Michel Houellebecq Quote of the Week

“To give a man 5 sous because he is poor and has no bread is perfect, but to give him a blowjob because he has no girlfriend is too much of a good thing: you don't have to do that.”

I think this quote was taken from an interview rather than one of his novels. I take its (ironic) meaning to be in line with the central theme of his novels - the introduction of individualism and unrestrained market forces into the sexual sphere that has led to 'winners and losers', and the absurdity of this occuring in a world in which the elimination of poverty and gross economic inequality has long come to be considered a fundamental goal of a civilized society.

Houellebecq's only error is in apparently not recognising that there is in fact ever increasing state interference into the free sexual market, but it is a one sided, vicious and brutal attempt to regulate it (through legislation that targets male sexuality) in favour of a certain demographic of female sexual losers (feminists).

29 thoughts on “Michel Houellebecq Quote of the Week

  1. Pingback:

  2. "To give a man 5 sous because he is poor and has no bread is perfect, but to give him a blowjob because he has no girlfriend is too much of a good thing: you don't have to do that"

    Hmmm. I am pondering this quote - and it sounds kind of well - f**ked up to me.

    He is saying that if something is too much of a good thing, then it should not be done?

    WTF?

    I guess that doing good things is a bad thing in his mind?

  3. theantifeminist

    Post author

    He is saying that if something is too much of a good thing, then it should not be done?

    WTF?

    I guess that doing good things is a bad thing in his mind?

    No, I think he is being ironic as I state in the article. He is pointing out the absurd contradiction involved in the current widespread view in which it is seen as obviously good for the state to step in and feed a starving man, yet there is no moral duty whatsoever to help a man who cannot satisfy his basic sexual needs in the free market (and as we have just seen, when I suggest that young women be encouraged by the state to satisfy the desires of the sexually lonely, I get calls by feminists to be tortured slowly to death).

    According to Maslow's heirarchy of needs, the need for sex is as basic and fundamental as the need for food. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

  4. jack

    Houellebecq's only error is in apparently not recognising that there is in fact ever increasing state interference into the free sexual market

    Interference may even be regarded as a good thing: "Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization." (From "Extension of the domain of the struggle" aka as "Whatever").

    Betas have reasons to feel they fare worse in a sexual free-for-all than in a State-governed system. They have a point of course, except when the State is a feminist one, the only advantage left is to see alphas put on trial.

  5. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Interference may even be regarded as a good thing:

    Yes, there is a difference between a society that intervenes by encouraging 16 year olds girls to visit retirement homes, and the one we have which intervenes by locking up men for looking at hentai cartoons in their own homes.

    Betas have reasons to feel they fare worse in a sexual free-for-all than in a State-governed system. They have a point of course, except when the State is a feminist one, the only advantage left is to see alphas put on trial.

    Do you think the majority of sex offenders are alpha males? I think already the majority of sex offenders in the UK are those for viewing illegal porn at home, so I wouldn't describe them as Alphas, but rather men with unhappy sex lives or without any sex lives. A majority of the others are probably for non-violent sex offences such as voyeruism, flashing in the park etc. Again, unlikely to be most people's idea of all conquering alpha males. The Berlusconis of this world put on trial are few and far between.

    It's a nice theory, at least for women and feminists and for men who are genetically hardwired to put women on a pedastal (i.e.most men), in that it absolves pussy of all blame for men's plight, but I honestly don't see the feminist legislative creep that is leading to a holocaust as primarily being about beta males trying to put rival cock in prison.

    It's more to do with the fact that politicians chase the female floating vote that determines the outcome of most elections, and pass laws lobbied for by NGOs that are dominated by women, and that reassure the mass of female voters that their sexual needs are being looked after.

  6. theantifeminist

    Post author

    You can see what type of person the average sex offender is by going to any number of local American vigilante sex offender list site. Most of the offences are indeed for internet porn, 'grooming', or offline voyeurism. And note that the USA is a more violent society than Europe and also actually has less laws on illegal porn (although sentences can be longer). You don't see many alpha male types there.

  7. theantifeminist

    Post author

    So long as women see sex as a resource always to be traded at the most profitable price, and giving it away for free as being equivalent to rape, you're always going to have the problem of male INCELS, and any attempt to redress the market inequalites for males would be impossible (outside of restoring traditional marriage for all - if you consider that a solution).

