Feed on

This post is also available in: German

Chateau Maxim #3: In the state of nature, men are expendable.

I want you to keep in mind the above law as you read my brief take on F. Roger Devlin’s outstanding (and MSM blacked out) essays on gender dynamics and the sexual revolution. The truth of that law is the explanation for everything you see around you today.

I found the link to Devlin through 2Blowhards with interesting followup commentary. You can read the essays here. Scroll over the icons, hit the down arrow, and click download for easiest access. This is a must read for anyone who wants to know why things seem to have gone off the rails. Devlin’s essays are long but I urge you to read them through, including his evisceration of Wendy Shalit, representative of those obtuse anti-porn crusading social conservatives and myopic “fourth wave feminists” who preach from a pulpit of willful ignorance, habitually missing the forest for the trees:

[…]the notion that all our problems come from women’s making sex available outside marriage—and, consequently, that a “holding out for the wedding” strategy will make everything right again—deserves a close, critical look. Wendy Shalit’s writings provide a useful occasion for doing this. Her proposals have considerable limitations, in fact, most of which flow from a single source: feminine narcissism and its concomitant unconcern for the masculine point of view.

Devlin’s essay Sexual Utopia in Power contains this nugget of truth:

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.” 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 lie”—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 satisfied with the best. […]

Hypergamy is not monogamy in the human sense. Although there may be only one “alpha male” 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 fickle, infatuated with no more than one man at any given time, but not naturally loyal to a husband over the course of a lifetime.

And here Devlin gets to the heart of the matter:

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

The irony is that in the course of dismantling millennia of biologically-grounded cultural tradition and enacting their hypergamous sexual utopia, women have unwittingly made life more difficult for all but the most attractive of them. The result has been more cougars, more sluts, and more demand for DNA paternity testing. To prevent this edifice from crumbling under its own weight entirely, massive redistributive payments from men to women in the form of welfare, alimony, punitive child support (even from men who aren’t the biological fathers!), female- and child-friendly workplaces, legal injustice (women in general do not give a shit about justice), corporate-sponsored daycare, PC extortion, sexual harassment claims, and divorce theft have had to be ruthlessly administered and enforced by the thugs of the rapidly metastasizing elite-created police state. Remove these security and resource transfers and safety nets and you will see the feminist utopia crumble within one generation.

Many will suffer in the fallout. Their suffering will be necessary. The only alternative is a gradual decivilizing of the West until the hellhounds of human nature have broken their chains and the blood-dimmed tide is loosed.

My one beef with Devlin’s essays is that he overlooks the emergence of game as a social phenomenon in reaction to the negative trends he correctly outlines. Game was birthed in the twin crucibles of the feminist-inspired sexual revolution and the teachings of evolutionary psychology. As women have become more hypergamous, betas, feeling the pinch, have become more dedicated to learning the crimson arts. Some alphas looking for even more edge in the dating market have also taken up the cause, with a bounty of no-strings-attached pussy the result. Women call this manipulation, but in fact it is just the same old reproductive arms race, this time with laser-guided cock bombs.

Devlin continues to make the following astute observations in Sexual Utopia:

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. […]

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.” 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.”

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 male” can be identified 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 “immorality” (in traditional language) can be attractive to females. Thus, once polygamous mating begins, it tends to be self-reinforcing.

There’s a reason why beta males have stopped holding open doors for women. Chivalry requires gratitude.

In Devlin’s parallel essay Rotating Polyandry, he quotes a female author from her book explaining how differently men and women view sex and love:

Most men I have talked to call it infatuation, but most of the women I have talked to call it being in love… Women in particular may believe that, if they find the right person, intense feelings can last. They’ve been taught to believe that they should only want sex with someone they love. So when a woman desires a man, she thinks she is in love, and when the desire fades she thinks she is out of love.

This leads to further quotes by Devlin describing the natural forces of female caprice that make marital dissolution practically a foregone conclusion in the absence of either social shaming and stigmatism or the supervision of a very alpha dominant husband:

They often form relationships with men who are emotionally inaccessible. Instead of choosing men who are interested in developing a relationship, these women choose men who make them feel insecure. Insecurity can create motivation and excitement. Women who seek excitement in their marriages (and many do) will often forego the possibility of real relationships for the excitement of fantasy relationships…. It’s not uncommon for women to pine for men who shy away from commitment, while they shun the attention given to them by men who are willing and ready to make a commitment. […]

When a woman wants to get married, she will usually overlook a lot, and at times allow herself to be treated pretty badly. After she gets married, not only is the excitement of pursuit over, after a few years of marriage the attraction buzz has dissipated too. At that point, many women may find that marriage hasn’t even come close to meeting their expectations. Some women feel stupid for having wanted it so badly in the first place.

And then Devlin reaches the logical conclusion — frequently written here by me — that marriage is not necessary for a loving, sexual, commited relationship, and is often antithetical to it:

Men being pressured for “commitment” sometimes attempt to point this out: “Why is it such a big deal? What is going to be different after we’re married?” The men are right, of course: a wedding ceremony has no magical power to produce lifelong happiness. Unfortunately, this seems to be something women only learn from experience.

Read the rest of his essay if you can stomach it for a realistic description of what exactly goes through a woman’s mind as she is slowly falling out of love with her provider beta husband and contemplating the firestorm of divorce. If all men would read this and absorb its lessons I can guarantee you that marriage rates would tumble into the basement. There’s only so much reality a man can bear before he begins to act in accordance with his self interest. For example:

Some of the women resented their husbands’ lack of suspicion…. Although females never give males any indication that they are anything less than 100 percent faithful, [they] seem to think men are stupid for believing them. Females just think males should know that when they say “I would never cheat on you,” what they really mean is “I would never cheat on you…as long as you make me happy and I don’t get bored.”

