The Sexual Utopia in Power

Ok well Ardia asked for us to read this and comment so I did so, and hope he will return the favor in the future. The Sexual Utopia in Power should be a classic as it has much to offer. It is unflinching in it looking at these issues and I would differently recommended it as something all MRAs should read. As when looking at such things you tend to talk about what is not exactly right and I will do so, but this shouldn’t be taken as anything but a wish for it to be an even better effort.

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 “best” (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 “real” man—until, one day…etc.).- DEVLIN

What is a bit missed here is the fact that women are trait conceited when looking for mates. By this I mean they are looking for outside beauty traits, not inside traits. They will thus dumb down the race if you let them. They are so looks obsessed, or insecure, that they will take their world down if they are not stopped from trying to impress other females and themselves with a good looking husband and kids. This can be seen in how mothers get giddy for the good-looking sons in their family, and try to get them to be modals. Males are obsessed with good looking women as well, as we all know quite well, but after a time the character of such women will come into play as men’s instincts to have sex with many women comes into play as a woman gets older. And when men have children they don’t push for females to become male like, as often as the other way round. It is women that cross the kids up with one size fits all effeminacy.

Women also use fashion and group praise to choose the successful males for them. They don’t find a diamond in the rough male and help him become full diamonds, but wait for one to perfect himself, and then grant him a reward for his success. So women actually like to be a trophy wife (but not admit it), and it is not men who want go for a trophy wife only.  By jumping on the bandwagon she shows no loyalty, no wise foresight, and no mind of her own in following fashion in choosing a male that others have said is special with fame or wealth.

Control of sex habits: In the first place, women 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. - DEVLIN


Also should be added is the crass fact that a woman must only spread her legs to mate endlessly, while a man must get a rise out to do the deed. If sexual appetite is set by how much sex can be had in the length then we are dealing with a false modal, as women are built to just sit there and it is men that must work it more.

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 first 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. - DEVLIN


Yet because of their skills to play the victim or the helpless type can we ever make a system of equality that will be able to withstand flawed human beings’ need to favor the outside and soft sounding women or children? Unlikely, so equality can’t be enforced unless we take the statist role of enforcing equality on those who side with effetes out of instincts, in a huge measure, thus being no better in this area than those playing at social engineering now.

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.” Young women insist on their “independence,” 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. - DEVLIN


So by this one should take a very large portion of women are at their very core unjust, and seem unaware of this fact or are in total denial, so how can we have equality? They want the best of equality and the best of old fashion ideas. Is this not a child or a tyrannical soul, and is this not why someone has targeted them for empowerment?

RETURN OF THE PRIMITIVE

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.

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. - DEVLIN


It is simpler than the above. Women are generally & simply part of "group think" creatures and seem unable to change their insides to be independent as often as males, and only change their outsides endlessly as if to hide the fact that on the insides they’re very much the same. Men being much wider in their types than women. Men by nature or God are in reaction to women and  is often her opposite: brave to her coward, different to her group think, high energy to her slowness, untalkative to her talktiveness and so on. PC science wishes to point out there is cross over, yes, but that doesn’t make this the norm. I am generalizing here not blanketing!

MODERN CHIVALRY
Shrewd women have long known how to manipulate the male protective urge for their own ends. No one will sign up for a campaign against women or children, but many men can easily be made to condemn other men. - DEVLIN


Unlike the early portions of this effort this section is quite vague and lacks the history of chivalry, which can be found here: http://www.honornetwork.com/Foxes_Lions_Chivalry.html


if you read the above link you will see Chivalry is at its very core an idea made for women and propagated by women and effete males onto honorable men to bring a set of ideas that are unclear into the male word of preferred clarity, so as to wage power grabs in a confused place of effete culture that is simply unstably due to it being fashion based (as chivalry makes it so). As fashion is set by effete feelings, which is based on female menstruation, fear, moods and more, so is chivalry.

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 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.

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 affluent fellow with movie star looks who is going to fall for her after one more new makeover, after she loses five more pounds or finds the perfect hairdo. In the meantime, she is free to treat the flesh-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 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.

What happens when a contemporary woman, deluded into thinking she deserves a movie star husband, fails not only to find 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 Amazon.com: 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. - DEVLIN


This is the best part of this classic effort by Devlin, for MRAs it points to the fact we have heard shouted at us in the media, that media isn’t that powerful. It is powerful to the weak minded and the weak minded are more effete and thus to make males more effete is good for business (as they become more mindless consumerists), and in addition it is good to make men effete for the power hungry too, as it makes men simply work with those in power under any system (just like women) who haven’t in recorded history ever lead a rebellion from the front line!  

Now my work has covered how when societies become effete they fall apart all throughout history, as fox types in the population and in leadership in high proportion leads to a dog-eat-dog world on every occasion, so this has happened before and can’t be regarded as special and unique to our time.

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 affluent and pampered women in history so furious? Kick a friendly dog often enough and eventually you have a mean dog on your hands. - DEVLIN


Actually there has been more than kicks going on towards the dog male of our modern culture, click here: http://the-code.wikispaces.com/The+Men%27s+Rights+Magna+Charta


What were our bachelor’s female contemporaries doing all those years while he was an impoverished, lonely stripling who found them intensely desirable? Fornicating with dashing fellows who mysteriously declined to “commit,” marrying and walking out on their husbands, or holding out for perfection. Now, lo and behold, these women, with their youthful looks gone and rapidly approaching menopause, are willing to go out with him. If they are satisfied with the free meals and entertainment he provides, he may be permitted to fork over a wedding ring. Then they will graciously allow him to support them and the children they had by another man for the rest of his life. (I have seen a woman’s personal ad stating her goal of “achieving financial security for myself and my daughters.”) Why in heaven’s name would any man sign up for this? As one man put it to me: “If the kitten didn’t want me, I don’t want the cat.” - DEVLIN


That’s a very chivalrous description of what men face, it is more a Medusa than a mere cat. Women love to compare themselves to cats and the writer still allows women to define what image we give of them here as the man using these terms is being nice. These bad women are better described with the ancient mythological form of the Medusa, as this representation, that they occasionally pride themselves for on Halloween,  prefer to almost always to shy away from in its unnerving truth in describing their bad side of the female psyche. The male brute has a balancing agent the weasel woman.


Western woman has become the new “white man’s burden,” and the signs are that he is beginning to throw it off. We have arrived at a rare historical moment when we men have the upper hand in the battle of the sexes.

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. - DEVLIN


The word he is looking for, but is afraid to utter (I think) is patriarchy, patriarchy now patriarchy tomorrow patriarchy until women come to be equal to men in deeds, and not in desire or in political circles (to only have false equality used to divide men). Everyday women can have equality in deeds and do not want it. They seem to want equality like that of a fashion show to wear down the runway and show off to their friends. Women seem to have as much pride as men in the end, after all the games.

Perseus wrote

Women also use fashion and group praise to choose the successful males for them. They don’t find a diamond in the rough male and help him become full diamonds, but wait for one to perfect himself, and then grant him a reward for his success. So women actually like to be a trophy wife (but not admit it), and it is not men who want go for a trophy wife only.  By jumping on the bandwagon she shows no loyalty, no wise foresight, and no mind of her own in following fashion in choosing a male that others have said is special with fame or wealth.

Yes, this is an important point. Most women want a full diamond, instead of helping a half diamond grow. This is very anti-civilization as higher education, advanced internships take time before a man can become independent at a superior level. Without knowing the details precisely, I would assume, that before, a meritocracy counteracted this tendency somewhat.

But now every tom dick and harry (and sally, jane and mary) goes to college. People spend a third of their lives in socialized institution that are anything but meritocracies (and that is followed by 'progressive' taxes). Under such conditions, a fledgling engineering/computer science/non-useless non-politicized major student has nothing going for him. Indeed hes a net negative spending his time studying compared to arts students who can afford to party the time away.

I would assume that before a meritocracy counteracted this tendency somewhat. But now every tom dick and harry (and sally, jane and mary) goes to college. People spend a third of the life in socialized institution that are anything but meritocracies (and that is followed by 'progressive' taxes). Under such conditions, a fledgling engineering/computer science/non-useless non-politicized major student has nothing going for him. Indeed hes a net negative spending his time studying compared to arts students who can afford to party the time away.-Ardia

I think they are in fact trying to do away with a meritocracy, to replace it with pure specialization and indoctrination. This is why we must create our own meritocracy, though with no salary and thus pure knowledge & honor satisfying, to counteract the mess being created. Insecure enginners don't ask for bigger salaries, and don't start companies that revival established ones. If they are confused by women and made more passive by endless social engineering they become better cogs. While the outgoing & socialible skilled ones, or ones with pure amibition, become part of the system's political class, and with the wealth and power of the establishment they get their satisfaction for amibition and fame fully satisfied.

Logic (non-specialized) and honor is lost for most, and logic with a decidedly fox-type of thinking is only maintained by a miniority of the establishment.

I had a quick skim of the pdf, much of it is standard text as used by the likes of Rob Fedders when he wants to put across the basic truths of the human sexual deal..

Good stuff of course, but I find it rather strange that one of the most compelling reasons to practice monogamy and the sort of culture that is promoted here is not even mentioned..

Indeed, this very reason is the reason that many previous "sexual utopias" of the "free for all" in the past have rapidly adapted to the (then) western standards of monogamy and chastity..

Disease..

The sexual free for all is destructive of society, but, on a more personal level, it is also destructive of the individuals who partake of it..

The VD rates are a serious reason behind the retreat of many from the sexual free for all..

I personally never fail to be absolutely appalled at the way that many women will take a random cock without even the rubber riding hat that the likes of my father used to insist on..

I find that the current phenonema of internet porn is showing up a massive problem with sexual practices that are absolutely and totally unacceptable to ANYONE with more than enough brain cells to work out the risks involved in multiple partner encounters for "recreation" (I could post you links to sites showing women being banged by 50 plus men in an hour, bareback off the streets, and they certainly dont look to be having a great time, other than the wage and the glory of it..)

I am no prude, (well, maybe I am in a strange sort of way!) but it is just common sense that this sort of activity, or general large scale sexualisation in such a way is not exactly necessary..

Sexual utopia?

Dont make me laugh!! We have sexual hell!! Disease, abortion, shitty women with damaged personalities..

Shagging 500 plus women in a career of pork-warriorhood may be something i occasionally claim fame for, but, is it a boast or an admission?

All I can say, is that I know I have been much more choosey about who I fuck than even the average gent.. Hence, I have escaped the fate of some young men I know who have permanent disease status due to bad choices or perhaps not having such a good immune system..

I am a "virgins or whores" kinda guy..

I dont knowingly (and I make great efforts to ascertain status, which is not actually hard when you know what to say and in what order!) shaft women who are in the habit of shagging around, women who have shagged dodgy blokes, are married or whatever else would make them unsuitable..

Women are RUINED by promiscuity, it damages their bodies, maybe, but for sure, it damages their outlook..

Unless they are "proper" pro's, they end up being manipulative sluts and a bad choice for any man wanting to empty his sac.. And even worse when they are after that weedling wing..

Marry a slut, prepare for life as a servile mangina at best!!

What good has a life devoted to knobbing everything that moves ever done me?

Memories, bragging rights, tales of shame..

What use are they practically speaking when there is no longer any sense of "achievement" in spearing the bearded clam?

And when I think of all the other things I could have been doing with that time..

Its a horrific thought.. A wasted life?

I can honestly say, the only sex I have ever really enjoyed has been with the mothers of my kids, or with common street whores..

Recreational sex with sluts has never really done anything for me..

They aint pros, so they cant do sex right anyway.. and they aint decent women, so you cant train them up, nor would you want to waste time on them anyway!!

We have a problem..

Western society is full of crappy women who dont realise their true status is not between that of whores or women suitable to be wives and mothers..

It is much lower than both!!

"Sexual Utopia in Power" deserves more than a quick skim.  It is deeper Rob Fedders's stuff.  It is the first thing that I recommend anyone read about feminism.

Disease is actually one of the few positive aspects of promiscuity because it is evolution in action and improves the gene pool.  Unfortunately this is more than compensated for by the poor selection of mates by women which greatly harms the gene pool.

The reason Devlin uses the phrase "sexual utopia" is that feminism was imagined to lead to a sexual utopia.  But as Devlin points out, most imagined utopias turn out to be hell.

I could give it a more detailed critique, but it seems pretty sound generally from what i have read..