  8. theantifeminist

    Post author

    This is why I'm so surprised, btw, when Eivind gets so White Knightish when I state my opinion that female sexual psychology is maladaptive.

    It IS maladaptive to a free sexual market, and this maladaptiveness is the primary reason why we have INCELS.

    Female sexual psychology evolved to see sex as a resource always to be traded for the maximum advantage because women historically needed a long term reliable male provider protector in order to survive.

    This is no longer the case.

    There is no inherent reason why women cannot see sex as men can - just a beautiful act of physical and emotional pleasure (and emotional does not entail desiring to enslave your partner to your exclusive needs for life).

    The only reason why 'sex is a female resource' as Eivind and Emma like to say, is because women's maladaptive psychology leads women to want to secure long term relationships and hence hold out as along as possible and drive the highest price for access to their pussy. Also, of course, the female attraction to the Alpha male, and willingness to share with other females only Alpha males while the betas go without.

  9. jack

    There is no inherent reason why women cannot see sex as men can - just a beautiful act of physical and emotional pleasure

    No inherent logical reason from our point of view, but I fear the extent to which females are hard-wired to consider sex as only a means to an end is widely underestimated. A lot of positive reprogramming would be necessary for this to change. Just look at any dating site, never mind whether the site is a BDSM one or a normal (romance) dating site, the impression is one of crossed purposes: women want "commitment" (whatever that entails) while men want sex, sex and sex.

    this maladaptiveness [of the female] is the primary reason why we have INCELS.

    Plus the absence of protracted warfare to cull the male population and restore supply and demand in favour of men.

  10. Anom

    Sorry about 10 minute mail, but I am nervous about posting here in the current witchhunt climate that exists.

    Houellebecq is one of my favourite writers, because he is a beta, maybe even an omega male, so I can relate to him. The central theme of his first three books is precisely the contradiction that he sees in the values that came from the 60's/70's

    Values which reguard free market economics as an evil thing, that needs to be regulated, but in in favour of a sexual free for all. Which is even more absurd when the 60's/70's women who backed the sexual revolution are now more invisible than any beta/omega male.

    One of the issues you don't touch on, is why do women and feminists care about omega males like myself? I am of no interest to them sexually, and I admit I use porn and escorts to satisfy my sexual needs. They have no interest in me and I don't bother them.

    My theory is that as others have touched on, is that the stereotype of men being the most obsessed about sex is wrong. Sure I want to have sex, but for women sex is everything. It is the basic currency of their existance, they use it for everything.

    Most young women would be unable to function without their sex appeal, it is the easiest way to get anything, so they use it all the time. Anything that is a threat to that must be stomped on, destroyed.

    As for old women, they are deluded that if only porn, lapdance clubs, and escorts went away. They could use their sex appeal as they did in their youth.

  11. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Thanks for the good comment.

    My theory is that as others have touched on, is that the stereotype of men being the most obsessed about sex is wrong. Sure I want to have sex, but for women sex is everything. It is the basic currency of their existance, they use it for everything.

    100% correct. This, of course, is totally the reverse of the commonly percieved view. I've stated this point here many times in the past. Men can fap off to porn in the morning then spend the rest of the day reading philosophy, trying to get promotion at work, studying a new chess move, trainspotting, appreciating the beauty of nature etc etc, and sex is largely absent from their soul. However, sex permeates a woman's whole existance 24 hours a day. She cannot divorce it from herself and no amount of free sex market regulation, legislation or attempts to remove 'sexual objectification' will change this. Even a woman wearing a burqa is a reminder of the power it is shielding. I think Schopenhauer says that woman IS sex. Men THINK about sex, women ARE sex.

    As to the question why women or old femihags care about omega males beating off to porn - I'm not sure they care about the real omega males, but even Alpha males look at porn and as we've discussed previously, women feel cheated on simply by their partners, or even prospective partners, looking at pictures of other women. And most men are not Omegas or Alphas but beatas, and women do need betas. Also, the femihags are motivated by bitterness as much as desire to regulate the sex market in their favour, but they are performing the will of the mass of women who support them through various forms of franchisement including the ballot box, and who do benefit from the taking away of sexual alternatives from men.

  12. theantifeminist

    Post author

    My theory is that as others have touched on, is that the stereotype of men being the most obsessed about sex is wrong. Sure I want to have sex, but for women sex is everything. It is the basic currency of their existance, they use it for everything.

    This really is an excellent point. This is also something to think about for those who claim that 'sex is a female resource', and that 'a woman's sexual market value is always higher than a man's'. Women are far more dependent upon sex than men are.

    Emma the Emo might be right that a 70 year old woman might get occasionally hit upon by a desperate omega male (probably for a pump and dump), but in a true free sexual market, a 70 year old man can always pay to have sex with a teenage hottie. So who has the most sexual power?

  13. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I apologize for the fact, btw, that I've published a couple of comments by women recently, but I feel it was either justified or necessary to do so in these cases.

    This site normally is a male only zone, and any comments from women not named Sabrina Vaz or Barbara Hewson are not welcome.

  14. jack

    @theantifeminist: I cocked up with the italics, so here's my post again:

    My theory is that as others have touched on, is that the stereotype of men being the most obsessed about sex is wrong.

    Because you are using an extended defintion of sex. Women do this too when they say define sex as "being intimate with a man who loves them" and "who is committed to them" and such crap. Esther Vilar put it nicely when she wrote that a woman likes having sex, but not so much as she likes buying a fresh pair of shoes. In your statement there's the added ambiguity of "obsessed about" which may imply a strong dislike as well as liking.

    This issue is not about to rest. To use a phrase by Steve Pinker it is so bad it is not even wrong. It will be reignited time and time and time again, by men and women alike, because it rests on misunderstandings just small enough to allow people to be drawn into the debate again (but not big enough to put the issue to rest).

    What definition of sex do I propose then? Sucking dick, butts, tits, doggy, cum-in-face, cum-in-mouth, etc.

    Let me quote from one of my all-time favourite books: If women tried to find real sexuality for themselves, prostitution would be superfluous, rape almost inconceivable, and pornography ans masculine tricks of conquest practically useless; men would be accosted in the streets and would submit to physical contact in all sorts of promiscuous ways. [...] One report reveals that half of all women are frigid; another goes as far as three quarters; yet another stresses the possibility of a woman's having up to twenty successive orgasms, whereas the man has difficulty in managing two. [...] Everywhere we find contradiction, equivocation, mystery and mystification. From "The eighth Night of Creation" by Jerome Deshusses, 1978.

  15. theantifeminist

    Post author

    What definition of sex do I propose then? Sucking dick, butts, tits, doggy, cum-in-face, cum-in-mouth, etc.

    Fair enough, but what do we get out of this definition apart from allowing feminists to say that men are obsessed with sex?

  16. jack

    The definition doesn't say anything about the proportion of their time and resources men should want to spend on sex. It only says that when men think "sex", they mean it. This being said, your fear of women blaming the beast in men is well-founded and there's no way that can be changed. Not only that, men will blame themselves for the same. Another quote from the same book: The woman will never relinquish the idea that masculine sexuality is bestial because no sexuality, in itself, could ever be anything else. [Men are] compelled to take all sorts of devious routes to seduce a woman, certain of offending her every time he speaks to her in openly sexual terms, conscious that she always subordinates sexuality to something else and that in simulating pleasure, she can do something of which he himself is physiologically incapable. Given this contrast, how can he help but condemn himself for his bestiality? This is another basic cause of the so-called blameworthiness of sex ..."

  17. smkovalinsky

    This may seem off-topic, although I do not really believe so, and just thought I'd throw this out here instead of keeping it to myself. I happened to be trawling youtube and just happened upon this 1999 footage of Jeffrey Jey performing in Italy. While watching it full screen I was struck by the manner in which he was the expression of Nietzschean "proud and prankish" masculinity and the will to the Fourth Turning in Europe. I don't believe such a performance was merely accident, and he appeared like a Mussolini calling to the Millennials of which he was the precursor and to whom he plays the role of a sort of older cultural brother. He represents millions, and a better future. I do not in any way believe this was a mere "pop music" performance, in any sense. Here is the link: It is best viewed full screen :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INu40IhA5Bk

  18. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I apologize for yesterday's reply to your comment Jack, which I see now has merit. I do still, however, see, and hope you do too, that there is a sense in which women are far more obsessed with sexual reproduction than men are.

    Maybe it could be put better as - men are obsessed by sex, but women are even more obsessed by reproduction?

  19. theantifeminist

    Post author

    There's a related shaming tactic that women use against men and male sexuality whereby they say that 'humans are not animals' or 'men are not animals', when men try to look at sex without complicated moral rules.

    In fact, it's a sign of human progress that we can now (or showed signs of it in the 60's) divorce the animal and selfish gene driven act of reproduction from sexual pleasure, and more importantly, from our major ethical concerns.

    Jews and muslims have far more rules regarding what you can and can't eat (and when) than we do, yet few people consider that this alone makes Jews and Muslims morally superior to other peoples. If we discovered a remote African tribe that had invented a myriad of complex rules regarding the act of shitting, and attached huge emotional and moral significance to the size of the turds, the ease of passage through the sphincter etc, we'd just laugh at them as being little more than superstitious backward apes.

    Yet when it comes to the basic act of sex, the more importance and the greater moral significance we attach to it, apparently the less like animals we are. In fact, it's the other way around, or surely should be, at least in an age when technology has seperated sex from reproduction.

  20. theantifeminist

    Post author

    BTW, the point is that it is women and feminists TODAY who are using the shaming language that 'we are not animals', above all in secular Europe, so religion doesn't have much at all to do with the comment I made.

  21. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Also, this an anti-feminist site, not an anti-religion site. The chief justification for this site and the reason I put up with constant death threats etc is to establish these issues as men's rights issues and in doing so possibly to avoid a sexual holocaust over the coming decades. The most common excuse from MRAs for not seeing paedohysteria etc as men's rights issues is the claim that it is Christians and not feminists who are behind it. Last time I checked, most femihags in Europe who claim that a 17 year old girl having multiple orgasms through sex with an older man will be traumatised for life were secular, and did not base their claim upon the Bible or any other religious work.

  22. theantifeminist

    Post author

    And most Christian movements over the last 150 years stirring sex hysteria have been dominated by women, from the Social Purity Movement of the 19th century to the femiservatives of today (example : Sarah Payne etc)

  23. Jack

    Maybe it could be put better as - men are obsessed by sex, but women are even more obsessed by reproduction?

    Or rather women are obsessed with commitment. Take any dating site, men are on the prowl for a woman to have sex with, women are on the prowl for a man who will take care of them for years. Women are commitment whores, not sex-whores. I think it is essential for Today's embattled men to keep this in mind whenever they want to interract with women.

    Regarding women spending 5 years of their life putting on make-up, and 5 more years buying shoes and clothes to increase their sexual market value, note that men do that too in their own male way. Why do men do boring jobs untill they're nearly dead instead of chosing a less boring job that earns just enough to get by? As the saying goes, "if men could fuck in a carboard box, they'd never buy a house". So you end up with a very general statement that men and women chiefly act with sexual ulterior motives. This is not a very useful statement if it is couched in language that creates the impression women are at all into (having) sex. They aren't, alas (except when on some drugs but that's another story of mine).

  24. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Or rather women are obsessed with commitment.

    The thing, to most people, 'commitment' just has a more moral ring to it than 'sex'. So describing men as being obsessed with 'sex', and women with being obsessed with 'commitment', doesn't really do anything but confirm the shaming narrative that men are sex obsessed animals and females something superior.

    Schopenhauer said soemthing about sex showing its hand even in the most obtuse philosophical manuscript or sacred musical work. I honestly think that men have evolved some of our traits as a 'side product' of the reproductive urge. For example, obviously body building has a lot to do with looking good for girls, but once you get into it, it takes over and become an end in itself. You want to build the best body you can, not just the best body to impress girls with. For women, attracting a mate is always the end goal in everything they do. There's a major difference in political and moral thought as well, as I've already alluded to. For women, sex (or 'committment') is pretty much the be all and end all of both morality and politics. For men, politics is about real notions of justice and the supreme Good, leaving aside the fact that politics and justice will always get corrupted by carreer politicians.

    Feminists routinely shame male porn and often promote 'female porn' (actual female visual fucking porn, or 'romantic fiction') as superior because it involves committment. Most men will just accept this unquestionably.

    I see you point in that some anti-sex hysteria writers (the commentator IanB is one) often claim that women are just as into sex as fun as men are, and we don't want to validate that idea, which unfortunately, is obviously false.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>