TOQlive: F. Roger Devlin joins James Edwards and Kevin MacDonald

The second monthly TOQlive will be on Sunday, December 2 at 8PM Eastern time (click here to access). As always, it will be a live show, with the last half hour devoted to answering audience questions and comments. Our guest will be F. Roger Devlin who is well known to readers of TOQ and TOO, particularly for his writing on gender issues (click here for his 17 articles on TOO). His book, Sexual Utopia in Power is a classic deconstruction of the sexual revolution that began in the 1960s: He “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.”

His most recent article for TOO is a masterful review of Stephen Baskerville’s The New Politics of Sex which expands on the themes of Sexual Utopia in Power. As he notes, we are now at the point of the criminalizing masculinity:

The sexual revolution did not usher in prolonged anarchy; it replaced a voluntary system of self-control according to principles equally applicable to all with the bureaucratically enforced “empowerment” of one sex at the expense of the other. Thanks to recent headlines, it is finally beginning to dawn on even the dimmest conservatives that the sexual revolution has not “liberated male sexuality,” but subjected men to an arbitrary and hostile regime from which none of them is safe.

There is nothing “ironic” about the cheek-by-jowl existence of a casual sex scene and a bureaucracy dedicated to punishing the men who participate in it: the former acts as a necessary feeder for the latter. The proof is that no feminist has ever encouraged young women behave in ways which would prevent their getting hurt in the first place. Feminists find the hook-up scene far too useful to shut down.

Should be a great discussion.

16 replies
  1. Simon Elliot
    Simon Elliot says:

    “I hate women, but I want to use them for sex in the same way that I don’t want them to use me for money, marriage and children.” That’s the hypocrisy of the incels, MGTOWs, and men’s rights activists in a nutshell. Roger Devlin, their messiah, peddles this “all bitches are hypergamous whores” rhetoric, and look at how many desperate men gobble it up! Their comments betray their true motivations, their belief that they have a divine entitlement to plough a field of young pussy and sow their seed. They genuinely believe that men should refuse to contribute to society unless each man is guaranteed a virgin maiden who’ll sire his legacy. Hell, these men are even more loathsome and narcissistic than the “thots” they so despise. The days of grim Victorian-style patriarchy are long over, but that doesn’t make the men of today victims.

    Devlin and those who endorse his hypergamy thesis exhibit what is, in all honesty, the most odious example of divine entitlement I’ve ever come across. He says men are owed sex, are owed wives, are owed heirs. He says women get bored in marriage and will inevitably become unfaithful. Uh, so do men? In fact I’ll bet that men are even more preoccupied with the grass being greener elsewhere, since their sex drives are that much more potent. Monogamy doesn’t come naturally to either sex, but I’d wager that women are more likely to mate for life and exhibit platonic love than men, because their libido, already much lower than men, decreases with age, whereas a man’s doesn’t, as he remains fertile for much longer.

    • A Knight's Tell
      A Knight's Tell says:

      Simon, saying you’d have to “bet” or “wager” on what women are likely to do tells me you’re describing the woman on the pedastal in your head, not the women we date. Real life tells me that “Platonic love” is the last thing on most womens’ minds and dozens of friends with experience would tell you the same thing.

      Children were the reason why monogamy made sense for both sexes. Remove them from the marital balance sheet and it no longer adds up – for men or women. You’re mistaking the controls previously imposed by “the patriarchy” for innate feminine goodness. You’re also conflating male and female “libido.” Think about why men watch porn and women read romance novels for similar effect.

      • Simon Elliot
        Simon Elliot says:

        Well I’m an anti-natalist, so appeals to creating children won’t have any sway with me. Porn equals sex, whereas romance novels equal, what, platonic love? That seems to support what I said about the disparity in libido rather than undermine it. Marriage isn’t so much about children as it is about keeping fathers in their lives, as Stephen Baskerville elaborated on in one of his lectures, which you can find on youtube. I found his presentation much more persuasive than Devlin’s book.

    • F. Roger Devlin
      F. Roger Devlin says:

      Obviously, I have never claimed that anybody is “owed” sex (or anything else). This is a common accusation against men who complain about the new dispensation, but I have never actually heard any man demand his “rights” in the way that feminist women do. Usually it is the left which mistakes wishes for rights.
      No, no one has ever had a right to sex or marriage or children, but until rather recently most people who wanted these things badly enough could find them. I would like to make that possible for most men and women once again.

      • Simon Elliot
        Simon Elliot says:

        Wishes, rights, whatever term you want to use, the sense of entitlement remains palpable. Many of your supporters talk about women as if they were cattle. It was my understanding that the alt-right was supposed to provide an alternative to Islamisation, not a mirror image of it.

        Sooner or later the alt-right, and the entire world, is going to have to deal with the unprecedented ethical dilemma that procreation presents. I think you are woefully unprepared for the intellectual inquisition of anti-natalism, Mr Devlin.

          • Simon Elliot
            Simon Elliot says:

            Well actually, since it’s memetic as opposed to genetic, no it isn’t. Individuals are easy to kill, but it’s much harder to kill an what they stand for. Anti-natalism is a philosophy, and philosophy will exist for as long as humanity does.

  2. Return of Shawn
    Return of Shawn says:

    Two items which I think would be great to talk about:

    1) The rise of political liberalism coincides with women’s suffrage. If only White men were allowed to vote, the West would be much healthier. Over the long haul though, in order for such practice to be sustainable, the media and politicians must not be owned by those who seek our destruction.

    2) Is ownership of the mass media a prerequisite for the peaceful attainment of power and saving the West?

  3. James Forrestal
    James Forrestal says:

    1. Sounds like a good show.

    2. Kind of comical that Simon didn’t even bother to read any of Devlin’s work before vomiting forth this half-digested toxic stew of virulent anti-White, anti-male hatred and randomly-chosen semitic canards, mingled with occasional incoherent attempts at “thoughts” of his own.

    He sure feels a whole lot of feelz, though.

    • Simon Elliot
      Simon Elliot says:

      I read his essay on rotating polyandry and thought it made a fair amount of sense, but I cannot say the same for his hypergamy thesis.

  4. Fritz
    Fritz says:

    Feminism sterilizes white women.

    MGTOW sterilizes white men.

    Both ideologies were formulated and pushed by Jews and their fellow travelers to destroy Western European Civilization and the white European race.

  5. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    Why would anybody get upset about noticing the obvious: men don’t like the fact that in sexual matters women are now behaving as sluttishly as men have since Day One. The chaos unleashed had been simmering for a good long time. Nobody is saying it is a good thing for women to act like this, at least I’m not – only that it is harmful for society as a whole when men give in to their every urge, too. What goes around, etc.

Comments are closed.