Print this post Print this post

Now in Audio Book!
Sexual Utopia in Power

612 words

F. Roger Devlin
Sexual Utopia in Power
San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2015
192 pages

Audiobook, read by the author (8 mp3 files: 7 hours, 9 minutes, 29 seconds): $4.99

MOBI E-book: $5.99

Hardcover: $35

Paperback: $20

(NB: If you only order an E-book or Audiobook, remember to select the free “E-book” shipping at checkout.)

Like many political revolutions, the sexual revolution of the 1960s began with a euphoric feeling of liberation. But when utopian programs clash with dissenters—and with reality itself—the result is chaos, which revolutionaries seek to quash with repression and terror. In Sexual Utopia in Power, F. Roger Devlin explores today’s sexual dystopia, with its loose morals and confused sexual roles; its soaring rates of divorce, celibacy, and childlessness; and the increasingly arbitrary and punitive attempts to regulate and police it. Devlin shows that the breakdown of monogamy results in promiscuity for the few, loneliness for the majority, and unhappiness for all.

Every revolution gives rise to a reaction. Devlin, however, is very critical of mainstream conservative responses to the sexual revolution, which often eerily echo feminist complaints about innocent women being preyed upon by wicked men who must be scolded and punished. The most controversial aspect of Devlin’s work is his argument that today’s sexual dystopia is rooted just as much in women’s nature as men’s, exploring such taboo topics as female hypergamy (mating up), narcissism, infidelity, deceptiveness, and masochism. By showing their biological basis, F. Roger Devlin offers a non-traditional defense of traditional sexual morals and institutions and shows us the way out of today’s sexual dystopia.

Contents

Preface

Introduction: The Facts of Life

1. Sexual Utopia in Power
2. Rotating Polyandry—& its Enforcers
3. The Female Sexual Counter-Revolution and its Limitations
4. Home Economics
5. The Family Way
6. Back to Africa: Sexual Atavism in the Modern West
7. The Question of Female Masochism

Index (Print edition only)

Praise for F. Roger Devlin

“‘Sexual Utopia in Power,’ Devlin’s infamous essay that launched a thousand blog posts about female hypergamy, is highly quotable and insightful in its analysis of the contemporary struggle between the sexes. Its indictments of feminism and warnings to men have only become more relevant since it was written. ‘Sexual Utopia’ is also an important response to clueless conservatives who rush to blame men for not marrying and starting families with women who are in many (though not all) cases simply unmarriageable.”— Jack Donovan, author of The Way of Men

“. . . outstanding (and MSM blacked out) essays on gender dynamics . . .”—Roissy/Heartiste

“If Roissy has anything resembling a mentor, it is F. Roger Devlin.”— Charlotte Allen, The Weekly Standard

“Love and sex have never been confusing to me. I have Roger Devlin to thank for that.”—Chloë Thurlow, best-selling author of The Secret Life of Girls

“Dr. Devlin is perhaps best role model there is for independent scholars on the right. His writings can be found on nearly every website the mainstream fears.”— Benjamin Villaroel, American Renaissance

“In a decent world, Devlin would be an instantly-recognizable name and a literary giant.”— Spirit/Water/Blood

“I have admired F. Roger Devlin’s path-breaking writings in The Occidental Quarterly since I became aware of them, and I’ve emphatically recommended them to everyone within reach. Dr. Devlin is a writer — percipient, witty, and courageous — who simply must be read.”— Nicholas Strakon, The Last Ditch

“I believe the author is evil.”— Tyler Cowan

F. Roger Devlin, Ph.D. is an independent scholar. He is the author of Alexandre Kojève and the Outcome of Modern Thought (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2004) and many essays and reviews in such publications as The Occidental Quarterly, American Renaissance, Counter-Currents/North American New Right, VDare, Modern Age, The Social Contract, Alternative Right, and The Last Ditch. A bibliography of his work is available online here.

 

 

This entry was posted in news item and tagged , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

11 Comments

  1. Lexi
    Posted September 12, 2019 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    OMC,

    You MGTOW and sympathizers have been trying to make that case for years now, and you have failed.

    • OMC
      Posted September 13, 2019 at 12:48 am | Permalink

      What theory of justice favors sexual equality, but doesn’t favor racial equality?

      If women can share power with men, despite obvious physical differences and social expectations (e.g. women are never punished for cowardice, weakness, lack of ambition and playing it by the book), then why is it not “unjust” for whites and non-whites to live in the same societies under the same laws?

      Sure there are differences. But the differences between men and women are also manifest. If this is not reason to limit opportunity for women then it is not a reason to limit opportunity for non-whites seeking economic advancement and fair treatment.

  2. HungarianFashionista
    Posted September 9, 2019 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    Essential reading for anyone wishing to upgrade himself from incel to MGTOW.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted September 9, 2019 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

      Brilliant!

      • Veles
        Posted September 10, 2019 at 2:19 am | Permalink

        I don’t think it is ‘Brilliant!’ How is MGTOW good for WN? It is the worst thing, especially since it basically advocates for celibacy.

        • OMC
          Posted September 11, 2019 at 2:52 am | Permalink

          The worst thing for the white community is feminism. MGTOW is a response to feminism, not its cause.

          • Lexi
            Posted September 11, 2019 at 8:08 am | Permalink

            MGTOW is a response to feminism, not its cause.

            MGTOW is not the cause of “feminism,” whatever that word means anymore. MGTOW just demands a return to the unjust policies that were in fact the cause of feminism.

          • OMC
            Posted September 11, 2019 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

            Lexi,

            MGTOW just demands a return to the unjust policies that were in fact the cause of feminism.

            Equality is not just. Women were not meant to share power with men.

          • Posted September 12, 2019 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

            Not that all policies pursued in the past were necessarily just but what in particular was unjust and why do you assume that these “unjust policies” were the cause of feminism?

            For example, MGTOW’s may overstate the damage done by women’s suffrage but I fail to find many examples where women are politically sounder than men. It varies from nation to nation but right-wing populism (which has basically accepted moderate feminism in Sweden, France, Germany, America etc.) ranges from slightly to vastly more popular among men and women. The main discrepancy is mainly between single white women and everyone else but there’s no doubt that politics would be greatly improved by limiting suffrage to White men with a stake in society. This is academic though because there’s more chance of “democracy” ending than the removal of women’s suffrage in the current climate. It’s also wrong to just look at percentages, as greater female political influence feminised the male vote as well and shifted the landscape considerably.

            More realistic explanations for the rise of feminism are growing male effeminacy (commented on by Nietzsche in the 19th century), as women are always going to rebel against men they don’t feel are real men and that they don’t feel they can depend on. Another major reason was technology (this was the decisive factor) as devices which White men invented lightened the load in the home, made domestic life more idle/boring and encouraged women to seek out employment in the labour force and as we were then moving toward a service economy which didn’t require a man’s strength, corporations could then profit from female labour and glut the market in the same way they do with third world migrants today. This crushed wages, increased rents and weakened the family massively. Contraception and divorce-court harlotry gave women greater “sexual freedom” combined with this “economic freedom” (and the welfare state) which in practice means that women are dependent on bosses and governments rather than their husbands and fathers. Men and women have less stake in each other than ever, trust is very low and that’s no environment where families can survive or children of sound European stock born in sufficient numbers.

            “Women’s rights”/feminism is subordinate to capitalism and the machinations of Jewish pimps. It’s meant to destroy our society by destroying women. A nation can survive the death of many of its men but not its women and modern women are more depressed than ever (which ridicules the MGTOW idea that we are living in a feminist paradise; women have a lot of power in men’s lives but the true rulers of the system are Jewish and deracinated white sociopath males).

            Women are not a revolutionary class because there has never been any historical necessity for women as a group to be revolutionaries. Women can play a key role in revolutions but having less to gain/more to lose biologically and being less aggressive/more conformist by nature, women are more easily manipulated by the power elite. Few expansions of women’s rights have benefited women (let alone children or men) but they have been a massive boon to those who desire to exploit destroy our race.

            MGTOW is a consequence of the costs associated with women increasing and the benefits falling, as well as opportunities for men to even find a woman declining through unrestricted hypergamy and female labour competition (boosted by various forms of affirmative action). I expect sexbots, VR porn and artificial wombs will make these problems worse but they could also heighten the contradictions.

            I don’t think it’s possible or desirable to exclude women from nationalism (though it’s often wise to have sex-specific areas, more than we do today) and there are many reasons to believe that women would benefit from a reestablishment of racial order/masculinity at least as much as men. In the age of the internet female sexual power is amplified and it can be used for good. A woman doesn’t even have to be stunning or say something truly original or profound to get large numbers of views/subs on important topics (largely directed at men but female creators also attract a disproportionate number of women to these topics), for example; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK4HkZrgJg4&t=187s

            Men are by nature more logical, rational and analytical but the difference isn’t so big as is often supposed within traditionalism, particularly today and Ragnar Redbeard claimed that men have never equaled women as agent provocateurs. Nationalism is in the interests of women but there is often a hostile attitude toward women in nationalist circles. It’s easier to vent frustrations than do something positive or assess oneself and certain influential movement people will pander to it, often to gain a larger audience of angry and isolated men. It’s self-defeating though because a race requires sexual unity as a prerequisite for viability, it looks bad to anyone outside a small group of true believers and hostile feelings toward women create a strong desire to give up or even to find enjoyment in the destruction of women. These problems have to be confronted with honesty and the first honest statement is that it is the primary responsibility of men to fight for their survival and honour and if a group perishes, the blame must primarily be places on men who lacked the agency and power to prevent it. Blaming the second sex in some objective sense is pointless and counter-productive, though it’s unavoidable that a group must impose standards of behavour on its component parts to survive, let alone thrive.

          • OMC
            Posted September 13, 2019 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

            Feminism began after coverture laws were repealed. When women were legally bound to their husbands and fathers, they couldn’t so much as leave the home without the man’s permission. Women who wanted to organize a feminist group would have had to run it by their husbands and fathers. Technology made domestic chores less labor intensive and gave women more free time, but when men had legal control over women there wasn’t anything they could do about it. Women couldn’t conspire to form liberation groups without the husband’s say so because the husband could legally discipline his wife for disobeying him. Men had actual legal authority over their wives and adult daughters, and it kept women in check. When the yoke was removed, suffragette groups began popping up and not by coincidence.

            Women didn’t have much influence over affairs in the early 1800s when the coverture laws were done away with. Positions of authority were dominated by men. There were no women in office, business or the military, and they didn’t go to university. Men in the early to mid 19th century were under the authority of other men. So if weak men allowed women to take over, that means weak men had power over strong men and thus weak men were the strong men. Men evaluate each other in a pass-fail manner, so if weak men set women free it’s because strong men allowed it to happen.

            The “weak man” theory of feminism is popular on the alt-right but it is not very convincing. None of the guys who say this actually want to roll back feminism. Their issue is with beta males. They want to get rid of the betas, but keep feminism. If they pressed a button and made all the betas disappear, these guys would succeed in making feminism operate more efficiently for a short time. But they’d wind up in the same spot once the next generation came of age, because they’d be socialized by women whom the strong men didn’t remove from power.

            The problem is not weak men, it’s white knights who think we can make a compromise with feminism. There is no compromise. Feminism is anti-natal, anti-family and anti-white.

          • NationalStirnerite
            Posted September 16, 2019 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

            Technological progress in the areas I mentioned came after coverture laws were abolished. In those days there was huge pressure on most women to get married (partly because the economy was highly labour intensive, housework was a full-time occupation and birth-control pills had not been invented.) We had relatively strong families and healthy birth-rates in this post-coverture era but technology changed the game. Now if coverture laws were re-established women just wouldn’t get married (not that many are anyway even under family-destroying feminist laws). We’d have to have arranged marriage laws and enforce it with violence but this is the way they do things in theocratic and highly clannish, often fairly inbred societies (which are themselves moving away from these practices). Can we really see Whites adopting it? We have a hard enough time advocating the expulsion of ethnic aliens that threaten to outnumber us within our own lands and ultimately destroy us; something undeniably in the general interests of Europeans, without trying to sell Sharia Law.

            We can see today that in Western Europe and North America; the most feminist nations with the most pro-feminist men, female support for feminism is strongest. Women in Sweden should be voting for the “nationalist” party (which is relatively feminist anyway) if they knew what was good for them but very few do; they tend to conform to the power. The National Socialists had pretty much an all-male affair in their early years but came close to electoral parity between men and women after they proved to be the strong horse and were close to power.

            While powerful men wanted feminism, the masses of men had the power to stop it if they had the will to use it. It’s similar to the immigration problem where if the White masses had risen up under sound patriotic leadership, they could have easily prevented it from becoming an existential problem. It should have been clear very early on that the government was treasonous but we lacked the will, either individually or collectively, to prevent it and now it may be the case that war will be the outcome in many of our nations. It’s a good idea if women as well as men engage in combat and weapons training for this potential eventuality.

            Men in positions of power advocated feminism in order to move women out of the home and into business/government environments where they could profit from their labour and increase their sexual opportunities. There’s no question this played a key role in destroying the family for many reasons and we have to find ways of mitigating and reversing it if we are to have a future as a people. Segregated education and workplaces would make a lot of sense and could be something that both sexes could get behind. Obviously removing employment quotas, implementing strong industrial protectionism and restricting occupations which require masculine performance and comradeship to men. Implementing natalist tax credits, more generous maternity leave and other benefits could be useful as the Hungarians have recently shown. Most importantly, we need control of the media, education system and the state so that the ideas our men and women are exposed to do not come from intensely hostile, ethnically-nepotistic aliens or their shabbos goy collaborators. With a healthier, pro-natal, pro-family message coming from the authorities instead of the dysgenic, sterile, pro-slut message we have today, men and women would tend to revert to their natural roles.

One Trackback

Post a Comment

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.
 
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    The World in Flames

    Venus and Her Thugs

    Cynosura

    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance