrounded by panting suitors, pined away hopelessly for a “realâ€￾
man—until, one day…etc.).
This cannot be objectively true, of course. An average man would seem to
be good enough for the average woman by defi nition. If women were to mate
with all the men “worthyâ€￾ of them they would have little time for anything else.
To repeat, hypergamy is distinct from monogamy. It is an irrational instinct,
and the female sexual utopia is a consequence of that instinct.
The sexual revolution in America was an attempt by women to realize
their own utopia, not that of men. Female utopians came forward publicly
with plans a few years after Kinsey and Playboy. Helen Gurley Brown’s Sex
and the Single Girl appeared in 1962, and she took over Cosmopolitan magazine
three years later. Notoriously hostile to motherhood, she explicitly encouraged
women to use men (including married men) for pleasure.
The actual outbreak of the sexual revolution occurred when signifi cant
numbers of young women began acting on the new utopian plan. This seems
to have occurred on many college campuses in the nineteen-sixties. Women
who took birth-control pills and committed fornication with any man who
caught their fancy claimed they were liberating themselves from the slavery of
marriage. The men, urged by their youthful hormones, frequently went along
with this, but were not as happy about it as they are sometimes represented.
Columnist Paul Craig Roberts recalls:
I was a young professor when it all started and watched a campus turn
into a brothel. The male students were perplexed, even the left-wing
ones who had been taught to regard female chastity as oppression. I
still remember the resident Marxist who, high on peyote, came to me to
complain that “nice girls are ruining themselves.â€￾3
This should not be surprising. Most men prefer a virgin bride; this is a
genuine aspect of male erotic desire favoring monogamy, and hence in constant
tension with the impulse to seek sexual variety.
The young women, although hardly philosophers, did set forth arguments
to justify their behavior. Most were a variation on the theme that traditional
morality involved an unwarranted double standard. It was said that women
who had promiscuous sex had been condemned as “slutsâ€￾ while men who did
the same were admired as “studs.â€￾ It was pointed out that some men sought
sex outside marriage and subsequently insisted on their brides being virgins.
The common expression “fallen woman,â€￾ and the absence of a corresponding
expression “fallen man,â€￾ was cited as further evidence of an unfair double
standard. The inference the women drew was that they, too, should thenceforward
seek sex outside of marriage. This, of course, does not logically follow.
They might have determined instead to set wayward men a good example by
practicing monogamy regardless of men’s own actions.
But let us ignore that for the moment and consider the premise of their
argument, the double standard. Like most infl uential falsehoods, it involves a
distortion, rather than a mere negation, of an important truth. It is plausible,
and hence dangerous, because it resembles that truth.
In fact, men have never been encouraged to go about seeking casual sex
with multiple women. How could any sane society encourage such behavior?
The results are inevitable and obvious: abandoned women and fatherless
children who are a fi nancial burden on innocent third parties. Accordingly,
promiscuous men have traditionally been regarded as dissolute, dangerous, and
dishonorable. They have been called by names such as “libertineâ€￾ or “rake.â€￾
The traditional rule of sexual conduct has been chastity outside of marriage,
faithfulness within—for both sexes.
Summer 2006 / Devlin 13
But in one sense there was undoubtedly a double standard: A sexual indiscretion,
whether fornication or adultery, has usually been regarded as a more
serious matter in a woman than in a man, and socially sanctioned punishments
for it have often been greater. In other words, while both sexes were supposed
to practice monogamy, it was considered especially important for women to
do so. Why is this?
In the fi rst place, they tend to be better at it. This is not due to any moral
superiority of the female, as many men are pleased to believe, but to their
lower levels of testosterone and their slower sexual cycle: ovulation at the rate
of one gamete per month.
Second, if women are all monogamous, the men will perforce be monogamous
anyway: It is arithmetically impossible for polygamy to be the norm for
men throughout a society because of the human sex ratio at birth.
Third, the private nature of the sexual act and the nine month human
gestation period mean that, while there is not normally doubt as to whom the
mother of a particular baby is, there may well be doubt regarding the father.
Female fi delity is necessary to assure the husband that his wife’s children are
also his.
Fourth, women are, next to children, the main benefi ciaries of marriage.
Most men work their lives away at jobs they do not much care for in order to
support wife and family. For women, marriage coincides with economic rationality;
for a man, going to a prostitute is a better deal. Accordingly, chastity
before marriage and fi delity within it are the very least a woman owes her
husband. Indeed, on the traditional view, she owes him a great deal more.
She is to make a home for him, return gratitude and loyalty for his support of
her, and accept his position as head of the family.
Traditional concern for fallen women does not imply there are no “fallen
men.â€￾ Fornication is usually a sin of weakness, and undoubtedly many men
who fall into it feel ashamed. The real double standard here is that few bother
to sympathize with those men. Both men and women are more inclined to pity
women. Some of the greatest male novelists of the nineteenth century devoted
their best labors to the sympathetic portrayal of adulteresses. Men, by contrast,
are expected to take full responsibility for their actions, no questions asked.
In other words, this double standard favors women. So do most traditional
sex roles, such as exclusively male liability to military service. The female
responsibility to be the primary enforcer of monogamy is something of an
What, after all, is the alternative to the double standard? Is it practical to
give sexually desperate young men exclusive responsibility to ensure no act
of fornication ever takes place? Or should women be locked up to make it
impossible? Logically, a woman must either have no mate, one mate, or more
than one mate. The fi rst two choices are socially accepted; the third is not. Such
disapproval involves no coercion, however. Women who insist on mating
with multiple men may do so. But they are responsible for that behavior and
its consequences.
Women’s complaints about double standards refer only to the few which
seem to favor men. They unhesitatingly take advantage of those which favor
themselves. Wives in modern, two-income marriages, for example, typically
assume that “what I earn is mine; what he earns is ours.â€￾ Young women insist
on their “independence,â€￾ but assume they are entitled to male protection
should things get sticky.
But the ultimate expression of modern female hypocrisy is the assertion
of a right to adultery for women only. This view is clearly implied in much
contemporary self-help literature aimed at women. Titles like Get Rid of Him
and Ditch That Jerk are found side-by-side Men Who Can’t Love: How to Spot a
Commitmentphobic Man. In short, I demand loyalty from you, but you have no
right to expect it of me. Many women seem sincerely unable to sense a contradiction
here. Perhaps, as Schopenhauer thought, the female is not naturally
provided with a sense of justice. Justice, is, after all, a virtue of leaders; it is of
little use in nurturing children.
However that may be, the modern woman clearly wants the benefi ts of
a traditional marriage, but is unwilling to pay the costs; she wants a man
to marry her without her having to marry the man. It is the eternal dream
of irresponsible freedom: In the feminist formulation, freedom for women,
responsibility for men.
Men, by contrast, usually accept that their demand for faithfulness from
their wives entails a reciprocal duty of faithfulness to their wives. In fact, I am
inclined to believe most men lay too much stress on this. For a man, fi delity
in marriage should be a matter of preserving his own honor and ensuring
that he is able to be a proper father to all his children; his wife’s feelings are a
secondary matter, as are his own. In any case, the marriage vow is carefully
formulated to enunciate a reciprocity of obligations; both the man and woman
pledge faithfulness for life. Given innate sex differences, it is not possible to
eliminate the double standard any more than marriage already has.
A few years into the sexual revolution, shocking reports began to appear
of vast numbers of young women—from one quarter to half—being victims of
rape. Shock turned to bewilderment when the victims were brought forward
to tell their stories. The “rapists,â€￾ it turns out, were never lying in wait for
them in remote corners, were not armed, did not attack them. Instead, these
“date rapesâ€￾ occur in private places, usually college dormitory rooms, and
involve no threats or violence. In fact, they little resemble what most of us
think of as rape.
What was going on here?
Summer 2006 / Devlin 15
Take a girl too young to understand what erotic desire is and subject her
to several years of propaganda to the effect that she has a right to have things
any way she wants them in this domain—with no corresponding duties to God,
her parents or anyone else. Do not give her any guidance as to what it might be
good for her to want, how she might try to regulate her own conduct or what
qualities she ought to look for in a young man. Teach her furthermore that the
notion of natural differences between the sexes is a laughable superstition that
our enlightened age is gradually overcoming—with the implication that men’s
sexual desires are no different from or more intense than her own. Meanwhile,
as she matures physically, keep her protected in her parents’ house, sheltered
from responsibility.
Then, at age seventeen or eighteen, take her suddenly away from her
family and all the people she has ever known. She can stay up as late as she
wants! She can decide for herself when and how much to study! She’s making
new friends all the time, young women and men both. It’s no big deal having
them over or going to their rooms; everybody is perfectly casual about it. What
difference does it make if it’s a boy she met at a party? He seems like a nice
fellow, like others she meets in class.
Now let us consider the young man she is alone with. He is neither a saint
nor a criminal, but, like all normal young men of college years, he is intensely
interested in sex. There are times he cannot study without getting distracted
by the thought of some young woman’s body. He has little experience with
girls, and most of it unhappy. He has been rejected a few times without much
ceremony, and it was more humiliating than he cares to admit. He has the
impression that for other young men things are not as diffi cult: “Everybody
knows,â€￾ after all, that since the nineteen-sixties men get all the sex they like,
right? He is bombarded with talk about sex on television, in the words to
popular songs, in rumors about friends who supposedly “scoredâ€￾ with this or
that girl. He begins to wonder if there isn’t something wrong with him.
Furthermore, he has received the same education about sex as the girl he
is now with. He has learned that people have the right to do anything they
want. The only exception is rape. But that is hardly even relevant to him; he
is obviously incapable of doing something like that.
He has also been taught that there are no important differences between
the sexes. This means, of course, that girls want sex just as badly as he does,
though they slyly pretend otherwise. And are not their real desires verifi ed
by all those Cosmopolitan magazine covers he sees constantly at the grocery
store? If women are so eager to read such stuff, why should it be so damned
diffi cult to fi nd just one girl willing to go to bed with him?
But tonight, fi nally, something seemed to click. He met a girl at a party.
They chatted, perhaps drank a bit: all smiles, quite unlike the girls who had
been so quick about rejecting him in high school. She even let him come to her
room afterwards (or came to his). It doesn’t take a genius to fi gure out what
she is thinking, he says to himself. This is a tremendously important moment
for him; every ounce of his self-respect is at stake. He is confused and his heart
is pounding, but he tries to act as if he knows what he is doing. She seems
confused, too, and he meets no more than token resistance (or so it seems to
him). He doesn’t actually enjoy it, and isn’t sure whether she does either. But
that is beside the point; it only matters that he can fi nally consider himself a
man. Later on they can talk about what terms they want to be on, whether
she will be his regular girlfriend, etc. Matrimony is not exactly uppermost in
his mind, but he might not rule it out—eventually. He asks her how she feels
afterwards, and she mumbles that she is “okay.â€￾ This sets his mind at rest. An
awkward parting follows.
Later that night or the next morning our young woman is trying to fi gure
out what in hell has happened to her. Why had he gotten so pushy all of a
sudden? Didn’t he even want to get to know her fi rst? It was confusing, it all
happened so quickly. Sex, she had always heard, was supposed to be something
wonderful; but this she had not enjoyed at all. She felt somehow used.
Of course, at no point does it enter her mind to question her own right
to have been intimate with the young man if she had wanted to. Moral rule
number one, we all know, is that all sex between consenting adults is licit. She
just isn’t sure whether she had really wanted this. In fact, the more she thinks
about it, the more certain she feels that she hadn’t. But if she hadn’t wanted
it, then it was against her will, wasn’t it? And if it was against her will, that
means…she’s been raped?
I sympathize with the young woman, in view of a miseducation which
might have been consciously designed to leave her unprepared for the situation
she got herself into. But as to the question of whether she was raped, the
answer must be a clear no.
Let me explain by means of an analogy with something less emotionally
laden. Consider someone who purchases a lottery ticket which does not
win the prize. Suppose he were to argue as follows: “I put my money down
because I wanted the prize. I wouldn’t have paid if I had known I was going
to lose; therefore I have been deprived of my money against my will; therefore
I am the victim of theft.â€￾ No one would accept this argument as valid. Why
shouldn’t we?
For the very good reason that it denies the fundamental principle behind
all personal responsibility. Those who want to make their own choices in life
must be willing to accept the consequences of those choices. Consider the alternative:
If every loser in a lottery were entitled to a refund there would be no
money left for the prize, and so no lottery. For similar reasons, most civilized
institutions depend upon people taking responsibility for their actions, keeping
agreements and fulfi lling obligations regardless of whether or not they happen
to like the consequences.
Summer 2006 / Devlin 17
The grandmother of the young woman in our story was unaware that she
possessed a “rightâ€￾ to sleep with any boy who took her fancy—or to invite
him to her bedroom and expect nothing to happen. It was the male and female
sexual utopians of the postwar period who said women should be allowed
