Saturday, June 1, 2013

"Lesbian bed death"

 A fine essay on the reality of gay "marriage"

... after the AIDS crisis, “gay male couples are more monogamous than they used to be, but not nearly to the same degree as other kinds of couples.” One study that she cites asked those in various relationships whether they had any agreed-upon rules permitting extra-curricular activities. The differences were astonishing. Only 4 percent of male/female couples had them compared to 40 percent of gay men in legally recognized unions and 49 percent in long-term cohabiting unions.
These findings agree with a much larger body of research. One of these, a widely respected investigation, found that only a third of gay couples had monogamous agreements and truly honored them with no outside sex. In fact, it found that in the openly nonmonogamous relationships, the frequency of sex outside the relationship from its start ranged from two to a whopping 2,500 separate incidents. The median was 41.5 extracurricular incidents since the relationship’s beginning. Frequency in the last year ranged from zero to 350 occurrences of outside sex, with a median of eight incidences in the last twelve months. Even those who pledged true monogamy, the range was from one to sixty-three “slip-ups” with a median of five. The corresponding numbers for men in heterosexual marriages are microscopic in comparison...
... in the five-year period of the study, six of the fourteen lesbian mother-headed homes had broken up compared to only five of the thirty-eight mother–father headed homes. They creatively explain that this stability imbalance is likely due to the “high standards lesbians bring to their intimate unions.” Mundy says that “lesbians . . . tend to discuss things endlessly.” Whatever the reason, lesbian relationships are dramatically more volatile, fragile, and short-lived than heterosexual couples, whether cohabiting or married...
A study of two generations of British couples (one born in 1958, the other 1970) in same-sex cohabiting, opposite-sex cohabiting, and heterosexual marriage relationships found the same-sex relationships are dramatically more likely to break up than the opposite-sex cohabiting and married relationships. The probabilities of the various relationships surviving to the four- and eight-year anniversaries are dramatic. After four years, 88 percent of married opposite sex couples are together, 67 percent of opposite-sex cohabiting couples, and only 37 percent of same-sex cohabitors. After eight years, those numbers fall to 82 percent, 60 percent, and 25 percent, respectively....
But Mundy points out more bad news, something so common in lesbian relationship that it has earned a name: lesbian bed death—the cessation of sex. She also puts a positive spin on this phenomenon, echoing one scholar’s theory that “lesbians may have had so much intimacy already that they didn’t need sex to get it.”

There's so much to learn about "marriage", in its new iteration. Almost makes you think that it's all about destroying marriage, by making it inclusive of all that marriage is not.

It's going to be an interesting ride down.


  1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 1, 2013 at 8:56 AM

    It's always fun to watch when the dog catches the car.

  2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJune 1, 2013 at 9:12 AM

    Actually, I may have an alternative explanation for the lesbian "bed death" syndrome:

    It is now well-established that women of minority sexual orientation [i.e., lesbians] are disproportionately affected by the obesity epidemic, with nearly three-quarters of adult lesbians overweight or obese, compared to half of heterosexual women.

    --- NIH RePORT (5R01HD066963-02)

    But fear not. The science is on its way: $1.5M has been taken from the taxpayer pocket to discover why lesbians are fatter than "straits" and gay men are skinnier than "straits" ["strait" is, allegedly, Naval nuclear reactor operator slang for heterosexual, possibly adapted from usage describing a narrow, tight shipping channel].

    1. Adm:

      We're in dire straights.

    2. Nice to know you're always thinking of me.


  3. Concerning the "monogamy" as practiced by "gays" described in the OP --

    For a couple of years after I first finished college (many years ago), due to moving to a strange city and where I happened to find living quarters, the only people my own age I knew in that city were "gays" and a lesbian or two.

    In my experience of watching what these people I was trying to be friends with did to themselves and one another, it seems that "monogamy" amongst "gays" means something like "... but you'll spend the night in my bed".

    1. I had a suitemate who was gay when I was an intern. Nice guy-- a nursing student, in his mid-20's.

      I rarely saw him at night-- he was always out. He said that he had had more than a thousand partners, mostly in public places like men's rooms, almost all anonymous.

      As I said, he was a nice guy, devoted to his studies and to helping people. But his sex life was dissolute and dangerous, as he well knew.

      A gay marriage proponent of course would argue that marriage is the solution to such promiscuity. I would reply, and the evidence in the linked essay demonstrates, that gay marriage does not redeem gay life. Gay life desecrates marriage, because the essential aspects of marriage-- love between one man and one woman, fidelity for life, openness to procreation-- either cannot be a part of gay life or is generally not a part of gay life.

      Chastity and turning away from sin redeem gay life, as they redeem all life.

    2. As everyone knows, "it's just a piece of paper" -- how can "a piece of paper" cure one of sluttery?

  4. So gay marriages may tend to be more open than heterosexual marriages, big deal. You’re getting all worked up by something that doesn’t affect you at all.

    Just like heterosexual marriage, gay marriage isn’t for everyone.


    1. @KW:

      "Open" is not marriage. That's the point.

    2. Liberal views are so pathetically hypocritical. You're all about going to ridiculous lengths to contrive injustices and oppose them, but when we're dealing with the way the publicly funded government handles marriage, and how such "open" marriages tarnish what marriage really is, and how it most certainly would be damaging for any children involved (should they choose to adapt), you're all "it doesn't affect you, butt out". Abortion being another prime example.
      Funny, huh. :)


  5. "There's so much to learn about "marriage", in its new iteration. Almost makes you think that it's all about destroying marriage, by making it inclusive of all that marriage is not."
    Oh this is bs...
    "One of these, a widely respected investigation, found that only a third of gay couples had monogamous agreements and truly honored them with no outside sex"