/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11654778]

>"Houellebecq, then, has been hailed as an ambassador for a cultural and political populism that seems, at every moment, to teeter perilously on the verge of reactionary backlash. His work certaily seems to articulate the ressentiment of white, middle-aged, middle-class men, a 'low masculine anger' executed in a volley, not just of 'political incorrectness' [...] but also of philosophical and intellectual incorrectness too. In a prose style that is as banally flat as it is captivating, he writes of badly dressed and unnatractive loners; of men who masturbate frequently but who can't find sex; men who blame their inability to find erotic and romantic fulfilment on the neoliberal systen that has introduced a Darwinist element into the hitherto protected domaints of sexual and affective life."

Is this accurate?

[Anonymous No.11654796]

>>11654778
Yeah, more or less.

[Anonymous No.11654805]

>>11654778
You are asking reactionary incels that question? Do you also go to /pol/, post a anti-anti-semitic quote and ask if it's accurate?

[Anonymous No.11654836]

>>11654778
I just finished 'The Elementary Particles'. Man, is Houllebecq based and redpilled or what?

[Anonymous No.11654872]

I *liked* Houellebecq and this seems true. I'm a sexless virgin male and I feel that there are more important and vital creative outlets than writing about 'sexual capitalism'. Atomised is a beautiful book, but I'll probably never read it more than once.

I can't live my life obsessing over how I'm not getting sex.

[Anonymous No.11654901]

>>11654872
>I can't live my life obsessing over how I'm not getting sex.

You can and will actually. You'll be back soon enough

[Anonymous No.11654923]

>>11654872
>I can't live my life obsessing over how I'm not getting sex.
it's literally the only thing in life worth obsessing over

[Anonymous No.11654934]

>>11654778
Houellebecq is the foremost diagnostician of the ills of our time.

[Anonymous No.11654940]

>>11654778
Kind of but it gets a lot of stuff wrong.

[Anonymous No.11654956]

I find his books really comfy actually.

[Anonymous No.11654962]

[Anonymous No.11654963]

>>11654901
>>11654923
Atheist trash.

[Anonymous No.11654972]

>>11654963
The lack of sexual contact today is the foremost extremity of a genuine lack of love and compassion between people today. It is a very Christian demand for you to seek a partner and to be frustrated with a world that denies you that possibility

[Anonymous No.11654984]

>>11654972
Yes, it's good to marry and have sex. But it's not as fulfilling as an intimate connection with God.

[Anonymous No.11654986]

All-Good and Merciful Lord, I know that any enduring happiness in my life dependeth upon my wholehearted love for Thee and upon mine actions according to Thy holy will in all things; wherefore, direct my soul, O God, and fill my heart. I seek to please Thee alone, for Thou art my Creator and my God. Preserve me from pride and self-love. Let reason, modesty and chastity adorn me. Idleness is hateful unto Thee and breedeth vice; grant unto me the inclination to be fruitful in labor, and bless Thou my work.

Thy law commandeth that man and wife live in chaste matrimonial union; wherefore lead me, Holy Father, to this blessed calling not for the satisfaction of passions but unto the fulfillment of Thy commandment; for Thou hast said that it is not good that man should live alone and, having created woman as his helper, Thou blessest them to be fruitful and multiply that they may fill the earth.

Hear my humble prayer, which ascendeth unto Thee from the depths of my heart: Grant unto me an honest and pious spouse that, through our love and harmony, together we may praise Thee, our Compassionate God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages.

Amen.

[Anonymous No.11655012]

>>11654984
To love the good in his creation is to love God. All we have is what He gives to us and as such there is no choice to be made between Eve and God. As was for the prophets, as was for Joseph as is for us.

[Anonymous No.11655077]

>>11654778
>men who blame their inability to find erotic and romantic fulfilment on the neoliberal systen that has introduced a Darwinist element into the hitherto protected domaints of sexual and affective life.
It's not just a situation where resentful men attempt to find excuses for why they can't get laid, this is genuinely the case.

[Anonymous No.11655097]

>>11654805
I'm not a reactionary incel.

I'm a Left-leaning virgin.

[Anonymous No.11655109]

>>11654778
How do you debunk Houellebecq? It's not like what he's saying isn't supported by data.

[Anonymous No.11655205]

>>11654934

[Anonymous No.11655229]

>>11655205
Based Goonan poster

[Anonymous No.11655310]

>>11655012
I don't fuck the things I love

[Anonymous No.11655328]

>>11655109
I don't know, but I'd love to read some serious dusicussion about what societies are supposed to do with the men (in a post sexual revolution era) that don't make the grade. If it was 1% of men we could just stick out fingers in our ears, but if its 20, 30%? It needs at least discussing beyond 'men aren't entitled to women' and 'improve yourself'. Self-improvement may help an individual but it does nothing for the overall issue, if we accept that attractiveness/status is relative to the other men around...there will always be a bottom 30% of men who women simply don't want. And of course then statistically we have 30% of women who are single and don't want to be.

[Anonymous No.11655337]

>>11655310
Yeah clearly not virgin

[Anonymous No.11655345]

>>11654901
>>11654923
The male drive for sex is comparable to the female need to have a baby. Its their role in the perpetuation of the species. People don't blithely tell infertile women 'oh get a hobby or something' and if they were truly being fair in their view of men and women they wouldn't say the same thing to men.

[Anonymous No.11655395]

>>11655328
We figured this shit out millennia ago with monogamy. Once those women have been alone for long enough they'll settle for these suboptimal men, but those men will often have to be willing to raise kids who aren't theirs.

[Anonymous No.11655427]

>>11655395
>, but those men will often have to be willing to raise kids who aren't theirs.

This is not how situations went for most of millenia. Single mothers were ostacized and their illegitimate kids usually taken off them

[Anonymous No.11655493]

>>11655427
I know. That's the one compromise men with shitty genes will have to make now

[Anonymous No.11655554]

>>11655328
>>11655395
I have women on social media with high paid jobs, attended prestige colleges etc who without irony announce to their friends that they are 'finally a mother' and how theyre so happy to now have a family...they're talking about buying a cat or a dog. Of course this is delusional and somewhat odd behavior, but it seems to be doing at least something for them. Now, the men: they will just have to find a way to be happy alone. Do the normal things that are recommended to retired people etc, ie have as many social experiences as you can, have social hobbies, volunteer for a charity etc.

[Anonymous No.11656110]

>>11655328
>If it was 1% of men we could just stick out fingers in our ears, but if its 20, 30%?
>The CDC also reports that virgins make up 12.3 percent of females and 14.3 percent of males aged 20 to 24. That number drops below 5 percent for both male and female virgins aged 25 to 29 and goes as low as 0.3 percent for virgins aged 40 to 44.
So no, virgins are basically negligible as people get older.

[Anonymous No.11656227]

I think that inceldom is not authentically a sex problem but rather depressive misanthropy which identifies sex as the problem as a method to find a common enemy (i.e. Staceys and Chads). If these people actually engaged in other health practices and sought fulfillment (e.g. diet, exercise, sleep, hobbies, personal development, altruism, etc.) they would not be so distraught about not getting laid. While misogynistic, volcels are at least respectable insofar as they turn their nose up at what they evaluate as evil and seek what they evaluate as good instead.

[Anonymous No.11656249]

>>11656227
You are a woman.

[Anonymous No.11656276]

>>11656227
Most so called incels aren't even incel, they could easily get a prostitute.

Real incels are third world poorfags who live in remote villages in conservative societies where there aren't any whores and sex outside of wedlock gets you killed and you're not rich enough to get a bride or something.

[Anonymous No.11656287]

>>11656227
why does being volcel make me misogynistic?

[Anonymous No.11656293]

>>11656227
Dude just b happy lmao

[Anonymous No.11656344]

>>11656249
Ok sweaty
>>11656276
>Most so called incels aren't even incel, they could easily get a prostitute.
I agree with you only insofar as incel is used to signify involuntary celibates. However, I feel that incel is also useful to describe the generalized malaise milieu which writers like Houellebecq, Pessoa, Kafka, and Schopenhauer serve as effective examplars of. Tao Lin is also a useful example: although his recent Trip indicates the beginning of a slow ascent to relative social adjustment and personal joy, for most of his career he has been the epitome of the autistic depressive, which is particularly evident in video interviews despite having previously dated and gotten laid, and as such I feel more comfortable applying the term incel to him than to a definitional incel who is nonetheless a functional, adaptive being.
>>11656287
It does not necessarily, especially given the picture you paired with you post, but it is important to acknowledge that some volcels take up the title specifically because they regard women as subhuman or otherwise reprehensible and therefore not worth investing time or energy in.