unlimited freedom to choose for themselves in such matters. Unfortunately,
they did not lay much stress on the need to accept the consequences of poor
choices. Instead, they treated the moral and social norms women in particular
had traditionally used to guide themselves as wholly irrational barriers
to pleasure. Under their infl uence, two generations of women have been led
to believe that doing as they please should lead to happiness and involve no
risk. Hence the moral sophistry of “I didn’t like it; ergo I didn’t want it; ergo
it was against my will.â€￾
To anyone who believes that a society of free and responsible persons is
preferable to one based on centralized control, the reasoning of the date-rape
movement is ominous. The demand that law rather than moral principle and
common prudence should protect women in situations such as I have described
could only be met by literally “putting a policeman in every bedroom.â€￾
However much we may sympathize with the misled young people involved
(and I mean the men as well as the women), we must insist that it is no part
of our responsibility to create an absolutely safe environment for them, nor to
shield them from the consequences of their own behavior, nor to insure that
sex will be their path to happiness. Because there are some things of greater
importance than the pain they have suffered, and among these are the principle
of responsibility upon which the freedom of all of us depends.
It was never the traditional view that a woman’s erotic power over men
was anything she possessed unconditional personal rights over. Instead, the
use to which she put this natural power was understood to be freighted with
extensive responsibilities—to God, her family, the man to whom she gave
herself, the children produced by the union, and her own long term wellbeing.
In order to fulfi ll her obligations as creature, daughter, wife and mother she
required considerable powers of self-control. This cultivated and socially
reinforced sexual self-control was known as modesty. It required chiefl y the
duty of chastity before marriage and fi delity within marriage; secondarily, it
involved maintaining a certain demeanor toward men—polite but reserved.
Now, every duty does imply a right: If we have a duty to provide for our
children or defend our country we necessarily possess the right to do so as
well. Formerly, insofar as sexual rights were recognized, they were understood
to have this character of resting upon duties. Thus, a woman did indeed have
the right to refuse the sexual advances of any man not her husband. But this
was only because she was not understood to have any moral right to accept
a proposal of fornication or adultery (even in the absence of legal sanctions
The reason rape was regarded as a particularly odious form of assault is
that it violated this superpersonal moral principle by which a woman subordinated
her momentary private desires to the wellbeing of those closest to her.
Modesty had to be respected, or else protected, if it was to perform its essential
social function of guarding the integrity of families.
Under Roman law it was not considered a serious crime to rape a prostitute:
A man could not violate the modesty of a woman who had none to violate. In
later European law it was made criminal to rape even prostitutes. But this does
not mean that the concept of rape had been divorced from that of feminine
modesty; it was rather that law came to recognize and protect the possibility
of repentance for immodesty. (Christianity is relevant here.)
The sexual revolution asserted the right of each individual to sex on his or
her own terms—in other words, a right of perfect selfi shness in erotic matters.
One effect of this change was to eliminate the moral dignity of feminine modesty.
It was not to be forbidden, of course, but was henceforward to be understood
as no more than a personal taste, like anchovies or homosexuality. When the
initial excitement of abandoned restraint had died down it was noticed that
the promised felicity had not arrived. And one reason, it was soon realized,
was that the terms men wished to set for sexual conduct were not identical to
those desired by women. This being so, the granting to men of a right to sex
on their own terms necessarily involved the denial of such a right to women.
The anarchy with which the sexual revolution began was, therefore, necessarily
a passing phase.
It is a cliché of political philosophy that the less self-restraint citizens are
able to exercise, the more they must be constrained from without. The practical
necessity of such a trade-off can be seen in such extraordinary upheavals as the
French and Russian Revolutions. First, old and habitual patterns and norms
are thrown aside in the name of freedom. When the ensuing chaos becomes
intolerable, some group with the requisite ambition, self-assurance and ruthlessness
succeeds in forcibly imposing its own order on the weakened society.
This is what gradually happened in the case of the sexual revolution also, with
the role of Jacobins/Bolsheviks being assumed by the feminists.
Human beings cannot do without some social norms to guide them in their
personal relations. Young women cannot be expected to work out a personal
system of sexual ethics in the manner of Descartes reconstructing the universe
in his own mind. If you cease to prepare them for marriage, they will seek
guidance wherever they can fi nd it. In the past thirty years they have found it
in feminism, simply because the feminists have outshouted everyone else.
After helping to encourage sexual experimentation by young women,
feminism found itself able to capitalize on the unhappiness which resulted.
Their program for rewriting the rules of human sexual behavior is in one way
Summer 2006 / Devlin 19
a continuation of the liberationists’ utopian program and in another way a
reaction against it. The feminists approve the notion of a right to do as one
pleases without responsibilities toward others; they merely insist that only
women have this right.
Looking about them for some legal and moral basis for enforcing this novel
claim, they hit upon the age-old prohibition against rape. Feminists understand
rape, however, not as a violation of a woman’s chastity or marital fi delity, but
of her merely personal wishes. They are making use of the ancient law against
rape to enforce not respect for feminine modesty but obedience to female whims.
Their ideal is not the man whose self-control permits a woman to exercise her
own, but the man who is subservient to a woman’s good pleasure—the man
who behaves, not like a gentleman, but like a dildo.
But mere disregard of a woman’s personal wishes is manifestly not the
reason men have been disgraced, imprisoned, in some societies even put
to death for the crime of rape. On the new view, in which consent rather
than the marriage bond is the issue, the same sexual act may be a crime on
Monday or Wednesday and a right on Tuesday or Thursday, according to
the shifts in a woman’s mood. Feminists claim rape is not taken seriously
enough; perhaps it would be better to ask how it could be taken seriously
at all once we begin defi ning it as they do. If women want to be free to do
as they please with men, after all, why should not men be free to do as they
please with women?
Indeed, the date rape campaign owes its success only to the lingering effect
of older views. Feminists themselves are not confused about this; they write
openly of “redefi ning rape.â€￾ Of course, for those of us who still speak traditional
English, this amounts to an admission that they are falsely accusing men.
One might have more sympathy for the “date rape victimsâ€￾ if they wanted
the men to marry them, feared they were ruined for other suitors, and were
prepared to assume their own obligations as wives and mothers. But this is
simply not the case. The date rape campaigners, if not the confused young
women themselves, are hostile to the very idea of matrimony, and never
propose it as a solution. They want to jail men, not make responsible husbands
of them. This is far worse than shotgun marriage, which at least allowed the
man to act as father to the child he had sired.
And what benefi t do women derive from imprisoning men as date rapists
apart from gratifi cation of a desire for revenge? Seeing men punished may
even confi rm morally confused women in their mistaken sense of victimhood—
resentment tends to feed upon itself, like an itch that worsens with
scratching. Women are reinforced in the belief that it is their right for men’s
behavior to be anything they would like it to be. They become less inclined to
treat men with respect or to try to learn to understand or compromise with
them. In a word, they learn to think and behave like spoiled children, expecting
everything and willing to give nothing.
Men, meanwhile, respond to this in ways that are not diffi cult to predict.
They may not (at fi rst) decline sexual liaisons with such women, because the
woman’s moral shortcomings do not have too great an effect upon the sexual
act itself. But, quite rationally, they will avoid any deeper involvement with
them. So women experience fewer, shorter, and worse marriages and “relationshipsâ€￾
with men. But they do not blame themselves for the predicament they
are in; they refuse to see any connection between their own behavior and their
loneliness and frustration. Thus we get ever more frequent characterizations
of men as rapists and predators who mysteriously refuse to commit.
Indeed, the only people profi ting from the imposition of the new standards
are the feminists who invented them. The survival of their movement depends
on a continuing supply of resentful women who believe their rights are being
violated; one can only admit that the principles which buttress the date rape
campaign are admirably designed to guarantee such a supply. Feminism
is a movement that thrives on its own failures; hence, it is very diffi cult to
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, eleventh edition, lists the fi rst
recorded use of the term date rape as 1975. Within a few years we fi nd Thomas
Fleming of Chronicles, for example, employing the expression as uncritically as
any feminist zealot.4 A second instrument of the feminist reign of sexual terror,
“sexual harassment,â€￾ similarly made its fi rst appearance in 1975. In less than a
generation this has become a national industry providing a comfortable living
for many people. Yet again we fi nd this revolutionary concept blithely accepted
by many male traditionalists. They are content to accept without argument
that there exists a widespread problem of men “harassingâ€￾ women, and that
“something must be done about it.â€￾ My fi rst thought would be: What did
the Romans do about it? What did the Christian Church do about it? How
about the Chinese or the Aztecs? The obvious answer is that none of them
did anything about it, because the concept has only recently developed within
the context of the feminist movement. Is this not cause for suspicion? Why
are men so quick to adopt the language of their declared enemies?
The thinking behind the sexual harassment movement is that women are
entitled to “an environment free from unwanted sexual advances.â€￾ What sort
of advances are unwanted? In plain English, those made by unattractive men.
Anyone who has been forced to endure a corporate antiharassment video
can see that what is being condemned is merely traditional male courtship
The introduction of harassment law was accompanied by a campaign to
inform young women of the new entitlement. Colleges, for example, instituted
harassment committees one of whose stated purposes was “to encourage
victims to come forward.â€￾ (I saw this happening up close.) The agitators wanted
as many young women as possible accusing unsuccessful suitors of wrongdoing.
And they had considerable success; many women unhesitatingly availed
Summer 2006 / Devlin 21
themselves of the new dispensation. Young men found they risked visits from
the police for fl irting or inviting women on dates.
This female bullying should be contrasted with traditional male chivalry.
Men, at least within Western Civilization, have been socialized into extreme
reluctance to use force against women. This is not an absolute principle: few
would deny that a man has a right of self-defense against a woman attempting
to kill him. But many men will refuse to retaliate against a woman under
almost any lesser threat. This attitude is far removed from the feminist principle
of equality between the sexes. Indeed, it seems to imply a view of men as
naturally dominant: It is a form of noblesse oblige. And it is not, so far as I
can see, reducible to any long-term self-interest on the part of a man; in other
words, it is a principle of honor. The code of chivalry holds that a man has no
moral right to use force against women simply because he can do so.
An obvious diffi culty with such a code is that it is vulnerable to abuse
by its benefi ciaries. I had a classmate in grade school who had heard it said
somewhere that “boys are not supposed to hit girls.â€￾ Unfortunately, she
interpreted this to mean that it was acceptable for girls to hit boys, which she
then proceeded to do. She became genuinely indignant when she found that
they usually hit back.
The special character of noblesse oblige is that it does not involve a corresponding
entitlement on the part of the benefi ciary. On the traditional view, a
man should indeed be reluctant to use force against women, but women have
no right to presume upon this. The reluctance is elicited by a recognition of
women’s weakness, not commanded as a recognition of their rights.
Perhaps because women are the weaker sex, they have never developed
any similar inhibitions about using force against men. In a traditionally ordered
society, this does not present diffi culties, because a woman’s obligations to her
husband are clearly understood and socially enforced. But the situation changes
when millions of spoiled, impressionable young women have been convinced
men are “harassingâ€￾ them and that the proper response is to appeal to force
of law and the police powers of the state. Men are being denied due process,
ruined professionally, and threatened with particularly harsh punishments
for any retaliation against the women accusing them of a newly invented and
deliberately ill-defi ned crime. They may, for prudential reasons, outwardly
conform to the new rules. But it is unlikely that the traditional reluctance in
foro interno to use force against women can long survive the present pattern
of female behavior. Women would do well to ponder this.
Public discussion of the sexual revolution has tended to focus on date rape
and “hook-ups,â€￾ that is, on what is taking place, rather than on the formation
of stable families that is not taking place. This creates an impression that
there really is “more sexâ€￾ for men today than before some misguided girls
misbehaved themselves forty years ago. People speak as if the male sexual
utopia of a harem for every man has actually been realized.
It is child’s play to show that this cannot be true. There is roughly the same
number of male as female children (not quite: there are about 5 percent more
live male births than female—there is not a girl for every boy.) What happens
when female sexual desire is liberated is not an increase in the total amount
of sex available to men, but a redistribution of the existing supply. Society
becomes polygamous. A situation emerges in which most men are desperate
for wives, but many women are just as desperately throwing themselves at a
very few exceptionally attractive men. These men, who have always found it
easy to get a mate, now get multiple mates.
A characteristic feature of decadent societies is the recrudescence of
primitive, precivilized cultural forms. That is what is happening to us. Sexual
liberation really means the Darwinian mating pattern of the baboon pack
reappears among humans.
Once monogamy is abolished, no restriction is placed on a woman’s choices.
Hence, all women choose the same few men. If Casanova had 132 lovers it is
because 132 different women chose him. Such men acquire harems, not because
they are predators, but because they happen to be attractive. The problem is
not so much male immorality as simple arithmetic; it is obviously impossible
for every woman to have exclusive possession of the most attractive man. If
women want to mate simply as their natural drives impel them, they must,
rationally speaking, be willing to share their mate with others.
But, of course, women’s attitude about this situation is not especially
rational. They expect their alpha man to “commit.â€￾ Woman’s complaining
about men’s failure to commit, one suspects, means merely that they are
unable to get a highly attractive man to commit to them; rather as if an ordinary
man were to propose to Helen of Troy and complain of her refusal by saying
“women don’t want to get married.â€￾
Furthermore, many women are sexually attracted to promiscuous men
because, not in spite, of their promiscuity. This can be explained with reference
to the primate pack. The “alpha maleâ€￾ can be identifi ed by his mating with
many females. This is probably where the sluts-and-studs double standard
argument came from—not from any social approval of male promiscuity, but
from female fascination with it. Male “immoralityâ€￾ (in traditional language)
can be attractive to females. Thus, once polygamous mating begins, it tends
to be self-reinforcing.
Students of animal behavior have learned that the presence of a female
decoy or two near a male makes real females more likely to mate with that
particular male. Among human females also, nothing succeeds like success. I
hear anecdotes about women refusing to date thirtyish bachelors because, “if
he’s never been married, there must be something wrong with him.â€￾ In college
Summer 2006 / Devlin 23
I observed decent, clean-living men left alone while notorious adulterers had
no diffi culty going from one girlfriend to the next.
Commentators on contemporary mores rarely show awareness of this irrationality
in female mate selection. I recall seeing an article some years ago in
which a planned new college was touted as a boon to young women seeking
“Christian husbands,â€￾ on the naive assumption that they must be doing so.
There was no talk of helping young men fi nd faithful wives, of course.
Both men and women fi nd it easier to sympathize with young women
than with young men. In the case of male observers a kind of rescue fantasy is
probably at work. The literature and folklore of the world is replete with stories
of heroes rescuing innocent maidens from the clutches of villains: too much
for it to be an accident. The damsel-in-distress scenario appeals to something
deeply rooted in men’s minds, and probably natural. Most likely it is merely a
self-congratulatory interpretation of mate competition. Men project their unruly
sexual instincts onto others, who are thus cast into the role of predators.
In the contemporary world, the male protective instinct often perversely
expresses itself in support for feminist causes: for example, chiming in with
the denunciation of harassers and date rapists. This is a form of gallantry
singularly well-adapted to the sedentary habits of the modern male, involving
neither risk nor sacrifi ce. Examples abound in the conservative press. College
men are regularly spoken of as preying upon women—who are in fact quite
old enough to be married and starting a family. Joseph Farah of World Net
Daily commends a wife for murdering her unfaithful husband. There are calls
for bringing back shotgun marriage and the death penalty for rapists. If only
suffi ciently draconian punishments can be meted out to villainous males, the
reasoning seems to go, everything will be alright again. The fundamental error
in such thinking is its failure to recognize that the female largely controls the
mating process.
Shrewd women have long known how to manipulate the male protective
urge for their own ends. The feminist attack on heterosexuality and the family
is directed against husbands and fathers for reasons of public relations. No
one will sign up for a campaign against women or children, but many men
can easily be made to condemn other men. The result is that young men today
are in an impossible situation. If they seek a mate they are predators; if they
fi nd one they are date rapists; if they want to avoid the whole ordeal they are
immature and irresponsible for not committing. We have gone from a situation
where it seemed everything was permitted to one where nothing is permitted.
Marriage as a binding legal contract has been done away with, and young
men are still supposed to believe it is wrong for them to seek sex outside of
marriage. It is not prudent to put this much strain on human nature.
Meanwhile, the illusion of there being “too much sexâ€￾ has led to proposals
for “abstinence education,â€￾ provided by government schools and paid for with
tax money. The geniuses of establishment conservatism may need a gentle
reminder that the human race is not perpetuated through sexual abstinence.
They might do better to ponder how many families have not formed and how
many children have not been born due to overzealous attempts to protect young
women from men who might have made good husbands and fathers.
So far we have focused on female promiscuity, and undoubtedly it is a
serious problem. But there are two ways for women not to be monogamous:
By having more than one mate and…by having less than one. Let us now
consider the spinsters as well as the sluts.
Here again I would warn against a misconception common among male
writers: The assumption that young women not having sexual relations with
men must be paragons of chastity. In fact, there are numerous reasons besides
religious or moral principle which can keep a woman from taking a mate, and
some of these now operate more strongly than before the sexual revolution.
Consider the following passage from A Return to Modesty by Wendy Shalit:
“Pfffffft!â€￾ sexual modesty says to the world, “I think I’m worth waiting
for…. So not you, not you, not you, and not you either.â€￾
This is certainly not modest. As one 27-year-old Orthodox woman put it
to me…“the daughters of Israel are not available for public use.â€￾ She was
taking obvious, almost haughty, satisfaction in the fact that she wasn’t
sleeping around with just anyone.5
This is pure illusion, a consequence of natural female hypergamy and not
dependent on any actual merit in the woman. But it may be a socially useful
illusion. If a woman believes she is “too goodâ€￾ to sleep around, this may help
keep her faithful to her husband. Marriage, in other words, is a way of channeling
female hypergamy in a socially useful way. (We frequently hear of the
need to channel the male sexual instinct into marriage and family, but not the
female; this is a mistake.)
In any case, hypergamy, as above noted, implies rejection maximization:
if only the best is good enough, almost everyone is not good enough. Rather
than cheapening herself, as observers tend to assume, modern woman may be
pricing herself out of the market. It used to be commonly said that a woman
who thinks she is too good for any man “may be right, but more often – is
left.â€￾ Why might this be an especial danger for women today?
Formerly, most people lived parochial lives in a world where even photography
did not exist. Their notions of sexual attractiveness were limited by
their experience. Back in my own family tree, for example, there was a family
with three daughters who grew up on a farm adjoining three others. As each
girl came of age, she married a boy from one of the neighboring farms. They
Summer 2006 / Devlin 25
