Why do lesbians have such crazy high divorce rates?

Note: This column first appeared on Cashill’s substack.

For a concise – and funny – exploration of marriage and divorce, a good place to start is with Australian comedian Jim Jeffries, “The highest rate of divorce are lesbian,” says Jeffries. “By a mile. Lesbian marriages have the highest – check it – highest rate of divorce in the world.”

Before getting to Jeffries’ simple explanation of why this is so, I took him up on his dare to “check it.” To start, I asked Google AI, “Do lesbians have the highest divorce rate?” What I like about Google AI is that it reflects liberal biases but without the expected obfuscations:

“Yes, multiple studies indicate that lesbian couples have a significantly higher divorce rate than both heterosexual couples and gay male couples, with some research showing they divorce at more than double the rate of straight couples.”

Jeffries posits that gay men have the lowest divorce rate among the three entities and “mansplains” why this is so. “The lesbians find it very hard to stay married,” says Jeffries, “because there are two women involved.”

“Heterosexual marriages aren’t without their complications,” he continues, “because there is still one woman involved. Did you know ‘gay’ means happy? With good reason – because there are no women involved.”

Jeffries may be on to something. Divorce among lesbians is epidemic throughout the Western world. In England and Wales, for instance, the heterosexual divorce rate dropped to its lowest level since 1973, but it has tripled for same-sex couples, 73% of which were female couples. According to AI, 40-50 percent of lesbian marriages “end in divorce within a decade.”

It seems somehow fitting that in 2004 then San Francisco mayor Gavin Newson performed the first legal same-sex wedding in the United States. That first couple were women. Not until 2015 did same-sex marriage become legal nationwide, a decade or so after Europe legalized such marriages. And yet despite its recent origins, this institution is already in shambles.

In reviewing several divorce-oriented chat groups for self-declared lesbians, I couldn’t help but feel sorry for the women whose hearts have been broken and lives shattered by their headlong rush into unions they understood no better than Newsom did. As one woman observed, “Not only do queer women have higher expectations, but we also move too fast.”

These women move too fast because their fellow ELFs (educated liberal females) have been too busy scheming to tell them about the dangers ahead. Not a comment I read showed any real comprehension of the structural problem inherent in lesbian unions. Yes, the body parts don’t exactly match up. That much is obvious. Less obvious but more problematic is the emotional jostling that no dildo can remedy.

As the comments suggests, women need a certain space to prosper in a relationship. In a lesbian union, two women compete for that space. The Chinese, or so I am told, devised as the most harrowing ideogram in their language – the symbol of two women under one roof.

The Chinese were on to something. “I also made clear that her inability to communicate meant I didn’t believe we could successfully co-parent the dog, and I would be keeping her,” wrote one woman, weary of her partner’s “emotional immaturity.”

“Honestly,” commented another, “now it’s a bit of a relief because, while this sounds bad, sometimes I focus on the parts of her personality I didn’t like or didn’t find compatible with mine and it makes me grateful that we don’t have to stay together and be resentful over it for the rest of our lives. Even something as simple as how often she does the dishes vs how often I want them done lol.”

Wrote another, “There were some really toxic things going on in my marriage, and we were just bringing out the worst versions of each other, but I still loved her and cared about her. So I spent time grieving the loss of the life I thought we were building together.”

Unaware of the inherent structural flaws in such unions, many of these troubled souls blamed themselves. “At that point I was drowning in guilt that wasn’t mine – believing I could’ve saved the marriage if I’d just tried harder, been less emotional, taken up less space,” wrote one shattered woman. “But the truth is, you can’t heal in a relationship with someone that punishes your vulnerability.”

No man has ever entertained such a thought. In a real marriage, it helps if one partner’s needs are superficial and easily satisfied. Men are usually happy to fill that role. Says she, “What color should I paint the bathroom?” Says he, “I don’t know, whatever.”

Many of the women engaged in these chats were admittedly bisexual or, as one said, only “90 percent lesbian.” Reflecting the conventional wisdom, Google AI tells us, “U.S. civil rights laws are fundamentally based on protecting against discrimination due to characteristics considered ‘immutable.'” These laws are a crock. Real life tells us there is nothing immutable about the “L” in LGBT, let alone the “B” and “T.”

Many women have rebounded into lesbian unions – the late Renee Good, for instance – after their marriages to men have failed. If women flee into such unions seeking girl-friendly comfort zones, they are often disappointed. “Fast forward a couple of years and me, vulnerable as ever, started dating again. I ended up with someone who saw my vulnerability and took advantage of it. Over, and over and over. This was a truly abusive, narcissistic person. But I NEEDED it to work.”

Google AI delivers the bad news: “Research indicates that approximately 36% to over 43% of lesbian women have experienced physical violence, sexual violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime,” a rate “comparable to or, in some studies, higher than in heterosexual relationships.”

The newness and fragility of the institution works against it. One women wrote, “My wife just told me she wants to flirt with women and do whatever she wants (including drugs) and that I take away her peace for having boundaries.” Traditional marriages come with built-in boundaries. Spouses may violate them, but they don’t try to rewrite the rule book. In this case, the aggrieved partner blamed herself for failing to honor the shifting codes, “I do have issues with jealousy and self-esteem,” she lamented.

Speaking of shifting codes, the transexual mania has thrown many a lesbian union into disarray. One offended partner did not hold back her contempt: “My advice to younger me: Don’t force yourself to stay with someone who transitions just because they are still the same person. They aren’t. You don’t have to force yourself to pretend to like men.”

Before his opinion conveniently “evolved,” then presidential candidate Barack Obama gave an impressively concise definition of marriage. Said Obama in 2008, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

If God was in the mix in these lesbian unions, He was well concealed. Not a single woman mentioned God. There was no talk of sacred vows or sacred anything. This should not surprise. The “gay marriage” movement began in the United States in 1987 just as the Soviet empire began to implode and the communists shifted their subversive energy to the culture.

The first victims of Marxism, cultural Marxism included. are almost inevitably those who champion it. Not knowing their history, ELFs are the most vulnerable species on the planet.

My newest book, “Empire of Lies,” is now available in ebook and print versions at Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Note: This column first appeared on Cashill’s substack. Please subscribe.