[Roosh]

I'm nearly a decade late to reading F. Roger Devlin's popular essay, which put the term "hypergamy" on the map, influencing many manosphere thinkers in the process. Here are my favorite quotes:

Quote:

Men are incapable of bringing about fundamental changes in heterosexual relations without the cooperation—the famed “consent”—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.

[...]

The sexual revolution in America was an attempt by women to realize
their own utopia, not that of men.

[...]

...the modern woman clearly wants the benefits 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.

[...]

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 “society”) 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.

[...]

Sex is too important a matter to be left to the independent judgment of young women, because young women rarely possess good judgment. The overwhelming majority of women will be happier in the long run by marrying an ordinary man and having children than by seeking sexual thrills, ascending the corporate heights, or grinding out turgid tracts on gender theory. A woman develops an emotional bond with her mate through the sexual act itself; this is why arranged marriages (contrary to Western prejudice) are often reasonably happy. Romantic courtship has its charms, but is finally dispensable; marriage is not dispensable.

PDF of essay: https://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/20...utopia.pdf

It was recently expanded into a book: https://secure.counter-currents.com/sexu...-in-power/

(The forum covered an interview about the book: thread-48984.html )

I actually was able to meet Devlin last month at the NPI conference. He comes across as an even-tempered professor. His analysis in the essay was dead on (it was written in 2006), so I look forward to more of his work.

[iknowexactly]

Great essay-- In particular his description of the punitive stage of feminism in which we are now in.

"The well-worn phrase “sexual revolution” ought, I believe, to be taken
with more than customary seriousness. Like the French Revolution, the
paradigmatic political revolution of modern times, {...} first, a libertarian or anarchic
phase {....}; second, a reign of terror, in which one faction
seized power and attempted to realize its schemes dictatorially; and third, a
“reaction” in which human nature gradually reasserted itself. "

I've described the stage of feminism we're now going through in the USA as "Stalinism without the murder"

To be fair however, the feminist "faction" has not totally taken over-- the really large wealth is still in the hands of men.

To some degree, laissez-faire capitalist plutocracy limits the power of women as they simply cannot perform at the highest levels in the highest paid pursuits such as finance, medical specialties and general entrepreneurship.

[thoughtgypsy]

To those who haven't read the article yet, I would strongly encourage you. I can't understate how well written that essay is. Devlin is talented at presenting the concept of hypergamy in a logical way, and illustrates the concept with specific examples. I don't remember exactly when I first read it, but between that and a certain DC Bachelor blog, it was my first exposure to the red pill. I think the essay also makes for a good introduction to red pill concepts for curious fence sitters.

I would also recommend a book review he wrote, which discusses the difficulty of maintaining lifetime monogamy in relationships: https://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/20...tating.pdf

[The Lizard of Oz]

The Devlin essay cited by thoughtgypsy (Rotating Polyandry -- and its Enforcers) is truly superb. Its first half contains one of the best and clearest descriptions of the causes of female marital infidelity (essentially, sexual boredom), and the comedy of the utter male incomprehension of these causes. And its second half is a chilling litany of the evils perpetrated by today's system of "family courts" and the terrible harm it has done to many men who have had the misfortune to be subjected to it.

The essay cited by Roosh in the OP (Sexual Utopia in Power) is far more flawed, in my opinion. First, Devlin wildly exaggerates the applicability of the concept of "hypergamy". He has the ludicrous idea, shared by many in the manosphere, that women only want "alphas" and that regular dudes don't get gals. This is a preposterous notion refuted by a simple walk down the street. Girls are all over regular men 24/7 and 'twas never otherwise. Sometimes staring at one's computer screen too hard for too long can convince a man of fantastical ideas that are contradicted by simply stepping outside and looking around.

The second flawed idea is that a return to traditional social structures borrowed from the past is either possible or desirable. It is neither. New forms and new social structures take hold organically against an uncertain background. They will eventually reflect reality and adapt to it, as they have always done. The only forms men should act against, and hate, are the ruinous Year Zero impositions of radical feminist ideology and its allies. Would-be traditionalists should realize that any attempt to reimpose surpassed social forms by fiat would rapidly acquire the same Year Zero flavor that we so rightly hate in the artificial nonsense forms imposed by progressive ideology. Imposition of any kind, and animated by whatever ideology, never did suit the human being for long.

[sour grapes]

The second flawed idea is that a return to traditional social structures borrowed from the past is either possible or desirable. It is neither.

What Devlin is saying is that society eventually corrects itself due to biology- though many perish on the way. The future belongs to those who successfully created off springs -- while those who fell for the feminist view of utopia distorted their own reality and remained promiscuous and single - and did not procreate -- which in old age take away all their power. Hence traditional social structure is biological reality in tune with nature that has existed since the beginning whereas the feminist utopia is more a modern female based thought application which is only a temporary misdirection.

[thoughtgypsy]

(11-27-2015 08:33 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

The essay cited by Roosh in the OP (Sexual Utopia in Power) is far more flawed, in my opinion. First, Devlin wildly exaggerates the applicability of the concept of "hypergamy". He has the ludicrous idea, shared by many in the manosphere, that women only want "alphas" and that regular dudes don't get gals. This is a preposterous notion refuted by a simple walk down the street. Girls are all over regular men 24/7 and 'twas never otherwise. Sometimes staring at one's computer screen too hard for too long can convince a man of fantastical ideas that are contradicted by simply stepping outside and looking around.

I agree with what you're saying about hypergamy being exaggerated, though I think this exaggeration and black/white mentality is necessary to explain the nature of female attraction to newcomers. If he spent a great deal of time focusing on the exceptions to the rule, I think it would detract from the clarity of the concept he is trying to explain.

It's like the concept of NAWALT. While NAWALT may be true, it can be used by guys who are too ego invested in a blue pill mindset from facing the reality of sexuality for the vast majority of women. I see the concept of hypergamy as a crude model with limited use, but it may be necessary in breaking someone out of a blue pill mentality. Once someone has begun to internalize it, the finer intricacies can safely be explored.

[Onto]

Women want a contradiction. They always have and always will.

One example: They want a man who's adventurous and stable.

Those two things are opposite. Any James Bond/Indiana Jones/James Dean kind of guy is not going to be a stable, stay-at-home bread-winner.

Look at any modern woman's dating profile and you'll see it littered with opposites. The only difference between today and yesteryear is women today have the financial power/independence to be as whimsical as they want. 200 years ago when you needed a man for survival they wouldn't dream of acting out these inner-fantasies.

I see that as being the difference.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(11-28-2015 08:53 AM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

I agree with what you're saying about hypergamy being exaggerated, though I think this exaggeration and black/white mentality is necessary to explain the nature of female attraction to newcomers. If he spent a great deal of time focusing on the exceptions to the rule, I think it would detract from the clarity of the concept he is trying to explain.

But it's not in any way "the rule". The rule, as you can see by stepping out on the street and looking around, is that the great majority of women are paired off with normal guys and in many cases the girl is into the guy, at least for the moment. And it could hardly be otherwise, since only a small minority of men can, by definition, be alpha males. If "hypergamy" were truly the rule, what you would see by stepping out on the street is a single alpha king trailed by a retinue of dozens of females, while all betas are somewhere off to the side and alone. This is actually true in some animal species, but it's very obviously not true for the species that we belong to.

Just today there was a post in the Lifestyle section where some young kid was whining about how "unfair" it was that all the "hot girls" are taken by betas who meet them through their social circle, while his own supposed "alpha" frame and other qualities go unrecognized. He was noting how many dudes who were with the "hot girls" were not in great shape, not "alpha", and basically not remarkable in any way. At least his whining allowed him to make that very basic observation.

Now, is it true that women prefer alpha males, is it true that they are excited by thugs, criminals, playboys etc? Yeah, of course, it's the truest thing in the world. But just because a woman has a fantasy about being swept off her feet by an alpha prince charming who is both inscrutably aloof and unfailingly sensitive, a beautiful soul as well as a murderous thug, someone who will throw her down, rape her and use every hole on her, and then sit with angelic patience through Sunday brunch in her company -- just because she has that fantasy does not mean that she's not going to be interested in, and sometimes very into, fucking and having relationships with completely normal men. Fantasy is one thing and the real world is something different, and one should not lose sight of the distinction.

[262]

(11-27-2015 08:33 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

The essay cited by Roosh in the OP (Sexual Utopia in Power) is far more flawed, in my opinion. First, Devlin wildly exaggerates the applicability of the concept of "hypergamy". He has the ludicrous idea, shared by many in the manosphere, that women only want "alphas" and that regular dudes don't get gals. This is a preposterous notion refuted by a simple walk down the street. Girls are all over regular men 24/7 and 'twas never otherwise. Sometimes staring at one's computer screen too hard for too long can convince a man of fantastical ideas that are contradicted by simply stepping outside and looking around.

Hang on.

Isn't the prevailing manosphere idea alpha fucks / beta bucks (without societal constraints) -

That alphas get to fuck hot women when they're young, and not spend much money OR TIME with them (thus having to walk the streets with them less),

While betas get the "luxury" of spending money AND TIME with women when they're older and looking for providers (thus having to walk the streets with them more)?

In other words, isn't the prevailing manosphere idea not that regular guys don't get gals, but that regular guys get regular girls AFTER the regular girls have a few discreet alpha fucks, where each alpha invested SIGNIFICANTLY less than the regular guy?

Edit: Sometimes not reading about how rock stars/pro athletes/etc get regular girl poosy thrown at them can convince a man that rock stars/pro athletes/etc don't get regular girl poosy thrown at them. "Those are just sluts," his ego tells him, even as the rock star/pro athlete/etc says otherwise.

[The Lizard of Oz]

262, yes, that is the prevalent 'sphere idea. And it has some truth to it, of course, but it can also be (and often is) greatly exaggerated.

