Don’t you feel free, being cucked?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/30/free-love-polyamory-modern-couples

For once, the comment section has sufficient experience to call bullshit.

Vapid men, vapid sexuality. What do you expect? Literal commitment-phobes.

If Holmes had been married/divorced as often as Musk (5 including the secret divorce), there’d be tons of memes and comparisons to Elizabeth Taylor and how sad it is they ‘can’t hold down a man.’ At least hold men to a standard? Any standard!

Men fail at sex and relationships constantly. Admit it.

Elon Musk failed as a man and James Bond is a violent alcoholic.

The world is different than what movies and reddit tell you.

This “free love” bullshit is a sales pitch for guilt-tripping good women into becoming free hookers, using the feminine urge to please and marry well as a weapon against them. The best trick the “sexual revolution” pulled off was convincing women it was for them. Who is praised for being a slut in this ‘culture’?

Ruin the men as husbands, leaders, and the whole family unit fails too. There’s no female equivalent of deadbeat because there doesn’t have to be – getting to the men suffices. Tell men a wife who loves them and a legacy of children will drag them down and white men won’t be a problem in the future, they’ll go extinct. You can’t have patriarchy without patriarchs. 

The term cuckold or cuckquean must be used where appropriate too.

The men rationalize it like they’re deep for being shallow and the women…. are coerced into going along (hey, isn’t that rape?) when adultery voids any ‘marriage’ legally. Polygamists don’t mention that.

Any man who’d be the town bike should expect to be rejected (to ask someone to be your sex toy is ultimately demeaning) – however, promiscuous pop culture tells them on the contrary, STDs and issues with your mother make one more desirable!

And when women IRL avoid them, go out of their way to avoid providing even a phone number, it isn’t the way nature avoids that futile encounter in all her wisdom, it’s that the women are “shallow” or “flakes”. Sure. Sure they are, stud. Evolution must be wrong, not you!

It’s a fact men nowadays see an attractive woman and assume she is sexually available – regardless of her marital status, religion or simple preference. That is intensely creepy, it’s Brave New World. Further, many expect crass sexual attentions are a compliment (porn brainwashing) and that they feel entitled to coldly fuck at least some of the women they are aroused by, as if being attractive has a price where you owe sexual services to anyone who notices. Gee, why don’t women try to be attractive anymore?

Why were women far more attractive when that was assumed to earn monogamy? When it was respectable instead of shamed? Mystery there.

If you think this disloyalty doesn’t relate to low trust, you haven’t been paying attention.

It’s like the guys who say women who reject them must be rejecting them personally… and to prove how “nice” they are, get angry. You’ve proven they were correct to avoid you, you’re unstable, that’s proof.

Nobody wants to be the low bid in the auction.

Denying the impulse to pair bond is cruel and sex solidifies that bond biologically.

If you’re happy, you don’t shop around.

e.g.

I’ve yet to see an open relationship that isn’t painfully dysfunctional. I’m sure it probably exists, but it very much seems the exception.

Yeah …and they’re literally killing people.

Pathogenic etiology cancers, the main reason teens from the Free Love era are suddenly dropping like flies.

Naturally, true cause isn’t on the death certificate.
They want to be whores and manwhores, but they don’t want their grandkids to know.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867418303635
“We conducted the largest investigation of predisposition variants in cancer to date, discovering 853 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in 8% of 10,389 cases from 33 cancer types.”
So far.

The wages of sin seem to be paid to the Reaper.

And don’t call the swingers, swingers. The PC term is sexual snowflake.

You’d think the slutty billionaires in Silicon Valley would fund STD treatments. All the billions mean nothing in an early grave.

The disconnect from reality is fatal.

Like how the cohab slut arrangement isn’t like “kept women” prostitution, keeping a “mistress” (from brothel madam) in an apartment, whether you call them a girlfriend or not. No wonder “try before you buy” leads to divorce.

White ppl r ignorant lol

Basic Guardian bitch comment:

Look closely and you might spot some anti-white snobbery.

I know it’s difficult to read between the lines but in this case there is no longer a line.

They hate white people.

Replace with any other group and they’d be calling for arrests.

Do they know white people are protected by the Equality Act?

“These low-information Jewish voters take pleasure in their own ignorance and bigotry.”

“Muslims vote against their own interests and then feel sorry for themselves because their lives are so impoverished.”

“If a woman is hungry, tired or poorly educated, how can they shoulder the burden of reading actual facts and figures from reputable sources?”

“Do you want someone else to make your decisions for you because it’s easier to trust a journalist than-”

wait nope can’t have that one, can we?

“Surely, that would be condescending and paternalistic.”

The word that magically eludes them is CLASSISM.

They cry if you use it.

From

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/23/trump-boris-johnson-rightwing-populists

The worst low information voters think they’re high information academics because they trust journalists and fall for every pie chart they see.

Here’s a breakdown of Guardian readers:

Rich people own papers, you morons.

Beautiful comment:

What we really need of course is more middle class Leftists telling us how the working class really want Marxism, Socialist dictatorship presided over by Left-wing know-it-alls, uncontrolled immigration, multi-culturalism to fragment communities, and political correctness so that certain groups can be held to lower standards of behaviour in the name of equality.

Apparently the working classes have been gagging for all of these things for years but have failed to understand it because of false consciousness and the evil media etc. etc. etc.

And the favoured classist metaphor is a reply:

want some salt for that chip?

Call out the classism and watch them utterly fail to behave with anything less than contempt to those they deem inferior.

Another reply:

How do you explain that if everyone being white and British equals peace and prosperity? How do you rationally make the case given there are places all over the world mono cultrual which are pure shitholes and places awash with a 100 peoples doing great?

It’s called IQ. National IQ. There’s no such thing as British anyway, the Empire is dead. British doesn’t exist. I’ve never met a British person. I’ve met English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh, never British. You could write Martian on my passport, it doesn’t alter my DNA. The EU doesn’t exist either. I’ve never met an EUian.

Moreover, burden of proof is on the people who want whites on reservations in their homelands, why that should happen by replacement. Third World fertility is endless, inevitably that would result.

He goes on

Thank heaven people die, this generation of morons will one day go and then there might be at least a rational debate not involving the modern equivalent of

“My crops died, it was Goodwife Adams cursed my fields, burn the witch and all will be well”

that blaming a few tens of millions of immigrants worldwide for today’s woes is.

I hope he can hold that civil debate in Arabic.

This is why demographics need to be taught in schools.

To another comment:

but liberals don’t deliberately spread racial and ethnic hate the way the right does. So there is a difference.

I need a ciggie, I’m spent.

Jan Matthys, more r than Marx

https://mises.org/library/messianic-communism-protestant-reformation

This is so r-selected it’s staggering.


A guy shows up and says property should be abolished, he should be treated like a King though, and women should be forced into marriage with violent adulterers (bigamists) who wanted a ‘legal’ form of Red Army rape because something something ‘love’.

The cage the monstrous leaders’ corpses were kept in is still up in Munster, good riddance.

“Soon Jan Matthys himself arrived, a tall, gaunt man with a long black beard. Matthys, aided by Bockelson, quickly became the virtual dictator of the town. The coercive Anabaptists had at last seized a city. The Great Communist Experiment could now begin.”

Anti-white mob.

“Matthys called therefore for the execution of all remaining Catholics and Lutherans, but Knipperdollinck’s cooler head prevailed, since he warned Matthys that slaughtering all other Christians than themselves might cause the rest of the world to become edgy, and they might all come and crush the New Jerusalem in its cradle.

Cowards.

It was therefore decided to do the next best thing, and on February 27 the Catholic and Lutherans were driven out of the city, in the midst of a horrendous snowstorm.

Ah! The Russian method.

In a deed prefiguring communist Cambodia, all non-Anabaptists, including old people, invalids, babies and pregnant women were driven into the snowstorm,

Socialists do care – about themselves.
The grasshopper should’ve been left to starve in the story.

and all were forced to leave behind all their money, property, food and clothing. The remaining Lutherans and Catholics were compulsorily rebaptized, and all refusing this ministration were put to death.”

I think we’ll have to bring this back, the cage method.
You can see they deserved it.

“With every person drafted for siege work, Jan Matthys launched his totalitarian communist social revolution.
The first step was to confiscate the property of the expelled. All their worldly goods were placed in central depots, and the poor were encouraged to take “according to their needs,” the “needs” to be interpreted by seven appointed “deacons” chosen by Matthys.”

Bloody Communists.

“When a blacksmith protested at these measures imposed by Dutch foreigners, Matthys arrested the courageous smithy. Summoning the entire population of the town, Matthys personally stabbed, shot, and killed the “godless” blacksmith”

Foreigners with a sense of entitlement.

Thank god we learned our lesson.

Multiculturalism is just a slow invasion.

“A key part of the Anabaptist reign of terror in Münster was now unveiled. Unerringly, just as in the case of the Cambodian communists four-and-a-half centuries later, the new ruling elite realized that the abolition of the private ownership of money would reduce the population to total slavish dependence on the men of power. And so Matthys, Rothmann and others launched a propaganda campaign that it was unchristian to own money privately; that all money should be held in “common,” which in practice meant that all money whatsoever must be handed over to Matthys and his ruling clique.”

Banks, we call them banks.

Strangely, they are run by a religion. Must be a coincidence.

Food was confiscated from private homes, and rationed according to the will of the government deacons. Also, to accommodate the immigrants, all private homes were effectively communized, with everyone permitted to quarter themselves anywhere; it was now illegal to close, let alone lock, doors.

No such thing as burglary.

Communal dining-halls were established, where people ate together to readings from the Old Testament.
This compulsory communism and reign of terror was carried out in the name of community and Christian “love.””

White Sharia has already happened. For similar, low IQ reasons, it also failed.

There’s a reason nobody trusts missionaries.
They’re invaders holding a book, that isn’t better.

As you can see, it’s often much worse.

“All this communization was considered the first giant steps toward total egalitarian communism, where, as Rothmann put it, “all things were to be in common, there was to be no private property and nobody was to do any more work, but simply trust in God.” The workless part, of course, somehow never arrived.”

(((Wow))) imagine my shock. And iPhones would rain from the Heavens!

Even they opposed usury, though. Con artists recognize con artists.

1534:
“everything which offends against love – all such things are abolished amongst us by the power of love and community.”

Anyone who tries to sell you on giving them power over you for weasel words like ‘love’ and ‘community’ is a dictator waiting to happen.
Tolerance is a sin, the Bible never tells you to tolerate evil, quite the opposite.
Outlawing “working for money” is intended to increase dependence.


https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/3-10.htm
Like unpaid internships and universal basic income today (and the welfare cliff).
Contrary to the God helps those who help themselves logic of the Bible, which didn’t see money as evil, merely love of it and greed at the expense of rights. Making tax-collectors and bankers Satan?

“For the Anabaptists boasted of their lack of education, and claimed that it was the unlearned and the unwashed who would be the elect of the world.”
“Early in May, Bockelson caught the attention of the town by running naked through the streets in a frenzy, falling then into a silent three-day ecstasy.”

Oh, to see that amygdala. Then the other immigrant friend takes over after Jan.
The first sexual revolution / religious rape / free love fest:

The elders were now given total authority over the life and death, the property and the spirit, of every inhabitant of Münster. A strict system of forced labour was imposed, with all artisans not drafted into the military now public employees, working for the community for no monetary reward. This meant, of course, that the guilds were now abolished.

No work > Forced labour.

The totalitarianism in Münster was now complete. Death was now the punishment for virtually every independent act, good or bad. Capital punishment was decreed for the high crimes of murder, theft, lying, avarice, and quarreling!

Notable exception: rape.

That’s how you spot the rabbit.

Also death was decreed for every conceivable kind of insubordination: the young against their parents, wives against their husbands and, of course, anyone at all against the chosen representatives of God on earth, the totalitarian government of Münster. Bernt Knipperdollinck was appointed high executioner to enforce the decrees.

Interfering with family life? Doesn’t sound like the socialist teachers we know.

The only aspect of life previously left untouched was sex, and this now came under the hammer of Bockelson’s total despotism. The only sexual relation permitted was marriage between two Anabaptists. Sex in any other form, including marriage with one of the “godless,” was a capital crime. But soon Bockelson went beyond this rather old-fashioned credo, and decided to establish compulsory polygamy in Münster.

City-wide Communist immigrant-led gang rape. And it didn’t just happen one New Year’s Eve.
Which the Red Army would also replicate in Germany, centuries later. Except you get creepy guys idolizing Russia to this day and never mentioning that literal rape of Europe.

I’m sure they rationalized polygamy (really rape and adultery) as Christian duty (as if their bodies were property of the state) despite how the Bible expressly tells us not to marry.

Since many of the expellees had left their wives and daughters behind,

For shame!

Münster now had three times as many marriageable women as men, so that polygamy had become technologically feasible.

Rabbits wait until most good men are war-dead (The Sexual Revolution happened after World Wars) or poor and desperate to make ends meet then make their move to take the women. By force. How omega.

R-types are just rapists waiting for an opening, a weakness in the native Ks. First they say “don’t defend your women” then it’s “your women?” They fail as husbands and fathers (they can’t even satisfy one wife and are permissive parents). Don’t trust so-called polygamists, usually they don’t believe in an age of consent – or, when given power, consent itself…

Bockelson converted the other rather startled preachers by citing polygamy among the patriarchs of Israel, as well as by threatening dissenters with death.

Won’t let us rape your daughter? Guess we’ll have to make her an orphan. 

Basic principle of tribal war. All war being tribal.

Compulsory polygamy was a bit too much for many of the Münsterites, who launched a rebellion in protest. The rebellion, however, was quickly crushed and most of the rebels put to death.

Along with their conscience.

Execution was also the fate of any further dissenters. And so by August 1534, polygamy was coercively established in Münster.

He raped the city itself, ironic.

As one might expect, young Bockelson took an instant liking to the new regime, and before long he had a harem of 15 wives, including Divara, the beautiful young widow of Jan Matthys.

Bros before what now?

Typical r loyalty.

Anyone who wants a “harem” is basically announcing to the world they’re a rapist.
If all those women wanted to sleep with them, they already would be, by consent, and they wouldn’t want a harem, that kills their ‘lovers’ for leaving.

Remember, Genghis Khan was a very successful rapist.
So-called “conquerors” are the most anti-male icons going, that was some other man’s daughter, sister, wife, mother. Sex traitors.

The rest of the male population also began to take to the new decree as ducks to water. Many of the women did not take as kindly to the new dispensation, and so the elders passed a law ordering compulsory marriage for every women under (and presumably also over) a certain age, which usually meant being a compulsory third or fourth wife.

Rape gangs writing the law.

Thank god we know better now.

Moreover, since marriage among the godless was not only invalid but also illegal, the wives of the expellees now became fair game, and were forced to “marry” good Anabaptists.

This is why you shoot deserters. If they’d betray their country and flee, what right do they have to come back to this?

Refusal to comply with the new law was punishable, of course, by death, and a number of women were actually executed as a result. Those “old” wives who resented the new wives coming into their household were also suppressed, and their quarreling was made a capital crime. Many women were executed for quarreling.

Anyone trying to shut up women is going to censor men too.

But the long arm of the state could reach only just so far and, in their first internal setback, Bockelson and his men had to relent, and permit divorce.

Polygamists are always for easy divorce and multiple re-marriage.
Actually re-marriage is the way they’re hoping to lube society up for it.

Because it isn’t a meaningful, loving commitment unless you can get out of it. And into it. And out. And shake it all about.

Indeed, the ceremony of marriage was now outlawed totally,

Satanists.

and divorce made very easy. As a result, Münster now fell under a regime of what amounted to compulsory free love. And so, within the space of only a few months, a rigid puritanism had been transmuted into a regime of compulsory promiscuity.”

This is what happens if you leave r-selected men in charge.
Chaos. Degenerate chaos. Learn from this lesson of history.

When the SJWs complain about male rule being violent, unfair and incompetent, they refer to r-men. The narcissism of small differences.

“Jan Bockelson seized this opportunity to carry his “egalitarian” communist revolution one step further: he had himself named king and Messiah of the Last Days.”

The Old and New Testaments were specifically written so we’d know to kill these little-dicked despots.

“It often happens with “egalitarians” that a hole, a special escape hatch from the drab uniformity of life, is created – for themselves.”

Communism for all! Except Party members – luxuries for them.
Rule by rapists.

“As soon as he proclaimed the monarchy, the prophet Dusentschur announced a new divine revelation: all who persisted in disagreeing with or disobeying King Bockelson would be put to death, and their very memory blotted out. They would be extirpated forever. Some of the main victims to be executed were women: women who were killed for denying their husbands their marital rights,

rapists, not husbands

for insulting a preacher, or for daring to practice bigamy – polygamy, of course, being solely a male privilege.”

Ah, the insecure double standards of the r-male. You can tell a polygamist is bad in bed when he won’t let his wife sleep with anyone else. But monogamy cannot exist one-way, morons, it’s a single bond between two. There’s no such thing as half loyal to your military either.

Male privilege, huh? The real thing, finally!

As we can see, some males belong on the bottom of the ladder, with no heirs, they’d destroy civilization otherwise.

We are not like bonobos, trust no one who says we were, more like a biological cross between gorilla and chimp.

“So that the king and his nobles might live in high luxury, rigorous austerity was imposed on everyone else in Münster. The subject population had already been robbed of their houses and much of their food; now all superfluous luxury among the masses was outlawed. Clothing and bedding were severely rationed, and all “surplus” turned over to King Bockelson under pain of death. Every house was searched thoroughly and 83 wagonloads of “surplus” clothing collected.

Sugar tax.

Anytime they tax actual food, you’re entering dystopia.

It is not surprising that the deluded masses of Münster began to grumble at being forced to live in abject poverty while the king and his courtiers lived in extreme luxury on the proceeds of their confiscated belongings. And so Bockelson had to beam them some propaganda to explain the new system. The explanation was this: it was all right for Bockelson to live in pomp and luxury because he was already completely dead to the world and the flesh. Since he was dead to the world, in a deep sense his luxury didn’t count. In the style of every guru who has ever lived in luxury among his credulous followers, he explained that for him material objects had no value. How such “logic” can ever fool anyone passes understanding.

Celebrities claiming they’re just like you but shouldn’t be taxed like you (nor their films).
Claiming diversity is good and making expensive efforts to avoid it.
I can see how the pseudologic would work.

More important, Bockelson assured his subjects that he and his court were only the advance guard of the new order; soon, they too would be living in the same millennial luxury.

All talk, like Elon “I’m gonna move to Mars” Musk.
Who happens to be a socialist, coincidentally.

And promises the journey to his new kingdom will be “fun” (creep code for orgies). Don’t get on the ship, folks, if you value your holes.
Logically, the greatest good for all would be letting his staff form a union…

Under their new order, the people of Münster would forge outward, armed with God’s will, and conquer the entire world, exterminating the unrighteous, after which Jesus would return and they would all live in luxury and perfection. Equal communism with great luxury for all would then be achieved.”

I’m reminded of Richard Spencer.
Anyone else?

Magically prosperous (but anti-merit) ethnostate.

Or Mars. Space Eden. For people too smart to believe in a Savior.

The stars are a nice touch.

“Despite his continual preaching about marching forth to conquer the world, King Bockelson was not crazy enough to attempt that feat, especially since the bishop’s army was again besieging the town.”

Ah, the cowardice! Predictable as a Tottenham match.

“Finally, Bockelson, long fascinated with the theatre, ordered his starving subjects to engage in three days of dancing and athletics. Dramatic performances were held, as well as a Black Mass. Starvation, however, was now becoming all-pervasive.”

The narcissism!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mass#Medieval_Roman_Catholic_parodies_and_additions_to_the_Mass

“To guard against such a threat, Bockelson stepped up his reign of terror still further. In early May, he divided the town into 12 sections, and placed a “duke” over each one with an armed force of 24 men. The dukes were foreigners like himself; as Dutch immigrants they were likely to be loyal to Bockelson.”

This is why your ancestors never trusted foreigners with promises.

Reminds me of EU “member states” and the region planning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England
Why do they want a full army?

“Bockelson would undoubtedly have let the entire population starve to death rather than surrender”

Typical r.

Anyone who has to tell you they’re caring, isn’t.

“As for ex-King Bockelson, he was led about on a chain, and the following January, along with Knipperdollinck, was publicly tortured to death, and their bodies suspended in cages from a church tower.”

They’re still there, the cages.
If only they were women, they’d have instantly been clocked as witches. The vices gave them away as Satanic.

This is why men should distrust other men, especially socialists.

Their luxury comes from your labour.

Today it’s called the Labour party.

Abstract artists replaced by AI

Putting the “art” into artificial intelligence.

 I’ll show myself out.

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/10/29/artificial-intelligence-art/

It was only a matter of time.

Now avoiding the real job market by becoming an “artist” isn’t an option, either!

They look like demons that escaped some Lovecraftian hellscape.

Still, better than Glenn Brown.

Like something a mad syphilitic patient would paint in the asylum.

Picasso was a hack who ripped off a lesbian anyway.

https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/paintings/tamara-de-lempicka-composition-abstraite-en-gris-5347563-details.aspx

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/tamara-de-lempicka-1898-1980-le-turban-4983907-details.aspx

Then her symbolism makes sense.

Arums Ii Painting by tamara de lempicka

Guess what those flowers represent.

And with ideas like this

https://hyperallergic.com/466560/discerning-photographys-white-gaze/

Who’ll want to buy their pieces?

The “art market” is only still going as a respectable tax dodge.

And a tool to corrupt.

Patriarchy hates bachelors

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/11/23/bachelor-tax/

Always has done, always will.
It was a wealth tax on those who inherited from their family but refused their family’s wishes to continue the line, spitting on generations of sacrifice.

“Single, footloose, and fancy-free, the bachelor life is often portrayed as an ideal existence.”
Only in the 60s. Look how they turned out.
Historically, they were objects of pity and vice.
“For 2,000 years, bachelor taxes have periodically appeared in societies across the world, targeting single, childless men who were thought to be a useful source of revenue.”
No, they owed their family children (the purpose for their own birth) and, not being able to press the matter of family lineage, it was a useful incentive for the useless pajama boys of their age alongside tying inheritance to making a ‘good match’ and delivering at least one heir. Would you object to that too? Or should we further encourage the aptly named trust fund babies?
A single man doesn’t need a husband and father’s income. They’re spoiled brats who, if they did marry, would ‘marry their mother.’ It’s a good thing the difficult genes are seldom passed on.
They don’t even have to risk death in giving birth unlike the woman, it’s like refusing the draft. (Which bachelors often did, childish).
“In 9 AD, the Roman Emperor Augustus levied the ‘Lex Papia Poppaea’, which imposed a tax on single men and married couples who did not have children.”
Husbands who ‘prevented’ their wife’s fertility, in the latter case.
What about the Spartans?
They were successful because bachelors were considered like children. No responsibility was expected because they were incapable, too soft for it. As such, they were disrespected but at least not slaves.
“The purpose of the tax was to encourage marriage and procreation and to prevent immoral behavior.” They owe society by virtue of being in it, neglecting their duties to the nation – they’re funding, among other things, the women who cannot provide children because they refuse to marry. That’s a direct loss of population to the state.
If they didn’t like it, they could have left.
It was unpatriotic to be single for selfish reasons.
That’s bloody why.
The old wisdom is also coming back on the subject but the West can afford to drop back to its normal pre-WW populations, as long as its resources and infrastructure are not strained by immigration and foreign ‘aid’. We aren’t responsible for the world.
Look at Italy, picture how much better off they’d be now if they imposed a bachelor tax in the 50s.
I heard an old wives’ tale (untrue) that anyone who doesn’t want children, whatsoever, in an earlier era of less medical intervention, would have been destined to die as one, and that was Nature’s way of addressing the fate neatly, just one generation down. Funny how these stories explain things in the fatalistic manner. The impulse to have a healthy, happy family is connected to survival instinct and does frequently diminish in the sickly or traumatized. You could say a lot of modern men are traumatized by the modern world of globalization that forces them to financially compete with the world – so they can never afford a housewife. At minimum, they’re stressed by global concerns. I’d like to see studies on paternal instinct but the bitter segment of bachelors (and they do exist) would cry about it.
“In 1695, when the English Crown was struggling to raise capital for yet another expensive war with France, a bachelor tax was imposed to generate income. This law, known as the Marriage Duty Act, placed a fixed tax on all single men over the age of 25.”
A luxury tax, since you’d have to be rich to afford it. Taxing playboys is a national right, they’re a bad influence. Look how they ruined London. There goes the neighborhood.
Basically it was a eugenic tax on the dead-ends.
It worked.
“Bachelor taxes could also be used to regulate population growth. In South Africa, in 1919, a tax was imposed on bachelors in order to encourage white families to have children, a policy rooted in pre-apartheid racial politics and born out of fears that the white population would soon be eclipsed by the black community.”
No comment.
“In other cases, however, the bachelor tax was more about imposing moral order on society in a time of heightened panic about the hedonistic behavior of young single men.”
They were right…? The degeneracy of today is fueled by vain male demand.
Shut down the porn industry and women might listen. You can’t complain women are showing more skin without complaining about the billboards of lingerie models viewed by toddlers, sex scenes in minors’ films and free porn viewed by five-year olds online because age restrictions and checks would be a mild inconvenience to adults. They know about the brain damage of various vices, they don’t care to ban it. Why would anyone take them seriously? You must also complain about the double standards, like men walking around topless at gyms. We don’t actually want to see that. Plus it’s homoerotic. Sets a bad example.
“Many men complained that such an initiative was an intolerable form of gender discrimination, questioning why men ought to be singled out for extra taxation and not women.”

Men were bitching about muh sexism for decades first.
Broflakes. Men were the ones to propose, duh. It was a one-sided choice.
Plus the men were splashing the cash in illegal avenues difficult to trace (mobs).
Unmarried men only caused trouble to civilized society.
They still do.
Everyone complains about the marriage rate but never gets on the case of men who could marry but refuse.
It reminds me of Leonardo DiCaprio and how he rails against pollution while flying a private jet.
The men bitching about low marriage and birth rates in a personal way can’t be hypocrites, either marry or shut up.
Why don’t they just…? Well, why don’t you?

It’s a valid question, you begged it.

~mic drop~

If you’re rejecting your own gender role, that’s one potential wife you deprive of hers.
They sound like old women, traditionally the ones trying to force marriages.
With such paternalism, and that’s what it is, they must get married or get over it.
The worst are the bad husbands you see online, avoiding their family to lecture others on why they’re single.
Well… people like that. People who shouldn’t have married but wanted the status to browbeat others.
“More successful initiatives appeared at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. The arguments that prevailed during these debates often centered on the behavior of single men, and the perceived need to coax men into marriage.”
All they had to do was shut the gin shops and brothels.
Make the manwhores leave the country, where they can’t be a bad influence on the native and naive.
The old-fashioned attitude was lynching for seduction.
“Opponents of the bill, however, suggested that if the bachelor tax were to stand, then a similar tax needed to be imposed on all women of marriageable age who had refused marriage proposals.”
This is hilarious. That would be fine?

Single men really don’t understand women, do they?
No woman would refuse a proposal from a man she was seriously courting.
However, to make it fair, men should be taxed according to the number of women they proposed to (including false promises and ex-wives) without a successful match.
Just punish the r-types until they move abroad, it’s very simple.
“In addition to this, in 1934, the state of California proposed a $25 bachelor tax, primarily as a strategy to boost the state’s falling birth rate. However, the proposals were not taken forward and the bill was never actually implemented.”
And look how well they’re doing!


This is like the elusive search for an atheist society that didn’t die out.
Such taxes will come back in the age of impossible unfunded pension liabilities.
Not might, must.
Why should they be entitled to live off other people’s children?
Why do you think the Boomers felt safe to abort their children? Social Security!
Then there’s the contribution to moral decay.
It’s funny how the very men who complain loudly about “degeneracy” also drink, smoke, fornicate, gamble and attend “massage parlors”.

We are not fooled.

What about a broad Hypocrite Tax?
Nobody could object.
That’d bring back the honor culture you so desire.
If you wouldn’t want an establishment opening next to a school, why is it allowed in your society at all?
At least make all of it underground and difficult to access. Don’t glamorize it.

It would make more sense to give all bachelors free vasectomies and make them sign a document that they’ll never ask the public to fund their sexual healthcare.
They won’t take you up on it though, r-types enjoy the idea of reproductive abuse.
They are the creeps who remove condoms against consent and don’t think of themselves as rapists.
Actually why aren’t there more child support cases about that? Most women are not on the Pill. Deliberate STD infection is a crime too. One very chiseled actor was in a Canadian court about that. Sometimes misogyny is obvious.

Traditionally, it was known rapists wanted to steal fertility* without the male investment of marriage. Why isn’t it assumed that producing such a child was an act of rape? Especially if the mother expressly didn’t want it? I’m sure we’ll come back to that legal position again soon, by necessity.

*or else they’d favour non-reproductive sex

I guess we could tattoo their forehead with a B for bachelor.
So they can’t lie to women about their intentions.

Salty Christians

https://babylonbee.com/news/migrant-caravan-mysteriously-disappears-but-leaves-behind-cool-wooden-horse

https://babylonbee.com/news/new-purge-film-provides-hundreds-of-job-for-antifa

https://babylonbee.com/news/7-ways-you-can-own-your-liberal-relatives-at-thanksgiving-this-year

https://babylonbee.com/news/bearded-cloaked-elon-musk-summons-two-of-every-creature-to-board-giant-spacex-starship

“Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again?

Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”

https://babylonbee.com/news/recently-pardoned-turkey-found-dead-after-claiming-to-have-dirt-on-hillary-clinton

https://babylonbee.com/news/modern-day-rebel-plans-grow-get-married-productive-member-society

That last one hurt.

Study: Chinese women gold-diggers

No, that’s literally the study.

“Partner wealth predicts self-reported orgasm frequency in a sample of Chinese women”

Seems quite an Asian thing, probably an outcome of cultural and genetic collectivism.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513808001177

They controlled for everything else.

Mixed race divorce and domestic abuse

I’m back. I decided to qualify the end of the last post. For shiggles.
Yes, there is data. I’m cracking down hard on the weebs.

“Marital Dissolution Among Inter-racial Couples”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183451/

“Increases in interracial marriage have been interpreted as reflecting reduced social distance among racial and ethnic groups, but little is known about the stability of interracial marriages. Using six panels of Survey of Income and Program Participation (N = 23,139 married couples), we found that interracial marriages are less stable than endogamous marriages, but these findings did not hold up consistently. After controlling for couple characteristics, the risk of divorce or separation among interracial couples was similar to the more-divorce-prone origin group. Although marital dissolution was found to be strongly associated with race/ethnicity, the results failed to provide evidence that interracial marriage is associated with an elevated risk of marital dissolution.”

This is like saying cars don’t kill people, brakes do.

“As the U.S. population has grown increasingly diverse, it is important to update prior research to include interracial marriages involving Asians and Hispanics, especially given that they are more likely to intermarry (with non-Hispanic Whites) than are Blacks”

so if you’re so concerned about race, screeching at the weebs is your duty. Mudsharks already hate themselves. Asiaphiles are oddly proud of it.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=asiaphile
“The term applies to a non-Asian person particularly a white man who has yellow fever. Thinks all Asian chicks are hot, usually can’t tell the difference between a homely and a cute one just as long as she is Asian.”

I’ve posted about that before. Dick-blind.

It’s the baby prostitute of Mean Girls fame!

Thousands of years of evolution down the drain. Bet his WW2-fighting grandparents would be proud.

“In their study of multiracial identification among those with Black, Asian, or Hispanic backgrounds, Lee and Bean (2007) found that those with Black backgrounds more consistently identified as Black and not multiracial (similar to the “one-drop” rule as applied in the past), whereas those with Hispanic and, especially, Asian backgrounds exhibited more flexibility and choice in racial/ethnic identification and were more likely to identify as multiracial. Lee and Bean (2007) concluded that these patterns illustrated the salience of the color line that continues to divide Blacks from non-Blacks in U.S. society.”

So the existential risk to team white is team yellow.
If you’re being scientific.

“The homogamy perspective predicts that interracial marriages will be less stable than same-race marriages. Thus, Black-White marriages are expected to be more likely to divorce than either Black or White endogamous marriages; similarly, Asian-White marriages are expected to be more likely to divorce than either Asian or White endogamous marriages. The homogamy perspective further leads to the expectation that the stronger the racial boundary of the two groups represented in the couple, the greater the risk of divorce. Thus, Black-White marriages are expected to be at greater risk of divorce than Hispanic-White or Asian-White marriages.”

Although there is a speculated convergence (I’d guess once you control for class/money) that is similar to mixed race IQ being the mean of both sub-par parents (and so dragged lower).

“For example, he found that Chinese-White couple divorce rates fell somewhere in between divorce rates of Chinese and White endogamous marriages.”
“Similarly, Hispanic-White and Asian-White marriages would be expected to be more likely to dissolve than Hispanic or Asian endogamous marriages but less likely than White endogamous marriages”

But that hypothesis isn’t what actually happens and it’d be a more dramatic shift if you removed the religious couples from consideration, only counting those who could be allowed to divorce.

Atheists are more likely to divorce overall, but it’s hard to find studies.
Are they more likely to race mix? Probably.

OT

“Therefore, according to the ethnic convergence hypothesis, immigrant-native marriages would be expected to have divorce risks that fall between those of immigrant-immigrant marriages and native-native marriages. Also, if Hispanic and Asian interracial marriages are less likely to divorce, this could be because so many of these marriages involve immigrants. After controlling for immigration characteristics, the effects of interracial marriage should diminish for these couples”

Another thing to control, desperation to retain citizenship.

“To assess the homogamy and ethnic convergence hypotheses, it is important to control for correlated factors. Individual-level socioeconomic and demographic characteristics are associated with interracial marriage and are important predictors of divorce.”

Gold diggers gonna dig.

“Finally, while having young child(ren) has been shown to increase marital stability, this effect often decreased as the child(ren) grew older (Cherlin, 1977).”

Babies won’t protect you (actually they stress a marriage, especially if had too soon).

“In addition to the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of individuals, it is critical to control for couple-level characteristics.”

Dare you to count 10-score sexual attractiveness compared to their in-group.

That would burn.

“The homogamy perspective stresses that partner differences in any socially significant characteristics—not just race—may increase the risk of divorce, and spouses in interracial couples may differ on multiple characteristics. For example, Tucker and Mitchell-Kernan (1990) found that the age gap was larger for interracially married couples than other couples. Partners in interracial couples may also differ with respect to nativity and citizenship. Interracial marriages between immigrants and U.S.-born natives may be at greater risk of divorce because of partner differences in their reasons for entering the relationship.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Prostitution is a reason.

Kalmijn et al. (2005) found that larger cultural differences between the husband and wife increased the risk of divorce.

Breaking news: water, wet.

In addition, marriage to U.S. citizens may serve as a legal means to immigrate for many foreigners.

For that reason, no, it isn’t legal, and the other spouse has also broken the law by using that to gain power too. Technically the marriage wouldn’t count, since it was conditional as duress to defraud their nation (so also treason).

Such marriages may be motivated by the desire to obtain U.S. citizenship rather than love or companionship, as evidenced in many cases in France (Neyrand & M’Sili, 1998) and the Netherlands (Kalmijn et al., 2005).”

I ain’t sayin’ she a gold digger.. but she reaching for that green card n—er.

“Finally, group-level characteristics, such as marriage cohort, region of residence, religion, and women’s changing status, may be associated with divorce or separation (Trent & South, 1989). For example, interracial marriage has been more prevalent in the West than other parts of the country (Tucker & Mitchell-Kernan, 1990), and marital instability has been more common in the West than other regions, although this relationship has varied by race (Sweeney & Phillips, 2004) and has weakened over the years (Castro Martin & Bumpass, 1989).”

Because less get married in the first place!

The majority (93.5%) of the couples in our sample were endogamous, including 77.4% White-White, 6.4% Black-Black, 7% Hispanic-Hispanic, and 2.7% Asian-Asian couples. The remaining 6.5% of couples were interracially married (including 1% White-Black, 3.5% White-Hispanic, and 1.4% White-Asian pairings, as well as 0.6% of all types of minority-minority marriages combined).

There are far more total Asian-White couples than White-Black, if you’re going to criticize anyone.

1% mulatto vs. 4.9% genetic Asian admixture. Who’s the, ahem, “race traitor?”

Consistent with prior studies (e.g., Qian, 1997), there are distinct racial/ethnic differences in being in an interracial marriage (results not shown). Blacks are substantially less likely than Hispanics or Asians to have a White spouse (10.1% vs. 23.5% and 24.6%, respectively).”

Africans aren’t stealing da white wimmin.

Statistically. This isn’t the 19th century. Your assumptions are outdated.

Over one third of interracial couples (34.5%) involved a foreign-born person married to a U.S. native compared with just 4.2% of endogamous couples.”

Yeah. She a gold digger.
Isn’t that slave ownership?

Most slaves are sex slaves.
Made obvious in the final study here. What happens when a slave gets out of line?

“Consistent with the first homogamy hypothesis, interracial marriages are less stable: 13.7% of interracial couples compared with 9.9% of endogamous couples broke up during their SIPP panel.”

Duh.

“The descriptive results also confirm the second homogamy hypothesis in which mixed-race couples involving the most socially distant groups (e.g., Blacks and Whites) were most likely to break up: nearly 20% of Black-White couples divorced or separated compared with 13.5% of Hispanic-White couples and 8.4% of Asian-White couples.”

Hispanics are genetic Asian, that data is rigged.

Total Asian-White divorce should be 10.95%.

They should also break down by sex, so Asian Male, White Female or White Male, Asian Female for specific divorce risk per individual by demo.
If they controlled for IQ distance between the couples, that’d explain most of the divorce. Hard to steer a marriage when one party is pedaling backwards.

“For Asians, however, the results were consistent with the ethnic convergence hypothesis”

No you tortured the statistics into excluding most of the Asian population in America.
Shell games don’t impress me.

“Roughly 8.3% of Asian-White couples separated or divorced, a level that falls between the relatively high rates for White couples and the relatively low rates among Asian couples (1.4%).”

You said 8.4 earlier.

8.4/1.4 = 6x (times) the average intra-racial Asian divorce risk thanks to Asian-European miscegenation?
And they think that’s a good finding. Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining Zhang.

So this isn’t even good for the Asians with white fever. Since they’re marrying the dregs. They can’t even say it’s better for waifu.

“This may be a consequence of potential problems facing interracial couples including stress, social disapproval, and cultural differences. Furthermore, interracial couples differ from endogamous couples in important ways that may elevate the risk of divorce (such as greater age and education differences between spouses). To test this idea, we turn next to the multivariate hazards models.”

Nothing about racism and the urge to control, how weird.

Almost like they’re encouraging mixing whatever the cost.

“In general, younger age of first marriage, age and educational differences among the spouses (particularly when the husband is more than two years younger or less educated than the wife); lower levels of education (less than college); lower income; and having no or fewer young children were significantly associated with marital instability.”

So lower quality individuals choose to mix.
Groundbreaking.
Stupidity, poverty, atheist fertility predict their divorce (and decision to have wed in the first place).

“Interracial couples tend to have higher incomes and older ages at marriage (both of which are associated with lower rates of dissolution), so these characteristics cannot explain their higher levels of divorce or separation.”

I smell bullshit.
If they wed, bed and divorce like idiots…
could they be idiots? Why u no publish IQ data?

“Although, mixed marriages are also more likely to involve larger differences in age and education between spouses (consistent with the first homogamy hypothesis), which could partially explain their higher risks of marital dissolution.”

There we go.
Backpedal central.

Almost like marrying a virtual child (age gap) is unpleasant, too.

“Unexpectedly, however, the addition of controls for nativity/citizenship status did not alter the hazard ratio associated with interracial marriage.”

Huh.

“Thus far, the results support the first homogamy hypothesis, though the support was rather weak.”

Despite your best efforts to obscure it? Sure Zhang.

Interracial marriage was positively associated with marital dissolution net of couple characteristics, but this relationship was only marginally significant (p < .10).”

Still science.

“We presented the hazard ratios for race/ethnicity only, although the full models are available to interested readers upon request.”

What cover-up?

For a laugh:


All four hazard models.

“Nevertheless, the results were consistent with the second homogamy hypothesis in that the risk of marital dissolution was highest among Black-White couples, followed by Hispanic-White, minority-minority couples, and finally, Asian-White couples.”

Kek.

“Among Asians, the hazard of divorce or separation for interracial couples fell between that of Asian and White endogamous couples but the difference from White couples was not significant, thus failing to fully support Hypothesis 4. We had also hypothesized that nativity and citizenship between spouses of Hispanic and Asian interracial couples may help explain their higher risks of marital dissolution (Hypothesis 5). This idea was not fully supported because interracial marriages involving Hispanics or Asians did not experience elevated hazards of dissolution (so there were no significant differences to explain). Nevertheless, nativity and citizenship did help explain the relatively low risks of instability among Hispanic and Asian endogamous couples. When we added controls for nativity and citizenship in Model 4, the hazards for Hispanic and Asian endogamous couples increased, thereby narrowing the difference from both White couples and interracial couples. In fact, the difference between Hispanic-White and Hispanic-Hispanic couples became insignificant after controlling for citizenship and nativity in Model 4”

In short, when Trump lets the waifus out and relieves them of their fraudulent green cards, expect a lot of divorce.
MAGA.

Then again… there are other kinks to iron out.

“Among Hispanic-White couples, Hispanic husband-White wife were no more likely to dissolve than White or Hispanic endogamous couples.”

You see why religion must be controlled for.

“The contribution of this study is that it examines the instability of interracial marriage among Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in contemporary American society, an era marked by increasing diversity and increasing prevalence of interracial marriage. Overall, although marital dissolution was found to be strongly associated with race/ethnicity, the results failed to provide evidence that interracial marriage per se is associated with an elevated risk of marital dissolution. “

No, you failed to provide evidence. You.
Shit methodology, son.

Our results do show that, on the whole, interracial marriages are less stable than endogamous marriages, even after controlling for couple characteristics.”

Uhuh.

“When we divided the results by race/ethnicity, the results were only partially consistent with the homogamy perspective.”

Despite your best efforts to minimize, consistent.
They should also study second-generation race-mixing, since the mixed tend only to reproduce with one another.

“Rather, the most consistent result was that the risks of divorce for interracial couples for all combinations (Black-White, Hispanic-White, and Asian-White) were not significantly different from those of the higher-risk origin group.”

That’s still divorce. More divorce. Quit trying to spin it.

“Even after pooling six SIPP panels together, the number of interracial couples was small, which may have contributed to the insignificant findings.”

True.

They are very abnormal, Hollywood lies.

“In our study, the effects of certain racial/ethnic combinations were similar for both men and women once controls were introduced into the models (e.g., among Asians and Hispanics).”

Appealing to “alpha” won’t work on this one.

Now for another paper I’m sure cannot be biased by one “Choi”…

Race mixing and re-marriage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5300087/

Plot twist: The modern mudshark is a statistically divorced man remarrying Asian.

I wonder why they never mention this.

“The two most frequently crossed boundaries – those involving White-Asian and White-Hispanic couples – are more permeable in remarriages than in first marriages. Boundaries that are crossed with less frequency – those between minority groups and the White-Black boundary-are less permeable in remarriages than in first marriages. Collectively, these findings suggest that racial and ethnic sorting processes in remarriage may reify existing social distances between pan-ethnic groups. Racial and ethnic variations in how the relative permeability of boundary changes between first and higher-order marriages underscore the importance of considering a broad array of interracial pairings when assessing the ways in which changes in family structure and marital sorting behavior promote integration.”

Promote integration…

From the male (decision) side:

So white men are the race traitors.
Interesting.

White genocide, blame Yellow Fever.

Statistically.

“Tabular results also reveal that for Hispanic and Asian women, intermarriage rates are higher in remarriages than in first marriages. One-third of Asian women wed non-Asian men in their first marriage, but over half did so in remarriage”

Because they couldn’t get a white woman (again).

Hit that Wall hard, huh? Study adiposity, come on.

And it’s obvious white fever in the Asian’s case, a third!

It isn’t the race-mixing white women.
“Eight percent of White women cross ethno-racial boundaries in first marriage, as compared with 6 percent of White women who remarry.”
They seem to learn their lesson.

Table 4 shows the college brainwashing.
They definitely won’t spy on you.
“better-educated women are more likely than their educationally disadvantaged counterparts to cross racial and ethnic boundaries in marriage”
The women are brainwashed too. But it’s also seeking IQ parity, upper-class women typically went to college to find husbands, so more studies are needed and more white men allowed in the Western universities that are their birthright.

“It is conceivable that White-Hispanic and White-Asian marriages likely become even more common in remarriage when third party controls weaken following the dissolution of a first union

They ignore their family’s wishes, bad sons should be disinherited.

and previously married individuals face experience limited availability of co-ethnic potential partners (Kalmijn, 1998; Schwartz, 2013).”

LOL

Can’t get a white woman!

Right there! Ouch.

“Other scholarship claims that cultural dissimilarities between spouses increase marital conflict and instability by reducing the basis for spousal consensus and mutual understanding between spouses (Hohmann-Marriott and Amato, 2008; Kalmijn, 1998; Schwartz, 2013; Zhang and Van Hook, 2009).

resentment

Presumably, couples that exit minority-only interracial marriages avoid similar unions in remarriage, preferring instead to form remarry endogamously, to wed a White partner the next time around, or forego marriage entirely.”

Using white people, again. So the white people are also getting dregs in the arrangement.
It’s like the marital equivalent of busing kids in to improve test scores.

“Descriptive tabulations show that one-in-three women who remarried wed never-married husbands, but only one-in-ten first time brides wed previously married men.”

Yeah if he failed as a husband once, why bet on a lame horse?
He didn’t keep his vows the first time. What a catch! (Throw it back!)

“These analyses, which indicate whether in couples’ mixed marital experiences biased the estimates of boundary crossing in first and subsequent marriages, reaffirm the reported results.”

So in many mixed re-marriages, the previously married party is the dregs of their group.

“base the analyses on recent unions” K.

“Partly this resulted because many large government surveys, such as the decennial census, stopped collecting information about marital order.”

Because it makes men look bad.

“In the context of rising intermarriage and remarriage rates, our study underscores the importance of disaggregating marriage order to clarify whether, in what ways, and for which groups changes in coupling behavior promote integration. Collecting data that permits these distinctions is necessary to avoid conflating potentially divergent intermarriage trends in first and higher order unions, some of which are driven by racial and ethnic differences in divorce rates.”

Oh, they know.
Most starter marriages are male-led affairs, they think (wrongly, QED) they can always trade up later (not to be entered into lightly….) and abandoning wife #1 has no social consequences.
So re-marrying men are largely to blame for the huge divorce rates. Good to know.

This explains why they rarely make it male-led data.

“This pattern, which is consistent with past findings, suggests that low barriers to social interaction across racial and ethnic groups when coupled with suboptimal marriage market conditions and weakened third party control can facilitate interracial remarriages for these groups (Aguirre et al., 1995; Fu, 2010; Kalmijn, 1998; Schwartz, 2013).”

Random re-marriage should be illegal, it’s like flunking a driving test but serious. A society that lets adults (who should be mature enough to commit) re-marry capriciously like infinite respawns is condemning the culture, religion, spouses and children to the misery of an insecure life. What a betrayal.

They bitch about masculinity, when comes the manning-up? Men were respected when they stuck out their duties. Don’t take it on if you don’t mean it.

“Prior studies suggest that cultural dissimilarities between partners diminish grounds for spousal consensus, leading to conflictive, unstable marriages at high risk of dissolution (Hohmann-Marriott and Amato, 2008). In remarriage, previously married men and women from mixed-race unions may revise their mate criteria to avoid similar forms of partner incompatibility (Dean and Gurak, 1978).”

Except stupid white guys with yellow fever.
I wonder if they’re more likely porn addicts. That would be an entertaining study.

“Stated differently, intermarriage studies restricted to White-Black couples render an incomplete portrayal of mate selection behavior in the context of an ever more diverse society.”

They may not be getting married but they’re having more children than the white guys with Yellow Fever. It’s typical atheist sub-fertility so given the standard, limited dating patterns their grand-kids will be a quarter black.

“In similar fashion, although prior work shows that characteristics of spouses interact in shaping mate selection behavior (Fu, 2010), our data do not permit consideration of the joint distribution of spouses’ characteristics. We report analyses based on intermarriage patterns pegged to wives’ characteristics; however, auxiliary analyses based on husbands’ attributes yielded similar conclusions.”

Since the male proposes, it should be male-led data.
Look for r-selection traits and that’ll resolve most of it.

“How the mate selection behavior of widowed and divorced individuals is largely uncharted and certainly warrants investigation.”

Women are more likely to be widowed, men divorced, that’s why they don’t look for it – it makes the men look heartless.

“marriage confers legal rights and obligations, many of which are not extended to cohabiting couples (child support is a notable exception)”

It shouldn’t be, don’t have kids with someone you haven’t married first, or at least don’t expect the authority of a husband over a woman you didn’t yoke yourself to. If a man wants “his” kids so much, he should be taking primary care of them – not fobbing them off on a foreign nanny like some high-powered executive (daycare is abusive). The low IQ nanny normalization may be responsible for divorced children’s lower IQs.

“Specifically, racial and ethnic profile of former cohabiting partners are seldom recorded in US data suitable for analyzing inter-racial coupling behavior (e.g., ACS, Census, NSFG).”

coincidence

“The exclusion of interracial cohabitation will understate the extent to which couples cross ethnic and racial boundaries in forming co-residential interracial unions given that interracial unions are more likely than same-race unions to start and remain as a cohabitation (Kreider, 2000; Rodriguez-Garcia, 2015).”

Study separation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3315595/

The variable nobody wants to discuss.

“Despite the growing number of interethnic marriages in the U.S., few studies have examined intimate partner violence (IPV) in interethnic couples. This article examined past-year occurrences of IPV across interethnic and intra-ethnic couples and tested correlates of IPV specifically in interethnic couples. Data were from a national survey of couples 18 years of age and older from the 48 contiguous states. Interethnic couples (n = 116) included partners from different ethnic backgrounds, including black-white, Hispanic-white, and black-Hispanic couples. White (n = 555), black (n = 358), and Hispanic (n = 527) intra-ethnic couples included partners with the same ethnicity. Data analyses were prevalence rates and logistic regressions. The analyses showed that interethnic couples were comparatively younger and had shorter relationships than intra-ethnic white, black, and Hispanic couples.

Male partners in interethnic couples had higher rates of binge drinking and alcohol problems compared to male partners in intra-ethnic couples.

So much for happy mixing. Stock photos lied to me?

Still no mention of racism, so a white male hitting a non-white is okay if you’re married to them? Surely it’s more racist to treat them like breeding sows and sexual concubines.

Past year prevalence rates for any occurrence of IPV and acts of severe IPV were higher for interethnic couples relative to intra-ethnic couples.

Why isn’t this mentioned in Sex Ed?

Most occurrences of IPV for interethnic couples were mutual.

Obedient waifu trope is a myth.

Factors predicting IPV among interethnic couples included marital status, couples’ age, male alcohol problems, and female impulsivity.

Mounting evidence points to interethnic couples as a high risk group for IPV.

Why aren’t there PSAs?

Interethnic couples may be at greater risk for IPV because of their younger age, binge drinking and alcohol problems.

You can’t blame the drink. They drink to have an excuse.

Future research could build on this study by examining cohort effects and regional differences in IPV for interethnic couples, and the risk for IPV across interethnic couples of different ethnic compositions.”

Note: no (non-Hispanic) Asian-White data in this one tested. Hmm.

However, found this:

“Fusco (2010) used county police reports to examine interethnic and intra-ethnic couple differences in IPV for a more diverse community sample of whites, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. Interethnic couples were more likely than intra-ethnic minority and white couples to have a prior history of IPV and to experience mutual IPV in which both partners were determined by police to be equally involved in perpetrating violence.

No world for submissive waifu.

I guess that’s what happens when you marry someone with higher T than yourself (those manjaws).

White women don’t look like such bitches now, huh?

Victims of IPV in interethnic couples were also at greater risk of being injured during the violence when compared to intra-ethnic couples.

Wages of sin?

Logically, you wouldn’t hold back with the out-group. It’s unconscious.

Diversity + Proximity = Domestic violence, in this case.

This may suggest that interethnic couples engage in more severe acts of partner violence relative to intra-ethnic couples, although Fusco (2010) did not specifically examine partner violence severity.

Wonder why.

So the white guys really do hate their waifu, deep down.
And the Asian woman does hit back (unlike whites).
Why don’t the MRAs ever mention this? Their mutual violence trope is racial, not sexual!

“Couples that included Asian partners or partners from ‘other’ ethnicities (n = 43) were also excluded due to their small sample size in the dataset.”

convenient, considering

For example, white-Asian marriages make up a large percentage of interethnic marriages (Hattery, 2009), but we were not able to include them in this study due to the small number of Asians surveyed.”

I smell bullshit. So they abuse one another but they don’t talk. To save face.

Enough for now. I’ve proven my point.