Devlin Talks Sex
* * *
James Edwards: You have dedicated a great deal of your work to offering a sociobiological critique of radical feminism and the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960s, which you have argued is a utopian experiment that clashes with reality and leads to chaos. Why is this a topic that people should be more focused on?
Roger Devlin: Nations and races, like individuals, must perpetuate themselves sexually. But men are more inclined to focus on politics than on families, which they view as women’s natural concern. This works as long as women are in fact upholding the family by insisting on marriage and being faithful to their own vows. When they forsake that role to indulge in frivolous divorce and the chasing of sexual excitement for its own sake, men have no choice but to step in and restore order. This is difficult for us, both because most men do not understand women very well and because we have an extremely strong natural bias in their favor.
Edwards: Today’s society suffers from a lack of morals, confused sexual roles, high divorce and celibacy rates, childlessness, and widespread unhappiness, which you contend is linked to the breakdown of monogamy. In what ways are monogamy, family, and sexual discipline essential for societal stability?
Devlin: European man is a K-selected organism, to use the evolutionary terminology. This means that he is not very fertile, but invests heavily in the offspring he does have. A family with a father in residence is the necessary setting for such investment, which includes the transmission of a complex civilizational patrimony. The breakdown of stable pair-bonding cheats children of this inheritance and amounts to a return to barbarism.
Edwards: You point out that the welfare state, no-fault divorce, and affirmative-action feminism have basically turned the government into a substitute husband for millions of women. When did the West really start down this path—women’s suffrage, the pill, or something even earlier? And is there any historical precedent for a civilization surviving this level of sexual disorder?
Devlin: No, civilization may have begun with the imposition of monogamous marriage and will not survive its abolition. Sexual liberalization and female “equality” are symptoms of a society that had enjoyed too much prosperity for too long. When mere survival is a difficult challenge, everyone understands the importance of family solidarity and mutual duties. When times get easy, people turn to individual self-realization. Women’s suffrage, for example, was a shift from viewing the family as the basic unit of society to individualism: it is a luxury, and in no sense a matter of justice.
Edwards: Interestingly, your perspectives on this issue challenge both feminist and mainstream conservative views. How so?
Devlin: Men understand their own sexual nature, but not that of women. Male traditionalists are, therefore, inclined to assume that liberating sex means liberating men’s desires at women’s expense. Hence the conservative press is filled with endless sanctimonious denunciations of young men as predators. In fact, anthropologists have long known that in primitive hunter-gatherer societies where monogamy is not enforced, 60% of men are unable to become fathers. Nature puts women, not men, in charge of mating, and whenever they are liberated from monogamy, they simply mate with the highest-status men. Monogamous marriage exists not to restrict the amount of sex men are able to get, but precisely to provide sex (and families) for as many men as possible. For non-elite men the sexual revolution has meant not more sex but a greater difficulty, or even an outright impossibility, of finding a wife. This is one of the best-kept secrets of the past half-century due to men’s reluctance to complain about it.
Edwards: You’ve noted that we now live in a world that offers promiscuity for the few and loneliness for the many. Who really loses the most in this new order?
Devlin: Both men and women lose out, but it is children who lose the most, in the form of fatherlessness. Until we initiated this great experiment of sexual liberation, we had no idea just how important fathers were to the proper development of children. Nearly every social pathology you can name is exacerbated by fatherlessness. And fatherlessness is overwhelmingly due not to men being irresponsible deadbeat dads (as the welfare state falsely claims) but to women indulging in two vices: 1) sex outside of marriage and 2) frivolous divorce.
Edwards: Let’s talk about the campus rape hysteria you dissect so brilliantly. We’re told there is an epidemic of sexual assault on college campuses, yet the statistics you cite tell a completely different story. Is this whole narrative just a weapon to demonize normal male sexuality and justify more anti-male policies?
Devlin: Much of it is exactly that, driven by lesbians in women’s studies programs. Young women are impressionable, and the campus lesbians want them fearing and mistrusting men. Women’s studies is a radical and destructive political and sexual movement, not a legitimate field of academic study, and it needs to be abolished (not reformed). The narrative of young men as ruthless predators, by the way, is virtually identical whether produced by man-hating lesbian feminists or male traditionalists.
It might also help to inform young women that throwing themselves at the handsomest guy on campus is not the route to love and “commitment.” It should be obvious that if women insist on exceptionally attractive mates, they will be forced to share them; this is due to simple arithmetic, and not to men being scoundrels.
Edwards: No white nation in the world currently enjoys replacement level fertility. How does everything we have been discussing tie into the demographic decline we talk about so often — the falling birthrates among our people?
Devlin: Where men are in charge, women have babies; where women are in charge, they fornicate and abort — as we have learned by putting women in charge for a few decades. The solution should be obvious: put men back in charge of the family! Women may be left free to choose a husband, but only subject to two constraints: 1) that the man not already have been chosen by another woman, and 2) that they stick to their choice for life — and not just until they get bored or imagine they could do better on a second try (seldom true in any case).
Sexual equality in the workplace simultaneously lowers men’s wages by increasing the supply of labor, and raises women’s expectations of how much a man ought to earn in order to be a “good provider.” Moreover, the women who best succeed in the world of work are those who can suppress their natural femininity and remain childless. It is thus a complete disaster for Western civilization. Sexual discrimination in employment should be not merely legal but mandatory.
Edwards: With Tinder, OnlyFans, and Instagram turning every halfway-attractive woman into a mini-celebrity, many “regular guys” are checking out of the dating scene altogether. Couple that with the onset of artificial intelligence giving men the option to have simulated relationships with programs that still trigger chemical releases in the brain in the same way that authentic relationships do, and hyper-realistic synthetic “females” coming in the very near future, how much worse could this get?
Devlin: Without wishing to defend pornography or other sex substitutes per se, I see some justification for men preferring them to actual women under current conditions. The dangers of divorce, deprivation of one’s children, and extortionate child support orders are so great that men are correct not to stick their necks into the noose of modern marriage. I hope to see more men shunning marriage, dating, and women altogether until women get the message good and hard. It is only just beginning to register with them, I am afraid. Most people only learn through suffering, so a lot more suffering is going to be necessary.
Edwards: Is there any realistic way back from this, or are we stuck?
Devlin: Besides an end to “equal pay for equal work,” unilateral divorce must be abolished. No man should marry when his life can be ruined at any instant at the whim of a fickle or vindictive woman.
Edwards: What message do you have for young men and women who want to build strong families in spite of the culture?
Devlin: For young women, my advice is to accept any man with a working set of sexual organs still naïve enough to get married, and to cling to him for dear life. For most men, as I have made clear, my advice is not to date or marry. And above all, do not give your hard-earned money to Only Fans whores. Life in this declining civilization is still just about tolerable for those men who escape the maw of the family court system. Women have been telling us for decades that they need us the way a fish needs a bicycle. Now they are finally going to have the opportunity to prove it.
As for all the advocates of traditional marriage out there who think I am being too radical: just you wait. When millions of women finally realize they have no realistic prospect of obtaining any husband — and this is where we are headed — things will change so fast it will make your head spin.
This article was originally published by American Free Press – America’s last real newspaper! Click here to subscribe today or call 1-888-699-NEWS.
When not interviewing newsmakers, James Edwards has often found himself in the spotlight as a commentator, including many national television appearances. For more than 20 years, his radio work has been featured in hundreds of newspapers and magazines worldwide. Media Matters has listed Edwards as a “right-wing media fixture” and Hillary Clinton personally named him as an “extremist” who would shape our country.
My question is WHO engineered this sexual revolution?
When women demanded equality with men, what they thought they were going to get was status and power, along with their existing “privileges” of being protected and provided for by men.
They didn’t understand that men carry the burden of “performing” and of having to take responsibility for their actions and decisions and then, as a result of that, one gains power and status.
They were willingly blind to what happens to men fail to perform adequately and who fail to take responsibility for their actions. The more a man performs and takes responsibility for his actions the more status and power (the ability to effect change for himself and in the World) he has. The less he performs and the less responsibility he takes, the more his level of status and power falls.
So, when women got equality, they were suddenly faced with the same challenges as men; having to perform and take responsibility.
Women then realised that this is difficult and inconvenient. Performing is time consuming, and drain on one’s energy and resources. Having to take responsibility means having to fully deal with the consequences of one’s actions, the positive and also negative.
Then women tried to make the level of “performance” so low that basically anyone could do it and tried to shirk any negative outcomes of poor decision making and failure to take responsibility by playing the victim and playing the blame game at every opportunity.
Women then decided they wanted to bypass having to perform and take responsibility altogether and go directly to where they have power and status.
Then women got frustrated, angry and bitter because men (and other women) won’t just give them the power and status without them having to earn it.
All the while; they STILL want to hold on to their “pre-equality” privileges of being protected and provided for by men.
“…that they [women] stick to their choice for life — and not just until they get bored or imagine they could do better on a second try (seldom true in any case).”
Marriage is not just a personal romantic/religious matter. It means registration with the government with all the legal elements which each government has decided. It would be in the interests of a pro-white government to permit only one marriage for each individual regardless of their sex. Otherwise, we continue with the mess we’ve got now.
However, no one should be forced to “stick to their choice for life” as you claim – that’s silly and you know it. Only one marriage = you don’t have to live together if that arrangement has proved to be intolerable, but you will not be permitted any further marriages. People, both men and women, can learn to live alone or shack up without any legal financial or property rights if they couldn’t make a go of it with their first try. Too bad; so sad.
When I was a child and teenager and my parents happened to mention that such & such in our village were “living common law”, this sounded bad, as if these shacker-uppers were some sort of disgusting abnormality, even though my parents never said any such thing.
As a 70s kid, naturally I got into my older bro’s books and comics when he wasn’t looking. Everything from Fangoria to humor books by the Berenstains, of Barenstain Bears fame. One of my best finds was a paperback book with a bright yellow cover, called “Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask” by a Dr. Rubin, Rubin one of those very Jewy names of course.
The book had a lot of facts, I’m sure, but it really zeroed in on various diseases and pathologies, both physical and mental. That Jewboy no doubt made a fortune on the thing. But its main two messages seemed to be that (a) sex was a minefield of diseases and pitfalls, and (b) if you didn’t have sex, and lots of it, as soon as you were physically able, you were going to end up some kind of mental case or unalive yourself or something.
This, by the way, is pretty much the Jewish view on sex, which is why they’re so rapey.
I wonder how much that piece of Jewish mind-warp influenced the whole generation or two of us, from the late 60s when the thing was first published to at least the 80s.
(Looking it up, it’s still going strong and a newer edition was published around 2000 or so.)
Yes, the answer to the question, is the answer to a different question, ” why does a rabbi own pornhub?”
Dr Devlin imagines himself a latter day John Galt instituting a marriage strike to force the entire female sex to the altar but his advice is of little use to individual young men who yearn for wives and families.
Conservative religious communities manage quite well at promoting & maintaining marriages & it is this sort of community in which young men should be involving themselves sincerely. But they must look to their prospective brides’ families & the women’s own beliefs about the sanctity of marriage to find assurance of their commitment to it, rather than legal relief.
Good info. Good interview.
Heard this definition of marriage in 1980’s: find a woman you hate and give her your house.
“First you’re born;
Life’s a bitch;
And then you die.”
Or, as a man said to me, “Or you meet one.”
I’d say that the so-called “sexual revolution” is working out exactly as its creators intended.
Bella abzug, Betty Fredan, Gloria Steinem, all loudly proclaimed that women would be better off single, that marriage just was exploitation. Of course, all three of them got married…
No fault divorce made the woman economically better off if she got a divorce.
If you’ve ever worked in a government office, you will see every single one of the supervisors, who they hire off the street, are White women. That does multiple things, makes the woman The breadwinner in the relationship, gives women undo power, makes the woman not want to start a family because it wouldn’t be profitable, and so on.
There’s multiple ways that they have attacked the family, yet you will see all the somalis, or whatever with three children, something that doesn’t happen but rarely, in the Europeans.
In short, Jews did this too undermine the predominant culture, something that they’re very good at..
Good article, there were some interesting points I hadn’t realized
Most people throughout most of human history have lived as Devlin recommends.
As he says, people have become too rich and comfortable to acknowledge what our ancestors took for reality.
The sexual instinct exists to maintain the species by reproduction. It exists, even if the function is culturally frustrated.
The human male has many sperm and the human female has one ovum; this is socially reflected in the male desire for many females, and the female desire for a loyal partner who protects her and her offspring.
The process has been thrown into confusion by effective contraception, abortion tolerance, female industrialisation, sexual deviation, atheist hedonism, burdensome parenthood and unprecedented pornography.
Blaming the Jews alone for all this is a bit naive, and will not solve the crucial catastrophe of racial suicide.
Karl Pearson, J. D. Unwin and Patricia Morgan deserve perusal even now.
“…this is socially reflected in the male desire for many females, and the female desire for a loyal partner who protects her and her offspring.”
You males can desire many females all you like, but us wimminz expect you to behave yourselves. Don’t tell us to look the other way just because men have a bunch of sperm and we have only a few eggs (which once they’re gone, they’re gone for good).
Women having jobs nowadays allows us to up and leave a cheating or mean husband, whereas in the past we’d just stick with the jerk because women didn’t have paid jobs and therefore, nowhere to go in most cases.
Now, most women are pretty weak, and after the divorce, they nevertheless go on the hunt for, yes, another man, preferably one who will marry them. SMH. Some women are on #3.
In sum: men have no right to a second wife, but women must be free to cast off their husband and look for another. This is what I have termed “rotating polyandry,” and it should not be tolerated.
@ FRD: Men most certainly still do have the legal right to search and marry a 2nd or 3rd wife, so I don’t understand what you mean. I know all kinds of men of various ages who are on #2. Not just shackups, but real wives. These “blended families” are pure schit. Confusion and conflict reign worse than any socalled dysfunctional marriage. Especially when one spouse dies and then there’s fights about division of assets. More employment & $$$ for lawyers!
But no one of either sex should be able to do this, not in any sane, sensible white dominated society. You don’t like your spouse? Split up. But no remarriages, at least not in the government-controlled legal sense (as I tried to described above in my comment of June 11, 2026 at 5:36 pm).
Rotating polyandry? That doesn’t exist here (a woman having 2 or more legal husbands at the same time). What we have, involving both sexes, is “serial monogamy”, a euphemistic term for people who keep trying and trying to get it right by remarrying and remarrying. A former friend of mine has dispensed with 3 husbands and God only knows what she’s up to now. She reminds me of Elizabeth Taylor, who felt that if she wanted to “sleep with” a man, she ought to marry him.
We need to have a situation of widespread poverty for just about everyone if staying with your one and only spouse forever is inherently important. Then and only then will women see that men do a lot of the heavy lifting that we females can’t. Of course, you need us, too, so both parties need to learn to “just get along”.
The US is the most Judaized country on the Earth right now, perhaps even more so than “israel”.
The US has also had an outsized influence on the rest of the world post-WWII, so that Jew-influence on the US does indeed amount to Jew-influence on the UK, Japan, etc.
So yes, while the Jews may not be 100% of the problem, they might certainly be 95% of the problem.
As for: “”just you wait. When millions of women finally realize they have no realistic prospect of obtaining any husband — and this is where we are headed — things will change so fast it will make your head spin.””
I rather doubt this.
Western women and their assorted “enablers” will keep doubling down.
When change does finally arrive, there will be asymmetries, some groups changing faster than others and any significant change will take at least a decade or two.
Thanks. White European culture has been distorted to such a great extent that the newer generations have no connection with the culture that produced their grandparents and great grandparents. Thus they cannot ‘feel’ the loss.
Everybody knows things are wrong and messed up, but the youth can’t make the connection as to why.
JBP, you have put your finger on the chief problem facing us. Young people need to be shown films and photos of better times, and told why and how the woke elite are depriving them of their ancestral heroes and achievements, in other words their own identity, security and future. Teenagers do not like being deceived. Britain, they can join “respectable” groups like the Royal Society of St George or the New Culture Forum, or more “far-right” activists: physical fitness, no drugs, no porn, instead quality literature. If the Muslims, Chinese and Jews can raise kids in traditions, so can the (present) ethnic majority. The “NEETS” are out there waiting for leadership. It can be done, and should be done.