"Heterosexual men = 43.8 (have mental health diagnosis)
Heterosexual women = 58.7"
Is a perfect example of nonsense data. Thanks to the ridiculous state of modern psychiatry, about half the general population is diagnosed as "mentally ill". This is similar to the current state of spinal magnetic resonance imaging, where over 90% of studies are read as "abnormal". This is the result of formulating diagnostic criteria to label huge segments of normal people abnormal. The financial incentive is obvious: health insurance only pays if the patient has a recognized diagnosis. No psychiatric diagnosis, no coverage of psychoactive medications/psychotherapy. I look forward to the day when 99.999% of the population has a "mental health diagnosis". The real number is probably in the range of 5 - 10%.
Neuroticism load (N) — sex-linked baseline differences. worrying about scarcity factors > survivor additivity for females, males more mediated and co-correlated with Feeler types or plausibly mental issues
Bisexual volatility (BV) — over-representation of bi women in F–F dyads.
Novelty preference (NP) — Openness to Experience as orientation fluidity driver.
Female abstraction (FA) — attraction encoded in symbolic/relational frames, instead of visual cues, memetic status cues/indirect signals in heuristics get amplified for females also scorecard logic; Female Abstraction as Dynamic Scorecard
Cognitive load: Women’s DMN + higher relational abstraction means they don’t just process present interactions; they carry a running ledger of past slights, betrayals, and signals.
Empirical anchor: Psych lit on rumination and memory for relational conflict (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema 2000; Cross et al. 2002) shows women are significantly more likely than men to track, recall, and “stack” grievances.
. Epistemic Updates on Mate Investment
Mechanism: Women encode each betrayal, resource shortfall, or disappointment as Bayesian evidence against long-term reliability.
Result: Relationship satisfaction is not static — it is a dynamic updating process.
Empirical anchor: Buss (1989, 2003) on mate choice criteria; Nolen-Hoeksema (2000) on rumination; Eastwick & Finkel (2008) on female re-evaluation of long-term mate qualities.
2. Dreamer-Type Idealization Network
Profile: NF types with high DMN load.
Function: Construct idealized partner scripts and run constant counterfactuals (“If he really loved me, he’d…”).
Effect: Conflicts are not judged only against present reality but against an idealized narrative benchmark.
3. The Male Status Ratchet
Heuristic: Once a woman adjusts her baseline expectations upward (e.g., higher provisioning, social proof, emotional attunement), it becomes the new normal.
Implication: Previous investments are depreciated — male must continually escalate effort to maintain perceived mate value.
In F–F dyads: Both partners idealize and ratchet simultaneously, compounding instability.
Feeler vs Thinker logic — F-types more tolerant of non-hetero relations.
Male/Male relationships appear to be the strongest. All I can take from this is that the moment you introduce a women into your life you’re dramatically more likely to want her out of your life 😆. And that goes double when they’re both women - double the crazy apparently.
I also think that homomen have more stable marriages than homowimmin because men in general are just more tolerant of infidelity and other male behaviours like living in a tip.
I think that bisexuals have higher rates of mental health problems than homosexuals because they are exposed to the advantages of heterosexual relationships in a way that homosexuals aren't, and are more aware of the cost/loss of not being (totally) heterosexual.
There is also the same problem in terms of what gets called a relationship. If gay men don't call a close friend they occasionally fuck a relationship but gay women do that hugely tilts the data.
But ultimately I suspect you are kinda right. Let's say that you have some kind of personality problem especially one that causes you romantic issues. The ready made gay community has obvious appeal in that it can feel like you have instant friends and support. But if you are a guy we know that you tend more towards the extremes on the Kinsey scale so it's going to be much harder to sign up. Women are more likely to be enough bi to choose -- also it's pretty hard to be part of the young male gay scene without being pretty into dick.
In other words being a lesbian and having had a really bad divorce aren't independent.
