latest

Study: Homosexuals And Bisexuals Are More Likely To Be Mentally Ill, Drug Abusers

It’s summer now, and in Sweden that means it’s pride parade season. One thing that’s different this year is that the very gay Milo Yiannopoulos is coming here to lead a parade on July 27th. The reason is that this particular parade will go through Tensta, a suburb comprised of mostly immigrants, a lot of them Muslim. We’ll see how that goes.

In other gay news: a new survey has found excess health problems in gays, lesbians and bisexuals. These groups reported more health problems than straight men and women.

More prone to smoking and heavy drinking

The study was done in the US, with nearly 69,000 participants. The National Health Interview Survey has been around for many years, but in 2013 and 2014 it included a question about sexual orientation for the first time.

The researchers conclude that gay, lesbian and bisexual adults “were more likely to report impaired physical and mental health, heavy alcohol consumption, and heavy cigarette use, potentially due to the stressors that (they) experience as a result of interpersonal and structural discrimination.”

The results show that lesbians, compared to heterosexual women, are 91 percent more likely to report poor or fair health. Lesbians are also 51 percent more likely, and bisexual women more than twice as likely, to report multiple chronic conditions, compared to straight women.

Gays, lesbians and bisexuals are more likely to indulge in heavy drinking and smoking. 26 percent of gay men and about 40 percent of bisexual men reported at least moderate psychological distress, compared to about 17 percent of heterosexual men.

In the case of women, about 22 percent of heterosexuals had at least moderate psychological distress, compared to about 28 percent of lesbians and about 46 percent of bisexuals.

Gilbert Gonzales of the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, who worked with this study, thinks so-called “minority stress” may account for health differences between heterosexuals and gay, lesbian and bisexual people. He thinks bisexuals have it worse than the rest because they may not always be accepted by gay, lesbian and transgender communities.

Right off the bat, you know the researchers aren’t exactly unbiased in this matter, since they talk about “structural discrimination” of these minority groups in America, a country where they are constantly praised in the media and by the elites. But leaving that aside, their study does show some interesting results.

I can’t say that I’m surprised. There are many possible reasons why the LGB (and likely also T) community is having more psychological problems than heterosexuals. One reason could be that some people do treat them badly on account of them being so strange (there’s a reason why they’re called queers). If they insist on acting act out their weird sexual desires in public, it’s understandable that some will take offense to that.

Some might even go so far as to discriminate against them. A business owner with more traditional values might deny them service—for instance, refuse to be the host of a gay wedding. That could well cause the gay couple to feel distress. (Although I would say that that’s the business owner’s right in a free country.)

But I would argue that there are other factors that affect LGBT people’s mental health more than real life discrimination, which can’t be that common in Western countries. The fact that their situation is often described as a lot more bleak than it is, is something that surely must affect them in a negative way. If they’re constantly being told about how oppressed they are by white, cisgender men, and “the religious right” (but not Muslims, we can’t say that), then of course they’re gonna be worried about their safety and future.

In the same way, if you tell a black person enough times that the police are after him and want to shoot him to death, for nothing more than walking down the street, eventually he’s going to believe it and start resenting cops and society in general.

Why celebrate sexual deviance?

But there’s one other factor that I want to bring to this discussion. I’m not a scientist like Gilbert Gonzales, and I’m definitely going to sound like a prejudiced asshole saying this (although it wouldn’t be the first time), but I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Wrong in the sense that they weren’t created as they were supposed to be.

People are, like all animals, supposed to mate with each other, otherwise we wouldn’t still be here. Hence, we’re meant to be heterosexuals. Ergo, gays, lesbians and bisexuals were born with a faulty constitution. And since they’re faulty, it’s no wonder if that reflects on their mental condition.

I’m not saying that there’s necessarily something morally wrong with being gay, just that they’re a small minority of the populace for a reason. It’s not something we should encourage people to be—the results of the study presented above support that case.

Should someone feel pride over being born faulty? Should it be paraded around in the street like it’s something we should celebrate? Should we embrace a condition that impedes our species’ ability to survive? I’m not sure I can agree with that.

AN IDIOT’S GUIDE TO NEW WESTERN SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS
…
Arson Greyer
Arson is an anti-SJW crusader and critic of sexual marketplace deregulation who has gotten filthy rich from the non-existent gender pay gap. He enjoys spending as much time as possible outside of America in places where short-haired women are viewed as social outcasts rather than strong and independent.
…
Up until a couple of years ago, my basic understanding of human sexuality was roughly as follows: there are men, and there are women. A person’s sexual orientation could be defined as one of heterosexual (being sexually attracted to the opposite gender), homosexual (being sexually attracted to others of the same gender) or bisexual (being sexually attracted to both genders).

Recently, however, I’ve been coming across a plethora of new terms in mainstream cultural commentary that purportedly seek to describe other sexual orientations. I quickly found myself coming across such terms as “pan,” “demi,” and even “homoflexible,” wondering what the hell they all mean.

Even the dating app OKCupid has recently broadened the options on gender and sexuality its users can display in their profiles. What was LGBT has now expanded even further, with seemingly new sexual orientations materializing out of thin air on the regular. I’ve written the following “Idiot’s Guide” to help my fellow men avoid the same confusion I’ve suffered in making sense of this new alphabet soup of sexual orientations.

But first, a disclaimer:

You’ll notice that I’ve titled the article as a guide to new “western” sexual orientations. That’s because one would be incredibly hard pressed to find terms like “asexual” or “sapiosexual” being used in any non-western context. In fact, I can’t recall ever even seeing one instance of a woman on a Russian, Ukrainian, Asian or Latin American dating site ever mentioning she identified with one of these new-age, alternate sexual orientations.

Interestingly, the usage of these new sexual orientation terms seems to be primarily restricted to the discourse of two basic areas of the internet:

1. Articles by SJWs and feminists on known manosphere-hating sites (e.g. Jezebel).

2. The social media and dating profiles of young middle and upper-middle class white women.

The definitions and examples I’ll provide below are more relevant to understanding these terms as used in area “b,” but nonetheless will provide clarity in other contexts also. Okay, let’s begin:

1. Pansexual
Definition: sexual attraction to all sexes and gender identities.

Famous Alleged Pansexuals: Madonna, Lady Gaga.

More Accurate Description: Bisexual. Proponents of pansexuality claim that it differs from bisexuality in that it is gender blind, so allegedly pansexuals wouldn’t know a cock from a vagina if it slapped them in the face. The queer “movement,” however, claims both pansexuality and bisexuality can mean attraction to not just the male and female gender, but any gender (whatever those others are). So, they’re essentially the same.

…
4. Demisexual
Definition: sexual attraction to another person contingent upon deep emotional and romantic connection.

More Accurate Description: Women who are approaching the end of easy riding on the cock carousel and desperately want to lock down a good man before the wall or have the “baby rabies.”

With these in mind, a demisexual woman has resolved to restrict future access to her worn-out pussy to only those who want a deep, romantic connection (read: beta-provider LTR) with her. This is, of course, until she meets the next alpha who suits her fancy and is good for a quick one-nighter.

5. Asexual
Definition: is not sexually attracted to anyone; doesn’t have sexual feelings.

More Accurate Description: A woman who has allegedly never experienced sexual feelings yet signed up for a dating site and posted several extremely slutty, suggestive photos under the guise of “trying this out” or “just to make new friends”.

All indications indicate this woman has had multiple previous sexual encounters (including gangbangs), but is using the “asexual” label to discourage messages from thirsty betas who will pass over her profile because “she’s asexual”.

Conclusion
What’s common among each of these supposed new sexual orientations is that we already have a term that has long-described almost exactly the same kind of sexual attraction. This raises an important question: why are people classifying their sexual orientation under new, buzzword banners when there’s already a well-understood term that describes it precisely?

The answer lies in the attention-whoring tendencies of the two groups – a and b – that use these terms the most. To be merely bisexual isn’t counter-mainstream enough anymore and calling oneself that doesn’t get the same kind of attention it once did, when few people identified as this. Therefore, to feed the egos of members of these two groups, new terms for already-existing sexual orientations had to be conjured up to maintain a fresh supply of new attention and coverage.

They’re new labels for the same sort of old sexual behaviour. The next time you see an American woman who is calling herself sapiosexual, heteroflexible, or whatever new term is invented next month to describe long-standing sexual behavior, the most prudent option is to ignore it completely, as a shit test, and game on as you usually would.

These new sexual orientations are, for the most part, nothing more than a cry for attention. They win if we if give it to them.