Submitted by Henry Armitage
In case you weren’t aware, (((scientists))) say that,”Gay and lesbian couples have happier relationships than their straight counterparts, according to new research.”
Yes, you heard that right.
Now, from the University of Queensland, Australia, and the same school of Frankenfurter social science, comes the news that homos are actually happier and more well-adjusted than normal people.
Academics behind the research say it counters the stereotype that same-sex relationships are conflictual, unhappy and dysfunctional.
The research, based on surveys of over 25,000 people in the UK and Australia, is published in the academic journal Family Relations.
It found that UK gay and lesbian couples had a relationship quality as high as their straight counterparts, while in Australia it was higher than heterosexuals.
Its authors have offered possible explanations for why homosexual relationships are happier. They said same-sex couples and particularly women are more likely to share domestic labour equally and this means there is less conflict.
Gay and lesbian people are also more likely to feel part of a community, and this could enhance their self-esteem and allow them to experience higher levels of wellbeing.
They could also be more invested in their relationships given the personal and institutional barriers that they have to overcome as members of a sexual minority.
Now, what are the odds they will spin this as showing that heterosexuals (or rather, heterosexual men) are discriminated against in a gynocentric, homo-normative culture?
You can bet if the results had gone the other way, “hetero-normative oppression” would have been the narrative.
Then they talk about the positive mental health outcomes associated with “feel[ing] part of a community,” which of course is something that is stigmatized among the white majorities of UK and Australia. Being a sex pervert and/or joining Antifa are probably the only two remaining ways white people are still allowed to identify with something bigger than themselves.
And, of course, they speculate that “shar[ing] domestic labor equally” leads to better relationships. Undermining traditional gender roles has obviously led to much more stable marriages over the past half a century.
So what were the odds that the authors could even consider saying that their results point to the breakdown of the traditional family due to feminism and the strain of trying to build a family life in a jewed-out, anti-traditional society that makes even something as basic as home-ownership impossible for increasing numbers? See, Gays will never know what it’s like to build your house on the sand of no-fault divorce laws and female hypergamy.
Will they bring up the correlation between premarital sex and the likelihood of divorce?
Will they talk about the strains placed on relationships by a woman having had dozens of fuck-buddy “partners” before settling down at age 40 with a beta male who disgusts her and can’t give her children?
Will these gay bug-persons of the J-left address the confounding issue of economic inequality represented by the fact that homos are an economically privileged sector of the population?
How about the fact that the study uses data from a pair of surveys that people can choose to complete or not, depending, presumably, on whether they have an ax to grind about social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc.?
After all, you’re talking about a couple percent of the population that is highly organized and works for its own group benefit to try to convince normies that, it’s all good, and they should totally have access to little kids. Might as well survey Jews on their “greed levels” and present the findings as proving that they are less greedy than the general population.
No, the deviancy activists who authored this study don’t address any of these concerns.
Nor do they address the fact that in Australia and throughout the world there are loads of statistics showing that LGBTQIPs are more likely to off themselves and generally have mental problems that would put strain on any relationship that went further than the odd shared meal and “stimulating conversation” in between poz parties.
In short, comparing the self-reported happiness scores of hetero couples and monogamous homos is like comparing apples with hemorrhoids.
The point of bringing up this study is not to shed light on its non-existent scientific rigor.
The scientists themselves know its a load of bull!
No, they did it to make the news and create a rainbow-colored buzz in the back of people’s minds. It’s done in the knowledge that most people won’t be bothered reading the actual paper to see how flimsy its claims are—while anyone who does is 99% guaranteed to be a gay activist or an academic too scared of losing his career to point out that this is junk science designed to support a prefabricated conclusion.
So naturally, that role falls to the Alt-Right.
My advice to the study’s authors would be to keep forging on. You’ve got the normies on the ropes now; time to finish us off. Go ahead and do one on how victims of childhood sexual abuse by other homes turn out to be happier than non-victims.
At this point, you probably could start convincing the general public that the world was flat (and cis-gendered) and nobody would blink an eye.
There doesn’t seem to be any working link to the actual study anywhere in the article above or in the quoted article.
It’s both amusing and unsurprising that nobody has noticed thus far.
As that episode of “Yes, Minister” demonstrated, surveys are all rubbish.
Many Oz lawyers are actually overjoyed at the gay marriage fiasco becoming reality. A whole new client base of greedy unprincipled and unfaithful litigants will be expected to start hitting the “Family” Courts within the next decade. As part of preparations for this, gay adoptions will have to rise as this backward country doesn’t give child support for poodles.
Oz gays are ridiculously militant, as well as just ridiculous and militant. The first gay terrorist attack was covered up last year.
Can you “red pill me on that, Goy”
I’d like to read about it.
So, no scolding for the men who have dozens of fuck-buddy “partners”? No words on how you’ll spin it, if Spencer really is gay? LOL! Whatever!
Also, the alt-right has a high number of single and divorced men. Your “movement” is a refuge for the “incels”. It is VERY unwise to badmouth their alt-ass options for sex.
Like your father then, Barnabas.
Still no reply to my request for evidence of female hypergamy.
To any alt-Right goys tossing around this divisive theory: Put up or shut up.
Are you serious? There are entire manosphere blogs dedicated to citing studies proving this. What are you so up in arms about?
So cite one. I have no interest in exposing myself to their abuse. Just one study.
And remember, not just evidence that women seek higher status men. I want to see evidence that female choosiness, rather than male choosiness, is holding up White famly formation.
If the evidence s so copious, it shouldn’t be hard to cite one study showing this. I have been asking for weeks and still have not seen one. Nor have I seen an explanation of the study I cited below showing that men are more intensely competitive for the most attractive mates than women.
Nothing but crickets about this for weeks now.
I know you will never believe a white male who say 2 + 2 = 4. So here is an article by two Asians and a Jew who say it. http://ftp.iza.org/dp7293.pdf
I don’t care who s saying it. If there is no data, I’m calling bullshit. Before I waste my time, is there actual evidence in this article, or is it just more unsubstantiated armchair misogyny?
You have to understand. The MGTOW argument that women are responsible for the downfall of the West proceeds like this:
(1) Hypergamy destroys civilizations. (Ok, sounds plausible.)
(2) Arbirarily define hypergamy as something only women do, ignoring comparable, equally destructive behavior on the part of men.
(3) Wam, bam, thank you, mam. Women convicted of destroying civilization.
Now, is there actual proof in this article?
Sigh. A quarter of the way through the article, and all it says is that men are more willing to take a foreign wife who is better looking, albeit poorer, than any they could get domestically.
This still doesn’t address the problem of male competition for the most physically attractive mates, and concomitant rejection of Plain Jane, acting as an obstacle to White family formation.
I have provided evidence that men are more hypercompetitive for mates than women, and it has been ignored. I have asked for evidence that women are more hypercompetitive for mates than men, and none has been forthcoming.
I suspect there isn’t any to speak of.
Lifetime odds of HIV infection are 1/10, 1/5 and 1/2 for White, Hispanic and Black American homosexuals respectively, according to the CDC. Even the gay magazine The Advocate admits these statistics are true, not an exaggeration:
If it weren’t for anti-retrovirals, these perverts would be dropping like flies. They are basically just walking germs. It’s kind of irrelevant what kind of “relationship” you have if you are only kept alive courtesy of modern medicine.
why does greg johnson call this wensite trash? actually, it is very good!!!
Uuuh because it is dragging the whole movement down. It’s not only trash, it’s very counterproductive.
Many retards or otherwise mentally ill people are happier than their healthy counterparts. (I guess it comes with not having the daily preoccupations of healthy, normal people.) What use this finding is, I don’t know. Certainly, it helps undermine the stability and sustainability of Western societies, that’s for sure.
a recent harvard study suggests that within gay community fisting guys are happier, better adjusted and have higher mean incomes than the more traditional fucking guys.
a recent study suggest also that the fisting guys will tend to stay over in this area here.
It`s all really quite romantic.
Yeah, it is. You know, maybe they are on to something. Maybe anal fisting for angry feminists and treacherous Republican politicians is just what the doctor ordered? Who knew a fist up the ass was such a cure-all for social ills?
