Required Reading: F. Roger Devlin vs. Gov’t Enforced Rotating Polyandry

I’m not sure if I buy into the whole strict alpha vs. beta dichotomy, but there is invariably some truth to it.  Richard Hoste at HBD Books has a new post up dealing with the topic of statutory (non-forced) rape.  Here’s his take:

“But if we’re going to say that it’s ok for young girls to have sex with boys their own age, why is it a type of rape for them to have sex with older men?  Perhaps it’s because a 14 year-old boy who can have sex with a girl his age is alpha.  A 30 year-old man prowling chatrooms looking for partners that young isn’t and inspires disgust.  It’s not about protecting girls from any old thing.  There’s a world out there for them. At this point of their lives there’s only one enemy that must be dealt with.  The beta male.  (Adult alphas aren’t part of the equation as they’re picking up the legals)”

While I don’t agree with him here, it’s hard to argue with the observation that many of our laws, and their enforcement, are designed to inoculate women, at the expense of men, against the consequences of their sexual decisions in the post-Women’s Lib era.

This reminded me of a great article I had read earlier, from The Occidental Quarterly, by F. Roger Devlin, entitled Rotating Polyandry-And Its Enforcers  [Note:  It no longer appears to be available online.].  Devlin combines book reviews of Women’s Infidelity:  Living in Limbo by Michelle Langley and Taken into Custody:  The War against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family by Stephen Baskerville to argue the following:

1) That there is “a natural four-year cycle for the human female…[which] apparently allows enough time after childbirth for the average mother in a state of savagery to regain her ability to survive without male provisioning.  [And that] in the absence of any system of marriage, a woman’s natural tendency is to ‘liberate’ herself from her mate at that point.”  [Women’s Infidelity]  And that…

2) Our current system of divorce/child-custody/child support laws and their enforcement acts as a “brutal police-state machinery” which enables women to follow this cycle of spousal abandonment, yet still receive all of the material benefits of marriage from enslaved ex-husbands who receive no matrimonial-type rewards (child visitation rights, shared household labor, sexual monogamy) in return.  [Taken into Custody]  And that…

3) This constitutes a nation-wide system of government-sponsored “rotating polyandry” enforced at gunpoint by the various alphabet soup agencies of our various levels of government.

The first book/premise doesn’t really have to do with the topic of this blog, so I won’t touch that one…but the second book/premise…  I plan on buying Taken into Custody soon based on this review.  Apparently it’s full of horror stories documenting the two-tiered legal system that men/husbands/fathers face when attempting to secure their rights, such as parental visitation.  A good excerpt:

“Whatever the outcome of the trial, for the rest of [the father’s] children’s childhood they and he will live under constant surveillance and control by the court.  He will be told when he can see his children, what he can do with them, where he can take them…what religious services he may (or must) attend with them and what subjects he may discuss with them in private…He can be ordered to work certain hours and at certain jobs, the earnings from which will be confiscated…If he loses his job or is hospitalized he will be declared a felon and jailed for failure to pay child support.  His home can be entered by officials of the court…”

Apparently at least one man was “threatened with prison unless he signed a [false] preprinted confession” admitting to physical and emotional abuse of his wife.

According to Devlin’s review, the author also argues that the widespread image of the proverbial “deadbeat dad” is really just a myth.

In my opinion, child-support/alimony laws, as they exist and are interpreted today, are the essence of using our legal system to force men to pay for the consequences of women’s sexual decisions, particularly at the expense of “beta’s.”  Prior to welfare, “beta’s” at least had a competitive niche that they could fill in the mating market.  Women had a choice.  They could sleep with a cad “alpha” who would leave them when they got pregnant, or they could “lower their standards” and accept a loyal “beta,” along with the accompanying emotional and financial security.  Hey, they may not be the best looking guys on the planet, but if you got knocked up, they would take care of you.  Once welfare came along, women didn’t need that financial security.  They could go ahead and sleep with the “alpha,” get pregnant, and then let the state pay the bills.  But welfare reform changed all that, which is why it is no coincidence that it coincided with the imposition of draconian “child support” laws.  The “child support” laws of today are the betas’ revenge.  “Let the alphas pay.”  This is misguided…it doesn’t matter to the woman who pays…she still gets the alpha…and the check…whether that check comes from the state or the alpha.  Advantage:  Alpha.  If betas were smart, they would seek to weaken “child support” laws while maintaining past welfare reform.  Right now, yes, they’re hurting alphas, but at no benefit to themselves.  United we stand, divided we fall!


Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: