Percentage of US population over 15 who were married by sex and race, 1950–2017

I decided to take another crack at the marital status data by race and ethnicity that I shared on Friday.  Instead of creating multiple charts for each group, I charted all groups at once, only tracking the percent married value.  I still ended up with two different charts however, because for Blacks and Whites the data goes all the way back to 1950, while for Asians and Hispanics there is only data going back to 1990.  Here is the Black and White data going back to 1950:

black_white_census

I had no idea that:

  1. Black and White marriage rates started out so close.  Note that in 1950 White men were only 4% more likely than Black men to be married, and the same was true for White vs Black women.
  2. The deterioration of the Black family was already in full swing in the 1950s.  It would be interesting to see what social policy changes were underway in the 1950s that might explain this.  I suspect there were precursor changes to how illegitimacy was legally handled, as well as welfare policies encouraging single motherhood.  It would also help to see the data on Black out of wedlock birth rates, but the data for Blacks is missing until 1969.

At any rate, it is clear that the modern view of marriage has been a catastrophe for Black families.

Here is the same chart, but starting from 1990 and including Asians and Hispanics:

black_white_asian_hispanic_census

Note that for Whites and Blacks, men are more likely to be married than women.  Yet this is reversed for Asians and Hispanics.  Notice also that Asian marriage rates are very nearly as high in 2017 as they were in 1990, while the same figures have dropped for all other races.  Lastly, as I’ve pointed out before, the data for Hispanics is deceptive because first generation Hispanics have very low divorce rates, but native born Hispanics have divorce rates comparable to Blacks.  Given the pattern we’ve seen with marriage rates declining where the risk of divorce is highest, I would expect Hispanic marriage rates to fall dramatically over the coming decades.

Notes on the charts:

  • When I broke out the races the lines for Black, Asian, and Hispanic looked like EKG lines.  My assumption is the off census samples are too small to break out the data this way.  For consistency I used only census year data* for all races, with the exception of 2017.  To see what the charts would look like with off census year data included, see here and here.
  • All of the data in the first chart is in line with Figure 2 on page 63 here, with the exception of 2010 data.  I have no idea why the 2010 values differ.

*Edit:  I see from the source data that the number of interviews appears roughly the same on census years as off census years.  So the census year data appears to be just as noisy as off year data.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Data, Marriage. Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to Percentage of US population over 15 who were married by sex and race, 1950–2017

  1. Pingback: Percentage of US population over 15 who were married by sex and race, 1950–2017 | @the_arv

  2. Anonymous Reader says:

    This is quite remarkable data. I previously believed that Black and White marriage rates were probably “close enough” to each other in the US all the way into the 1960’s. I believed this in large part because of Daniel Patrick Monyhan’s work in the early 1970’s which showed how just a few years of Great Society programs had damaged Black communities. Just looking at this data, social damage to the Black communities was already underway in the 1950’s, it just accelerated in the 60’s and beyond.

  3. thedeti says:

    Minor quibble: I don’t know if we can say black marriage deterioration was in full swing in the 1950s. It was starting to get rolling, for sure, but it didn’t really get going until the mid 60s’ Great Society. My guess that it wasn’t so much social policies that was affecting declining marriage in the 1950s as it was segregation contributing to lower employment rates for black men, and the matriarchal nature of black families, which tends to alienate and disempower men.

  4. Pingback: America begins its post-marriage experiment - Fabius Maximus website

  5. Dave says:

    My guess that it wasn’t so much social policies that was affecting declining marriage in the 1950s as it was segregation contributing to lower employment rates for black men, and the matriarchal nature of black families, which tends to alienate and disempower men.

    Not sure both claims explain the trend. There was segregation and low black unemployment before the 50s, and the nature of black women were still the same during that period.
    But even then the black marriage rates were much higher back then….

  6. thedeti says:

    What explains the huge dropoff in the number of married blacks after the 1950s is Great Society policies giving government benefits and free medical care to unmarried women with children, and poor women. Why should a woman stay with a man who just doesn’t do it for her when she can get government benefits, dropkick to the curb a man she’s not attracted to, and date/have sex with attractive men? And when more kids mean more money, why not just have the kids even if you don’t have a husband to help you?

    The Great Society had the unintended effect of encouraging out of wedlock birth, and discouraging marriage. Why get a man to support you when you can get Uncle Sugar to do it? Uncle Sugar is never unemployed, he’s always there with the money every month, and he doesn’t expect or demand anything from you.

  7. Bart says:

    Like the first commenter, I was surprised to see such a steep decline in marriage rates for black men and women even in the 1950s, as I had the general impression this had ramped up with Great Society-era legal, medical, and social changes.

    thedeti, I’ll quibble with your quibble — for black men especially, that 1950s slope is almost as steep as the 1960s, which itself should have only a half-decade of Great Society effects, and shows a decline similar to the decades since (except for the 1970s). I’d like to know what that graph would have looked like prior to 1950 both for marriage and employment rates, but I don’t see how segregation would explain it as it should have been even worse previously (perhaps with an abatement around WWII) and we didn’t see the same sort of catastrophic breakdown.

    Something more must have been going on in the fifties and perhaps before that would help explain it, and I’d love to know what it is.

  8. Bart says:

    We’d have to have pre-1950 data, but one possibility that occurs to me is the increasing urbanization of black families in the first half of the 20th century. Other demographics were urbanizing too, but by 1950 white families had begun moving to new suburbs that better enforced the social expectations of the day whereas black families were still transitioning from the rural South to anonymity and corruption of the inner cities.

  9. thedeti says:

    Bart:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Migration_(African_American)

    The graph at the top shows declining black population in the south. This article asserts blacks were on the move from the South to the North, Midwest, and West from the US’ entrance into WWII in 1941, to at least 1970. It shows beginning decline of black populations in the South starting in 1920 and then sharply declining in the 1940s.

    So you have black men and women moving away from home, either married or not. Had they stayed home that would have resulted in greater familial pressure to get and stay married, presumably. This was contributing to greater societal isolation and atomization. My suspicion is there was also less economic pressure to get and stay married if you were moving north and west for jobs.

    this might not explain it all, but there’s some coincidence there – blacks migrating north and west at the same time black marriage is declining.

  10. thedeti says:

    Bart – we crossposted. Indeed there’s some coincidental trend evidence that supports your position.

  11. thedeti says:

    Other demographics were urbanizing too, but by 1950 white families had begun moving to new suburbs that better enforced the social expectations of the day

    White flight. Blacks were moving in; whites were moving further away from population centers.

  12. Oscar says:

    @ thedeti

    The Great Society had the unintended effect of encouraging out of wedlock birth, and discouraging marriage.

    I doubt it was unintentional. Always remember; qui bono? Promoting dependence on government benefits politicians and bureaucrats.

  13. earl says:

    Promoting dependence on government benefits politicians and bureaucrats.

    Yes, the wanted to create a society where Uncle Sam is the daddy. The daddy that let’s his princess & chads do whatever foul things they want.

  14. Sharkly says:

    I’m sort of familiar with the destruction of Black families. I’d be more interested to know how the Asian marriages went up after 2000 and have stayed relatively high. That’s really what we need to figure out, more so, than what is already fairly well known. What should we be doing?

  15. ray says:

    thedeti — “It was starting to get rolling, for sure, but it didn’t really get going until the mid 60s’ Great Society. My guess that it wasn’t so much social policies that was affecting declining marriage in the 1950s as it was segregation contributing to lower employment rates for black men, and the matriarchal nature of black families, which tends to alienate and disempower men.”

    The pre-cursers (literally) of the Total Transformation of America were sown in the Fifties, but were rarely visible at the overt political level. This was the preparation stage for the evil you witness in the U.S. now.

    The Civil Rights Amendment of 1963/64 mandated that ALL females become Protected Class citizens, along with Racial Minorities. Might as well kill your society straight off as pass something like that. So that left white males (esp. of lower/middle class) as the perennial scapegoat, and everything that followed was inevitable. There were many other ‘Great Society’ measures, but CRA ’64 was the heart of the revolution . . . really, the permanent dividing of U.S. society.

    The Evil Boomers, btw, were mostly in grade school when that legislation was created and passed. (Sorry, Supreme Dark Lord acolytes!) Lyndon Johnson was a key masonic agent, meaning, a Luciferian. So were, and are, many other persons in key positions throughout the nation. The changes I’ve witnessed over the past six decades in America are merely the changes that Lucifer planned and executed. The rabbit hole goes very deep indeed.

  16. Pingback: Percentage of US population over 15 who were married by sex and race, 1950–2017 | Reaction Times

  17. ray says:

    thedeti — “My guess that it wasn’t so much social policies that was affecting declining marriage in the 1950s as it was segregation contributing to lower employment rates for black men, and the matriarchal nature of black families, which tends to alienate and disempower men.”

    Yes. The black family was targeted because their socio-spiritual organization and collective consciousness already were predisposed towards matriarchy/gynarchy, which is the model of African societies. American blacks only needed ‘a little push’ from the State to fall back whole-hog into the patterns long familiar and imprinted. Satanic patterns, as opposed to Christian social and familial organization.

    Jesse Lee Peterson does a great job explaining the intentional destruction of the father-led black family, and the intentional corruption of black neighborhoods into ghettos. As a result, black men are FAR less empowered today than during the ‘horrible, evil’ Jim Crow days — which Jesse likewise lived under. I highly recommend his vids on this topic. He knows exactly what it would take to heal black (and white, for that matter) communities and families, and he probly also knows why America will never accept that healing and restoration. Instead, the nation only becomes more feminist, i.e., satanic.

  18. earl says:

    Isn’t that interesting….

  19. ray says:

    the deti — “The Great Society had the unintended effect of encouraging out of wedlock birth, and discouraging marriage.”

    These things were enacted intentionally. After long planning, indeed.

  20. earl says:

    “The Great Society had the unintended effect of encouraging out of wedlock birth, and discouraging marriage.”

    And now look what is being encouraged and discouraged in the churches.

    At some point you’d think we’d open our eyes and start calling out fornication and encourage the sanctity of marriage with children being born in it. But that would require offending many a wimminz & chads to do it.

  21. Kevin says:

    Asian women say all the correct lefty things but it looks like their not quite ready to go over the cliff white women are cheering for.

  22. Wayne says:

    I suspect that marriage rates for Asian and Latino women are higher than those of the men’s because of race related attraction phenomena. According to OK Trends, Asian women are the most desirable (as indicated by interest), and in the past few years, Latina women’s desirability has surpassed that of white women.
    Also, Asian men may not score so high on SMV, but their MMV is noteworthy.
    Source: https://theblog.okcupid.com/race-and-attraction-2009-2014-107dcbb4f060

  23. Oscar says:

    @ earl

    Yes, the wanted to create a society where Uncle Sam is the daddy. The daddy that let’s his princess & chads do whatever foul things they want.

    People who live in gated communities rarely give a damn what happens outside the gates.

    @ Sharkly

    I’m sort of familiar with the destruction of Black families.

    I’m a Central American immigrant, so I’m much more familiar with the destruction of the Hispanic family. As Dalrock pointed out, 0th generation Hispanics (like my parents, two of my siblings and me) tend to get married relatively young and stay married.

    Things fall apart immediately thereafter.

    1st and 2nd generation Hispanic families are a mess. Cultural inertia seems to keep 0th generation Hispanics together, but by the 2nd generation, resistance to the perverse incentives offered by Uncle Sugar pretty much disappears.

    The exception to that rule (in my experience) is Hispanics who attend solid, Bible-believing churches, which shouldn’t be a surprise.

  24. Oscar says:

    @ Kevin

    Asian women say all the correct lefty things but it looks like their not quite ready to go over the cliff white women are cheering for.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if successful people preached what they practice?

  25. feeriker says:

    The Great Society had the unintended effect of encouraging out of wedlock birth, and discouraging marriage.

    I doubt it was unintentional. Always remember; qui bono? Promoting dependence on government benefits politicians and bureaucrats.

    Precisely. Black Americans, due to their low socioeconomic status, were the convenient “lab rats”/”guinea pigs” for what the Deep State intends to force upon all of us eventually.

  26. Oscar says:

    Judging from the data, it seems like Black men, White men, Hispanic women, and Asian women are more likely to marry people of other races, while Black women, White women, Hispanic men, and Asian men are more likely to get left behind. With exceptions, of course (I married a White chick from Idaho).

  27. rugby11 says:


    Interesting listen

  28. ray says:

    feeriker — “Precisely. Black Americans, due to their low socioeconomic status, were the convenient “lab rats”/”guinea pigs” for what the Deep State intends to force upon all of us eventually.”

    Yoop. What they already forced, really. Who was behind Total Feminism, before it reached the codification stage in the early Sixties? American/Western intel. Who funded Gloria Steinem? U.S. intel. And on and on.

    People chatter now about how the Deep State has become entrenched lately in American sub-structures. But these forces have been active in America for going on 100 years. And after eight years of Obama and his co-traitors further stacking the Deep State, I do not see how such persons and groups can be ejected from power. The will is not there in a nation of self-absorbed spoiled brats. You’d have to scrub the whole place, and you must know what that would entail.

  29. gunner451 says:

    The reason why Asian marriage rates have not dropped has more to do with Asian culture which places more emphasis on family ties (Filial piety). This keeps the women in line as the marriage was already “approved” by her parents and she typically will not go against her parents wishes (same goes for the husband and his parents). Watched a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJm0ZsvQuAI) on this which was interesting on how different Chinese are from Westerners. The question addressed was a hypothetical question:

    If both your Mother and Wife were drowning and you could only save one, which one would you save?

    Most Western men would answer that they would save their wife, most Chinese men would answer that they would save their mother (by the way most Chinese were horrified that the westerner would choose his wife). The answer is what separates western culture from Asian culture and will do so into the future. Also, for those men who are looking to marry an Asian you had best remember this as it most certainly will come up (over and over) in your marriage, when push comes to shove she will side with her parents not you. You just have to remember that you are second place to her mom and dad, and when kids are born third place (maybe forth if you have pets). In any case for Asians marriage is more of a business arrangement than an affaire of the heart (trust me I lived it for 20+ years).

  30. Vyasa says:

    In terms of Asians, the most likely cause for their high marriage rates is their high socio-economic status. Asians tend to have incredibly high average income, and my guess is that the vast majority of American-born Asians end up in the upper middle class. Dalrock has mentioned the UMC tends to marry and stay married.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

    Median household income for Asians is ~$80K, a third more than Whites. The sub-group of Indian-Americans are at a staggering $120K. I expect both numbers to go up actually as the American-born Asians move further along in their careers and out-earn their parents significantly.

  31. dudedont says:

    “It would be interesting to see what social policy changes were underway in the 1950s that might explain this.”

    This was the time of the great black migration when waves of negroes moved from the southern countryside to northern cities. All the anecdotal evidence supports black men leaving the south for factories in the north. I doubt there is a data set that records how the move south to north impacted the black family although baby mamas coming out city ghettos makes the decline obvious.

  32. Name(required) says:

    Gunnar451, what nationality was your Asian wife and did you live with her in Asia? Mine is Han, we live in the US, and she doesn’t think that way. If we were in China, we would be very dependant on her family, and her mindset might be different.

  33. Name(required) says:

    Low-IQ, low impulse control groups don’t get married if they don’t have to. By the ’50s, the need to marry was less pressing, so the lowest IQ group stopped marrying. Today, marriage is not an economic necessity, and only high-IQ groups and immigrants still under the influence of the old country’s culture marry in significant numbers.

    That’s the story the data tells, in a nasty little nutshell.

  34. Dalrock, did you see this one yet?

    LOL. She got it backwards but that’s okay (since she’s such an expert.) She is soo sure of herself, you are NEVER going to be able to convince this woman, otherwise. I wonder if she even bothered to interview even one bachelor and ask him why he wont get married?

  35. Dalrock, I strongly recommend you read the article at my website:

    The History of the Black Family in America
    https://secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/the-history-of-the-black-family-in-america-looking-back-on-the-50th-anniversary-of-the-march-on-washington/

    The marriage rate for black women was actually higher than for white women in 1900 and the proportion of black men who worked was higher than the proportion of white men in 1900. Now today far fewer black women marry and far fewer black men work. In 1890 2.2% of white married women worked while 22.7% of black married women worked. 1890 not being too long after slavery ended. In 1917 the out-of-wedlock birth ratio was 1.3% for whites and 12.0% for blacks. So basically married women working and births out of wedlock were 10 times higher for blacks than for whites around 1900. Still in 1900 marriage was higher for blacks and men working was higher for blacks. These statistics referring to the United States.

  36. Paul says:

    @Dalrock

    Percentage of people married above include longevity of people. Women get older than men. It also includes other factors for not being married, such as being imprisoned. The first is probably cause of the lower percentage of woman being married, because they survive men. The second might be of influence of the percentages of black men, because these tend to be imprisoned more often.

  37. Paul says:

    @Dalrock

    Is there any data on ‘interracial’ (I hate that word) marriages? Then you could compare the married men to the married women.

  38. @Paul, the most successful interracial combination for marriage is: white man & black woman. With the very rare exception of Megan Markle’s parents, a white man and a black woman that get married, they don’t get divorced. Ever. It just rarely ever happens. Now we can argue back and forth why that IS the case, but it IS the case. So white guys, if divorce for you is the single biggest reason why you don’t want to get married, marry a black woman. No guarantees but that is a marital combination that is likely to last until God Almighty ends the marriage His way.

  39. On why black families disintegrated and when, I think FDR’s housing initiative has something to do with it (https://fdrlibrary.org/housing): “Although the 1934 National Housing Act and the FHA met the needs of existing home owners and those Americans financially able to purchase homes, it did little to address the housing needs of the poor, including many African-Americans living in slums.” …wait for it… “Under the new law, the USHA acted as a loan granting agency to state and local housing authorities to build low-cost housing in both small and large urban areas.”
    Elainor Roosevelt was very active in activism for blacks and women.
    https://fdr.blogs.archives.gov/2015/10/08/its-time-to-put-eleanor-roosevelt-on-the-10-bill/

    But maybe Theodore?
    http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-14-3-a-how-welfare-began-in-the-united-states.html
    “In 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt called a White House conference on how to best deal with the problem of poor single mothers and their children. The conference declared that preserving the family in the home was preferable to placing the poor in institutions, which were widely criticized as costly failures.” …wait for it… “By 1933, mother’s pension programs were operating in all but two states. They varied greatly from state to state and even from county to county within a state. In 1934, the average state grant per child was $11 a month. Administered in most cases by state juvenile courts, mother’s pensions mainly benefitted families headed by white widows. These programs excluded large numbers of divorced, deserted, and minority mothers and their children.”
    “Although financed partly by federal tax money, the states could still set their own eligibility requirements and benefit levels. This part of the law was pushed by Southern states so they could control the coverage made available to their African-American population.”

    Eureka! So deti’s initially crazy idea gets more clear. Did blacks in the North get gibsmedat unlikes in da South? It makes perfect sense. Mommyfare in the 1930 was better for black women (and maybe men at that time). Maybe it was not only jobs that lured blacks to the North but Daddy Govy.

  40. Luke says:

    I absolutely disbelieve the rates for U.S. blacks being currently married are anywhere near that high. Anything over 20%, NFW.

  41. Opus says:

    I can’t decide who is the dafter; the lady with the soporiphic background music or the MgTOW bashing Jordan Peterson.

  42. Opus says:

    …or as Channel Four’s Kathy Newman might say ‘so you are saying we should organise our society on the basis of Gypsy Moths’. As for Peterson, Vox Day appears to have been right all along.

  43. bdash 77 says:

    also Asians still tragically have the most traditional/gender role marriages….

    surprise surprise, their men still seek marriage.

    Also divorced women are normally isolated from society in Asian cultures….

    don’t want her “bad luck” spreading to our families…..

  44. earl says:

    I wonder if she even bothered to interview even one bachelor and ask him why he wont get married?

    The video never mentioned why instead of mating with the female…the male moths decided that consuming tree leaves was more important. Was it the fact they were introduced into a new environment?

  45. earl,

    I think cases like what you just saw by Gypsy Moth counselor, that is going to be Standard Operating Procedure for women explaining why men are increasingly going MGTOW. It does two things: #1) women don’t have to even dignify that their feminism is part of the problem (that is a non-starter anyway) and #2) this woman is making a logical argument to government officials in authority that maybe it would be better for society if government stepped in with legislation to make porn “go away” to help solve this marriage “crisis.”

  46. Opus, halfway through, Dr Peterson retracts his earlier comment poking fun at MGTOW. He is kind of in my camp on this one in that we both don’t want to see men go MGTOW (for various reasons as it harms society) BUT we don’t blame MGTOW men for making that decision. If a young man I am counseling decides MGTOW is the life path he should take, it pains me, but I would never shame him or try to talk him out of it because, I have nothing at all to offer him as a reason NOT to “opt-out.” There simply is nothing in it for men to get married nowadays.

  47. Echo4November says:

    Lol at that video about gypsy moths. She talks about natural female scent (for a moth) but human women coat themselves in so much makeup and perfume as to be unrecognizable. Hehehe she’s retarded.

  48. OKRickety says:

    “I wonder if she even bothered to interview even one bachelor and ask him why he wont get married?”

    Yes, somehow women, especially “Christian” ones, seem to be absolutely certain of the truth of the motivations for men’s behavior without asking men, or, when provided the answers by men, they deny that the men are telling the truth. For example, I recently saw* Sheila Gregoire claim men want women to swallow because they want to debase them, her primary reason being that porn is all about degrading women. I would be astounded if she got this information from men, or that she has actually watched enough porn to be an expert on it.

    * This was on a video by Sheila. Don’t bother looking for it unless you think you would enjoy seeing her close-up with a wide-angle lens.

  49. thedeti says:

    And to state the obvious for our lurkers:

    Dr. Gypsy Moth claims porn is on the rise because men are out there searching for this perfect woman even though tons and tons of women are out there displaying and literally BEGGING men to choose them. That’s not how it works at all.

    Men resort to pornography for sexual release because they have no other sexual outlet. This is especially true of married men whose wives make it very clear they don’t want sex with them and out and out refuse to have sex with them.

    Prostitution is risky, illegal and expensive. Having an affair is out of the question – most men aren’t attractive enough to cheat. They can’t get even their own wives to have sex with them, much less someone else. Cheating is risky and will probably destroy the marriage if they’re discovered, which will leave him living out of his car while she has sex with a string of men in the house and bed he paid for and turns his kids against him. That leaves porn as his only sexual outlet.

    As for single men, they resort to porn because they’re not attractive enough to get and keep a woman long term. They’re just not attractive enough and they probably never will be. They don’t have enough to offer. Even if they did, most women aren’t worth the work and the headaches required to keep her haaaaaaappy.

    It used to be having a job, an apartment and a car, and being a pretty decent guy, could get you a girlfriend and an eventual wife. Not any more. That’s a bare minimum now. If you want a woman, you have to bring sexual attractiveness to the table. Status, good looks, athletic body, confidence, swagger, dominance, take no BS attitude. If you’re not top 20%, you’re out of luck until they turn 35 and need to pump out that one designer kid they want. Money helps a lot, but only if you have a lot of it. It takes a seven figure net worth to offset unattractiveness.

    So when these men don’t have any of that (mostly because they weren’t signaled to start preparing), they have nothing by which to attract women. They have little to nothing to offer. So they have no sexual outlets, and in fact can’t even get women to so much as give them the time of day, much less date them. So porn is their only sexual outlet.

  50. thedeti says:

    It’s not that men are rejecting ordinary women in search of the perfect woman. It’s that women are rejecting less than perfect men in search of the perfect man, and getting to mate with a string of perfect men, but only for a while. It’s only when the string of perfect men won’t commit to her after a decade or more of trying that she goes downmarket to the less than perfect men, then marrying for resource extraction and refusing to have sex with said less than perfect man.

  51. Jack Russell says:

    This article will come as no surprise to the readers here. Another reason marriage rates are dropping. The statisticians do not want to mention when compiling stats.
    This woman ended up breaking up with her fiance. He dodged a bullet. She wanted each guest to pony up $1500 CDN each to pay for her “dream wedding”. She dissed them when they balked. She even broke up her friendship with the bridesmaid who was her childhood friend. As commentator Mark from Toronto says ” He would never marry a Canadian woman or any western woman.

    https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/bride-canceled-her-wedding-because-201000866.html

  52. Opus says:

    MgTOW is an impossible position: there are women everywhere and one cannot but come into contact with them; there are Manginas happy to White-Knight for as many women as possible and thus make life miserable for other men.

  53. Anonymous Reader says:

    OKRickety
    Yes, somehow women, especially “Christian” ones, seem to be absolutely certain of the truth of the motivations for men’s behavior without asking men, or, when provided the answers by men, they deny that the men are telling the truth

    If you look at these churchgoing matrons as older versions of grade school “know-it-all teacher’s pets”, their actions / words are easier to predict.

    Deti
    Dr. Gypsy Moth claims porn is on the rise because men are out there searching for this perfect woman

    Dr. Gypsy Moth apparently knows nothing of female hypergamy for a start. Just another aging feminist blaming men for the results of women’s actions.

  54. earl says:

    I recently saw* Sheila Gregoire claim men want women to swallow because they want to debase them, her primary reason being that porn is all about degrading women.

    Porn degrades everybody involved. And if Shelia thinks oral sex is degrading to women (who cares if she swallows or not)…why do women keep signing up to do it? Could it be that the whole feminist toxic culture which tells women to empower themselves through promiscuity is degrading to women?

  55. earl says:

    It does two things: #1) women don’t have to even dignify that their feminism is part of the problem (that is a non-starter anyway)

    You correctly assessed what I was hinting at about the change of environment.

    Feminism has made the female moths so toxic…the males would rather consume a bunch of tree leaves than mate and/or produce silk.

  56. Anonymous Reader says:

    Feminism has made the female moths so toxic…the males would rather consume a bunch of tree leaves than mate and/or produce silk.

    Proverbs 21:19 It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and angry woman.

  57. Anonymous Reader says:

    OKRickety
    I recently saw* Sheila Gregoire

    Was there some particular reason you subjected yourself to that?

    Gregoire was raised in Canada by a single mother, she obtained a degree in women’s studies at some Canuck uni or other. While she’s not as misandric as one might expect, she’s still carrying a moving van worth of man-hating baggage around in her head. Rather a waste of time, unless there is something more to be learned about aging feministas.

  58. Anonymous Reader says:

    Looks like feminists in Toronto are about to get some competition…

    https://www.rt.com/news/436986-sex-doll-brothel-toronto/

    …at least in the “starfish” category.

  59. earl says:

    Gregoire was raised in Canada by a single mother, she obtained a degree in women’s studies at some Canuck uni or other.

    Dang, she had no chance.

  60. Sharkly says:

    thedeti says: Men resort to pornography for sexual release because they have no other sexual outlet. This is especially true of married men whose wives make it very clear they don’t want sex with them and out and out refuse to have sex with them.

    Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

    I Can give sworn attestation to the comment above. I swear before God and all that is holy, that I have never ever even thought of looking at pornography during my marriage, while I thought I had a chance of getting sex from my wife. It had always been made painfully clear that I had been rejected in defiance of her marital vow, before I turned to porn.
    Try explaining that to a Feminist pastorbater, those hirelings are so mentally retarded that they can’t conceive of that, even the ones who admit to having looked at porn themselves. They convince themselves that the “goddesses” are faultless even in their denial of their vows, and that God created all men defective for wanting sex at all.
    They just don’t want to admit that they worship women, and have no intention of ever exercising their office to make a woman do as she should through church discipline. They are absolutely impotent losers running the churches into the ditch of marital failure and worldliness. The fools often can’t even keep their own marriages from splitting, much less would they be willing to lift a finger to help a brother out. They’re thieves! Stealing God’s money to pay their bills and buy their bread, while promising to ministers God’s word. But when you come to them and say can you explain Ephesians 5:22-24 to my wife, they say, sorry, all we do here is twist the shit out of Ephesians 5:21. We cut out that next part.

  61. Luke says:

    Sharkly, it all comes back to yet another of womens’ nonnegotiable expectations to be given fried ice. Women want men to be so motivated by sex that those men will marry women who are well post-Wall, less than pleasant, hardly nonobese/virginal, often with unfinanced castoff thug/Chad spawn in tow, and be happy to do so, while working their tails off til they die/she gets bored with waiting for her frivorce loot. Yet, those same women expect that a man will ONLY be inclined to be affectionate/sexual precisely when and how SHE desires that.

    A fair analogy would be France’s past de facto foreign policy for many decades. They desired a Germany strong enough to hold back Russia, but weak enough to be kept in check by Luxemburg.

  62. Madras hill says:

    Why do the graphs start at 30%? It makes the asian man rate look like double that of Hispanic men, whereas it is only 20% higher

  63. OKRickety says:

    Madras hill,

    “Why do the graphs start at 30%? It makes the asian man rate look like double that of Hispanic men, whereas it is only 20% higher”

    I expect it is just to zoom  in to see the differences more easily. But it would be helpful if there was some visual indicator (e.g. zig-zag line?) below the “30.0%” line and “x-axis” line.

  64. James K says:

    The racial breakdown of the marriage rate for US women, going back to 1880, is shown in this figure:

    which comes from here and ultimately from this study.

    A lot of African Americans’ problems can unfortunately be traced to their fragile family structure. It is conventional to blame this on slavery and Jim Crow. Despite the obvious evils of those institutions, the Census data suggest that this is not the whole story. Who would have guessed that only 15 years after the end of slavery in the South, the marriage rates for black and white women were essentially the same?

    I believe the real culprit is welfare. Often “improvements” to welfare systems solve a genuine problem for a few years, but after 10 to 15 years people start responding to any perverse incentives. The first big difference between black and white marriage rates occurred some time between the 1950 and 1960 censuses, and this may have been a delayed reaction to FDR’s welfare programs. Later expansions of welfare reinforced the trend.

    The Clinton-Gingrich reforms of the 1990s halted the decline for a few years, for people of all races. However, the long-term decline resumed in about 2000. I do not know if this was the result of a policy change, or simply that the decline of marriage is now a cultural force that is unstoppable.

  65. Oscar says:

    @ James K

    It is conventional to blame this on slavery and Jim Crow. Despite the obvious evils of those institutions, the Census data suggest that this is not the whole story.

    One doesn’t even need to look at Census data to know that slavery and Jim Crow are not the primary cause. One only needs common sense.

    After all, if slavery and Jim Crow really were the primary cause of Blacks’ problems, their problems would decrease as we get further away from slavery and Jim Crow. That isn’t happening. In many cases, their problems are getting worse.

  66. Pingback: Rolling To Disbelieve

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.