Catherine Hakim

From, the incel encyclopedia

Catherine Hakim is a blackpilled sociologist who wrote Honey Money: The power of erotic capital, which explains how to take advantage of sexual sublimation.

Male sex deficit[edit]

She argued that there has developed a sex deficit since the sexual revolution that primarily affects men. She also claims that men have a libido that is one average twice as high as women. As such, she has proposed fully legalizing sex work.[1] The popularization of the term “sex deficit” can in substantial parts be attributed to her. She uses the term in the context of male sexlessness.

Gender attractiveness disparity[edit]

One of the more groundbreaking claims by Catherine Hakim isn’t necessarily that women are more attractive than men (everyone knows that), but what the implication of this reality is. Facial biometric technology has given us the possibility of determining attractiveness on an objective basis, rather than the subjective basis which tends to be the common trope of the “we’re all beautiful in our own way” crowd. One a website called Marquardt Beauty Analysis there is a mask which can be overlayed over one’s face and test one’s attractiveness based on how closely it correlates with the mask of which women have a higher correlation.[2] However, social tropes arguably play a bigger role in gender perceptions, as women are often described with terms such as the fairer sex, or frequently have attractiveness associated with them, such as being called beautiful, or pretty, which happens much less often for males.

To get back to Hakim, she says that women have more erotic capital than men, which is a fancy way of saying that women are more attractive than men. Coupled with her arguments suggesting a male sex deficit, she suggests women should take advantage of their erotic capital.[3] In another article she titled “Attractive wins and ugly loses in today’s rat race”, she also suggests that more attractive people are privileged in comparison to their less attractive counterparts who are disadvantaged.[4]

As a whole, the conclusion one could take from Catherine Hakim’s analysis is that not only are men disadvantaged in the dating scene in comparison to women, but since they are at least conventionally portrayed as less attractive overall in comparison with the fairer sex, they also face additional disadvantages pertaining to aesthetic appearance in that regard.


See also[edit]


Anthony PerkinsCharles BukowskiCharles FourierChristine ChubbuckDaniel JohnstonFriedrich NietzscheGiacomo LeopardiH.P. LovecraftHenri de Toulouse-LautrecHenry FlyntJoseph MerrickLudwig van BeethovenNikola TeslaOtto WeiningerQuasimodoVincent van GoghHenry CavendishOliver HeavesideJeremy BenthamJuliette Récamier


Arthur SchopenhauerGiacomo CasanovaJohn Humphrey Noyes

History articles

History of female sex-favoritismHistory of the incelosphereHistory of the Love-shy RevolutionSexual revolutionLumpenproletariatDC9 Facebook Group


A History of CelibacyCreepFacial Aesthetics: Concepts and Clinical DiagnosisHoney Money: The power of erotic capitalKill All NormiesMännliche Absolute BeginnerMarsSex and CharacterSex and CultureSexual Utopia in PowerShyness and LoveSind Singles anders?The Great UnmarriedThe Love-Shy Survival GuideThe Manipulated ManThe Myth of Male PowerUnfreiwillig SingleUntouchedWhateverWomen As Sex VendorsIncel: A novel


Alfred KinseyAngela NagleAntoine BanierArne HoffmannBeate KüpperBrian GilmartinCarol QueenCatherine HakimDenise DonnellyDustin SheplerEdward DuttonFranco BasagliaJ. D. UnwinJordan PetersonKristin SpitznogleLaura CarpenterMichel ClouscardMichel HouellebecqMike CrumplarOlaf WickenhöferRebecca KarlénReid MihalkoRobin SprengerRoger DevlinScott AaronsonScott AlexanderTalmer ShockleyTim SquirrellWalter M. GallichanWilhelm ReichVox DayThe Jolly HereticMenelaos Apostolou
William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson