Thursday, May 25, 2017

Gays don't see fidelity, monogamy as intrinsic to marriage

Since the GSS began explicitly asking about sexual orientation in 2008, I've been tracking it alongside rates of marriage infidelity. Every other homosexual has cheated on a spouse while just 1-in-7 heterosexuals have. That figure has stayed remarkably consistent over the five iterations of the survey that have been completed from 2008 through 2016.

A common objection to the conclusion that homosexuals have different expectations for the institution of marriage than heterosexuals do is that gays being surveyed may have been in Will and Grace-style marriages before same-sex marriage was legalized through judicial fiat. Now that their lifestyles have been normalized, they'll be no more likely to cheat on spouses they're romantically interested in than straight people are.

Having actually interacted with gay men, that strikes me as total nonsense. Open relationships, if not the norm among buggers, are at least quite common. The expectation of an open relationship between man and wife is an unusual exception. That's not at all the case among homosexuals.

Fortunately, the GSS also asks respondents how they feel, morally, about extramarital affairs. The following graph shows the percentages, by sexual orientation, who identify it as "always wrong". All responses are from 2008 onward, after same-sex marriage had been legalized in multiple states and it had become obvious to everyone that it was only a matter of time before leviathan would bless it nationwide:

Homosexuals simply don't view marriage as definitionally monogamous. This was a leading argument against same-sex marriage put forth by badwhites who futilely opposed same-sex marriage in the early- and mid-2000s. They asserted that the lax standards characterizing gay relationships would seep into societal expectations for the institution of marriage itself if gays were permitted to marry one another. Their concerns were snarkily dismissed as homophobic fear-mongering, but they've been proven right and the sodomite apologists proven wrong.

That won't make any difference, of course. The cultural ratchet only turns one direction--always to the left, towards humanity-denying equalism.

With same-sex marriage taken care of, the next major push will either be for the normalization of pedophilia or open marriages. My money is on the latter coming first. The New York Times promotes it fairly frequently, most recently a couple of weeks ago in an article entitled "Is an open marriage a happier marriage?"

When the Muslim population in the US grows large enough, the push for polygamy will get going as well. At the moment, though, its association with Mormonism is keeping it off the table.

GSS variables used: SEXORNT, XMARSEX(1)


IHTG said...

Re: pedophilia being normalized. This is a dissident right meme that's never seemed plausible to me. It won't happen.

My idea of a "next major push"? Things related to parenthood, and things that require the state to actually spend money. State-funded adoption and surrogacy for gay couples.

The Z Blog said...

Homosexual marriage was always an absurdity, just as a matter of simple logic. Marriage is about reproduction. Regardless of what the gender fluid types say, two males cannot reproduce and thus can never be "married."

Putting that aside, it has been known for a long time that homosexuals have very different views of sex and relationships. This study from Amsterdam a dozen years ago shows that most homosexual males in "committed relationships" were having sex outside of those relationships.

Here's another from a few years ago that arrives at the same result:

It's also why the divorce rates for homosexuals in Europe are 50% higher than for heterosexuals. Homosexual relationships are far less stable at ever level. I'm largely indifferent to homosexuals, but gay marriage has always offended me because it offends reality.

Saint Louis said...

Is that 50% infidelity number for all homosexuals, men and women? If so, I'd imagine that the lesbians are dragging it down. For just homosexual men, it May be quite a bit higher.

Audacious Epigone said...


Same-sex marriage and tranny normalization didn't require the state to spend money in any significant way. Why now?

A reduction in the age of consent rather than the normalization of sex between pre-pubescents and adults. Hebephilia rather than pedophilia, to be more precise, is what I expect will come down the pike in the not-too-distant future.


But marriage isn't about procreation, it's about love! Don't you know "love wins"?

Saint Louis,

46% of gay men--a slight minority--say it is "always wrong". Among lesbians, it's 58%.

Feryl said...

Re: pedophilia being normalized. This is a dissident right meme that's never seemed plausible to me. It won't happen.