[Anonymous No.11656393]

>stronger than random thot on the street
>incel

it's more like voluntary celibacy is incentivized by laws / society

[Anonymous No.11656509]

>>11656393
it's those laws why women walk the street alone in the first place. if those laws weren't in place women would be accompanied by a male family member at all times when outside of the house and little twink incels still couldn't get any.

[Anonymous No.11656519]

>>11656344
i know what type of type you mean but incel seems inaccurate since plenty of those lads got laid a lot. they need a different phrase.

[Anonymous No.11656582]

>>11656509
hence "society"

[Anonymous No.11656653]

>>11656519
Incel is the most concentrated, most communal form of depressive realist ideology I am currently aware of.

[Anonymous No.11656691]

>>11654778
his points share territory with the points that populists and reactionaries make but he comes from a different place. his perspective is more intellectual and his attitude more of resignation, compared to anger which is the mode of populists and reactionaries

[Anonymous No.11656696]

>>11656653
"realist ideology" is a contradiction of terms

[Anonymous No.11656715]

>>11656696
Ideology of depressive realism, i.e. the idea that depression yields a truer account of what is real.

[Anonymous No.11656739]

>>11656715
None of those statements makes an ounce of sense. "Depression" does not prescribe any particular thoughts

[Anonymous No.11656783]

>>11656715
oic. that is better than what i thought you meant, which was a use of "realist" naively

[Anonymous No.11656823]

>>11656739
If you cannot tell that temperament and emotion influence thought you are an idiot. These things do not influence logic itself, but they influence the outcomes that the given individual intuits to be true and therefore argues in favor of. Depressive realism is the idea that evaluating the world and/or oneself as black and loathesome and untrustworthy is the most realistic perspective of things, when really such outlooks our easily attributable to being depressed.
>>11656783
Np <3

[Anonymous No.11658033]

>>11655328
>20-30% of men fail to attract any women
>30% of women are single and don't want to be
Um... so what's the problem, exactly? Sounds like time will solve this issue perfectly fine- the standards for attractiveness of a 35 year-old single woman are not the same as those of a single 20 year-old woman.

The actual problem is in China, where there are significantly more men than women.

[Anonymous No.11658046]

>>11654872
>sexless virgin
Why the pleonasm?

[Anonymous No.11658156]

>>11656276
The so-called incels aren't looking for sex. They're looking for love, for relationships.
They're naturally monogamous males that are no longer fit for the current environment, which favours promiscuity.
It's all about r/K-selection.
Incels = men with the "dad" phenotype.
Chads = men with the "cad" phenotype.

In an ideal world, the dads would be paired up with "coy" females, however female reproductive behaviour is more plastic than males', and the abundance of resources means that most women will adopt a "fast" (promiscuous) reproductive strateg, i.e. they'll fuck the "cad" and raise the "child" on your own.

There is a silver lining to all this however: contraceptives.
The "cads" and the females that are most prone to adopt a "fast" strategy are extirpating themselves from the gene pool, because they're the most likely to use contraceptives.
"Dads" and females with a proclivity for "coy" strategy are naturally abstinent, except when they a purposefully looking to start a family (not to say that this always leads to children, since they can also fall into a trap of their own -- childless "long-term relationships" -- but they are indeed more likely to have descendants today than the promiscuous strategists because when they do engage in sexual intercourse, they are less likely to use contraceptives).

[Anonymous No.11658159]

>>11658156
ahem
>they'll fuck the "cad" and raise the "child" on their* own.

[Anonymous No.11658164]

>>11654984
Why are you not in a monastery, anon? Looks like the place to contain your 'tism, incel mongrel.

[Anonymous No.11658168]

>>11658156
You can already see the despair starting to set in in various PUA circles because of this. Some are beginning to advocate puncturing holes in their own condoms and trying to trick the females into not using contraceptives, including more "extreme" forms of post coitus "contraceptive" practices like abortion (cue gaping mouths everywhere when you realise why the "manosphere" is advocating for social conservatism while acting as anything but).

Now is an interesting time to be alive if you are a biologist.

[Anonymous No.11658172]

>>11658168
As for how to fix the "incel" problem, it's quite easy: reintroduce the draft. What incels foremost lack is discipline. They're males who are naturally inclined to become "dads" (or "betas"/etc in PUA talk) but have not put in the effort to make themselves suitable for such a position, i.e. they have not acquired the status and resource prerequisites that "coy" females are receptive to in a mate.

Getting these blokes in the military will force them to lose some weight and teach them what life with a purpose looks like. Not all of them will find it useful, but the newly acquired perspective will surely significantly reduce the numbers of incels by acting as the spark that will make many of them put in the effort to make themselves marketable for relationships.

[Anonymous No.11658186]

>>11658172
A couple years spent in the military would also be a male "safe space" -- a male-only (or predominantly male) environment conducive to male-male bonding -- a space where men can be isolated from the (generally) emasculating interference of their mothers (especially where they were raised by single mothers) and female peers, which are wont (especially today) to intrude upon every other male space.

[Anonymous No.11658201]

>>11658186
Here's another interesting fact related to this: WWII is directly (causally) to blame for the baby boom. In fact, the baby boom is anomalous in history (consistent with the fact that mass conscription for war has not really been the norm before the late 19th and first half of the 20th century).
For most of (as a case study) Europe's history, around 20% of men and women never married (nor reproduced). It sometime went much higher than this.
That is to say, "inceldom" is in fact the historical norm.

[Anonymous No.11658217]

>>11658201
The source of this despair is the fact that with today's generation of "incels", society remembers a time where things were very different and mistakingly categorises the phenomenon as pathological. (Because society has a very short memory; revealed preference shows that boomers actually believe God created Earth in the 1960s; or as the zoomers say, the 1990s are ancient history on the internet).

In fact, with this in mind it is not entirely certain that you would even want to find a solution for "inceldom" (although like I already pointed out, a solution already exist).

[Anonymous No.11658229]

>be a woman
>match with literally hundreds of men
>get them all to show up at the same time
>make them all compete against each other to have one end up going out on a date with you

http://time.com/5371870/tinder-group-date/

[Anonymous No.11658233]

>>11658217
Also relevant is the fact that social media might be acting as the equivalent of a societal-scale magnifying glass, amplifying awareness of a heretofore largely ignored phenomenon. It can also be said to be acting as an interpersonal telescope, allowing disparate individuals to become aware of each other and congregate at a distance.
Or in short, all this might just be much ado about noting (a passing moral panic).

[Anonymous No.11658245]

>>11658229
This is fucking hilarious. How do women not realize how much power they have in the domain of interpersonal relationships?

[Anonymous No.11658261]

>>11658233
Of course, the question remains whether "incels" themselves really do have the potential to upturn society (as they sometimes dream). I think the answer to this is a 'no, trivially'. The average "incel" lacks command over his own condition even in those cases where it is amenable to will (always keep in mind: what "incels" most lack is discipline). Even if, say, they form an insurgency of sorts: what danger can an army of the socially stunted, the incompetent, and the physically unfit ever pose? And that's assuming they can at all organise. Something tells me that getting "incels" to act together is poised to be about as successful as herding cats. People who need guidance can't guide.

And so "inceldoms" depends on the whims of society-at-large. Easy to fix, easy to ignore, easy to dismiss.

[Anonymous No.11658265]

>>11658245
Umm that's actually *really* sexist and offensive

[Anonymous No.11658268]

And with that I think I am done with my rants.

>>11658245
>How do women not realize how much power they have in the domain of interpersonal relationships?
What makes you think they don't?