did not expect much in a husband. It is probable all three went through life
without ever seeing a man who looked like Cary Grant.
But by the 1930s millions of women were watching Cary Grant two hours
a week and silently comparing their husbands with him. For several decades
since then the entertainment industry has continued to grow and coarsen.
Finally the point has been reached that many women are simply not interested
in meeting any man who does not look like a movie star. While it is not possible
to make all men look like movie stars, it is possible to encourage women to
throw themselves at or hold out for the few who do, i.e., to become sluts or
spinsters, respectively. Helen Gurley Brown raked in millions doing precisely
this. The brevity of a woman’s youthful bloom, combined with a mind not yet
fully formed at that stage of life, always renders her vulnerable to unrealistic
expectations. The sexual revolution is in part a large-scale commercial exploitation
of this vulnerability.
Yes, men are also, to their own detriment, continually surrounded with
images of exceptionally attractive women. But this has less practical import,
because—to say it once more—women choose. Even plain young women are
often able to obtain sexual favors from good-looking or socially dominant men;
they have the option to be promiscuous. Many women do not understand
that ordinary young men do not have that option.
Traditionalists sometimes speak as if monogamy were a cartel whose
purpose was to restrict the amount of sex available to men artifi cially so as to
drive up the price for the benefi t of women. (That is roughly what the male
sexual utopians believed also.) But this would require that men be able to raise
their bid, i.e., make themselves more attractive at will. Monogamy does not get
women as a group more desirable mates than would otherwise be available to
them. In sex as in other matters the buyers, not the sellers, ultimately determine
the price. And the buyers, by and large, are merely average men.
Furthermore, many young women appear to believe that any man who
attempts to meet them ipso facto wishes to take them as a mate. Partly this is
youthful naïveté; partly a result of the disintegration of socially agreed upon
courtship procedures; and partly due to the feminist campaign to label male
courtship behavior “harassment.â€￾ So they angrily reject every advance they
receive during their nubile years as if these were merely crude sexual propositioning.
As they enter their late twenties, it gradually dawns on them that it
might be prudent to accept at least a few requests. They are then astonished
to discover that the men usually take them out once or twice and stop calling.
They claim the men are leading them on. They believe themselves entitled to a
wedding ring in return for the great condescension of fi nally accepting a date.
Just as some men think the world owes them a living, these women think the
world owes them a husband.
When a man asks a woman out, he is only implying that he is willing to
consider her as a mate: He might conceivably offer her a ring if she pleases
him enough on further acquaintance. Most dates do not result in marriage
proposals. There is no reason why they should. Rather than being blamed for
not committing, such men should be commended for sexual self-control and
the exercise of caution in mate-seeking. Many men have been only too happy
to marry the fi rst girl who is nice to them.
To summarize: the encouragement of rejection maximization and unrealistic
expectations is one reason (unrelated to modesty) that many women today
do not reproduce. A second is what I call parasitic dating, a kind of economic
predation upon the male by the female. Let me explain.
The decline of matrimony is often attributed to men now being able to
“get what they wantâ€￾ from women without marrying them. But what if a
woman is able to get everything she wants from a man without marriage?
Might she not also be less inclined to “commitâ€￾ under such circumstances? In
truth, a signifi cant number of women seek primarily attention and material
goods from men. They are happy to date men they have no romantic interest
in merely as a form of entertainment and a source of free meals and gifts. A
man can waste a great deal of money and time on such a woman before he
realizes he is being used.
Family life involves sacrifi ce; a good mother devotes herself to her children.
Parasitic daters are takers, not givers; they are not fi t for marriage or motherhood.
Their character is usually fi xed by the time a man meets them. Since he
cannot change them, the only rational course is to learn to identify and avoid
A third obstacle to female reproduction is date rape hysteria. The reader
may consult the fi rst couple of chapters of Katie Roiphe’s The Morning After.6
At an age when women have traditionally actively sought mates, they now
participate in “take back the nightâ€￾ marches, “rape awarenessâ€￾ campaign and
self-defense classes involving kicking male dummies in the groin. These young
women seem less afraid of anything men are actually doing than they are of
male sexual desire itself. In the trenchant words of columnist Angela Fiori “the
campus date rape campaigns of the early 1990s weren’t motivated by a genuine
concern for the well-being of women. They were part of an ongoing attempt to
delegitimize heterosexuality to young, impressionable women by demonizing
men as rapists.â€￾7 Self-defense training, for example, really serves to inculcate
a defensive mentality toward men, making trust and intimacy impossible.
Part of the transition to womanhood has always been learning to relate to
men. Attempts to pander to girls’ irrational fears are now keeping many of
them in a state of arrested development. There is little that individual men can
do about this, nor is there any reason they should be expected to. Who would
want to court a girl encased in an impenetrable psychic armor of suspicion?
Once again, well-meaning male traditionalists have not been free of fault
in their reactions to this situation. Fathers encourage self-defense classes and
date rape paranoia on the assumption that their daughters’ safety overrides
Summer 2006 / Devlin 27
all other concerns. Eventually they may start wondering why they have no
Fourth, many women are without a mate for the simple reason that they
have abandoned their men. Women formally initiate divorce about two thirds
of the time. Most observers agree, however, that this understates matters: In
many cases where the husband formally initiates, it is because his wife wants
out of the marriage. Exact data are elusive, but close observers tend to estimate
that women are responsible for about nine-tenths of the divorcing and breakingup:
Men do not love them and leave them, but love them and get left by them.
Many young women, indeed, believe they want marriage when all they really
want is a wedding (think of bridal magazines). The common pattern is that
women are the fi rst to want into marriage and the fi rst to want out. Of course,
it is easy enough to get married; the diffifi culty is living happily ever after.
Typically, the faithless wife does not intend to remain alone. But some men
have scruples about involving themselves with divorcées; they wonder “Whose
wife is this I’m dating?â€￾ There are also merely prudential considerations; a
woman with a track record of abandoning her husband is hardly likely to
be more faithful the second time around. And few men are eager to support
another man’s children fi nancially. Women frequently express indignation at
their inability to fi nd a replacement for the husband they walked out on: I call
them the angry adulteresses.
Vanity, parasitism, paranoia and infi delity are only a few of the unpleasant
characteristics of contemporary Western womanhood; one more is rudeness.
To an extent this is part of the general decline in civility over the past half
century, in which both sexes have participated. But I believe some of it is a
consequence of female sexual utopianism. Here is why.
One would get the idea looking at Cosmopolitan magazine covers that
women were obsessed with giving men sexual pleasure. This would come
as news to many men. Indeed, the contrast between what women read and
their actual behavior towards men has become almost surreal. The key to the
mystery is that the man the Cosmo-girl is interested in pleasing is imaginary.
He is the affl uent fellow with moviestar looks who is going to fall for her after
one more new makeover, after she loses fi ve more pounds or fi nds the perfect
hairdo. In the meantime, she is free to treat the fl esh-and-blood men she runs
into like dirt. Why make the effort of being civil to ordinary men as long as
you are certain a perfect one is going to come along tomorrow? Men of the
older generation are insuffi ciently aware how uncouth women have become. I
came rather late to the realization that the behavior I was observing in women
could not possibly be normal—that if women had behaved this way in times
past, the human race would have died out.
The reader who suspects me of exaggerating is urged to spend a little
time browsing women’s self-descriptions on Internet dating sites. They never
mention children, but almost always manage to include the word “fun.â€￾ “I
like to party and have fun! I like to drink, hang out with cool people and go
shopping!â€￾ The young women invite “hot guysâ€￾ to contact them. No doubt
some will. But would any sensible man, “hotâ€￾ or otherwise, want to start a
family with such a creature?
A good wife does not simply happen. Girls were once brought up from
childhood with the idea that they were going to be wives and mothers. They
were taught the skills necessary to that end. A young suitor could expect a girl
to know a few things about cooking and homemaking. Today, many women
seem unaware that they are supposed to have something to offer a husband
besides a warm body.
What happens when a contemporary woman, deluded into thinking she
deserves a moviestar husband, fails not only to fi nd her ideal mate, but any
mate at all? She does not blame herself for being unreasonable or gullible, of
course; she blames men. A whole literary genre has emerged to pander to
female anger with the opposite sex. Here are a few titles, all currently available
through Why Men Are Clueless, Let’s Face It, Men Are @$$#%\c$,
How to Aggravate a Man Every Time, Things You Can Do with a Useless Man, 101
Reasons Why a Cat Is Better Than a Man, 101 Lies Men Tell Women, Men Who Hate
Women and the Women Who Love Them, Kiss-off Letters to Men: Over 70 Zingers
You Can Use to Send Him Packing, or—for the woman who gets sent packing
herself—How to Heal the Hurt By Hating.
For many women, hatred of men has clearly taken on psychotic dimensions.
A large billboard in my hometown asks passing motorists: “How many
women have to die before domestic violence is considered a crime?â€￾ One is
forced to wonder what is going on in the minds of those who sponsor such a
message. Are they really unaware that it has always been a crime for a man to
murder his wife? Are they just trying to stir up fear? Or are their own minds
so clouded by hatred that they can no longer view the world realistically?
This is where we have arrived after just one generation of female sexual
liberation. Many men are bewildered when they realize the extent and depth of
feminine rage at them. What could be making the most affl uent and pampered
women in history so furious?
Internet scribe Henry Makow has put forward the most plausible diagnosis I
have yet seen, in an essay entitled “The Effect of Sexual Deprivation on Women.â€￾8
A propos of the recent rape hysteria, he suggests: “Men are ‘rapists’ because
they are not giving women the love they need.â€￾ In other words, what if the
problem is that men, ahem, aren’t preying upon women? All that we have just
said supports the theory that Western Civilization is now facing an epidemic of
female sexual frustration. And once again, the typical conservative commentator
is wholly unable to confront the problem correctly: He instinctively wants to
step forward in shining armor and exclaim “Never fear, tender maids, I shall
prevent these vicious beasts from sullying your virgin purity.â€￾ If women need
love from men and aren’t getting it, this is hardly going to help them.
Summer 2006 / Devlin 29
The attempt to realize a sexual utopia for women was doomed to failure
before it began. Women’s wishes aim at the impossible, confl ict with one another,
and change unpredictably. Hence, any program to force men (or “societyâ€￾) to
fulfi ll women’s wishes must fail, even if all men were willing to submit to it.
Pile entitlement upon entitlement for women, heap punishment after punishment
onto men: It cannot work, because women’s wishes will always outpace
legislation and lead to new demands.
But while the revolution has not achieved its aims, it has certainly achieved
something. It has destroyed monogamy and family stability. It has resulted in a
polygamous mating pattern of immodest women aggressively pursuing a small
number of men. It has decreased the number of children born, and insured that
many who are born grow up without a father in their lives. And, least often
mentioned, it has made it impossible for many decent men to fi nd wives.
One occasionally hears of surveys reporting that men are happier with
their “sex livesâ€￾ than women. It has always struck me as ludicrous that anyone
would take this at face value. First, women are more apt than men to complain
about everything. But second, many men (especially young men) experience
a powerful mauvaise honte when they are unsuccessful with women. They
rarely compare notes with other men, and still more rarely do so honestly.
Everyone puts up a brave front, however lonely he may actually be. Hence,
men almost always imagine other men to have greater success with women
than is actually the case. This situation has worsened since the nineteen-sixties,
with the propagation of the illusion that there is “more sexâ€￾ available to men
than formerly.
But if women are only mating with a few exceptionally attractive men,
and if many women fail to mate at all, there must be a large number of men
unable to get a woman. We might, in the spirit of William Graham Sumner,
term them the forgotten men of the sexual revolution. I have reason to believe
that a growing number are willing to come out of the closet (to use a currently
popular expression) and admit that, whoever has been doing all the “hooking
upâ€￾ one reads about, it hasn’t been them. Simple prudence dictates that we
give some consideration to the situation of these men. In societies where
polygamy is openly practiced (e.g., in Africa and the Muslim world), young
bachelors tend to form gangs which engage in antisocial behavior: “It is not
good for man to be alone.â€￾
In our society, a defi nite pattern has already emerged of “singlesâ€￾ groups
or events being composed of innocent, never-married men in their thirties
and cynical, bitter, often divorced women. What have the bachelors been
doing with themselves all these years? So far, in the West, they have not been
forming criminal gangs. (They would probably be more attractive to women if
they did: Everyone seems to have heard stories about men on death row being
besieged with offers of marriage from bored, thrill-seeking females.)
I suggest that today’s bachelors are hardly different from men who, before
the sexual revolution, married young and raised families.
Natural instinct makes young men almost literally “crazyâ€￾ about girls.
They have a far higher regard for young women than the facts warrant. The
male sex drive that modern women complain about so much exists largely for
their benefi t. As Schopenhauer wrote:
Nature has provided [the girl] with superabund
Freshman Poster
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:12 pm

