/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12226092]

In his book 'Whatever', Houellebecq describes that the modern sexual market is an extremely aggressive form of capitalism, yet the left seems to be celebrating this as a form of meritocratic 'liberation'. This was long before incels were a thing, mind you.

Was he correct? Was he prescient?

[Anonymous No.12226096]

It's been going that route for a long time. He was just one of the first brave enough to say the emperor had no clothes.

[Anonymous No.12226101]

>>12226096
Michel Clouscard was the first.

[Anonymous No.12226103]

>>12226092
The Left's celebration of sexual "liberation" exemplifies its subsummation by liberalism (capitalism)

[Anonymous No.12226142]

>>12226092
He is and he is even more brutal in his following books. The elementary particles/Atomised deals heavily with sexual liberation and how it can shape men's life, to me it's even better than Whatever in the exposition.

[Anonymous No.12226161]

>>12226142
how does it expand on it, and how is it better?

[Anonymous No.12226333]

>>12226161
pls respond

[Anonymous No.12226373]

Yeah it has just made another social heirarchy and has made pair matching go to shit.

[Anonymous No.12226388]

La monnaie vivante

[Anonymous No.12226395]

>>12226092
Correct. Communistic equality in the sexual market would look like enforced monogamy, which is all you need to know to realize these people are hypocrites.

[Anonymous No.12226430]

>>12226395
They want kids to be raised by the "community" or whatever dumbbshitbthey spew, aka we want to be a hedonist bonobo no strings attached society

[Anonymous No.12226438]

>>12226103
Thoughtful and true post.

>>12226430
That is a pretty big "they"

[Anonymous No.12226470]

>>12226430
>They want kids to be raised by the "community" or whatever dumbbshitbthey spew, aka we want to be a hedonist bonobo no strings attached society

Isn't there an author that is being pushed to the media who is arguing that we should imitate Bonobos?

[Anonymous No.12226593]

>>12226161
>>12226333
The elementary particles delves more into the impact sentimental relationships or the lack thereof have on people. Only one of the two protagonists could be discounted as a "Raphael" clone, suffering from being unable to satisfy his sexual desire, which is the main theme of Whatever. The second main protagonist and the other characters involved have different issues related to the effects of sexual liberation in France, some of which are just touched upon in the previous novel. Can't really go further without spoiling parts of it.

[Anonymous No.12227191]

>>12226593
I dont mind getting spoiled a bit, pls continue

[Anonymous No.12227263]

>>12226092

Yes.

[Anonymous No.12227298]

>>12226395

Old men in the Eastern Bloc sometimes remark how Communism "put women in their place", as in relative to their "privileges" in 1940s Eastern Europe.

[Anonymous No.12227474]

>>12227298
they were right

[Anonymous No.12227544]

As a sexually frustrated male in a monogomous heterosexual relationship, will this drive me to further frustration/despair?

[Anonymous No.12227552]

>>12227298
Those are senile retards who idealize interpersonal relationships they grew up with.

t. eastern euro

[Anonymous No.12227557]

>>12227544
Become Mormon and get more wives.

[Anonymous No.12227655]

>>12227557
It's a legitimate option. I just want a harem like a wild-type homo sapien male.

[Anonymous No.12227867]

>>12226470
There was but when it came out that the bonobo research it was based on all turned out to be bunk the push failed.

[Anonymous No.12227921]

>>12227544
I honestly cant stop thinking about fucking other women even though Im in a pretty commited relationship, I never act on it but god damn there are just so many woman that dress provacatively and the desire just gets to you and when you learn how to whew and talk to women you really does make you feel good, like my gf has huge boobs but I just want to fuck one with a huge ass, and one who is petit and one who is tall. There really is a weird market to the whole sexuality thing.

[Anonymous No.12228429]

>>12227921
Yeah I'm in the same boat. I missed out on the whole dating app trend and can't help but resent myself for it. It's cruel that we can't just have harems/mistresses with a clean conscience senpai

[Anonymous No.12228443]

>>12226096

>the emperor had no clothes.

The emperor was naked under his clothes the whole time. Read Althusser

[Anonymous No.12228476]

>>12226092
>This was long before incels were a thing, mind you.
You think incels only came about in existence in the last couple of years?

[Anonymous No.12228491]

>>12226092
>This was long before incels were a thing, mind you.
You have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. Incels have always existed.

[Anonymous No.12228496]

>>12228476
>>12228491
I meant before the term 'incel' entered the modern jargon, of course.

[Anonymous No.12228509]

>>12228429
I'd argue polyamory is bad for society as a whole because the proverbial Chad is naturally going to dominate causing the incels (our modern shooters and suicide bombers) to cause serious carnage, especially if the more average men can't compete and not just the melvins.

[Anonymous No.12228520]

>>12227191
Just fucking read it

[Anonymous No.12228549]

>>12228429
>>12227921

[Anonymous No.12228561]

>>12227921
>when you learn how to whew and talk to women you really does make you feel good

This is a cruel joke on men played by nature. If/when you were an incel, or just a late-bloomer, you would practically give up anything for a relationship with a girl. And of course, they pay no attention to you when you are in that desperate state.

Once you do learn how to talk to women (and realize that it isn't that difficult), you just unlocked the super power you always wanted when you were a horny 15yo jerking it to porn. However, at this point you probably already are in a relationship and are now forced to suppress the power you just gained. Going to a bar or cafe, you know you could strike up a convo with the cutie you see sitting alone. But now you have to put a self imposed leash to stop yourself. WTF, kind of joke is this.

Also, you stick to the relationship (assuming its a good one), because the emotional stability and sexual consistency it offers beats chasing tail constantly. You can be a hunter gatherer constantly on the hunt, or an agriculturalist with stability.

[Anonymous No.12229105]

>>12226092
Liberals =\= the left. They're moderate by definition. My man wasn't a liberal, but a leftist

[Anonymous No.12229155]

>>12229105
>>12226103
The left is a branch of liberalism. You're just liberals from 50 years in the future.

[Anonymous No.12230074]

“Youth’s altered attitude to questions of sex is of course ‘fundamental’, and based on theory. Many people call it ‘revolutionary’ and ‘communist’. They sincerely believe that this is so. I am an old man, and I do not like it. I may be a morose ascetic, but quite often this so-called ‘new sex life’ of young people and frequently of the adults too seems to me purely bourgeois and simply an extension of the good old bourgeois brothel. All this has nothing in common with free love as we Communists understand it. No doubt you have heard about the famous theory that in communist society satisfying sexual desire and the craving for love is as simple and trivial as ‘drinking a glass of water’. A section of our youth has gone mad, absolutely mad, over this ‘glass-of-water theory’. It has been fatal to many a young boy and girl. Its devotees assert that it is a Marxist theory. I want no part of the kind of Marxism which infers all phenomena and all changes in the ideological superstructure of society directly and blandly from its economic basis, for things are not as simple as all that. A certain Frederick Engels has established this a long time ago with regard to historical materialism.

“I consider the famous ‘glass-of-water’ theory as completely un-Marxist and, moreover, as anti-social. It is not only what nature has given but also what has become culture, whether of a high or low level, that comes into play in sexual life. Engels pointed out in his Origin of the Family how significant it was that the common sexual relations had developed into individual sex love and thus became purer. The relations between the sexes are not simply the expression of a mutual influence between economics and a physical want deliberately singled out for physiological examination. It would be rationalism and not Marxism to attempt to refer the change in these relations directly to the economic basis of society in isolation from its connection with the ideology as a whole. To be sure, thirst has to be quenched. But would a normal person normally lie down in the gutter and drink from a puddle? Or even from a glass whose edge has been greased by many lips? But the social aspect is more important than anything else. The drinking of water is really an individual matter. But it takes two people to make love, and a third person, a new life, is likely to come into being. This deed has a social complexion and constitutes a duty to the community.

[Anonymous No.12230107]

>>12228476
Incels are def a modern thing. They're the bottleneck of modern Western civilization.

[Anonymous No.12230128]

>>12226092
It's a step toward 'liberation' not the finish line but certainly more meritocratic than the previous form of sexual market.
Good strawman

[Anonymous No.12230155]

https://harpers.org/archive/2019/01/donald-trump-is-a-good-president/

I like this Houellebecq guy.

[Anonymous No.12230160]

I've only read Submission and Elementary Particles, both recently, and whether or not I agree with his view on things, I'll give props where I find it most necessary: so much of modern literature is dull, tripe, overblown shit sniffing its own ass. I recently tried The Luminaries after all the hullabaloo and, my god, what the fuck was that. Some shit churned out in an MFA program trying to densely plot itself with inanity. Submission and Particles are simply fun as hell to read.