There was a teeshirt phrase in the 70’s and 80’s with calligraphy like the Coca-Cola logo, gay love is the “real thing”, because it was uncommon knowledge that even under adversity, gay relationships tended to last longer.
Big five, not big give 😄
Maybe we will leave it be.
"lesbians ... are more prone to (other) mental health problems"
Good clarification there.
Nonsense data results in nonsense conclusions:
Psychiatric diagnoses:
"Heterosexual men = 43.8 (have mental health diagnosis)
Heterosexual women = 58.7"
Is a perfect example of nonsense data. Thanks to the ridiculous state of modern psychiatry, about half the general population is diagnosed as "mentally ill". This is similar to the current state of spinal magnetic resonance imaging, where over 90% of studies are read as "abnormal". This is the result of formulating diagnostic criteria to label huge segments of normal people abnormal. The financial incentive is obvious: health insurance only pays if the patient has a recognized diagnosis. No psychiatric diagnosis, no coverage of psychoactive medications/psychotherapy. I look forward to the day when 99.999% of the population has a "mental health diagnosis". The real number is probably in the range of 5 - 10%.
No. I specifically said it doesn't mean that.
Same nonsense is happening with kids and the ever expanding “autism spectrum.”
Core Psychological Traits
Neuroticism load (N) — sex-linked baseline differences. worrying about scarcity factors > survivor additivity for females, males more mediated and co-correlated with Feeler types or plausibly mental issues
Bisexual volatility (BV) — over-representation of bi women in F–F dyads.
Novelty preference (NP) — Openness to Experience as orientation fluidity driver.
Female abstraction (FA) — attraction encoded in symbolic/relational frames, instead of visual cues, memetic status cues/indirect signals in heuristics get amplified for females also scorecard logic; Female Abstraction as Dynamic Scorecard
Cognitive load: Women’s DMN + higher relational abstraction means they don’t just process present interactions; they carry a running ledger of past slights, betrayals, and signals.
Empirical anchor: Psych lit on rumination and memory for relational conflict (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema 2000; Cross et al. 2002) shows women are significantly more likely than men to track, recall, and “stack” grievances.
. Epistemic Updates on Mate Investment
Mechanism: Women encode each betrayal, resource shortfall, or disappointment as Bayesian evidence against long-term reliability.
Result: Relationship satisfaction is not static — it is a dynamic updating process.
Empirical anchor: Buss (1989, 2003) on mate choice criteria; Nolen-Hoeksema (2000) on rumination; Eastwick & Finkel (2008) on female re-evaluation of long-term mate qualities.
2. Dreamer-Type Idealization Network
Profile: NF types with high DMN load.
Function: Construct idealized partner scripts and run constant counterfactuals (“If he really loved me, he’d…”).
Effect: Conflicts are not judged only against present reality but against an idealized narrative benchmark.
3. The Male Status Ratchet
Heuristic: Once a woman adjusts her baseline expectations upward (e.g., higher provisioning, social proof, emotional attunement), it becomes the new normal.
Implication: Previous investments are depreciated — male must continually escalate effort to maintain perceived mate value.
In F–F dyads: Both partners idealize and ratchet simultaneously, compounding instability.
Feeler vs Thinker logic — F-types more tolerant of non-hetero relations.
Cognitive–Neural Operators
Default Mode Network (DMN load) — abstraction, narrative identity play.
Executive Function (EF load) — constraint, inhibition, goal enforcement.
DMN–EF coupling — balance point between novelty tolerance and stability.
Biological Inputs
Androgen load (AL) — prenatal hormone exposure shaping orientation variance.
Sexual dimorphism in risk penalty — females lower pregnancy/violence risk in F–F context.
Constraint / Stability Mechanisms
Constraint load (CL) — religion, kinship, law, fertility enforcement.
Traditionalism (TR) — STJ/ESFJ “snap-back” to survival heuristics.
Auto-model fixing (AFix) — INTJ/ENTJ self-coherence, low suggestibility.
Orderliness / Conscientiousness — reduces adoption, increases stability.
Cultural / Structural Factors
Seeding (norm activation) — elites memetically enabling fluidity under surplus.
Exergy (resource surplus vs scarcity) — scarcity locks hetero, surplus allows fluidity.
Intergenerational stability norms — Confucian/Islamic inertia vs Western pre-loading.
IQ / abstraction bands — higher IQ = higher symbolic tolerance, lower IQ = canalized hetero.
SES / education — correlated with openness, adoption penetrance. Fertility Windows and Novelty Dynamics
Female Fertility Peak (18–22):
Evolutionary psychology shows women maximize mate exploration and “bad-boy” preference during peak fertility years.
Neuroticism + novelty preference load heaviest here.
Result: bisexual exploration and instability peak in late teens/early 20s.
Post-25 Decline in Novelty-Seeking:
As fertility urgency drops, preference for stability rises.
This partially stabilizes bisexual women—less churn, fewer relational exits.
3. Cohort Effects and Norm Seeding
Cultural Cohort:
Women exposed to bisexual/queer norms at 18–25 show higher long-run penetrance.
Those who pass fertility window without exposure rarely “convert” later.
Constraint Interaction:
In traditional/low-IQ contexts, bisexuality is both unseeded and punished (death penalty, ostracism).
Twitter/corporate rainbow-flag avoidance in Saudi, Nigeria, etc., reflects both elite signaling adaptation and population non-suggestibility.
. Genetic Superiority Signal
Females evolved to detect risk-taking, defiance, dominance as costly signals of high genetic fitness.
“Dangerous” men (fighters, rule-breakers, high-status nonconformists) demonstrate surplus capacity — they can absorb risk and still thrive.
This becomes erotically coded as “he can protect, he can provide, he’s chosen by others.”
2. Deep Investment Paradox
But danger alone isn’t enough. If the male invests in her despite having other options, it amplifies her value.
That’s the paradox: she’s most aroused when unpredictability (bad boy) is paired with secure investment (prince).
“I can’t control him, but he chooses me” → strongest arousal profile.
3. Unpredictability = Arousal Spike
Female arousal is highly responsive to novelty, uncertainty, and risk.
Unpredictability spikes dopamine/oxytocin → attraction reinforced.
Predictable “safe” men create stability but flatten arousal.
Hence: female dyads (two novelty-preferring partners) amplify instability because both crave the arousal spikes without the grounding counterweight.
Male/Male relationships appear to be the strongest. All I can take from this is that the moment you introduce a women into your life you’re dramatically more likely to want her out of your life 😆. And that goes double when they’re both women - double the crazy apparently.
I also think that homomen have more stable marriages than homowimmin because men in general are just more tolerant of infidelity and other male behaviours like living in a tip.
I think that bisexuals have higher rates of mental health problems than homosexuals because they are exposed to the advantages of heterosexual relationships in a way that homosexuals aren't, and are more aware of the cost/loss of not being (totally) heterosexual.
Women initiate the majority of divorces. If you double the number of women, you increase the frequency of divorce initiations.
There is also the same problem in terms of what gets called a relationship. If gay men don't call a close friend they occasionally fuck a relationship but gay women do that hugely tilts the data.
But ultimately I suspect you are kinda right. Let's say that you have some kind of personality problem especially one that causes you romantic issues. The ready made gay community has obvious appeal in that it can feel like you have instant friends and support. But if you are a guy we know that you tend more towards the extremes on the Kinsey scale so it's going to be much harder to sign up. Women are more likely to be enough bi to choose -- also it's pretty hard to be part of the young male gay scene without being pretty into dick.
In other words being a lesbian and having had a really bad divorce aren't independent.
There was a teeshirt phrase in the 70’s and 80’s with calligraphy like the Coca-Cola logo, gay love is the “real thing”, because it was uncommon knowledge that even under adversity, gay relationships tended to last longer.
It seems to me like gay marriages last longer because they are effectively meaningless. They still fuck whoever they want. They are just good buddies.