[Anonymous No.11658295]

Houellebecq was of immense comfort to me when I was depressed. While I wasn't an incel, I'd only had sex with prostitutes and sexual anxiety was at the forefront of my depressive mindset. Houellebecq is essentially correct about how the 'metaphysical mutation' in Western values towards an extension of the market into all spheres of life has newly pauperised a greater number of men (although not only men - remember Annick in Atomised, the fat, ugly, friendless girl who jumps out of a window). Houellebecq's point is that an 'ethics of goodwill', or 'sexual social democracy', is incompatible with the consumer-centred individualism promoted by and integral to capitalism. 'Sexual social democracy' doesn't mean some kind of incel-type 'state-issued girlfriends' system, nor even the 'enforced monogamy' i.e. renewing the previous social stigma against promiscuity that less radical social conservatives like Peterson promote. As Bruno describes it in Atomised, it means treating those who are unfavourably suited to the sexual marketplace with compassion. The elderly men and women in the nudist colony Bruno and Christiane stay in, despite being physically decrepit and devoid of sex appeal, are treated respectfully and fondly by younger people - they can masturbate peacefully, essentially, provided they, like everyone else, behaves politely and respectfully.

Moments of pure happiness are what drive most of Houellbecq's characters. These occasions are notable for their purity and their short duration - this is "love, where all is easy / where all is given in the instant" - and tend to arise from mutually pleasurable sex between two happy people, who love each other, pure joy prompted by childhood memories or aesthetic beauty and the pure affection of animals, like Daniel's dog Fox in The Possibility of an Island. All these things are depicted as somehow transcendent and sublime, but purely earthly, because there is no God in Houellebecq's ontology. Love underpins them all - love for a partner and given by a partner, the mutual affection between pet and owner, the wonder felt at experiencing physical beauty (a sort of temporary love felt for the world) - but the pursuit of love is fraught for the majority of people because it is incompatible with the extension of the domain of the market into all social relations.

[Anonymous No.11658300]

>>11658295
Good post.

[Anonymous No.11658312]

>>11658300
I should probably add that after a summer of reading Houellebecq's entire output and taking antidepressants (which are fucked) I converted to Christianity, improved my diet and found a gf with similar religious values. We've been together for nearly two years.

I still think Houellebecq is right, however.

[Anonymous No.11658322]

>>11658295
>>11658300
cringe

[Anonymous No.11658340]

>>11658295
>Houellebecq is essentially correct about how the 'metaphysical mutation' in Western values towards an extension of the market into all spheres of life has newly pauperised a greater number of men (although not only men - remember Annick in Atomised, the fat, ugly, friendless girl who jumps out of a window). Houellebecq's point is that an 'ethics of goodwill', or 'sexual social democracy', is incompatible with the consumer-centred individualism promoted by and integral to capitalism.
Except all this is provably false. Read some history, preferably history that extends well before the second world war.

[Anonymous No.11658350]

>>11658340
lol the number of marriages has gone down since the 1970s but for a short rally in the early 80s (Reagan promoting conservative values) before collapsing inexorably due to full neoliberalism

if divorce has gone down too that's because marriage has declined with it you goon

[Anonymous No.11658354]

>>11658340
lmao you utter cretin

[Anonymous No.11658360]

>>11658350
It's going back to the old normal, that's what you're missing. The whole 20th century was anomalous, with the 1950s being EXTREMELY anomalous. Even in the US, which had the benefit of a lot of easily accessible resources in the 19th century (compared to Europe during the same time), marriage rates were relatively low (comparable to contemporary times).
You're romanticising a past that did not exist. Ever, but for a brief window of a handful of decades.

[Anonymous No.11658361]

>>11655109
Call him an incel and say he's resentful, that always work

[Anonymous No.11658362]

>>11658354
>t. typical historically illiterate /lit/ pseud sperging out incoherently about muh capitalism
One of us is indeed a cretin.

[Anonymous No.11658371]

While he mostly keeps politics out of his books he is most likely close to being a reactionary though in the end it probably doesn't really matter to him
I've read about him advising the foremost right wing opponent to Emmanuel Macron to swing more to identitarian issues, but it could just be cynical advices he gave only for him to win

[Anonymous No.11658380]

>>11658360
Who said I was romanticising it? I am explicitly arguing that Houellebecq himself does not romanticise it, either. The 'ethics of goodwill'/'sexual social democracy' that Houellebecq's characters promote in Atomised (and Platform, to a lesser extent) is not the 1950s sexual milieu you seem to be isolating. That is what those who support 'enforced monogamy' idealise, not Houellebecq.

[Anonymous No.11658404]

>>11658380
I am objecting to your claim that "Houellebecq is essentially correct about how the 'metaphysical mutation' in Western values towards an extension fo the market into all spheres of life has newly pauperised a greater number of men". This is what you are grossly mistaken about.

Pic related: Sweden in the 1600s.

[Anonymous No.11658408]

>>11658404
Note: that's for females.

[Anonymous No.11658417]

>>11658361
>Call him an incel and say he's resentful, that always work
That would be, ironically, not far from the truth. His is a misplaced, incoherent rage. Houellebecq is an ignorant, hapless romantic.

[Anonymous No.11658429]

>>11658408
Translation for those who don't get it: that means the percentage of non-married men in the population was even higher.
The more you know.

[Anonymous No.11658503]

>>11654962
based
link to interview?

[Anonymous No.11658580]

>>11658156
only the intelligent promiscuous types manage to avoid procreation though. the dumb ones just accidentally get pregnant.

[Anonymous No.11658582]

>>11658312
>>11658295
I also think H's ideology is compatible with Christianity in the way you describe. At first glance he might seem a nihilist/naturalist because of his choice in subjects, scientific language, defeatism, etc.

But the search for the sublime is always present, as you say. He also has a great "humanist" compassion with all of his characters, despite them being obvious losers. If he really was as nihilistic as he seems, he would just retreat in himself. He certainly wouldn't write a book filled with compassion.

I wonder if the main character in Soumission's conversion is in any way autobiographical. It wouldn't surprise me if writing the book was his way of losing his own religious thoughts.

[Anonymous No.11658590]

>>11658580
That will only accentuate existing differences. Promiscuity has always been associated with the lower classes. In the future it will be even more so.
It's not really relevant in the context of this discussion though. Houellebecq's target audience isn't niggers and white trailer trash.

[Anonymous No.11658591]

>>11658295
Good post. It seems like he started flirting with God in Soumission a bit though, and in an interview he said he can no longer be an atheist.

[Anonymous No.11658593]

>>11658404
Is an average of 3/4 of women married/widowed supposed to be low?
>"If we look at the population of those over age 20, a total of 43.9 percent were married."
https://www.scb.se/en_/Finding-statistics/Articles/Marriage-now-more-common-in-Sweden/

>>11658429
Going to sound stupid here but were there more men than women in the 1600s? Because right now it is opposite, no?

[Anonymous No.11658602]

>>11658590
>That will only accentuate existing differences.
That's what scary about it.

>Promiscuity has always been associated with the lower classes.
I agree, but I'd add the elites to that as well. Morality is basically a bourgeois/middle class endeavour.

[Anonymous No.11658610]

>>11658404
Wouldn't it simply be that those are young women that aren't married yet? Or was it really a quarter of the population that were spinsters and bachelors in the past?

[Anonymous No.11658626]

>>11658593
>Is an average of 3/4 of women married/widowed supposed to be low?
Yes. You're forgetting the fact that the cultural milieu in that time was such that the idea of a "long-term relationship" outside the confines of marriage was unthinkable. Nowadays, the majority of births in Sweden are to unmarried couples (who may or may not choose to officially tie the knot down the line, but do in most cases stay fully committed to each other). What we're tracking here is monogamy in particular, relationships more generally, and sex everywhere.
Marriage as a cultural practice has declined in Sweden, but monogamous pair bonding hasn't.

>Going to sound stupid here but were there more men than women in the 1600s?
No. But many men died young without ever marrying, and among the survivors, men remarried at a higher rate than women. (Spinsters aren't exactly attractive to men, while a younger female might put up with an older but well off man.)

[Anonymous No.11658661]

>>11658610
>Wouldn't it simply be that those are young women that aren't married yet?
Back then, older women were not considered marriageable. You see a similar situation in contemporary east Asia, where even though there is a massive surplus of men (in the millions!) a significant percentage of women after 25 still fail to find a spouse.
So the total percentage did not decline all that much with age. Again, also keep in mind that "long-term relationships" weren't a thing, and a "lay in the hay" came with many risks, so was generally avoided. Marriage back then did not mean exactly the same thing as marriage today, so that percentage tracks much closely to "percentage who has never been in a romantic relationship" judging by contemporary mores.

[Anonymous No.11658687]

>>11658661
You also have a literary proxy for this phenomenon. Why do you think novels written by women before the 20th century are so concerned with marriage? The explanation you hear most often is that women had low status so that was their way of asserting themselves. Except if you look at the data, considering the social milieu in which the protagonists of the stories often live (upper class: the gentry or aristocracy), this doesn't really ring true. Women didn't really show much interest in politics per say, and not few lived off financially sheltered life even alone.
The more plausible reason for this dramatic focus around marriage was fear of spinsterhood.

[Anonymous No.11658694]

>>11658582
Schopenhauer is a distinct presence. His recent book on schoppy is as informative as his one on Lovecraft. Like Schopenhauer he recognises the potential of individual, isolated incidents of pleasure in a world dominated by inherent low-level suffering. The pursuit of happiness (he titled a collection of his poems "La Poursuite du bonheur") is in itself likely to lead to more suffering due to the pain of rejection and the gradual, inevitable decline of the physical body, and with it, for many, one's status. He is a compassionate writer, though, like you say, and one who ultimately believes that love has value and redemptive power, albeit in an abstract sense.

I think Houellebecq's ideology is compatible with Christianity insofar as one applies it only to the earthly world. The next life promises something else. Does this take the depressive edge off earthly existence? That really depends on your perspective.

[Anonymous No.11658717]

>>11658404
Houellebecq's argument related to the distribution of sex, not to the percentage of men not getting laid. The number you posted only refers to marriage, not sex.

[Anonymous No.11658732]

>>11658340
What does this number prove? All the chart shows is that marriage is currently at a relative low. These statistics don't show how sex is distributed prior to marriage.

[Anonymous No.11658736]

>>11658582
>I wonder if the main character in Soumission's conversion is in any way autobiographical

The converstion in Soumission is a tribute to the works of JK Huysman, in which a dejected, nihilistic guy drifting around in a depressed state flees society and becomes a Catholic convert and lives in a monaster, as Huysman himself did. Now that Catholicism is dead, and since it lacks the erotic promise of Islam (child brides etc), Houellebecq merely introduces Huysman's character to 21st century Paris and lets him find his ideological anchor again, and naturally he finds it in Islam given how influential it is in modern day France.

[Anonymous No.11658742]

>>11658717
Refer back to >>11658156
What "incels" desire is not sex (they can always pay a hooker).
Houellebecq is pining for the same thing: a long-term relationship.

[Anonymous No.11658745]

>>11658626
>who may or may not choose to officially tie the knot down the line, but do in most cases stay fully committed to each other
Significantly more women than men have children in Norway, and not by choice. There only has to be a minority of people unwilling to commit to signifianctly skew the sexual hierarchy for men.

[Anonymous No.11658757]

>>11658742
>they can always pay a hooker
Incels are mostly a US phenomenon, and purchasing a hooker is illegal in the US. Not only can it land you in jail, it can put you on the sex offenders registry for life. Also, an inability to access casual sex is in and of itself alienating, and creates a really steep sexual hierarchy during the years where women are least monogamous (18-25).

[Anonymous No.11658766]

>>11658745
>Significantly more women than men
That too has always been true. The difference is that now she gets to raise it to adulthood, while in the past the bastard ended up in an orphanage or "disappeared" in the woods.
Even in societies with strong norms for monogamous behaviour a hierarchy exists (the king used to have many mistresses, while the peasant boy fucked the sheep he tended to).

[Anonymous No.11658781]

>>11658757
"Incels", most generally understood, are a thing almost everywhere on the planet. If you're talking about "incels" as a subculture, then sure, it's mostly confined to economically advanced societies. N'gunu is too busy tending to his father's cows to whine about not having a girlfriend on /r9k/.

[Anonymous No.11658782]

>>11658766
I think that Houellebecq's contention isn't that this hasn't always occurs, only that it's occurring more now than in any other moment in recent history. He thinks that we're returning to an aristocratic model of sex, where the "king" has access to hundreds of concubines, while his "slaves" do the menial labor that keeps the kingdom running.

[Anonymous No.11658787]

>>11658781
Obviously I mean self-defined incels. People who can't get laid shouldn't be entirely defined by a community with specific views concerning women and society.

>t's mostly confined to economically advanced societies.
Mostly to rich societies without legal and accessible sex work industries.

[Anonymous No.11658803]

>>11658503

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qnWN6TNnvA

[Anonymous No.11658805]

>>11658782
>I think that Houellebecq's contention isn't that this hasn't always occurs, only that it's occurring more now than in any other moment in recent history.
Focusing on recent history is nearsighted. Sure, it's kinda hard to track the incidence of sexual encounters over a certain timeline due to lack of data; I have been thinking about this, and maybe we can infer something from the prevalence of prostitution or frequency and distribution of STDs, but this requires more mathematical heavy lifting to model the dynamics at work, and I don't know of any study that focuses on the long term.
But the long term developments would be a lot more interesting (and revelatory) to consider.

If we confine ourselves to the recent past, well, promiscuity is dropping (in part due to what I pointed out above: promiscuous individuals aren't reproducing themselves as much as they used to.)
Houellebecq is part of the generation that experienced the biggest increase in promiscuous behaviour, right after effective contraceptives became widely available and humans (female humans in particular) were free to act out their natural inclinations without consequence.

[Anonymous No.11658828]

>>11658805
It's worth noting that adult male virginity is on the rise as well as STDs among young women. The sexual marketplace has been trending more towards Houellebecq's perception of it since the invention of tinder.

[Anonymous No.11658838]

>>11658736
You could also argue that H only chose to write about Huysman because of his conversion

[Anonymous No.11658844]

>>11658803
ty

[Anonymous No.11658848]

>>11658828
>It's worth noting that adult male virginity is on the rise as well as STDs among young women.
Because the distribution is becoming bi-modal. The number of adult female virgins is also increasing. People are separating based on their natural inclinations, where before they were coerced to follow a single norm by peer pressure.

>>11658787
>Mostly to rich societies without legal and accessible sex work industries.
"Incels" are a thing in Germany or the Netherlands also. Brothels are legal and regulated in both countries.

[Anonymous No.11658851]

>>11658848
>Because the distribution is becoming bi-modal.
Basically, >>11658580 & >>11658590
(Put differently, everybody is getting what they deserve.)

[Anonymous No.11658855]

>>11658848
>The number of adult female virgins is also increasing
Not according the Institute of Family Studies:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/male-sexlessness-is-rising-but-not-for-the-reasons-incels-claim

[Anonymous No.11658861]

>>11658848
>People are separating based on their natural inclinations
Except that they aren't. Incels wouldn't be complaining if one's inclination determined the nature of one's interpersonal relationships. The choice is primarily made by women, and men take what they can get.

[Anonymous No.11658863]

>>11658855
>That male sexlessness spike during the financial crisis

Literally just unattach mens value from status, wealth, job etc and we'd be fine.

[Anonymous No.11658869]

>>11658863
No we wouldn't. Biological inequality is a real thing, and unlike wealth and status that's a value one can't really increase. There's a reason why women are more choosy about going after taller and more muscular men in societies where the pay gap is the smallest.

[Anonymous No.11658882]

>>11658861
Sure they are. Complaints have nothing to do with it. Of course they'll squirm. No one likes to be a loser. But "incels" are on the bottom from internal, not external causes. I wouldn't fuck a lard-ass: who is to blame? Me for refusing to put my dick inside her? Or her, for failing to hit the gym (or having shit genetics)? Sure, some are beyond saving, but many "incels" can in fact change certain things about themselves which would in turn allow them to get one of those mythical creatures called girlfriends.

>>11658855
That study confirms what I just said though. Re-read it, and pay attention to the married vs. non-married distinction. Married men are smashing pussy (they're "dad" paired up with "coy" females).
Non-married men aren't to the same degree, because they're locked inside a "cad" game, where the winner wins big and the loser wins his own hand.
Of course non-married women are getting more dick than non-married men are getting pussy. That's how the cad-fast dynamic works.

[Anonymous No.11658900]

Houellebecq is the only writer I know of that writes about being a man to today. There is nothing bad about thinking over "low masculine a anger". You don't need to be a white bla bla bla man to worry over your sexual life. These are normal things and it doesn't matter that they are low (unless you're a pseudopleb). Most men wouldn't choose to be born as unattractive perverts. The subject is a nice way to think about nature and what it means to be human. What's especially interesting about it is that it is not an obvious handicap like have a potato for a face, but it is something that almost nobody recognize as a handicap. Naturally unnatractive are left to care for themselves. I feel like it must be source of great anger. Especially when, like in OP's text, they are more or less overtly blamed for their status in society. Many people would say: pull your straps up, but this ability is also something we don't always have, whether we wish to or not. The courage of Houellebecq is to express this injustice of nature and society.

[Anonymous No.11658903]

>>11658882
>But "incels" are on the bottom from internal, not external causes.
This is too generalized a conception of the cause of their alienation. If you're a 5'4" Indian man with an ugly face who lives in a primarily white country, your trouble dating is heavily determined by external causes. Plenty of incels are genetically unattractive, and I think it's valid for men in those situations to complain that their female equivalents can at least have occasional casual sex and the partial attention of a man who's also fucking other women.

[Anonymous No.11658907]

>>11658903
>If you're a 5'4" Indian man with an ugly face who lives in a primarily white country, your trouble dating is heavily determined by external causes.
No, it's internal. It's his shit midget Indian genes.

[Anonymous No.11658909]

>>11658033
Because of the imbalance. 35 year d virgin men settling down with 35 year old women who have slept around in their youth is a recipe for disaster.

[Anonymous No.11658912]

>>11658882
>Married men are smashing pussy (they're "dad" paired up with "coy" females).
The problem is that many men who don't even want to participate in the casual sex game can't find women willing to marry them. Or if they do it's often for financial reasons, and they don't think it's fair that they have to give up half of their wealth just to get laid.

[Anonymous No.11658915]

>>11658907
The funny thing is that Indians in the west have high status relative to the indians back in India, so that guy can always go there and grab himself a spouse. From what I know, this seems to happen relatively often.

[Anonymous No.11658919]

>>11658907
Those natural incels should be allowed to express their alienation.

[Anonymous No.11658931]

>>11658912
Returning to sex over and over and over only proves they're failed cads strategists my dude, so they're exactly where they belong. It's fair.

[Anonymous No.11658939]

>>11658919
I never claimed otherwise. See >>11658233 and >>11658261

[Anonymous No.11658944]

>>11658931
Even if affection rather than sex is the goal, it is a problem that eliciting that affection often requires money.

[Anonymous No.11658945]

>>11658931
This
>they don't think it's fair that they have to give up half of their wealth just to get laid.
is what I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.11658948]

>>11658742
They are looking for sex but not as a means of pleasure but as means of self validation and of creating a strong baseline for the creation of the self.

Most incels want a long term relationship but would also like to have a few one night stands before settling down. (like most people). Their deep terror of Betabuxing is born out of their fear of settling down with the first women that ever gives them any attention (while she herself has had many relationships both casual and long term)

[Anonymous No.11658949]

>>11658909
>recipe for disaster
Why? Statistically most marriages don't have great chances, but I don't see what's especially bad about that kind.

[Anonymous No.11658954]

>>11658944
>it is a problem that sperm is cheap while eggs are expensive

[Anonymous No.11658957]

>>11658939
The argument was about whether or not incels have a point, and it's pretty evident that they do.

[Anonymous No.11658958]

>>11654778
how to pronounce hollaback

[Anonymous No.11658970]

>>11658954
A cultural expectation of monogamy was intended to rectify that inherent imbalance (like law enforcement was meant to rectify the natural problem of the physically strong dominating the physically weak). Incels and Houellebecq are lamenting a return to a more pre-civilizational valuing of women's sexual worth.

[Anonymous No.11658975]

>>11658949
The more partners a women has before marriage the more likely she is to cheat and get divorced.

[Anonymous No.11659016]

>>11658970
Imposing monogamy by force will only perpetuate the problem, because it forces the perpetuation of promiscuous reproductive strategy proclivities in the midst of nominally monogamous societies (and their overt expression when conditions are relaxed).
This biological obscurantism is the source of the pain in the first place. Arab women are massive, EXTREME sluts. Promiscuity was never allowed to be bred out of Arab populations.

This is where Houellebecq got it right. Incels are destined for Islam, because it is a religion for r-selected subhumans.

[Anonymous No.11659021]

>>11656249
What is this meme where if you don't seek sex as something important you're a woman? How much of a shallow brainlet are you anon?

[Anonymous No.11659030]

>>11659016
The ONLY solution is laissez-faire + contraceptives.
Breed the Chads and the Stacies out of the population.

[Anonymous No.11659032]

You don't need to tame the shrew when the shrew is literally extinct.

[Anonymous No.11659033]

>>11658661
>Back then, older women were not considered marriageable. You see a similar situation in contemporary east Asia, where even though there is a massive surplus of men (in the millions!) a significant percentage of women after 25 still fail to find a spouse.
woke

[Anonymous No.11659035]

>>11659016
This interpretation is predicated on the notion that promiscuity is primarily a genetically determined trait. If it is, then the incels who have said trait but are unable to participate in the culture of causal sex have a legitimate reason to feel angry and alienated.

[Anonymous No.11659036]

>>11654778
Is /lit/ going to become a faux-socialist, neo-liberal, openly low-test board purely out of contrarianism now?

[Anonymous No.11659037]

This soultion to this problem is and always will be eugenics. My parents never should have reproduced. Most incels have shit genes and or shit parents. The solution is not hurr durr muh hobbies and muh positivity.

[Anonymous No.11659039]

>>11658949
Because of the imbalance.

You are a 35 year old man. You've never had sex, never had a girlfriend, nothing.

One day, you meet a woman who takes a interest in you. You get on wonderfully, there is mutual attraction, you start dating, you fuck, you can't believe your luck. After a year you get married.

Through getting married you are declaring your wife as the last woman you will ever be intimate with. She is also the only woman you will ever be intimate with.

Your wife has had previous relationships. Not many - 4 previous boyfriends, 2 one night stands at college. You are not anything particularly special to her. Oh, she loves you, she thinks you're great but when it comes down to it you are merely number 7 in line. She had sex and romance before you and she is confident deep down that she would have sex and romance after you, if you were to split up.

You have no such assurances. As far as you are concerned, she is your last and only chance at sexual and romantic fulfillment. If she were to leave, you have no real assurance that you could find someone else. Maybe you could but there is no evidence to support it. It took you 35 years to find her. Could you wait 35 more for a replacement?

She is more precious to you than you ever will be to her. This is a power imbalance. Power imbalances create insecurity. Insecurity breeds anxiety, resentment and jealousy. But you cannot wish it away, dismiss it as an illusion. It is there, clear as day.

No relationship can survive this.

[Anonymous No.11659045]

>>11659030
They'll just produce more single moms who require more welfare. Men who are unwilling to commit have children pretty often.

[Anonymous No.11659046]

>>11659035
>This interpretation is predicated on the notion that promiscuity is primarily a genetically determined trait.
Which happens to be a fact.

[Anonymous No.11659056]

>>11659045
The welfare state is dying. It too was a post-WWII historical anomaly.

[Anonymous No.11659058]

>>11659046
Sexual appetite might be, but I'm willing to bet that how one fulfills one's sexual and emotional needs is highly dependent on how your culture expects you to fulfill them.

[Anonymous No.11659061]

>>11658958
well-beck

[Anonymous No.11659063]

>>11659037
>There is literally no responsibility on my behalf or any means of me improving my current situation hurrrr I was fucked from the start I am just going to give up and shoot up people xD
If you don't want to try to make yourself a valuable person then please do us a favor and remove yourself from life

[Anonymous No.11659068]

>>11659063
You can process trauma and a bad childhood, but if your problem is genetic there's literally nothing you can do.

[Anonymous No.11659079]

>>11659063
We all have our own individual glass ceiling. Some people will never be attractive, no matter how hard they try.

[Anonymous No.11659090]

>>11659068
The "problem" is that you're viewing something that society has deemed for you to be a problem when in reality it doesn't really fucking matter that much. If you've come this far and you haven't actively engaged in a relationship then perhaps you're just an individual who naturally finds comfort with themselves rather than in the company of a significant other. There is nothing wrong with this, and you shouldn't seek a relationship in order to feel value within yourself. There are many more important and more substantial pursuits than trying to find a relationship with someone, and I am sure if half of these people actually commited themselves to something like learning or physical activities or a nice hobby such as reading or something they would learn they can feel happy just being with themselves rather than having to rely on the attention of others or fitting the norms set by society.

[Anonymous No.11659091]

>>11659058
That's what I was talking about though. You can force an organism to go against its own innate imperative. But, you know, that requires _force_.
What will actually happen is the normalisation of rank behavioural hypocrisy, i.e. the goode olde normal.

[Anonymous No.11659097]

>>11659063
Oh boy the based self improvement meme. Let me guess, you believe in free will too lmao? Btw I am seriously considering suicide.

[Anonymous No.11659098]

>>11659091
>What will actually happen
I mean, were we to go down the "cultural norms" route, instead of the "laissez-faire + contraceptives" implicit eugenics route.

[Anonymous No.11659103]

>>11654963
>2018
>sky fairy

Hahap

[Anonymous No.11659108]

>>11659097
Agency exists. An organism can make decisions independent of the status of its environment (where "environment" also includes other agents/organisms).
(Free will is an overloaded term.)

[Anonymous No.11659118]

>>11659090
You have literally no idea what you're talking about. Why are you bothering?

[Anonymous No.11659119]

>>11659090
The feelings of despair come from wanting to have a relationship but being unable to due to physical, emotional, or material problems. Even if there were no cultural expectation to have to date, we're a social species who inherently wants to pair bond.

[Anonymous No.11659135]

>>11659119
You can always try your best. Reach your natural ceiling.

[Anonymous No.11659138]

>>11659090
>muh hobbies
>muh exercise
I do exercise and nothing in life interests me. Even if i did feel passion for something the way you talk you are advocating a sort of escapism or denial.
>you are a disgusting perma virgin, just uhhh read or some shit lmao. Whatever it takes to get you to shut up.

[Anonymous No.11659150]

>>11659135
What are you talking about? There is no ceiling. Fuck your natural ceiling.

I get like four numbers a day sometimes and two dates. I can fuck whatever woman I want, but I don’t because it’s obscene.

You should realize that more often than not the types of men that can do this are not even tall or attractive. It’s a mental game

[Anonymous No.11659151]

>>11659138
Tell us what we should tell you then.

[Anonymous No.11659156]

>>11659150
This is a good example of a wrong but useful belief.

[Anonymous No.11659161]

>>11659097
I don't believe we have free will actually, though we have a lot of room to self improve with if we're aware of our own personal needs. All that we may do is be aware of how things we experience effect us and from that use them to manipulate our mentality. We don't have direct control over all the aspects of ourselves but we can at least serve as some sort of middle man that can curb our emotions based upon how we choose to react and interpret things in our day to day lives rather than just saying that everything is a dice roll and there is nothing to do about it. When we are ignorant of ourselves of course it would seem like there is nothing you can do, but if you actually take a moment to try to engage in worthwhile activities that promote growth and a greater degree of self awareness you'll see that a lot of things we as people find in society to be so important to be ultimately shallow bullshit (like social media, how many people you sleep with, money, personal belongings, ect.)

TL;DR literally stop listening to other people when you're looking for things to make you happy and do what's good for you as long as you're not malicious and it's positive/conducive to development as an individual.>>11659138

[Anonymous No.11659165]

>>11659138
Oh sorry didn't mean to reply you in this >>11659161

[Anonymous No.11659172]

>>11659156
It’s not wrong. At least not for me. You’ll never believe me, but it’s not wrong.

You don’t need to be a chad to fuck any woman you want. It’s easy as fuck sometimes

[Anonymous No.11659182]

>>11659172
I'm not an incel but I did mean what I said -- yours is a false belief stemming from a healthy mindset.

[Anonymous No.11659189]

>>11659138
I am not trying to promote escapism or denial, rather that I am trying to tell you there are other ways to value yourself other than by meeting some sort of bullshit arbitrary ideal that you should have had sex with one or more women by a particular point in your life, along with a lot of other surface level materialistic bullshit ideals. Things like that have no standing as to what type of person you are at all and ultimately have no value other than appeasing some sort of emotional response that you wouldn't even hold so highly if it hadn't been beat into you from your environment (from most media today like television, movies, internet/social media, ect.) I am not trying to say "lmao just be sisyphus and go on a fucking job and be happy" I am saying there is such a huge array of interesting, productive, meaningful things that exist in life that I think it impossible for you to declare that all of them are pointless or dull without you having first properly approached them and given them a worthwhile try. Learn to listen to yourself, involve yourself in something larger than you, and lose yourself in the creation of something or in learning. You may find that as you engage yourself in things of actual substance rather than lamenting that you'll have an easier time engaging with others you might be attracted to anyway, or find someone along the way.

[Anonymous No.11659192]

>>11659189
Something tells me you're a woman.

[Anonymous No.11659193]

>>11659118
What a counter arguement. I guess there is just nothing left for me to say.

[Anonymous No.11659197]

P

[Anonymous No.11659215]

>>11659156
He's not wrong that a lot of the time where we imagine our ceiling to be is usually much lower than it actually is. As long as you're not disfigured you can definitely find a girl out there who will want to be with you, it'll probably just be some girl that you're ironically not attracted to. Lower your standards, lower your demand for carnal activities, or focus more on valuing what you truly enjoy.

[Anonymous No.11659219]

>>11656227
lmao volcels are just pretentious incels who project their sexual frustration onto an ideology or hobby. Freud has a term for this that isn’t projecting but I forget what it is.

[Anonymous No.11659228]

>>11659189
Christ, this is tedious rubbish.

[Anonymous No.11659241]

>>11659192
No because most women are too busy with their appearance or trying to be top bitch rather than actually focusing on doing any shit related to learning or self development. As a matter of fact I think women are the most susceptible people to be targeted by social norm standards because they put themselves in the spotlight more than men do for shallow shit like appearance, especially now with the internet. There are way more expectations placed on them so they are more likely to conform to them.

[Anonymous No.11659242]

>>11659189
The feeling of alienation might be exacerbated by culture, but feeling isolated and lonely because no one wants to date you can't really be reasoned away.

[Anonymous No.11659252]

I find the risk of humiliation, shame, and abasement too unappealing to attempt sex. Being a 28KHV now the risk just keeps multiplying.

[Anonymous No.11659257]

>>11659228
In what way? I see the opposing side to be much more so since ultimately it boils down to "THERE'S JUST NOTHING I CAN DO WHY DID LIFE HAVE TO FUCK ME SO BAD YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND I'VE LITERALLY TRIED EVERYTHING THIS IS THE ONLY THING THAT GIVES ME PURPOSE" it makes them sound like lazy, entitled children that can't reason a way to have a purpose without a person or society giving them one. As long as you conform to basic societal morals just live for yourself.

[Anonymous No.11659258]

>>11659241
Nah, I stick with what I said. If you're not a woman, you're a very effeminate man.
Men don't "value" themselves.

[Anonymous No.11659273]

>>11659252
COWARD
O
W
A
R
D

[Anonymous No.11659293]

>>11659258
>Men don't "value" themselves
If you think that being a man is doing what everyone tells you to do rather than realizing what you actually want and doing it because it's what you want to do then you really need to reflect on yourself and ask yourself why do the demands of most people who you probably wouldn't like or respect anyway matter to you so much.

[Anonymous No.11659305]

>>11659258
Are you a feminist

[Anonymous No.11659308]

>>11659293
What I want to do is get a girlfriend.

[Anonymous No.11659320]

>>11659257
No man can live for himself. All meaning is relative, all value determined by consensus.

[Anonymous No.11659326]

>>11659308
You're never going to get one if all you do all day is cry about you don't have one. Develop yourself, become a person of substance, then worry about trying to get women. Stop trying to be with someone else when you can't even be with yourself.

[Anonymous No.11659330]

>>11659273
Probably. It's just really unappealing. I'm intensely private, and the idea of people knowing stuff just unerves me.

[Anonymous No.11659343]

>>11659293
>If you think that being a man is doing what everyone tells you to do r
I don't.

>>11659305
Nope.

[Anonymous No.11659345]

>>11659320
I'll spend the rest of my life on an island with a KJV, Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, and Ulysses and there is nothing you can do to stop me. I live with the consensus of myself you mother fucker.

[Anonymous No.11659353]

>>11659326
What is a person of substance?

>Stop trying to be with someone else when you can't even be with yourself.
Why would I be with someone else when I can be with myself?

[Anonymous No.11659359]

>>11659343
>I
No.
>Nop
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.11659362]

>>11659345
What a pathetic life. You can have it.

[Anonymous No.11659372]

>>11659359
Suck mine dongle.

[Anonymous No.11659384]

>>11659189
This is sweet and all, fuck society and their standards, fuck the media, etc. But I genuinely want a gf. Obviously i understand this to be an irrational thing to want. Like a sub 90 iq person wanting to be anything other than a shelf stocker.

[Anonymous No.11659393]

>>11659353
I think of a person of substance as someone who can be happy with themselves without relying on anything more than the basic standards society demands (abiding laws and abiding basic social rules like not actively seek to be malicious to people or going out your way to make them uncomfortable or something).
Also I totally advocate being alone as much as being with someone if you prefer that type of lifestyle, I only mentioned that because the anon had said he wanted a GF.

[Anonymous No.11659398]

>>11659362
Gladly, and you can have yours as well my fellow anon.

[Anonymous No.11659402]

>>11659393
You're person of substance sounds like a well behaved dog.

[Anonymous No.11659403]

>>11659384
Where do you live? I can be your girlfriend.

[Anonymous No.11659408]

>>11659393
>if you prefer that type of lifestyle
I don't

[Anonymous No.11659415]

>>11659384
I was honestly having a problem with this as well, I was in a pretty big state of depression for awhile. It took me seeing some shitty psychologist for a week (didn't really do much but helped bring some things to light) and me sitting down with myself daily and asking why I really put so much value into it in the first place. In the end I realized I was valuing the ideals of people whose opinions I wouldn't even care for anyway, and then I kind of just threw myself into doing things that I thought I would enjoy for myself.

[Anonymous No.11659418]

>>11659403
Don't do it anon.

[Anonymous No.11659424]

>>11659408
>if

[Anonymous No.11659429]

>>11659424
So what you're saying is useless to me.

[Anonymous No.11659432]

>>11659402
Doesn't matter to me as long as I'm also the one holding the leash.

[Anonymous No.11659442]

>>11659432
That's good for you. Some of us strive for greater more meaningful things.

[Anonymous No.11659444]

>>11659403
Gf (male) ?

[Anonymous No.11659447]

>>11659442
Such as letting society hold the leash?

[Anonymous No.11659454]

>>11659418
You're not the boss of me, ok?

[Anonymous No.11659458]

>>11659447
Who said anything about society? I value things according to my own sensibilities. Society has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.11659466]

>>11659444
Nice trips.

[Anonymous No.11659476]

>>11659429
What I am saying is if you are a person who wishes to live alone there is nothing wrong with that. If you're someone who wants to be with others understand yourself before you try to engage with others. I don't understand how you can expect people to want to be with you if you don't even want to be with yourself.

[Anonymous No.11659480]

>>11659429
Dude, once again: what do you want us to tell you? Go on, say it.

[Anonymous No.11659486]

>>11654778
incel lit at it's finest

[Anonymous No.11659487]

>>11659458
Then what exactly are you trying to say against what I said earlier. All I am basically trying to say is care about things that you think actually matter rather than what society thinks other than shit that an average person would find especially heinous or shit that is unnecessary like trying to start shit with people with no real reason.

[Anonymous No.11659489]

Inceldom exists because 100 years ago even the ugliest beta fags could get married because their parents would arrange it and women were entirely dependent on men to survive. Now that women are able to choose for themselves, and men will fuck regardless, they have an overkill of choice and they will naturally gravitate towards the high status male. It's just how it is supposed to be. Incels are whiny fags with a victim complex, angry that the system won't carry their talentless sad lives anymore. Diversity politics is fucking horrible, but let's admit that there are tons of talentless superficial males with too much confidence who will get BTFO'd by smarter women, and this is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.11659493]

>>11659454
Is that pic who you would want to be anon? We can help you through this it's going to be okay.

[Anonymous No.11659497]

>>11659493
Not really. I just want to help a broken soul. But he won't tell me how.

[Anonymous No.11659499]

>>11659480
Start advocating for eugenics and better parenting to reduce the creation of genetically inferior and poorly socialized males?

[Anonymous No.11659507]

>>11659499
I am already doing that. How can I help you in particular though?

[Anonymous No.11659535]

>>11659507
That's probably impossible unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.11659540]

>>11659497
By him stuffing your ass with his cock?

[Anonymous No.11659546]

>>11659535
>Probably

[Anonymous No.11659547]

>>11659540
Why are you so gay?

[Anonymous No.11659550]

>>11659547
He's the one asking to be that anon's gf not me, anon. I was just asking a question, not making a suggestion.

[Anonymous No.11659554]

>>11659535
Probably is not certainly. So you obviously still believe there is a way I can help you. Tell me about it.

[Anonymous No.11659557]

>>11659480
Don't say anything.

[Anonymous No.11659564]

>>11659487
Getting a girlfriend matters.

[Anonymous No.11659565]

>>11659557
Why are you discouraging him?

[Anonymous No.11659571]

>>11659565
He's in a information bubble.

[Anonymous No.11659572]

>>11659476
I do understand myself. I do want to be with myself. I also want a girlfriend.

[Anonymous No.11659579]

>>11659572
Keep looking then

[Anonymous No.11659580]

>>11659565
What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.11659581]

>>11659572
What is your plan for getting a girlfriend?

[Anonymous No.11659591]

>>11659580
Why are you trying to stop that anon from going on an introspective journey with out help?

[Anonymous No.11659597]

ARGHHHH

fuck this

I'm out.

[Anonymous No.11659600]

You faggots only want to wallow in your own misery.

[Anonymous No.11659602]

>>11655427
Widows you fuck nut
Men die young all the ducking time back then

[Anonymous No.11659610]

>>11659602
Actually for most of human history it was women who would die young predominately from childbirth

[Anonymous No.11659614]

>>11659581
Whenever I meet a girl, I quickly note down the various measurements of her face and calculate ratio between them all in relation to the GOLDEN.

I then compare this to my own ratio (1.01, if you must ask). If her measurement is within 0.05cm of mine, then I engage.

I take numerous mental pictures of the environment surrounding her and make my approach. I introduce myself and comment on something from my mental pictures. I attempt to make this humorous. If she laughs, which she usually does, I continue with the humour, reacting to her laughs and non laughs. If she does not, I make a more sober observation from my mental pictures. I slowly introduce humour throughout the rest of the sober conversation, trying to work out her level. When I find it, I ask her about herself. After this, I wait for her to ask about me. I tell her all my accomplishments in a humble fashion. Then I brush my penis against her hand and whisper in her eye that "it's time."

[Anonymous No.11659619]

>>11659591
I am anon.

[Anonymous No.11659628]

While I agree with Houellebecq about the social pauperization of low-status male after the sexual revolution, I don't think this is a bad thing in itself, even though as a low-status male myself I'm hurt by it. Because while the sexual revolution fucked over with lesser men, it greatly increased the life standards of females. Girls who would previously marry a low-status mate she considered disgusting and then be subjected to a lifetime of rape and slavery until she collapsed into female hysteria now are free to pursuit Chad as benefit her biological instincts and be happy. The sexual revolution may have led to decreasing happiness for the half of the gender I belong to, it led to emancipation and the possibility of happiness for the entire other gender. I'm a man but I'm also a humanist, so I can't accept political and social proposals that would give me a partner through the involuntary servitude of another woman. I'd rather wait for sexbots or full immersion virtual reality.

[Anonymous No.11659632]

>>11654901
>>11654923
*snap*

yup, this is going straight to page 1 of my cringe scrapbook

[Anonymous No.11659636]

>>11659632
t. Cope

[Anonymous No.11659651]

this is a garbage thread. Let's agree to end it now.

[Anonymous No.11659672]

>>11659651
^

[Anonymous No.11659676]

>>11659628
>The sexual revolution may have led to decreasing happiness for the half of the gender I belong to
Speak for yourself. The sexual revolution has been good for men too. It is piss easy to get laid. The whole 80/20 thing is a myth constructed by incels to victimize themselves (classic identity politics). There is a small group of undesirable men who are left out, and this small group would have been the raping wife beaters of old times.

To understand female sexuality: confidence / status is more important than looks by a mile. While ugly women will be unattractive forever, ugly men can easily make themselves attractive by being confident and through their confidence communicate high status. This is not just a money thing either, starving artists drown in pussy. Overall people in general are fucking way more than they used to. 100 years ago you were just stuck with the same wife for the rest of your life, or you could decide to secretly visit a disgusting brothel riddled with syphilis whores.

[Anonymous No.11659756]

>>11659676
The very fact that status is more important than looks proves the "80/20" thing, since not all men can be high status. A few higher status man will have way more sex than anyone else, sleeping with hundreds or even thousands of women, while most men will end up with half a dozen partners and a few others will be involuntary celibates.

Having said that, I believe you are older and have no experience with the dating market for younger people. It was "piss easy to get laid" from the 60s to the late 00s, when an expanding birth rate guaranteed a larger supply of younger women to each adult male, and social media wasn't still so prevalent. Things have changed drastically in the last few years, collapsing birth rates means there are less and less young females, so males must compete for a diminishing pool, while social media means that females are able to access a larger pool of desirable and higher status potential mates. In the past, Chad only had to be the most popular guy in his school to date Stacy, the "starving artist" only had to be popular in his small town scene. Now, Chad must compete with other Chads across the entire country because Stacy has Tinder and can choose from literaly thousands of options who are better than him. Now the "starving artist" must be famous on Instagram and other social networking websites otherwise some artist, who may be or not actually starving instead of only pretending, will fuck all the groupies.

[Anonymous No.11659824]

>>11659676
>this small group would have been the raping wife beaters of old times.
Actually, the raping wife beater type is smashing pussy.

t. a raping, wife beater type.

[Anonymous No.11659840]

>>11659824
>t. a raping, wife beater type
Give me your location so I can call the police on you

[Anonymous No.11659851]

legalise rape

[Anonymous No.11660099]

>>11659840
This is why you're still a virgin.

[Anonymous No.11660169]

>>11659756
Yea I'm sure there is a cultural conspiracy going on for why you can't get laid, you fucking loser. Women are not constantly waiting around for high status men to fuck them. I know it's hard to believe, but not everyone craves sex 24/7 and a lot of people are actually able to moderate their desires.

>The very fact that status is more important than looks proves the "80/20" thing, since not all men can be high status
This proves you're a perma virgin. It's not about actually being high status, it is the communication of being high status towards a woman. High status means: someone with power, influence, knowledge or intellect. You can show this by being funny, confident, well-spoken i.e. you actually try to seduce a woman instead of waiting around like a passive faggot to get laid. Incels are sad and angry because they have to chase a women in order to get laid. They have to approach, go into bars and other social settings. It doesn't matter if you are a literal 10/10 with a net worth of one billion, women HATE passive, whiny weak men.

What you also forget, and this betrays your lack of exposure for women, is that although women look for high status men, their definition of 'high status' vastly differs. For the white thrashy slut high status means muscular strength. For the college girls high status means intellectual achievement. For the 35+ professional woman high status means a good job with a steady income. It differs from individual to individual.

Point is that female sexuality is much more complex than male sexuality, and incels do not seem to grasp female sexuality. In order to get laid, you need to be good at something, you need to be interesting, you need to be able to hold a nice conversation etc. For women nice tits, a nice ass and a pretty face suffices.

But yes, an anxious boy like you who constructs the world in easy to grasp mythological 'Chads' and 'Stacies', does not understand sexuality.

[Anonymous No.11660192]

>>11660169
Not him but I think being a cringy, loudmouthed woman-chasing faggot (PUA culture comes to mind) is also strictly for the birds. Let's all have some self-respect.

[Anonymous No.11660251]

>>11654986
If this is satire it‘s absolutely genius

[Anonymous No.11660339]

>>11660251
What happened to New Sincerity?

[Anonymous No.11660368]

>>11660169
Incel here, all of this is 100% true, people who larp on about Chad and 80/20 are full of shit.

However, there are in existence pure bonafide degenerates who are thoroughly and profoundly shit across all dimensions and are unable to even get to the level where a small sliver of women are attracted to them.

I hope I'm not one of them and I'm trying my best but it's not looking good

[Anonymous No.11660491]

Can you persuade someone who isn't super interested (though friendly and there is a sort of spar) to erm be interested?

Asking for a friend. More of a friend of a friend really.

[Anonymous No.11660508]

>>11660169
None of that changes much about what I said, which is that changes brought by social media have increased competition among men for a diminishing pool of eligible women and that creates a new class of involuntary celibates who lose any capacity to compete.

>What you also forget, and this betrays your lack of exposure for women, is that although women look for high status men, their definition of 'high status' vastly differs. For the white thrashy slut high status means muscular strength. For the college girls high status means intellectual achievement. For the 35+ professional woman high status means a good job with a steady income. It differs from individual to individual.

Again, before Tinder, Facebook and Instagram, you just need a tiny bit of muscular strenght to be attractive to the white trash slut, a few degree of intellectual achievement to be attractive to the college girl and a good job with a steady income to be attractive to the professional woman. Now you need to be literaly a fitness model, a high influential internet personality or a millionaire, otherwise women won't even consider you human.

See this, for example >>11658229

This is the face of the modern dating market. An utopia for women and a excruciating competition for men.

By the way, I'm not incel, I'm volcel because I refuse to even try and compete in a game I know I cannot win.

[Anonymous No.11660584]

>>11659045
The "stacies" have reached the point of decadence where they aren't even single mothers but instead kill their own children in the womb.

[Anonymous No.11660633]

>>11660508
>Now you need to be literaly a fitness model, a high influential internet personality or a millionaire, otherwise women won't even consider you human.
I'm an incel but I honestly cannot buy that. I know tons of guys with girlfriends who are not muscular, rich or famous. What they all are is

>able to look after themselves financially
>skilled at least one thing
>can hold an engaging conversation with their girlfriend.

Some are ugly. Some are pricks. Some few are awkward and anti social. Few are particularly "high status."

I understand the frustration, honestly but there are so many people that are not high status that manage to have an active love life. Have things gotten slightly harder for shit men? Yeah but they were never ever easy.

[Anonymous No.11660640]

>>11660508
Online dating and e-hookups really did fuck up everything.

Even just fifteen years ago, you were only competing with other men in your extended social circle. Now you're competing with every penis in a twenty-kilometer radius.

The average man has to put in an obscene amount of effort just to land some behemoth who already has thirty notches on her bedpost (not counting fellatio or handies).

[Anonymous No.11660652]

>>11660633
Did they get their girlfriends before or after the advent of Tinder?

[Anonymous No.11660684]

>>11660652
After. Only one of my friends found his online (on OKCupid).

[Anonymous No.11660724]

>>11658229
The worst thing about this isn't that she did it (cunts exist, this is well known) but the fact that nobody gives a shit. If a man did this there would be a fucking moral outrage. This, on the other hand, has mostly mustered a

>lol that's crazy, stupid men xD

[Anonymous No.11660733]

>>11660724
The reason why nobody really gives a shit (other than incels) is because at the end of the day we are still men and she is still just a woman.

[Anonymous No.11660845]

>>11660724
Horrible/embarrassing/gruesome/depressing things happening to men is sort of expected.

It's part of the job description.

[Anonymous No.11661024]

>>11660845
>It's part of the job description.
kek, you're a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.11661279]

Anyone know how I can contact Houellebecq?

[Anonymous No.11661505]

>>11661279
nice try habib

[Anonymous No.11661573]

>>11660508
You're delusional.