There is no such thing as a “monogamous homosexual”. All homo relationships, married or not, are not monogamous. They will tell you they are. However, they’re lying or their definition of monogamous is twisted. Of course they’re happier….on the surface! They’re selfish people. You cannot take something nontraditional (gay marriage) & live it traditional (monogamous). Their degenerate lifestyle is getting taken seriously. They love it! But needing “studies” like this along with all of the parades & applause when they come out proves they just don’t feel right about any of it!
When is somebody going to provide some actual evidence of “female hypergamy”?
The alt-Right used to pride itself on being empirical and honest. Now we just repeat bogus talking points, and divisive ones at that.
The average male marriage age is higher than the average female marriage age. The older you get, the more wealth the average person has acquired. There will always be exceptions to the rule. But exceptions prove the rule.
That isn’t proof of anything. All it shows is that women are more likely to seek wealth and status, while men are more likely to seek youth and beauty. It doesn’t say anything about who is actually being overly choosy. That is a separate question entirely.
That’s literally what you asked for. “Hypergamy” = “the action of marrying a person of a superior caste or class”. As you yourself admit, “it shows that women are more likely to seek wealth and status”.
That is not what is meant by “hypergamy” among the MGTOW set. Rather, they mean Thant women are all competing for the most attractive 20% of men, believe they deserve one, and refuse to settle for anything less.
I have not seen one single shred of evidence that this is true. In fact, I have seen evidence that the very opposite is true. It is actually men who are hyper competitive for the most attractive mates.
How does this theory of female hypergamy square with the finding in this study that 2/3 of men’s responses go to the top 1/3 most attractive women, while women reach out to men on a much more equitable basis. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation of this, and none has been forthcoming.
Women will say that only 20% of men are above average-looking, but (1) they don’t agree on who they are, and (2) prioritize other factors anyway.
This female hypergamy meme needs to die unless someone can produce some evidence for it.
To whomever gave me a thumbs down on this post: That is not an argument, nor is it evidence. Will someone please provide evidence that women are holding up family formation by being unduly choosy.
I’m STILL WAITING!
I was momentarily polite to you but you are so clueless and unable to see that you irritate everyone around you.
Please start targeting women and getting them Trad. You can’t cut it against the men, and you shouldn’t be against us. Your brow beating is not going to convince anyone, start being positive and persuade the women.
You called me a coward for refusing to ruin my children’s lives. I don’t consider that polite at all, but I’ll let it slide for the sake of constructive dialogue.
Also, I am not “clueless.” I am well aware that challenging shibboleths annoys people. I am still going to do it, partly because not to do so is disrespectful. I will not humor bullshit from White men, who should know better.
You menfolk demand that I “target” women and persuade them to change their ways. When I ask for evidence that women are the problem, you accuse me of “browbeating.” Think about that for a minute and you’ll see how ridiculous it is.
“All it shows is that women are more likely to seek wealth and status”
That’s called “hypergamy.”
Totally beside the point. The MGTOW grievance is that, as a result of the sexual revolution, women are sleeping around with the most desirable men rather than choosing a partner and marrying young.
Women have ALWAYS sought wealth and status. That is nothing new. Beautiful women have always been able to cash in on their beauty by marrying up. Nothing whatsoever is new about that, nor does it have anything to do with the Sexual Revolution.
The only relevant question is this: Who is holding out for the best partner and preventing White family formation? Is it men, women, or both? The evidence indicates that it is MEN who are hypercompetitive for the most physically attractive mates. It is MEN who are reaching out of their league and refusing to settle. That is a kind of hypergamy in itsel, and anyone who denies this is playing word games and avoiding the issue.
I an STILL WAITING for evidence to show that “female hypergamy” is the proble.
When is someone going to show me proof of gravity? What’s that? I should drop something and watch what happens? OK, let me see…holy sh!TTT!!!
I get a laugh out of every headline that is followed by “scientists found in a study” cause its 9 times out of 10 some bullshit rent seeking project by useless people who act like the alchemists of olden days. Maybee some of them need to burn at the sake to beat some sense into the scientific community. Even through i see some use of the studying of bugmen sexual behavior paterns, simply because such studying always leads to the dehumanization of the subject. So maybee these guys get spared for a while. The rest goes off to the Stake or the Tarpeian Rock.