First, there aren't that many "alphas" to go around; alpha males, by definition, can only be a small minority of men. Second, I see that you have tacitly limited your consideration to "hot women" but most women aren't hot, just as most men aren't alphas. Devlin's essay does not consider exclusively "hot women", it considers the typical woman, or the majority; as well it should.

The simple reality which all can easily observe is that both early and late in their mating careers, most regular women will get their fucks AND their bucks from regular guys. Of course there is a tendency for women to fuck bad boys early, and settle for a provider later; but one cannot extrapolate this tendency so far as to fail to see that in most cases regular gals are fucking regular dudes, and it cannot be otherwise.

Finally, I would like to point you again in the direction of Devlin's superb essay about female marital infidelity that I referred to in my previous post; that essay should really be required reading for all men.

One of the things that you'll find there is that women eventually get sexually bored with their husbands (or long-term sexual partners) and look for sexual excitement elsewhere. But this is not because the husband used to be an alpha and has now suddenly become a beta; the husband has done nothing wrong and has not changed in the least, the woman is just sexually bored with him. And the man that she chooses for her affair is by no means necessarily some super-alpha; the man's main virtue in her eyes is that he is not her husband. In fact, quite often a woman will cheat on her man with someone less attractive, less interesting, and less winsome in every way and the poor husband is just left scratching his head and wondering in vain, what the hell does HE have that I don't?! And maybe after being divorce raped he will start jelqing in futile response to the only explanation he can come up with, LOL.

The point of all this is that concepts like "hypergamy" and catchphrases like "alpha fux beta bux" have their place, but if taken to an extreme they can give one a view of reality so distorted as to be unrecognizable. The truth about the nature of women is far more prosaic, and, if anything, even less pleasant to the average man, and Devlin's "rotating polyandry" essay does a far better job of presenting that truth than the "sexual utopia" one.

[262]

I do agree that it's exaggerated, as the most vocal elements of the manosphere are those going through the anger part of the five stages of grief.

What I caution against though is attempting to soften or dismiss this anger, in an effort to seek balance.

In fact, I would argue that guys need to voice whatever legitimate anger they have online, to balance out the increasing narrative outside the manosphere that women can generally do no wrong and are not accountable for their choices, at least compared to men.

For instance, your point that wives might cheat with men who are lesser than their husbands precisely because they are not their husbands would most likely be interpreted by a mainstream audience as, "guys, you must shut up and accept this bullshit." It's only when you flip the genders that you get outrage (for instance, when celebrity Hugh Grant cheated on smokeshow Liz Hurley with a definitively uglier prostitute).

[Onto]

(11-28-2015 04:01 PM)262 Wrote:  

In fact, I would argue that guys need to voice whatever legitimate anger they have online, to balance out the increasing narrative outside the manosphere that women can generally do no wrong and are not accountable for their choices, at least compared to men.

I'm not sure it's an increasing narrative. I think it's always been that way.

To hold someone accountable for their actions is to say that person was aware of what they were doing and acting in a self-interested manner. i.e. an ego.

Men are perfectly fine with egotism, but the feminine principle claims there should be no egotism in the world, and women certainly don't believe they are ego's acting in self-interested ways.

It's why you'll always here a woman say, "I don't know, it just happened". For her, she needs to believe that's the truth, even though the reality is quite opposite.

It's not just women who subscribe to this, but men too. When a husband finds out his wife had an affair, he'll grab the gun and look for the guy. Why?

It's because he believes his wife was "taken advantage" of. She couldn't have perpetuated it, wanted it, caused it to happen. The other guy "manipulated" her, much like a sculptor manipulates a glob of clay. For the husband, his wife is the embodiment of the feminine and can't be held nearly as accountable as the guy.

Now most of us here know very well she is to blame. If anything I would say the changing narrative in society has been to hold women more accountable. After all, if they want to be equal to men, they must own up to their own egotism just as men do.

And that is the rub for feminists. How can they be equal to a man without having to be a self-interested (ego) in the world contending with the others? It goes against the grain of the feminine and is why the modern day woman is so spiritually depressed that she has to fill the void with handbags, booze, shoes, and a new dick 3 nights a week.

When you see the media and men making excuses for a woman's bad behavior, I think this is where it's coming from. Shit, even when she kills her kids they make some kind of excuse for her, but that's the way it's always been.

I think what we are starting to see is men waking up to this fact. And that would be something new.

[262]

Instead of "increasing narrative," I should've said "increasing reiteration."

Let's be clear, the reality of feminism (at least in third wave form) has been to increase women's power WITHOUT an increase in accountability, despite a facade of equality (which they struggle with).

In other words: "Women, go ahead and be 'empowered' consumer and cock sluts, because 'equality.' But if you kill your kids, for example, we'll excuse it using the same excuse we gave your grandma's generation, even though if your husband killed your kids, we wouldn't excuse him."

[Rhyme or Reason]

For anyone who hasn't heard this interview, it's a great one.


http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/201...150710.php


Also, his essay "Home Economics" is right up there with the others mentioned in this thread.

[tynamite]

I read this online using this link (same website), and I didn't like it. A good non-fiction writing teaches you something new, and this writing taught me nothing.