It won't be out of the question in crowded modern day Sodoms with out-of-reach family formation, in a blatant affront to regions which actually promote families. Weirdos always concentrate in a handful of urban areas, since they creep out people in the hinterlands and even mid-sized cities so much (the feeling is mutual). Moreover, young childless people are often under some kind of obligation to spend some or all of their young adulthood in the concrete jungle, but as soon as they can afford to get out and/or seek to have kids and friendly neighbors, they get the hell out before they get mugged or step on a Hep-C tainted needle. In other words, the middle aged and thus typically most influential inhabitants of urban areas are often the most hedonistic and liberally pozzed. Wealthy ultra liberal striver urbanites along with the most broken and dangerous people.

The "good" news is that after years of lefty over-reach, even some liberal urbanites will put the bong down and vote for conservatives. Recall that New York voted for Reagan, once upon a time.

Also, Western culture goes through cycles of left-wing lunacy followed by sharp Right reactions (indeed, Reactionary is a classic insult thrown at righties).

The early 1900's were a volatile and seedy period. Pre-Hitler Berlin was the fag capital of the world, the Lost generation were shooting each other up in Chicago, etc. As if on cue, the Great Depression smote a decadent West. Reforms centering on finance, public health, common decency, and so on became popular. We went from a period that was sobering in it's lack of communal values to a literally sober period (the 40's and 50's), Similarly, the 1960's and 70's were decades of increasing acceptance of defying behavioral and traditional norms. As the 80's progressed, people became more aware of how "tolerance" led to greater levels of child abuse, mental illness, stds, crime, and the like. By around 1986, it seemed that nobody outside of Manhatten or Frisco wanted to be identified with the far Left (the Reagan Democrat trend happened because of the growing desire among many to purge the weirdness from their systems).

"On May 21, 1984, Reagan announced his intention to appoint the Attorney General to study the effect of pornography on society.[31] The Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, often called the Meese report, convened in the spring of 1985 and published its findings in July 1986. "

Folks, in the late 70's there actually were pro-pedophile gay subcultures pushing laws and policies to destigmatize adult-minor contact and kitty pron in some parts of the West. The (comparitively) conservative reaction trends of the 80's thru circa 2007 were welcomed by people like us, but sure enough, in the Obama era libs started getting restless and greedy since the average person (particularly among younger generations) had forgotten what liberals inflicted on us in the 60's and 70's. What about the 90's, you say. Well, ya'll forget the abortion clinic bombings that were quite popular back then?

Progress Vs Reaction. Note that libs always frame themselves as taking the road forward, as if merely forging ahead is innately positive.

Audacious Epigone said...

as if merely forging ahead is innately positive

Great Leap Forward, anyone?

Audacious Epigone said...

51% of liberals think sex between teenagers aged 14-16 is "always wrong" compared to 78% of conservatives (from the GSS). That doesn't address the issue of fully grown adults having sex with teenagers, but if it's okay for 14 yos to have sex, and it's okay for 50 yos to have sex with 18 yos, is it that far a leap to deem it okay for 30 yos to have sex with 14 yos?

Sid said...

The next big perversion being pushed is cougarism - older women with younger men in a relationship. Look at how the left thought Macron was hip and cool for having a wife 24 years older than him, while continuing to seethe over how Trump's wife is similarly younger than him.

When I go out, I see older women acting more flirty with young men, and it's not even considered weird anymore. Heck, more and more men I know seem more accepting of these pairings. Some people will dismiss my anecdotal evidence, but I think it fits into a larger zeitgeist.

The perversions the left pushes are based around being in hedonistic and/or unnatural relationships which don't produce children. Gays don't have kids. Trannies can't have them if they go far enough with the surgery. "Muh birth control" feminists are pushing people to not have kids - and an older woman continuing to ride the carousel with a young man just completes the process until or after she's completely barren.

30 year old feminists seethe with jealousy when 30 year old men date 20 year old girls. They do all sorts of things to imply that it's "rapey," "creepy," or that there's a power differential which favors the man. In contrast, 20 year old jocks dating 30 year old feminists, in their minds, does nothing but increase their market demand. Not surprisingly​, these same outfits usually write well of old woman/young man relationships.

The Z Blog said...

Regarding the next vice to be turned into a virtue, pederasty is a good candidate as there is already an anointed pressure group in favor of it. Milo was not wrong about the prevalence of pederasty among homosexuals. It's more common for males than females, but it is wildly more common and accepted than among heterosexuals.

