August 5, 2015

Another fag hag humiliated by her gay eunuch's adultery (Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale divorce)

This was brought up by DdR in the comments to an old post, but it deserves a post of its own.

Here is the link from Blind Gossip about Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale's divorce being caused by his continued adultery with other men, which was already discussed in an old no-longer-blind item here.

What's weird is that they were not a sham couple, with the wife knowingly and cynically bearding for a closet case. She truly believed he was "just" bisexual, rather than preferring rotted male buttholes over her own pussy, and that he could/would quit his old ways.

It's ironic because Gwen Stefani owes her pop icon status to a persona that blends streetwise savvy with girl-next-door wholesomeness. Turns out, she's just another clueless airhead who got conned by a promiscuous fudgepacker, contracting who knows what kinds of diseases via all the Sodomites her husband has taken loads up the butt from.

I was going to say, "At least our memories of '80s pop stars remain clean of this sort of stain." But then there's the dark-haired babe from Bananarama, who is in a 25-year arrangement with the other guy from Wham! Besides showing Peter Pannish gayface in every single picture, he was also in a duo with George Michael.

Checking google, they split up for awhile recently, probably because his twink-fiddling got a little too flagrant for her self-respect to stay intact.

It's disturbing to look at these cases of Strong Independent Women who date/marry a gay eunuch in order to preserve their public desirability ("power couple!") without having to actually pair-bond with a male. Such a strong signal of the growing divide in trust between the sexes.

Of course in the end, indeed throughout the relationship, she gets humiliated privately or publicly by reminders that her beau prefers diseased dude-rectums over what she felt was a desirable, spellbinding pussy.

I'll never understand how beards or even fag-hags can compartmentalize the fact that their gay BFF / closeted homo husband finds everything about their feminine sexuality and womanhood utterly revolting. I guess they perceive that threat to their self-worth as the lesser of the two evils -- she might have to risk dating and getting dumped by a man whose abandoning her could not be easily written off as "he's not into girls at all," rather than just not into her specifically.

In a way, then, the admittedly fringe trend of women bearding for homos or simply spending all their time fag-hagging with gay BFFs, is a sign of the trend among men to not stick around or pair-bond with women. It's obviously a clueless and unhealthy reaction, but they are reacting to something real.

Related: young women less and less likely to choose men as sex partners, since the early '90s. (That post covered data through 2010, but the decline continues up through 2014.)

Girls are not turning to other girls for physical reasons, as though boys can't pleasure them, but other girls could. Other girls can't fill her up. Instead, it seems like they're searching for an emotional bond during intimacy that their distant, checked-out, porn-scarfing, video-game-addicted male peers are incapable of providing them with.

As in the gay eunuch scenario, these girls are in for a rude awakening when they discover that bisexual and lesbian girls are just using the straight experimenter for a taste of fresh forbidden fruit, and have zero intention of emotionally bonding with her and sticking together long-term. Lesbos are convinced that straight experimenters will return to dudes sooner or later, and so don't bother getting emotionally invested with the bi-curious type.

While the young women themselves ultimately bear responsibility for these attempts to take the easy way out of the problem of men not committing to them, they are too childlike to be the target for reversing the trend. Children will always prefer what appears to be This One Weird Trick to solve all their complex problems, no matter how deranged it actually is.

The target, instead, should be young men who need to be shunned and shamed out of their porn-and-video-game cocoons. Parents can do their part by reversing the trend of over-protectiveness, which turns a blind eye toward their sons losing themselves in safe virtual worlds rather than going outside into the scary real world and interacting with their peers.

Real-life friends and girlfriends must be gained by committing to them socially, unlike the virtual world where their party members automatically join them at prescribed points during a video game journey where no one can ever die and go back to start, and where vicarious lovers can be customized and streamed with a few clicks of the mouse.

Training your children to be afraid of the outside world is setting up the next generation of men to fall back into the risk-free addictions of internet porn and video game grinding, which will in turn drive the next generation of women to disconnect from pair-bonding in all sorts of unhealthy last-ditch ways.

24 comments:

  1. What about the Green Day lead and his tattooed groupie turned wife?

    ReplyDelete
  2. My skinhead friend fucked Billy Joe Armstrong's wife.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gay characters in movies:

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=gay.htm&sort=date&order=ASC&p=.htm

    '90 - 1
    '91 - 3
    '92 - 3
    '93 - 5
    '94 - 7
    '95 - 13
    '96 - 11

    Yeah, the mid 90's were "alternative" alright.

    By '01 it had gone up to 16. Oddly, the numbers went down in the 2010's ('10 - 5. '11 - 8, '12 - 7). Did the economy cratering after '08 make people lose patience with the ghey? So far in '15, we've had 4 gay movie characters. Maybe this fits into economic cycles? Movies have been mostly humorless over the last 5-7 years. Maybe the huge number of closeted actors has led to greater reluctance to make characters gay.

    Also, does fashion say something about the chasm between the sexes? Does the average "adult" "man" in his novelty T-shirt, cargo shorts or super low rise pants, and flip flops or beat-up sneakers, strike you as being ready for the long haul? It's crazy that anyone would make fun of 80's fashion. The average 80's teen dressed with more dignity.

    ReplyDelete
  4. advancedatheist8/5/15, 2:36 PM

    Notice the complementary numbers not emphasized in this story:

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/health/teen-sex-rate/index.html

    Apparently the number of American male virgins in the 15-19 age demographic has increased by third since 1988, from 40 percent to 53 percent. How many of today's crop will still lack sexual experience a decade from now?

    ReplyDelete
  5. My perception is that girls have gotten choosier, not that boys won't commit to them. Most guys start out wanting a girlfriend, but give up after getting thoroughly rejected.

    Adding to this is the status-striving - only the best man will do. Cocooning and inequality means that promiscuous men are less punished.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Notice the complementary numbers not emphasized in this story"

    Young people having much less sex than they used to back in the '80s is a familiar theme around here. The data on high school sexual behavior from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey was one of the first patterns that I linked to the rising-crime vs. falling-crime / cocooning vs. outgoing cycle.

    Cocooning signs begin in the late '80s / early '90s, while crime rates peaked somewhat later around 1992.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Most guys start out wanting a girlfriend, but give up after getting thoroughly rejected."

    That itself could be a function of the striving trend -- only asking out girls who are way out of your league, guaranteeing lifelong virginity.

    But I didn't see that when I tutored adolescents back in the mid-2000s, and I don't see it now. The guys are too absorbed in virtual worlds to bother asking out girl after girl after girl.

    They'd rather Facebook-stalk her, at most leaving vague comments on her wall, which takes no guts at all. Girls are no fools in social matters, and rightly perceive this mere cyber-flirting as wimping out that is not to be taken as a serious emotional investment in their "relationship".

    ReplyDelete
  8. advancedatheist8/6/15, 8:58 AM

    Have you noticed more propaganda about the wonders of "sex robots" lately?


    This transhumanist nonsense about banging machines instead of women has to stop - now.


    Young men need to get into sexual relationships with young women through dating - and they need these experiences for their healthy personal development. The skills a man acquires from sexual relationships don't exist in isolation, but they play an integral role in his ability to deal with women competently in the rest of life.


    These skills even matter in your relationship with your mother, believe it or not. Many involuntarily celibate, adult virginal men (called "incels" on the internet) will tell you that their relationship with their parents deteriorated in their 20's when the parents saw that their sons couldn't attract women.


    And women these days seem inclined to evict more and more young men from having sexual relationships because women prefer to have their early experiences with the minority of bad boys, cads, jerks and thugs who appeal to female emotional immaturities. Women turn to the nerds for boyfriends and husband prospects later, reluctantly and without enthusiasm, because the math doesn't work out for the kinds of men women prefer. Hence all the sexless marriages, female infidelity, cuckoldry and wife-instigated divorces we see in developed countries.


    Which assumes that women even bother with the nerds at all, when the modern welfare state and ridiculous make-work for women in government agencies and corporate HR departments remove the need for husbands as providers. The trend towards sexual eviction has progressed so far in Japan that reportedly a quarter of unmarried Japanese men in their 30's have remained virgins, despite Japan's proximity to other Asian countries with sex tourism industries. Japan has a funny way of living "20 minutes into the future," so we should study what happens there to see sexual tends in other developed and developing countries.


    So why would anyone consider sex robots a good idea? It would just exacerbate the trend of creating an even bigger population of psychologically stunted adult virgin men who can't function outside of their parents' basements.


    No, responsible people need to call out this abomination and explain how badly it would damage men. The whole idea shows a real lack of respect for men by saying that they don't deserve relationships with women and that they can't do any better than to jerk off with machines.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think T Greer is on the money about why there is a decline of permanent relationship - http://scholars-stage.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/is-science-of-cultural-change-possible.html

    "Over the last four decades, many Americans have moved away from identifying with an “institutional” model of marriage, which seeks to integrate sex, parenthood, economic cooperation, and emotional intimacy in a permanent union. This model has been overwritten by the “soul mate” model, which sees marriage as primarily a couple-centered vehicle for personal growth, emotional intimacy, and shared consumption that depends for its survival on the happiness of both spouses. Thus where marriage used to serve as the gateway to responsible adulthood, it has come to be increasingly seen as a capstone of sorts that signals couples have arrived, both financially and emotionally—or are on the cusp of arriving.

    Although this newer model of marriage—and the new norms associated with it—has affected all Americans, it poses unique challenges to poor and middle American adults. One problem with this newer model—which sets a high financial and emotional bar for marriage—is that many poor and Middle American couples now believe that they do not have the requisite emotional and economic resources to get or stay married. By contrast, poor and Middle Americans of a generation or two ago would have identified with the institutional model of marriage and been markedly more likely to get and stay married, even if they did not have much money or a consistently good relationship. They made do."


    This probably extends to forming relationships in general, I think. The problem is the kooky idea that men should be "ready for the long haul" before they get married. Of course they aren't. You get married to become an adult along with someone else. It's tough to do it on your own, with no real reason why you should give a shit about adult stuff like driving and owning a home and so on (how many people would ever associated those things with pleasure or relaxation, for instance?), other than that everyone else did it before you and you're a conformist.

    Intuitively I suppose this could be linked with "status striving" and rising inequality, but I don't know if that's the case when we look at the Victorians

    (http://prospect.org/article/marriage-what-brings-us-together-today#14388924741871&action=collapse_widget&id=0&data= / http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/marriage_and_divorce_over_time.jpg?itok=lglYCI9G - the marriage-divorce gap looks stable until 1947, and I don't *really* believe there were secretly loads of abandoned women and so on in the 19th century and no one ever noticed).

    ReplyDelete
  10. "This probably extends to forming relationships in general, I think. The problem is "the kooky idea that men should be "ready for the long haul" before they get married. Of course they aren't. You get married to become an adult along with someone else."

    We're seeing two forces at work, I believe. On the one hand, you've got women who set the bar very high and who won't seriously consider getting hitched to the majority of men. On the other, you've got legion of man children who need to drop the controller and grow up.

    Women need a cold dose of reality (you are most likely not going to have "it all") while men need to drop the silly distractions and cultivate a more dignified and well rounded character.

    When the Greatest Gen and Silents dealt with hardship, they didn't swear off the idea of seeking and attaining marriage. If you look at pictures of the lower class from the 20's-60's, people sure looked tougher, more unpretentious, and more humble. Women didn't act as haughty and prissy, the men were more willing to lock horns with adult responsibilities and growth.

    Our presentation says a lot. Many males born after about 1960 (especially after 1970) don't even bother to wear decent looking pants or shave on a regular basis. Who is going to be turned on by bum chic? When trust levels were higher prior to about 1990 people looked better and more serious. As relations and interest in the opposite sex declined, people started dressing and grooming like slobs. And don't get me started on tats and non ear piercing. What kind of impression will I make if look like a biker or a tribal savage?

    If I was in charge of hiring at some place, I would not higher anyone (esp. males) with tats or non ear piercings. If you don't have the self control to not mutilate yourself, go find someone more "tolerant".

    ReplyDelete
  11. Advancedatheist, female infidelity & cuckoldry is not nearly as common as the internet seems to believe, at least outside the lower classes. Greg Cochran has written about large scale measurements (as in, not just selecting from guys who request paternity tests because they doubt they are the father) generally showing that first-worlders are not cuckoo's eggs. And my understanding of survey data shows that males are significantly prone to report being unfaithful (which is compatible with men tending toward polygamy and women toward hypergamy).

    ReplyDelete
  12. while what all you say is true, Agnostic is making the specific point that men are to blame, not women. women are following the lead of young men, who are choosing to withdraw from courtship. why is this?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Good discussion here. Especially the quote from T. Greer. I think that nails it perfectly.

    As for blaming males, I disagree completely. I believe this is a "Which came first: the chicken or the egg?" kind of question. Did women ditch relationships or did men just withdraw? My observation is that starting from the 70s up until peak Hypergamy presently, is that women became choosier and as someone above stated, spent their choice years chasing or hoping that Mr. Exciting Bad Boy McStud would be the one to pop their cherry and not Mr. Shy and Slightly Awkward future engineer. So they chose that route over the last forty years or so and the current crop of boys subconsciously observe this and decide that all the hard work to just get one 'yes' from a girl for a date isn't worth it. Well, that's the perception, anyways. Are they right? I don't know. Honestly, from what I see I am not impressed with the 20-somethings women in my area. They look good but their demeanors are dogshit.

    So how long can this cycle continue? Well, any real meaningful change will have to come from women collectively. When UMC women and Rich women start be affected by this is when you'll see the change on a MSM cultural discussion level. In my personal life I've already seen it. Over the past two years I've had several young women in their early 20s express interest in getting married ASAP and having children. Not one of them wanted to be first-time mothers in their 30s. I told them they were geniuses and to start looking hard right now! What did all of these girls have in common? None of them went to college. They all worked at blue collar jobs (tending bar, waitressing, hairstylist, admin/secretary, etc). These were really nice looking girls with excellent figures and healthy attitudes. The only drawback is that most are not around a lot of men throughout their work weeks...

    ReplyDelete
  14. A bit I forgot to add earlier: if Japan is "five minutes into the future" on this axis, then under advancedatheist's logic, it should also feature more female infidelity & cuckoldry. My guess is the opposite for them and other northeast asians, roughly along the lines of Rushton's rule.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Instead, it seems like they're searching for an emotional bond during intimacy that their distant, checked-out, porn-scarfing, video-game-addicted male peers are incapable of providing them with."

    "While the young women themselves ultimately bear responsibility for these attempts to take the easy way out of the problem of men not committing to them, they are too childlike to be the target for reversing the trend. Children will always prefer what appears to be This One Weird Trick to solve all their complex problems, no matter how deranged it actually is.

    The target, instead, should be young men who need to be shunned and shamed out of their porn-and-video-game cocoons."

    You're an absolute piece of shit.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You responding to some young girl who would've rejected you in high school:

    "Kind of shows how ridiculous society is, huh?"

    Indeed, how ridiculous. Next you're gonna tell me women like tall guys with great hair and without autism


    LOL, short bald and spergy! The ravages of excessive masturbation.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think the literature linking porn as a substitution for forming intimate relationships is pretty lame so far. With less porn you probably just get more celibate men who use their imagination when beating off. They probably prefer free porn to imagination, but whether they actually beat off more or anything or seek fewer real relationships... I expect no real change (at least from porn itself being around).

    Same with videogames with predetermined character meetups. The people who like that just love books and TV more, when there aren't any videogames like that. Or even sports. Or they just spend less time thinking about or dealing with people period, with less of a virtual substitute around they don't necessarily get more social or better at it. (Although this said, the American Time Use Survey shows increasing leisure time these days, and less time stewardship / maintainance / work, which helps explain why Millennials manage to spend so much time on social media despite not actually going out much less than their predecessors, which can't be explained only by variables than their lower TV watching / book reading / solitary music listening, etc.)

    Re: whether women have increasingly turned to bisexuality out of a yearning for emotional intimacy, I think that would suggest that the bi-curious group have a larger desire for emotional intimacy than the average woman? (Thus they are more dissatisified with current young men, thus they make a change, etc.) I think that seems like pretty much the opposite of what I'd expect survey data on their preferences and interests to show. I'd expect bicurious women would show less inhibited sociosexuality and less interest in emotional intimacy, higher interest in physical stimulation. As these indeed seem the characteristics of bisexual women generally (relative to straights and lesbos). So my tentative conclusion is the idea is overly complicated bollocks, but I guess at least worth floating out there. Who knows though, if they've never been asked the question on a survey (or if "bi curious" women as a niche separate from bisexuals have ever been defined on such surveys)?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I think that would suggest that the bi-curious group have a larger desire for emotional intimacy than the average woman?"

    Not that, but that they're less inclined to trust men for social-emotional connection. Or so I gather from reading personal accounts from bisexual girls, and the few I've known in real life. Like male homos, though not as severely, they are somewhat stunted in the stage of development where they don't fully trust the opposite sex and get nervous opening up to them. They experiment with girls, either physically or just through dating and spending time together, because it feels safer and less risky.

    When men become palpably less willing to emotionally connect, on average, that will provoke a stronger reaction among women who are pre-disposed to hyper-sensitivity about men's ability or willingness to emotionally commit. Women who have a stronger faith in men won't be so easily moved to abandon ship and experiment with other women.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "With less porn you probably just get more celibate men who use their imagination when beating off. They probably prefer free porn to imagination, but whether they actually beat off more or anything or seek fewer real relationships... I expect no real change (at least from porn itself being around)."

    I realize it's hard for Millennials to imagine a world with no porn, but here it goes.

    With no porn around, you direct your libido toward actually having sex, requiring you to convince a woman that you're going to commit to her. Without the confusion stemming from porn that all women are sluts, men know that sluts are pretty rare and cannot be relied on if they want to get their kicks with no commitment, on an ongoing and reliable basis. So commitment it is.

    What did unattached men do back in the Midcentury, another period of cocooning and relative absence of sluts (unlike the '60s - '80s, or earlier in the roaring '20s)? They didn't spend the same amount of time sealing themselves away from girls and beating off to their imagination, as guys today do using pornography.

    Rather their frustration motivated them to court, commit, get engaged / married, and then enjoy regular sex. And they did this while young and horny -- late teens and early 20s.

    That was part of the ethic during the Great Compression of making-do, accommodation, and valuing others / the group more than the self.

    Demand for pornography only began rising during the shift toward individualism circa 1975-1980. Why commit to another person when you can climax while watching and listening to a porno scene?

    The rise of strip clubs is another aspect of this severing of emotional and physical connection, in service of individual gratification uber alles. Just like the rise of the streetwalkers, brothels, and red light districts during the Gilded Age and early 20th C. All of which were shut down in the 1910s and never recovered during the Great Compression.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Millennials would benefit enormously by carefully watching It's a Wonderful Life, which used to run all the time on TV back in the '70s and '80s, but has fallen out as a classic that young people can be expected to have seen.

    It's a perfect mirror-image of the situation Millennials find themselves in -- Jimmy Stewart's character lives in a wholesome world that he takes for granted, in which every individual plays their role in maintaining the spirit of everyone getting along with one another.

    When he's about to selfishly take his own life, he's given a vivid tour of the world that would be if everyone were simply looking out for Number one. The seedy, immoral world he finds himself in is simply the society of the Gilded Age and early 20th C., with widespread gambling, drunkenness, strip clubs (don't think they put brothels in the movie, but close enough), atomization, and rule by the local bigshot banker. For adult audiences in 1946, that kind of society was not hypothetical but something they may have experienced during their formative years.

    He takes the lesson to heart, and decides to quit wallowing in self-pity and to serve the needs of his family and neighbors, renewing the civic lifeblood of wholesome Bedford Falls.

    Over the past 30-40 years, Western society has devolved back into the nightmarish Pottersville. To see what we've lost, we have to perform the opposite thought experiment of It's a Wonderful Life and imagine what daily life and society would be like if we put commitment to our fellows above total self-focus. We'd go back to Bedford Falls.

    And in Bedford Falls, or Mayberry, or wherever, you don't see the young or not-so-young males checked out from commitment to women and instead beating off using their imagination, for want of pornography.

    Porn stems from and reinforces worship of the self.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Andrew Ridgely and his wife got back together shortly after they split up and things are going well. I genuinely don't believe he is gay but George Michael sure is.

    ReplyDelete
  22. ''scientific'' notes.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rather late update, but it appears the inciting incident was that Rossdale was caught screwing one of the nannies. Seems to be a common reason for celebrity divorces, although I suppose it's hypothetically possible that's all an elaborate smokescreen to keep us plebs in the dark.

    You may be right about the ethos of the modern world vs It's a Wonderful Life. Gary Kamiya in 2001 wrote All hail Pottersville!

    ReplyDelete
  24. He's gay.

    site:blindgossip.com "gavin rossdale"

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."