[Days of Broken Arrows]

F. Roger Devlin is back with a new article at Counter Currents that's titled "The Question of Female Masochism."

Devlin has been a big influence on the manosphere. Back in 2008, his "Home Economics" series of articles defined a lot of what we now call "Red Pill Thinking."

I don't want to give spoilers on this well-written piece, but to summarize: it looks at why people are reluctant to openly discuss the real reasons behind why women often choose brutal or abusive men as lovers. He dismisses Freudian psychology and feminist denial and delves into what makes women tick with ideas like this:

"We are attracted to qualities in the opposite sex which our own sex lacks. For many women, this means an attraction to male brutality. Such women may claim to want a sensitive fellow who is in touch with his feelings, but this bears no relation to their behavior."

His statements on women's denial of their own sexual urges ties right into the recent story about how that was displayed when women's sexual arousal was measured by researchers during a "vaginal probe study."

The forthcoming "50 Shades of Grey" movie makes this a timely article and I hope a lot of people searching for answers about why that book was so popular somehow find this. Oddly, he omits any mention of "50 Shades."

He also doesn't mention the British writer Theodore Dalrymple, but Dalrymple's 2001 book "Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass" came to many of the same conclusions with its stories about nurses whose lives consisted of choosing one abusive man after another (lots of links here).

[Paracelsus]

It will be very interesting to see what business "50 Shades" does. Over here in Perth, Western Australia (so your mileage may vary on applicability) they've already sold 750 pre-order tickets, and the show doesn't open for three months or so. Methinks there'll be many hamster wheels a-whirling if it proves to be a blockbuster.

[Isaac Jordan]

Quote:

The battle of the sexes is a contest of force vs. cunning. Yes, civilized men learn to control their aggressive impulses and not beat women up every time they feel irritation with them. In the modern West, men have largely renounced the use of their natural weapon for controlling women, i.e., force. Have women renounced the use of their own weapons against men? Certainly we cannot expect women to shed millennial evolutionary adaptations automatically the instant men learn to behave.

People have forgotten, due to thousands of years of civilization, that man is simply an animal.

Go back far enough, before technology and agriculture, and you'll see that humans are just another species of ape. Like all animals, we evolved over millions of years, with much of our biological "software" (such as our sexual desires) passed on to us by our ancient forebears, and molded over time by the environments we found ourselves in. Civilization attempted to harness our animal nature in order to direct society towards worthwhile endeavors.

The problem, as Devlin states above, is that it's easy to rein in man's innate proclivity towards violence and brutality. The worst part of our nature manifests itself in visible, blatant forms (murder, rape, etc.) that can be controlled through a system of justice.

The darker side of woman's nature-that she is attracted to the dominance and aggression so easily visible in men-is much harder to detect. Not only is the act of choosing aggressive men less discernible than the actions of those men, but this predilection for violence is hidden beneath a veneer of neotenous innocence and beauty.

Add to that the fact that women are biologically more valuable than men, and you have a recipe for a world where man's faults are serious issues constantly on display, while woman's faults are considered at best innocuous and at worst nonexistent.

Our ancestors understood our animal nature; books like the Bible are filled with warnings and history lessons designed to teach us how to recognize and control our primal instincts. (There's a reason the very first story in Genesis describes a woman testing her man by assuming control, and the man failing that test by not putting her in her place.)

We as a society have forgotten these lessons, and we're slowly seeing our animal nature seep back into the civilizational construct.

[Akula]

Thanks for this link. This guy is pretty interesting to read just discovering him now.

He nails it in that other article "Home Economics" you referenced which is about the current state of affairs between women & men and the disaster that marriage and relationships are these days. It also touches on the "women-desiring bad boys" meme.

Some excerpts:

"But whether based upon knowledge or pleasing illusion, the regard in which our civilization has held women depends utterly upon their practice of monogamy, and makes no sense apart from it. As long as cases of female adultery were few enough, they could be passed off to men as freaks of nature, akin to two-headed babies. When, on the other hand, wives in their millions act upon the feminist plan of "liberation," walk out on their husbands, separate them from their children, bankrupt them in divorce court, and shack up with other men, that system breaks down. That is where we are today.

To my mind, the most remarkable feature of the revolution we have undergone is the time lag between the changes in women's behavior and changes in men's attitude toward them. Men often strain to blame their own sex for what has gone wrong, though the natural disadvantage of the male's position makes his primary responsibility unlikely on a priori grounds: since women have greater control over the mating process, they are inherently likelier than men to be at the root of any fundamental breakdown in family formation and stability.

It seems that many men have an emotional need to believe in the inherent virtue or innocence of women, a bit of sentimentality akin to the Romantics' cult of childhood. Even today, under a burgeoning feminist police-state, male commentators not infrequently berate their own sex for an allegedly insufficient appreciation of the lofty claims of womanhood. The kindest thing one might say of such men is that they are condemning themselves to irrelevance. A somewhat less kind judgment might be that they are collaborators.

The chivalrous view of women is helpful for keeping in check the naturally wayward desires of young husbands in a substantially monogamous society; it is useless or positively harmful in a society being run by spoiled and tyrannical females who have "liberated" themselves from domestic obligations. As usual, conservatives are busy calling for the barn door to be shut long after the horse has run off. Our task today is not to "safeguard" or "protect" marriage but to rebuild it almost from scratch. The strategy for doing so will necessarily be different from the strategy for defending it when it was merely under threat."

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_home_ec_01.htm

[sylo]

Thanks for bumping this, really facinating stuff.

[zombiejimmorrison]

Quote:

"We are attracted to qualities in the opposite sex which our own sex lacks. For many women, this means an attraction to male brutality. Such women may claim to want a sensitive fellow who is in touch with his feelings, but this bears no relation to their behavior"

It's interesting but to say that women are behaving or aren't capable of violence (brutality) is still white knighting women and not holding them responsible. They have as much tendencies for violence and war as men, feminism is just that. Armed by the state they're as callous and greedy as men.

Its simple they crave power in all forms just like men do, power over others ensures their offspring lives.

[Renzy]

(04-17-2015 06:14 AM)Akula Wrote:  

Thanks for this link. This guy is pretty interesting to read just discovering him now.

Just for reference, he has a whole set of articles here:

https://dontmarry.wordpress.com/2009/03/...er-devlin/

I really enjoyed reading through them - they read like a scholarly underpinning of many red-pill concepts.

There is one on female infidelity that I found particularly interesting: Rotating Polyandry—and its Enforcers:

Quote:

Women often speak of seeking “commitment” from men, but this would seem to imply a preference for marriage-minded men over others. Langley observed the very opposite tendency in her interviewees:

Quote:

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.

Much uninformed and superficial commentary on the sexual revolution assumes that “men want sex while women want marriage.” Langley draws a valid distinction: women want to get married, not to be married. They often love not so much their husbands as their bridal-fantasy in which the man serves as a necessary prop.

[joseywales]

I just started reading the "Home Economics" that the OP linked. Man, that is really good stuff!

I really like his alternate approach towards feminism.

[Foolsgo1d]

Genuine question.

Has anyone experience with a woman whose past involves violent boyfriends? Does being dominant with violence (within reason) keep them satisfied or are they after more outside the bedroom?

I've only encountered two women with abusive boyfriends and keeping them in check was like an arms race.

[realologist]

(04-18-2015 07:28 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

Genuine question.

Has anyone experience with a woman whose past involves violent boyfriends? Does being dominant with violence (within reason) keep them satisfied or are they after more outside the bedroom?

I've only encountered two women with abusive boyfriends and keeping them in check was like an arms race.

I've been with a few women like that and they crave violence. They will start arguments and try to coax you into hitting them, hitting someone else, or breaking something. Once you display that, they will get extremely turned on and want you to fuck their brains out. The sex will be crazy good too.

They are not worth it because they crave more and more violence like an addict. You have to keep pushing the envelope more and more to turn them on. These girls have tons of mental problems and are obviously a huge legal risk that could bite you in the ass at any moment.

[Grange]

(04-18-2015 08:38 AM)realologist Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 07:28 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

Genuine question.

Has anyone experience with a woman whose past involves violent boyfriends? Does being dominant with violence (within reason) keep them satisfied or are they after more outside the bedroom?

I've only encountered two women with abusive boyfriends and keeping them in check was like an arms race.

I've been with a few women like that and they crave violence. They will start arguments and try to coax you into hitting them, hitting someone else, or breaking something. Once you display that, they will get extremely turned on and want you to fuck their brains out. The sex will be crazy good too.

They are not worth it because they crave more and more violence like an addict. You have to keep pushing the envelope more and more to turn them on. These girls have tons of mental problems and are obviously a huge legal risk that could bite you in the ass at any moment.

How many women like this are there out in the wild? Looking back I guess I must have encountered some but didn't get far enough in to discover it. Like I met them and thought "what the fuck is her problem" and bailed. How many of the girls we think are just plain cunty are in it for the violence?

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(04-18-2015 10:00 AM)Grange Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 08:38 AM)realologist Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 07:28 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

Genuine question.

Has anyone experience with a woman whose past involves violent boyfriends? Does being dominant with violence (within reason) keep them satisfied or are they after more outside the bedroom?

I've only encountered two women with abusive boyfriends and keeping them in check was like an arms race.

I've been with a few women like that and they crave violence. They will start arguments and try to coax you into hitting them, hitting someone else, or breaking something. Once you display that, they will get extremely turned on and want you to fuck their brains out. The sex will be crazy good too.

They are not worth it because they crave more and more violence like an addict. You have to keep pushing the envelope more and more to turn them on. These girls have tons of mental problems and are obviously a huge legal risk that could bite you in the ass at any moment.

How many women like this are there out in the wild? Looking back I guess I must have encountered some but didn't get far enough in to discover it. Like I met them and thought "what the fuck is her problem" and bailed. How many of the girls we think are just plain cunty are in it for the violence?

Violence falls under the category of drama. And I would say every woman craves drama to some degree. The trick is to calibrate. Most of the time, this is done unconsciously, which is why some couples click immediately.

For some women, the only drama they seek is the constant backbiting and gossip that goes on between women. They would prefer not to get it from men, which is why these types tend to be with squishy Beta guys.

But some want more. The problem comes when the woman wants a lot of drama, but the guy doesn't. What you should do is listen carefully. If she says (like one of mine did) that she spent a whole year dating one guy while fucking his best friend secretly, you have to amp the drama way up in that department.

If she says a former boyfriend/husband beat her up, you don't necessarily need to be smacking her around, but the occasional insult or nasty judgement of her character will do.* This can backfire, if you're not careful.

The 21-year-old me would have been appalled at reading this. Yet the 21-year-old me lost a longtime girlfriend because I wasn't giving her enough drama/aggression -- something she told me directly. When I finally got really pissed off at her during our final argument, she said something like "Now you're turning me on!" She was 19 and I was 21. I didn't understand this then. Live and learn.

* Not responsible for giving Jezebel lurkers a heart attack -- or an orgasm -- with that mean-spirited comment. Hehe.

[realologist]

(04-18-2015 10:00 AM)Grange Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 08:38 AM)realologist Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 07:28 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

Genuine question.

Has anyone experience with a woman whose past involves violent boyfriends? Does being dominant with violence (within reason) keep them satisfied or are they after more outside the bedroom?

I've only encountered two women with abusive boyfriends and keeping them in check was like an arms race.

I've been with a few women like that and they crave violence. They will start arguments and try to coax you into hitting them, hitting someone else, or breaking something. Once you display that, they will get extremely turned on and want you to fuck their brains out. The sex will be crazy good too.

They are not worth it because they crave more and more violence like an addict. You have to keep pushing the envelope more and more to turn them on. These girls have tons of mental problems and are obviously a huge legal risk that could bite you in the ass at any moment.

How many women like this are there out in the wild? Looking back I guess I must have encountered some but didn't get far enough in to discover it. Like I met them and thought "what the fuck is her problem" and bailed. How many of the girls we think are just plain cunty are in it for the violence?

Most women are not like this. They all like dominance but they don't need it to be as extreme to turn them on.

The only ones you see that bad are the ones that constantly hop from boyfriend to boyfriend to beat their ass. I figure the reason they like that is because that's probably what their father did so it transfers into their choice of men because they still love their father.

For general cunty behavior of women I don't think they want violence. They really just need a man to put them in their place verbally with a dominant demeanor and that will remove that cuntyness and turn them on.

There is a lack of masculine men in our society now and that is what these women crave. Putting up that front will weed out a lot of weak men. Now if you pass through that and fuck her hard on top of that. She will revert to being feminine very quickly.

[Conscious Pirate]

Wow DoBA. Thanks so much for this post.

Just read the Home Economics series of essays. It is the most concise & well put argument against Feminism as an ideology in practice that I've ever read. It also spells out the reasons why marriage in today's social context is untenable for men & completely off the cards for me.

Like reading an updated Mencken.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

For those who have followed F. Roger Devlin's writings, Dalrock is reporting that he has a new book out -- one that looks like it's a compendium of his articles.

This book seems like a good way to get his best writings all in one place. And the title is sure to amuse this crowd: " Sexual Utopia in Power: The Feminist Revolt Against Civilization."

Here is the Amazon link.

It kind of sucks I just learned of this today, because if I had time, I'd have ordered the hardcover as a deluxe Father's Day gift for my dad. Why not?

Table of contents:

Introduction: The Facts of Life
1. Sexual Utopia in Power
2. Rotating Polyandry—& its Enforcers
3. The Female Sexual Counter-Revolution and its Limitations
4. Home Economics
5. The Family Way
6. Back to Africa: Sexual Atavism in the Modern West
7. The Question of Female Masochism

[Conscious Pirate]

^^^ Much appreciated DoBA. Looking forward to this read.

and at $4.51 AUD...



Edit: just realised I can't rep you again. +1 anyway.

[Samseau]

Wasn't too impressed with this essay. Honestly Devlin's observations aren't that original here; Roissy was the first writer in the manosphere to talk about how women love jerks, badboy's, cads, and of course abusive violent psychopaths.

The real question is to what degree to women like violent men? Is it a little or a lot? Is it based on culture, race, or both? Do women take advantage of provoking men in order to control them via proxy of other men? There is some evidence to suggest that women have been doing this shit for a looooong time:

http://purplemotes.net/2013/01/27/chariv...nequality/

Quote:

A charivari, also variously called a skimmington ride and riding the stang, is a historical folk custom expressing public disapproval of personal behavior. Domestic violence was a common motive for a charivari. A man who beat his wife in southern England early in the nineteenth century could awaken at night to a noisy crowd, dancing in a frenzy around a bonfire outside his door. They would be “a motley assembly with hand-bells, gongs, cow-horns, whistles, tin kettles, rattles, bones, {and} frying-pans.” An orator would identify the wife-beater’s house with a signal chant:

There is a man in this place
Has beat his wife!!
Has beat his wife!!
It is a very great shame and disgrace
To all who live in this place,
It is indeed upon my life!! [1]

Conversely, if a man was beaten by his wife he would also be publically shamed and ridiculed:

Quote:

The husband, in contrast, was also the subject of the charivari if he was beaten by his wife. In France about 1400, husbands beaten by their wives were “paraded on an ass, face to tail.”[3] In England, a mural in Montacute House (constructed about 1598) shows a wife beating her husband with a shoe and then a crowd parading the husband on a cowlstaff. Samuel Pepys recorded in his diary, 10 June 1667: “in the afternoon took boat and down to Greenwich, where I find the stairs full of people, there being a great riding there to-day for a man, the constable of the town, whose wife beat him.”[4]

So historically, if a man beat his wife his neighbors would kick the shit out of him, yet if a man took the abuse his neighbors would also kick the shit out of him for being a pussy.

Seems to me female masochism and sadism has been around for a damn long time, and the reason they get away with it is because men are simply too eager to white knight. Always have been, always will be.

The real problem is the white knight problem. Unless these guys are dealt with, all men will continue to suffer.

[Aenigmarius]

Quote:

Langley draws a valid distinction: women want to get married, not to be married.

This is such a great point. I wish I had understood this years and years ago.

Quote:

The real problem is the white knight problem

I think the real problem is the pervasiveness of moral relativism, and the skewing of societal values at large.

Today, a woman who cheats on her husband is applauded, not shamed. An accomplished scientist who wears a "sexist" shirt is the one publicly shamed.

We still trot people out on asses to be mocked in the town square, we just do it for all the wrong reasons... like telling the truth about PC issues.

[Samseau]

(06-19-2015 09:00 AM)Aenigmarius Wrote:  

Quote:

Langley draws a valid distinction: women want to get married, not to be married.

This is such a great point. I wish I had understood this years and years ago.

Quote:

The real problem is the white knight problem

I think the real problem is the pervasiveness of moral relativism, and the skewing of societal values at large.

Today, a woman who cheats on her husband is applauded, not shamed. An accomplished scientist who wears a "sexist" shirt is the one publicly shamed.

We still trot people out on asses to be mocked in the town square, we just do it for all the wrong reasons... like telling the truth about PC issues.

Moral relativists are exactly what white knights are. They refuse to acknowledge the truth of women. Furthermore, they are willing to throw Truth under the bus because they believe it will help them get laid. Most white knights get zero sex: hence they are more than willing to hurt other men if it means they can be the crab to climb out of the bucket.

[Aenigmarius]

I see your point, and I'm not really trying to argue against it. I just think that white knights are a subset of the larger problem: moral relativism and the decay of societal values. White knights are a part of that, but it also goes above and beyond white knights.

[MrLemon]

(06-19-2015 10:32 AM)Aenigmarius Wrote:  

I see your point, and I'm not really trying to argue against it. I just think that white knights are a subset of the larger problem: moral relativism and the decay of societal values. White knights are a part of that, but it also goes above and beyond white knights.

I love moral relativism. It enables me to prey on the weak.

[Rhyme or Reason]

My favorite Devlin quote (from sexual utopia in power)

Quote:

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?