That said, the betting favorite is plural marriage. The Left has a habit of proving their critics right. The warning was that once you have gay marriage, there's no bar to cousin marriage, incest and plural marriage. My bet is the Boomers will go for plural marriage as that fits the Boomer culture more than the other options.

Dan said...

Pederasty is not being normalized. The opposite is happening.

The reason I don't expect the legalization pederasty any time soon is that there is a clear victim and a mad-as-hell advocate in the parent.

The left's obsession with victimology therefore militates against norming of pederasty.

Also, the left has been working to teach us how horrible rape is, and it would be hard to disentangle that from pederasty since that also uses the word rape.

If anything, the world has been moving significantly away from pederasty. Lots of kiddie porn stings have put lots of men in prison, especially in the year 2017. Since a kiddie molester is the scum of prison society, I am sure lots of anti-pederasty instruction is going on every day in our prison system.

The world famous Anthony Weiner is on his way to prison, a gigantic public warning to would-be pederasts. And he didn't even get laid; he just texted. And the girls were like 15 to 17, not children.

Milo's seemingly mild comments (in which he was the victim no less) were enough to get polite society to run away.

Feryl said...

Now we know why successful black athletes *can* be Republicans. Alas, the kinds of blacks who sling dope and push brooms are never going to be on our side. Every young black male dreams of making it as a baller, but there's only going to be so many blacks who are tall enough, athletic enough, and disciplined enough to make it. has been doing advocacy for white athletes for ages. They like to make fun of couch potato whites who have wildly unrealistic images of blacks that are the result of watching modern basketball and football while having minimal contact with prole and criminal blacks. In reality, non-Mediterranean whites have similar height potential as typical West African descended American blacks. Mature whites have greater sheer strength than mature blacks, although there is the caveat that West Africans have a moderate advantage in explosive power acts (like sprinting, dodging, and blacks, all else being equal, will punch harder and lunge/grab faster than whites). But this comes at the expense of stamina; American sports were seemingly tailored to the mediocre at best stamina of West African blacks. In boxing and combat sports in general, the premium put on conditioning and endurance means that whites and even mestizos can best blacks on a pretty regular basis.

What accounts for black dominance in popular American sports is a combo of many things not deriving from the inferiority of whites.

-the aforementioned frequent stoppage nature of basketball, football, and baseball.

- black grow faster and bigger at a younger age than whites, which gives whites the misleading impression that blacks are men while whites are boys. We ought to know better based on the number of stout white dudes in their late 20's and older, but the "cut" physiques of adolescent/early 20 something blacks make an impression that's hard to shake. Plus, by the time white dudes fill out they often start to put on weight.

- blacks are intimidating, culturally and psychologically. A lot of Boomer white jocks (openness to experience) remember having to stand up for themselves as young athletes playing with or against blacks. A lot of X-er and Millennial whites, sometimes at the behest of parents, steered away from basketball so as not to deal with horrible black sportsmanship.

-most in dispute is that blacks get better mileage out of steroids than whites. White sprinters were much more successful prior to the mid 1970's, which both athletes and general onlookers agree was the time that track and field became really doped up. It's also possible that a population with a moderate advantage in explosive power realized major gains with drugs, while whites start out with less and simply can't get THAT much more power. IMO, outlier successful modern white sprinters (Like Christoper Lemataire, spelling?) tend to be more thinly built than their black counterparts. And as I've noted, absent drugs whites and blacks in their later 20's/30's are built fairly similar although in shape blacks tend to have leaner bodies that do a better job of exposing muscle.

Feryl said...

Also about the strength issue: Jews do verbal combat. Jews often have paranoid fantasies/nightmares about burly goys ganging up on them. So even though Jews clearly have a status advantage in most times and places, this is rarely based on an intimidating physique. The inability of Jews to have literally greater stature than gentiles feeds into their nerdy Marxist tendencies which belie the actual privilege of Jews.

Regardless of a particular demo's political inclinations, one would expect that within that demo, the smaller someone is in literal and figurative stature, the more averse they will be to real conservatism.

WRT Reagan Democrats, that was about burly Middle-Americans poking their fingers in the eyes of a liberalism that in the late 60's and 70's had been seduced by pencil necked intellectuals who promoted resentment of things representing masculine authority and force(the blue collar trades, the military, the police, the stoic commanding father/leader/lover). Cultural elites wanted Alan Alda to replace John Wayne as the icon of what a man should be. Meanwhile, as early as the mid 70's audiences overwhelmingly thrilled to Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson shooting up dirtbags. During the last peak of conservatism, the 80's, many actors got big on the basis of being athletic and charismatic, rather than being trained thespians. I understand that in the 70's, there was this sort of "New Man" thing that trended among the latte set. Emotional expression over control, ceding final word authority to give more clout to women and children, frank neurosis over bland stability, and so on. Eventually we soured on this movement, as "we" (Silents and Boomers) decided to stop fighting human nature in the 80's. And proles never really bought into some of the flakiest ideas of the 70's anyway.

Feryl said...

"Great Leap Forward, anyone?"

Or Hillary's campaign logo.

James said...

You left out bestiality. That will happen before pederasty. Given how gays were so up in arms about being denied "true love" in a committed marriage, its not hard to imagine the mental aberration of loving your dog, Or horse.

Feryl said...

From ConTree house (aka Boomerville)

"How funny–I am the THIRD person here who had Danish immigrant grandparents and about the same time, too. They worked hard to assimilate. They wanted to be here. There wasn’t a lot of yearning for the old country. They made the gargantuan effort to scrape together the money to come here because there was no opportunity for them at home. Once here, they accepted it as their responsibility to fit in.

That has been switched on its head now. It is everyone else’s job to welcome them and kiss away their hurt feelings for having a funny sounding name or eating funny food or having funny cultural traditions or a funny accent. That is where we went wrong. It’s the whole multi culti thing instead of the melting pot. Cultural Marxism. Tribalism. A society of victims."

So....Actually, Marxism wants to destroy tribalism. Economic and cultural Marxists want to destroy national sovereignty and distinct ethnic identities. That's why they want open borders, to dilute every nation's original stock. It's why they believe in toppling countries that want to stay out of the neo-liberal hive. The primary enemy is anyone who wants their country to be closed off from exotic people and cultures.

When older conservatives bash the left for ostensibly encouraging racial division and conflict, we ought to respond with "Like that's a bad thing?" Modern American "conservatism" succeeded at purging any last vestige of ethnic nationalism in the mid 90's. After which cucks began making the ludicrous claim that American righties were a distinctly progressive and idealistic bunch who didn't stoop to irrational nativism and racial awareness. Why, wasn't the KKK affiliated with the Dems? This after Bush won in '88 while using an ad featuring a savage looking black murderer who had been freed by liberal doofus Dukakis.

Some Boomer GOP'ers, who bear scar tissue from the calamitous effects of the civil rights era, feel guilty that they ever bought into "racist" fears, ya know, the kinda stuff that gave us the Nazis. In the declining crime period that started around 1993, it became even easier for conservatives to affect an anti-racist posture. Most of 'em still really do think that any and all ethnic groups aren't much different in their latent potential than the Nords, Oyrish, Wops, etc. who were their ancestors. Of course one can imagine that Dem Boomers are even more guilt-ridden, some of whom voted for Raygun.

The ConTree House is definitely not our crowd, it's gauzy Boomer dreamin', not Gen X desensitized detachment (which is often mistaken for amorality at best and stupidity at worst) and take-no-prisoners awareness. It's not Millennial caution or anxiety, either. Also, the worst partisans seem to be Boomers. ConTree House masquerades as the enemy of the "bad" wing of the GOP, yet when Trump adopted post-1980 GOP ideology to varying degrees (primarily on foreign policy), they effortlessly pivoted right along with Trump. Whoever is leading the GOP (or rather, bringing the GOP good fortune), they adopt as their champion and they refuse to ever take off his coat of arms.

As Agnostic would point out, the urge to just win, baby, is a counterproductive anachronism that's trashed the world that X-ers and Millennials grew up in. We ought to be more concerned with how you play, then we are with whether you win. But it's tough for people in a striving climate to not sulk about being a loser (even if you deserved to lose) or not be a cocky about winning (even if you cheated or sold-out along the way). Liberals were babies about Bush winning two terms (blaming Florida and Nader, not Al Gore for being a smug dickhead or John Kerry for....ummmm....Did Kerry have any personality at all?). And duh, liberals are doing as little as possible to respect or dignify Trump and even his supporters.

Audacious Epigone said...


Good points, though that's not really taboo, it's just a non-starter because almost no one it seems is personally interested in it. A 20 yo wanting to do a 50 yo burned out cock carousel riding old bag? No takers. That may generate less real life interest than hebephilia does!

Z Man,

It also has plenty of historical precedent. Normally that's a Bad Thing, of course, but it can easily be repurposed into a Good Thing if the Who? Whom? answers dictate as much.


More so than in the past, though? Politicians caught in sex scandals has always been damaging. My sense is that, in total, it's less damaging now than it was in the past. Trump's multiple divorces were a non-issue. Cucks and cultMarxists didn't really even try to die his putative misogyny in with his divorces. Weiner was given a second chance after the first round of sexting. Rotherham (and other cities, both formerly and currently) involved systematic underage pimping and hardly a peep was made for years.


Touche. Loving them is arguably more humane than slaughtering them, and that's done by the billions every day.


That's a great expounding on what cuckservatism, in its contemporary form, is. Richard Spencer nails it when he sums up the Alt Right (which is more-or-less synonymous with the Xer/Millennial right)--identity. Boomers and Silents don't get that at all. The cuck right understands it less than the Old Left.

dc.sunsets said...

Notice that the New Protected Activity is characterized by consent.

Joe Normal doesn't care if two guys swallowing each other's load have a wedding or not. Joe does, however, care if one of those guys tries to talk Joe's 14 year old son into getting his frank licked. Joe might well do a Three S's on the fool who did that. While the Hard Left might try to decriminalize parentally-consented teen-adult sex, I don't see Joe staying on the sidelines for even that.

I forecast that we're on the cusp of a major inversion. We've spent 50, 100, even 150 years embracing innovations in industry, science and society. I strongly suspect a host of unrecognized costs were embedded in a lot of the outcomes of that, from frankenfoods and a toxic chemical stew in the grocery store to pharmaceutical contamination of water, and from rewiring kids' brains with TV/video & access to on-line prn from early, impressionable ages to Billy's Got Two Daddies, will burst forth into public consciousness and radically alter people's tolerance of "new and better."

All trends have a beginning, a middle and and end. I see a host of seemingly unrelated but actually quite correlated trends near what seem to be apogee. Cthulhu might have always turned left, but it seems that a long period, perhaps even a century or more, of consolidation and/or RIGHT turning, is imminent.

Look for openness to sexual innovation to do a 180. Just my 2 cents.

dc.sunsets said...

PS: As an adoptee, I'm outraged that gay men are now given equal standing when it comes to infant adoption. I use approval of this as a gauge of just how pozzed is someone (and thus to determine how happy I'll be if given the chance to watch them drown while I sit comfortably on a life-preserver.)

The longer this antebellum period lasts, the more every social institution is damaged, many of them beyond repair, by Leftist/post-modernist evil. Some of those institutions required literally centuries to develop; our society is disposing of them in a few short years, much like an arsonist or a B-17 destroying a centuries-old cathedral.

lucas said...

Wow just super high powered stuff! So much to think about. I would just like to respond as a white Homo Xer(53). I would say that for gay couples to maintain a long term relationship the best bet is to take the sex out of the relationship. Which means practically have an open relationship. Basically gay male relationships start with sex and end up as a relationship because one of the sex partners has become obsessed with the other. Obsession is hardly a good base for a long term relationship. Far better that you like and get long with one another. I know some guys try to get to know one another before "hitting it". But I would say they are only making that much effort because they have already been so badly burned by "following their dicks around". It is actually rather easy for two guys to superficially live together because well they are both guys. I cannot even imagine one guy even trying to "court" or win over another guy. Obsession, affection, companionship, convenience are what makes up gay relationships. I really don't think there is anything else. And I say that as a homosexual who has been in an off and on relationship for over twenty fives years. This relationship is really important to me but it has never been about "for better or worse". When this whole "same-sex marriage" stuff first came up I was definitely "gay identifying". I saw marriage as something we where being denied, as in screwed out of. Now I just cannot believe how much perversity society is willing to put up with. No make that not "put up with" but instead applaud and celebrate. This surely will end badly. But, in the mean while it surely has been one hell of a ride for us perves.