[Anonymous No.12230255]

>>12229105
he's too left for whatever leftist group he's in. same problem guattari had

[Anonymous No.12231029]

>>12228549
I'm not acting on it, faggot. But it's still a real feeling that I acknowledge. Oh well, to be a man is to struggle.
>>12228561
but the hunt is amazing.

[Anonymous No.12231038]

>>12226092
I literally just brought this up in a discussion today, and have never even read this book.

Danm. I could've written this and became famous. Rip

[Anonymous No.12231053]

>>12226142
not just men but women
i find the depiction of women in his works quite touching

[Anonymous No.12231097]

>>12226092
Yes he was correct. He accurately predicted the incel epidemic and killers like ER and Alek. His literature is the the most relevant today and the only of its kind.

[Anonymous No.12231206]

>>12228443
What the hell does Althusser have to do with this topic? Where does he discuss such matters?

[Anonymous No.12231215]

>>12226092
women are capitalistic: they love men compete to be chosen by women to have a shot had entertaining them for free

[Anonymous No.12231222]

>>12231206
Althusser murdered his wife, so he's an honorable incel

[Anonymous No.12231225]

What should the sexual market be like? Please tell me.

[Anonymous No.12231235]

>>12231225
Enforced monogamy and shunning of premarital sex. Basically what it has been for millennia.

[Anonymous No.12231240]

>>12231235
>Basically what it has been for millennia.
For about two or three. Few men reproducing with many women is the standard.

[Anonymous No.12231243]

>>12231240
Well yes, but that was in caveman times. As soon as civilization got around, monogamy was mostly the norm. This doesnt count sex slaves from millitary conquests, of course.

[Anonymous No.12231244]

>>12231243
Fair enough.

[Anonymous No.12231246]

>>12231235
Only someone who lacks experience would say this and your judgement on premartial sex is based on your own feelings and not any objective criteria. As for 'enforced monogamy', what do you even mean? Encouraged monogamy? You realize it is desire and feelings that govern relationships and not the norms and values enforced on us right? Even women in hijabs are thots. Get grounded in experience more.

[Anonymous No.12231262]

Welfare is one of the biggest mistakes ever and a contribute to the current effect of why the sexual market place is so terrible as it is an easy way for single mothers to let the state raise their child therefore men aren't needed in a masculine role.

[Anonymous No.12231266]

>>12231246
>You realize it is desire and feelings that govern relationships and not the norms and values enforced on us right? Even women in hijabs are thots. Get grounded in experience more.

Lmao, what? Institutions like marriage were forced upon people with the threat of death. They existed to reign in natural desires, especially those of women, and they worked for millennia.

[Anonymous No.12231271]

>>12227544
>As a sexually frustrated male
gay
>in a monogomous heterosexual relationship
fake
kys

[Anonymous No.12231280]

>>12231266
Your solution is to threaten people with death to get married? You really are stupid. I'm not entertaining this nonsense. Learn critical thinking, retard

[Anonymous No.12231285]

>>12231280
No, just prohibit them from divorcing and shame them from having sex outside marriage. Doesn't even have to be punishable by death.

[Anonymous No.12231288]

>>12231285
What do you think someone who is unhappy in a marriage is going to do if they can't get a divorce?

Don't you think restricting divorce would make people more reluctant to get married?

Why is sex outside marriage shameful?

[Anonymous No.12231294]

>>12231288
>What do you think someone who is unhappy in a marriage is going to do if they can't get a divorce?
Most are unhappy in marriages today because of the third point here, regarding pair-bonding ability.
>Don't you think restricting divorce would make people more reluctant to get married?
Historically it has never done so. On the contrary, marriage rates have only gone down now that divorce has become more common
>Why is sex outside marriage shameful?
Because it destroys your ability to bond with someone, and because it destroys the specialness of being marrying with someone. You don't choose a life partner if you've already fucked 5 people before that. It's why marriages with no previous relationships are far more stable than marriages with even 1 previous relationship.

[Anonymous No.12231307]

Lots of primitive cultures had divorce, it was just understood that a divorcee is much less desirable than a virgin bride, adding to the stigma and further discouraging it

[Anonymous No.12231309]

>>12231294
>regarding pair-bonding ability.

You equate pair bonding with number of sexual partners, for whatever reason. You understand that it's not unhealthy for someone to have dated three people for example and had sex with them? You have to experience this in order to have the wisdom on how relationships work. Most people lose virginity during early high school, it's no big deal.

[Anonymous No.12231563]

>>12231309
I don't honestly know why I feel compelled to reply to you when I know you're not going to take my word as is, but to add to that guy's point. Yes, it's fine to lose your virginity early, however, it's been proven that the strongest marriages are the ones born from that first pair-bond, there's a reason people marry early you know? Whether conscious or unconscious it's known that the more partners you have the less you take the other for granted i.e. bonds are weaker. It's not a cliche that the strongest marriages are often Christians who de-flowered each other. People will make their excuses, re-write it on their own terms like single-mothers who desperately ""become christian"" in a shallow attempt to mimic this sense of purity to partners (knowing full well how much they fucked up).

[Anonymous No.12231640]

>>12227921
Maybe monogamy is the myth?

[Anonymous No.12231674]

>>12231640
Nah, it's been around for far too long. Also giving in to desires isn't necessarily a good thing.

[Anonymous No.12231693]

>Was he correct? Was he prescient?
Yes, to all of that and the trads in this thread are deluding themselves in believing that they could in any way bring about some kind reactionary cultural revolution to reverse this development.

The genie has been let out of the bottle forever.

The bio-chemical update that are modern contraceptive methods have permanently altered intersexual master-slave dynamics that have existed for millennia. Sexual liberation didn't materialize as a cultural revolution from a meatspace vacuum but it was dependent on the invention of hormonal interventions into humanity's cyclical action potential patterns. There is no escape from this permanent patch on man's forced fertility.

[Anonymous No.12231780]

>>12231563
It hasn't been proven, but there are statistics showing that divorce rate correlates with number of partners, however that is not an ultimate truth and you and I know that.

Some would aruge their bond is stronger than their previous relationships, due to the lessons learned and compatbility. You are advocating something too static, which is against the dynamic nature and flow of Life.

[Anonymous No.12231788]

>>12231780
>You are advocating something too static, which is against the dynamic nature and flow of Life.
That makes no sense, since there are plenty of animals that are monogamous as well. To say that monogamy is against the flow of Life is blatantly false.

[Anonymous No.12231796]

>>12231780
Once we rose above the animal kingdom and created the society we live in today we made it sufficiently known that humans should not operate like savages. The "dynamic" nature of animals doesn't reflect on the lion in relation to the bonobo.

[Anonymous No.12231798]

>>12231788
Monogamy in animals correlates with low or no sexual dymorphism but humans are very sexually dymorphic.

[Anonymous No.12231820]

>monogamy has been the norm since we came out of our caves and established even a rudimentary civilization
>now suddenly it's in question by people who are deranged and unhappy themselves
>also pls ignore the high surge of divorce rates and the fact that emancipation actually hasn't improved the happiness of women
What wonders will the future hold?

[Anonymous No.12231834]

>>12231798
Just because women opt to look for short term/ long-term mates in tandem with their cycles doesn't mean they have to, or that it should even be a different man. That women should even consider short term dating in the modern world when we have a lack of long-term resources to spare is the death of society.

[Anonymous No.12231849]

>>12231796
You made the decisiont to tie it to being a 'savage' without any evidence of doing so.

If anything, YOU saying that people should be threatened and even hurt for wanting a different lover is a sign of experiential immaturity.

You understand that people grow apart and move on? A relationships is a do or die ride. Yes couple therapy will help alleviate issues especially when kids are involved but divorce is fine.


>>12231788
Humans are highly social beings with open and complex language, the experiences and challenges we face differ, and in the 21st centuries the wants of an individual outweight the apparent needs. Love is interpretated subjetively so your objective criteria of forcing Christian ideals on people is foolish, and a sign of immaturity.

[Anonymous No.12231852]

>>12231834
>women should even consider short term dating

nobody thinks like this, it's a hit or miss.

[Anonymous No.12231874]

Women are just relentless capitalists, far worse than men. The whole root of white womens anger in America is that they were in on the heist but don't like their cut.

Women have always been agents of the hegemony, their standards always increase in times of economic hardship. They've always been the living embodiment of capitalism, it's the whole reason we oppressed them. Just look at the consumerism rates between men and women...

[Anonymous No.12231881]

>>12231874
Giving women "rights" was the biggest fucking mistake that virginal beta-male a*glos could have ever made.

[Anonymous No.12231882]

>>12231849
Stop spacing your sentences like a wanker.
If I was a dictator I would make it so that dowry's would have to be given to the father of the daughter before sex, I would demolish welfare and cast out single mothers, I would denounce technology and revolutionise grecian architecture, I would make it illegal for uncivilised men to have agency, I would prevent women from being educated from any other source than from their father until 18. I would encourage classist notions to preserve the virtues of public presentation and the mocking of those without etiquette. There are men who think like me in the world and I am one.

[Anonymous No.12231889]

>>12231271
I'm neither fake nor gay, I just want a harem

[Anonymous No.12231895]

>>12226092

>left
>meritocracy

Check your sources

[Anonymous No.12231896]

>>12230074
>To be sure, thirst has to be quenched. But would a normal person normally lie down in the gutter and drink from a puddle? Or even from a glass whose edge has been greased by many lips?
kek, that's nasty

[Anonymous No.12231899]

>>12230107
it's not modern, but usually in the past they were forced into conscription and sent to another country to cause problems

[Anonymous No.12231913]

>>12231882
It feels good to see someone on the same wavelength as you

[Anonymous No.12232050]

>>12231882
>>12231896
Ok, wheres the argument? You both like greek architecture and virgins, that's cool, maybe you faggots could do it the greek way and fuck each other

[Anonymous No.12232062]

>>12232050
what?

[Anonymous No.12232072]

>>12232062
Wheres your argument faggot

[Anonymous No.12232081]

>>12232072
what argument about what? i just laughed at a quote from a previous comment

[Anonymous No.12232137]

>>12226430
Don't bonobos form harems?

[Anonymous No.12232147]

>>12227298
>>12227474
>>12227552
Desire to know more. I've heard this about former Bolshevik states being more nationalistic, too. Accurate?

[Anonymous No.12232229]

>>12232147
its a load of shit

[Anonymous No.12232238]

>>12227298
>>12227552
communism gave more power to women retard

[Anonymous No.12232277]

>>12232238
lmao no it didnt. Lenin might've preached that, but the commies soon realised that women should primarily be mothers.

[Anonymous No.12232484]

>>12232050
it's pretty clear you're a woman, that's fine, just don't be surprised that men like beer.

[Anonymous No.12232564]

>>12231882

Yeah, it’s a “yikes” from me dawg

[Anonymous No.12232601]

>>12232277
you don't think psychic capital exists? you don't think the ego exists? america is basically classless...clout is the new capital.
>>12232484
nah youre just a retard

[Anonymous No.12232612]

>>12232564
You think that's gonna change my mind?

[Anonymous No.12232637]

>>12232612

How am I going to change your mind? I can’t force you to go outside!

[Anonymous No.12232648]

>>12232637
grinned, you're alright anon

[Anonymous No.12232826]

>>12231780
Partner count might ultimately be secondary to some other lurking variable of virtue, you are right. But it is a pretty strong indicator of a lot of vices to the point where it's almost impossible to untangle promiscuity from amorality, excessive novelty-seeking, personality disorders, sociopathy, a simple but fundamental case of incompatible values, etc. It is very difficult to learn about the kind of person somebody is without living with them for a very long time, and even then you may stumble across wholly unrecognizable facets of them. I'd rather just cut to the chase after a certain body count instead of trying to painstakingly find a legitimate reason for throwing one's body away dozens of times.

[Anonymous No.12232901]

>>12232637
i dont get it

[Anonymous No.12232907]

>>12232826
I agree with you. I'd be lying if I said I disagreed with that. I just don't think you realize how many women have personality disorders and the strength it takes to follow this ideal.

[Anonymous No.12233111]

>>12230155
/ourguy/ confirmed, but I knew this beforehand.

[Anonymous No.12233132]

>the modern sexual market is an extremely aggressive form of capitalism, yet the left seems to be celebrating this as a form of meritocratic 'liberation'.
Wait is this news to people? The fact that pure capitalism has been described as 'darwinian' didn't tip everyone off? Fucking /pol/ had that whole 'sexual socialism' meme for a while because of this exact thing.

[Anonymous No.12233208]

>>12226101
This.

[Anonymous No.12233276]

>>12233111
trump is retarded, fuck off

[Anonymous No.12233687]

>>12233276
/lit/ is a communist board! Normies out! Shadilay!

[Anonymous No.12233732]

>>12230155
>>12233276
Read the actual article, he's basically saying Trump is a good President, for the rest of the world. Bear in mind Houellebecq loathes American culture and you can see what he really means.

[Anonymous No.12233790]

>>12233276