Feeling like dropping to one knee and slipping that $20K ring on your beloved’s finger now?

Helpfully, in Sexual Utopia Devlin puts some numbers to the suspicion by men that the divorce industry is mostly a female-run enterprise:

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 first to want into marriage and the first to want out.

Devlin goes on to describe the horror show that is the legal process when wives file for divorce and husbands and fathers take it up the ass as they are mercilessly ground to a pulp in the machinery of the state. Read the whole thing and remember that one copy of Mystery Method will cost you a lot less than a trip down the altar.

As I’ve said before, my advice to the typical man is simple:


Women by nature aren’t on your side, the law isn’t on your side, and even lapdog beta males who’ve blinded themselves to reality and unthinkingly toe the PC party line in hopes their status posturing will offer them up a scrap or two of roadworn desiccated pussy don’t have your side as a man. There is every incentive in the world to avoid marriage. It is a fetid corrupt mess, and only radical social change will make it an attractive alternative for men once again.

Thanks to Game and contraceptives, you can get the sex for free now without the imprisonment of marriage and potential financial and emotional ruin of divorce. The unsuitability of so many self-indulgent modern women for marriage doesn’t help the once-venerable institution’s cause either. As Devlin writes regarding this last point:

Men do not have to prove their worthiness to anybody. They are the ones who bear the primary costs of marriage. It is a woman’s responsibility to prove she is worthy of the privilege of becoming a man’s helpmeet and bearing his children. It takes a strict upbringing to form a tiny female savage into such a lady. Today, that form of upbringing is mostly a thing of the past: marriageable women are becoming difficult to find, and the costs of searching for them are getting too high.

I can tell you right now about 90% of the women I’ve fucked in the past nine months (double digits) were, barring a character transplantation, completely unworthy as marriage material. That is higher than selection effect could reasonably account.

How unsuitable is the modern woman for marriage? Devlin demonstrates that here:

Men of the older generation are insufficiently 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.” “I like to party and have fun! I like to drink, hang out with cool people and go shopping!” The young women invite “hot guys” to contact them. No doubt some will. But would any sensible man, “hot” or otherwise, want to start a family with such a creature?

Now as a dedicated hedonist and realist, I am not in the market for marriage or children and so one of the things I look for in a girl is someone who isn’t dropping the hammer of expectation on me, but if I were screening women for their wife and mother potential I would have to agree that any girl emphasizing her bonafides as a lover of “fun” would not make my short list. And yet a quick glance at Craigslist shows that 75% of women in the W4M section describe themselves as exactly that. Only the foreign women who post there, especially the Russians, seem aware of what it takes to inspire a man to see them as more than a pump and dump. American women need the tutelage of their grandmothers’ wisdom to remind them how to cater to men’s better natures, but in today’s sexual market it may be too late to employ the coy strategy.

Maxim #39: If you want a wife stay clear of investing much in girls who constantly remind you they like to have “fun fun fun” and “get bored easily”.

Eventually, sexbots will drive the final nail in the rotting coffin of Western marriage.

It is only under some very special circumstances that I would counsel a man to consider the option of getting married:

  1. He would be perceptibly higher status than his wife. Note that this does not necessarily mean financial status; many wealthy men have been brutalized by their wives in divorce court because at their cores they were simply fearful beta males with lots of money. A high status man is one who perceives himself to be better — as reflected in his psychological dominance — than his woman. He would be unafraid to leave her in search of other women if she were to withdraw from him sexually and emotionally. This would keep her in line… and in love.
  2. The woman he would marry is much richer than him. Although this is a recipe for loss of love and eventual divorce, at least the man who marries a sugar mommy has a distant shot at collecting alimony from her in the event of divorce and using the money to party with strippers. If not, at least he won’t be taken to the cleaners, since he won’t have much to clean. Only men with supreme alpha confidence who are able to attract wealthy women without the crutch of their own equivalent load of riches should attempt this marital scenario.
  3. He has GAME. A man who understands the mentality of women, their different psychological profile, and their true desires and fallen natures, can risk exposing himself to a marriage system that is rigged against his interests from the start. GAME will not only win a woman into your bed, it will keep her in love with you till death… or a beta relapse… do you part.

To all the guys who’ve gotten married and insist their wonderful loving wives would never lose their love for them, betray them, and turn their lives into hell on earth with the rubber stamp of the law, I’ve only this to say…

that’s what the unlucky men used to believe, too.


PS: Women are ten times more narcissistic than men by nature (and I’m not talking about the narrow clinical definition of narcissism but the more prevalent form of it as a normal gradient of the whole personality). We notice the narcissistic men more because women’s narcissism is like background whitenoise — always there and hence barely registered. A woman’s is a self-regarding narcissism that can coexist with asexual nurturing altruism, which is the kind of altruism practiced by women that single men on the prowl for sexual relief have little use for.

PPS: When a woman appears stereotypically uninterested in discussing certain matters like, for instance, politics, is it more likely the reason that

a. she’s… wait for it… uninterested in the matter or

b. she’s concerned that no one would take her opinion of the matter seriously? (funny how fashion and gossip are exempt from this hypothesis.)


Your Sage Dismisser of Bullshit and Upholder of Occam’s Razor.


Comments are closed.