Postby EvilBaga » Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:59 am

Thats actually a BRILLIANT article. It explains so much of the real world and the decline of Western societies over the last couple of decades.

However its too long to post (and besides, is tedious to read on a forum). You can get the whole thing in pdf format here:

Also, the author - F Roger Devlin has written 2 more articles which are must reads (though Sexual Utopia in Power is the most profound and should be read FIRST) :
They are
2)Rotating Polyandry and its enforcers.
3)The feminine sexual counterrevolution and its limitations. (filename Shalit.doc)

The readme file from that link explains all this. Check it out, then post your thoughts!
Freshman Poster
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:44 am

Postby gmm567 » Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:32 pm

yes too me has explained much. The attention whoring, dinner whoring, pickiness and rudeness of so many american women is all explained.
Freshman Poster
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:12 pm

Postby Teal Lantern » Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:37 am

Much easier to read and save format. ... utopia.pdf
не поглеждай назад. 8)

"Even an American judge is unlikely to award child support for imputed children." - FredOnEverything
User avatar
Teal Lantern
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2682
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:48 pm
Location: Briar Patch, Universe 25

Postby Émigré » Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:23 am

Interesting article. One of the qualities on my list for a match is virginity because I'm waiting because of my personal and religious viewpoints. I'm hoping I can still find an attractive woman that feels the same.
Freshman Poster
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 6:50 pm
Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts

Postby Teal Lantern » Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:20 am

Émigré wrote:Interesting article. One of the qualities on my list for a match is virginity because I'm waiting because of my personal and religious viewpoints. I'm hoping I can still find an attractive woman that feels the same.

This is mentioned regularly. I'll just say that, currently, the appearance of virginity is not an iron-clad guarantee of it.
не поглеждай назад. 8)

"Even an American judge is unlikely to award child support for imputed children." - FredOnEverything
User avatar
Teal Lantern
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2682
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:48 pm
Location: Briar Patch, Universe 25

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests