Sexual Utopia in Power is a short book by American white-nationalist Roger Devlin (originally an article published in the white nationalist journal the Occidental Quarterly) which explains how the sexual revolution gave way to inceldom and led to the decline of monogamy in the west.
It is a favorite book among MGTOWs although incel people also generally agree with it, reaching many of the same conclusions without even hearing of the book. (Probably due to the books influence on the manosphere.)
It explores primarily the relationship between monogamy and natural female sexuality. He explains how the rise in divorse and decline in monogamy is causing inceldom. He argues that the sexual revolution has false advertising surrounding it and generally increased sexlessness. He also believes that society is becoming hyper-primitive with the liberation of natural female sexuality. That natural female sexual liberation leads to a Darwinian mating competition more similar to a Baboon pack than any other civilized society.
This leads into him criticizing what he calls “well meaning conservatives” i.e. tradcon illusions concerning the sexual motivations of females as being essentially monogamous in nature, with Devlin arguing women are instead hypergamous, using James Bond as an example of a man universally desirable mate to women, in other words what would later be called a Chad in the incelosphere.
He then describes two sexual “utopias” from which the title of the work derives: the male utopia of limitless sexual promiscuity and sexual access and the female utopia of obtaining the highest quality mate and implausibly being able to secure commitment from him. He goes on to describe to ideal form this utopia takes in the female mind, using an example from the Ancient Greek reactionary and satirist Aristophanes’s work, Ecclesiazusae, where the women of the city of Athens seize power in a coup, establish a proto-communist regime and then proceed to force the most handsome man in the city to have sex with all the women starting with the least attractive.
He then goes on to criticize the feminist idea of sexual double standard regarding promiscuity, with it being supposedly socially valued in men and deplored in women. Devlin argues against this view claiming that in traditional societies promiscuous men frequently fall under social and legal sanction, and in any case due to women being the “choosers” of when a sexual encounter will occur, women are therefore ultimately to blame for being pumped and dumped.
He then details the then incipient rise of “rape hysteria” in the west, detailing what he describes as a trend of sexually inexperienced young men being accused of rape by their jilted lovers during college casual sexual encounters. He argues that there exists a double standard of women engaging in promiscuity and crying rape when they face the social and moral consequences of these acts, and that women should be held responsible for their own actions in this regard.
Anticipating the #me-too movement, and inverting a common feminist argument (i.e. the personal being political), he argues this desire to protect women will lead to “a policeman in every bedroom” and sees it ultimately becoming a threat to the then status quo of political liberalism in western countries.
He then goes on to criticize the concept of “date rape” and what he considers the feminist re-definition and weaponisation against men of the concept of rape in general. He goes on to argue that this feminist hostility towards men leads to the objectification of men and encourages women to take a callous and instrumental view of men.
He argues this feminist definition of rape is increasingly leading to men becoming what the manosphere would call Redpilled about women’s nature and avoiding long-term engagements with women, seeking instead to pump-and dump. He then argues that what women consider sexual harassment is merely women resisting traditional courtship behavior from unattractive men. He ominously states that this hostility towards men will result in increased violence and victimization of women by men disabused of their chivalrous conditioning and the dissipation of men’s natural tendency to protect women from violence.
He then goes on the argue that the sexual revolution has failed in its touted goal of ending sexual frustration by promoting “free love”. He points out due to the natural human birth ratio producing more male offspring then female and women’s natural tendency towards hypergamy, that allowing women unimpeded sexual license will lead to the sexual dynamics of the great apes becoming apparent in human society, with the “top men” monopolizing the majority of women. He argues this results in a vicious spiral due to the female mammalian instinct of mate-choice copying (pre-selection) resulting in the cementing of a polygynous status quo.
He then goes on to describe what he sees as an increasing phenomenon of female spinsters who eschew sexual relations with men in their prime years of fertility. He argues that these women are merely voluntarily celibate women whose hypergamy is so out of control (due to the influence of the mass media expanding women’s horizons in terms of the attractiveness of men they are exposed to) that they see the vast majority of men as beneath them, until they hit The Wall and then are shocked and outraged when men who have adapted to the new sexual paradigm refuse to commit to them.
He then details the ways in which he perceives that feminism has made many women unmarriageble; by making them hostile to the sexual advances of men and teaching them to view them in a defensive manner, by increasingly female promiscuity, and by encouraging un-feminine and uncouth behavior. He observed that if women had behaved in this manner throughout all history, the human race would hence be extinct.
The next part of the work deals with what Devlin describes as “the forgotten men”,
He states that there exists a “silent majority” of sex starved young men who fail to complain about their plight due to male bravado, instead spending their youth toiling away in the hopes of eventually being able to provide for a prospective mate. He then details that men see getting “used goods” that other men got in in their prime for free as a bad deal and are instead going their own way. He states that white women are the new “white mans burden” that they are beginning to shrug off.
He then describes what he sees as a “sexual thermidor” (i.e. a state of mass hysteria compared to the French revolutionary terror presided over by the Jacobins where thousands were sentenced to death and guillotined without due process) developing where men are being terrorized into avoiding socializing all together with women out of fear of false and/or frivolous sexual harassment and rape claims.
Revealing his white nationalist beliefs, he deplores the effects this climate of hostility and disturbed relations between the sexes, and the declining marriage rate in the west will have on the white race, alluding to the trend of white men seeking foreign brides instead of their own womem, and declining birth rates.
In the final part of the work, he outlines what he sees as the solutions to the problems he has described, preceding the intellectual Jordan Peterson’s argument for “enforced monogamy”. He claims that men have the upper hand in the relations between the sexes stating that only men who still play by the old rules are holding men back from “settling accounts” with women. He calls for the government to get out of enforcing the marriage contract, instead calling for a libertarian-style direct marriage contract between spouses. He states this will no longer force men to be Cuckolded and cheated out of their wealth by their unfaithful spouses.
He argues that women who complain of “date rape” should be forced to hold a shotgun marriage with their purported rapists, arguing they will be too busy rearing children to quibble about feminist notions of consent. He calls for women that make false harassment accusations to be publicly added to a register to be “named and shamed” saying this will make them act in a more circumspect manner. He then calls for an end to co-ed schools, arguing that they encourage promiscuity in women, lead men to be distracted from their studies, and opined that men will be more likely to marry if due to inexperience they will likely have a more naive view of female nature.
Finally, he makes a spirited argument for enforced monogamy, appealing to natural law. He states that due to (in his view) men’s natural superiority over women monogamy is more to women’s and societies benefit then men’s, and this justifies the imposition of it on women by men. He echoes the anthropologist J. D. Unwin in claiming that monogamy is a requisite for a stable, strong society and claiming that the west will be conquered by a culture that still enforces it if it fails to restore it.
When it was published it reached #1 on Amazon under “feminist theory” (not kidding).
Link to copy of the original article in the Occidental Quarterly
This page contains text from an editor (Altmark) who released his text under CC-BY-4.0. If using the material under this license, you may credit it as: Altmark, William et al, unless stated to credit otherwise. Most other pages on this wiki we declare as unlicensed to re-use outside of here unless expressely stated by email and under the conditions listed in the email.