deleted by creator
I feel like the only ones doing this are the perpetually online echochamber sorts. The female equivalent to the wannabe alpha male losers.
Most women living in reality, even the furthest left feminists aren’t doing this shit, at least not intentionally as part of some movement. This whole article is just propaganda and rage bait to get clicks and drive ad revenue.
The only thing I can take a way from your comment is you are calling women who take control of their own bodies and are public about it are losers.
Your second paragraph might be partially correct, but still you are calling women who want to publicly fight to keep their human rights losers…
You are calling people who try to keep their rights losers.
Anything I can extrapolate outside that would be speculation, but you get where my thoughts are going regarding you.
Anyone dumping in an entire sex, race, religion into the same bucket IS a loser.
Women, just like men, should pick and chose mates they are attracted to and share values with. If that means it’ll naturally filter out magats, all the better.
But depriving yourself of human connections because an orange clown won an election is only hurting yourself. I guarantee you that Trump doesn’t give a shit who or if you date.
Maybe depriving your self of sex is entirely your decision, and not someone else’s. It sounds so gross to hear people wanting to control the sex life of other people, because I am unable to by any stretch of the imagination interpret someone being offended by other people not wanting to have sex with you in any other way.
I can only imagine, that a woman in the US, that are not allowed to end an unwanted pregnancy, and live under a government that actively floats that they would like to end contraceptives. So what happens is if you stick your penis (stop seething when you read this) inside of her, all her rights her mother had before in the same situation goes out the window.
Just a reminder, your unalienable rights do not include forcing someone to have Sex with you
I think you are arguing with people who are on your side about women’s rights but also think this form of protest isn’t a very effective one…I don’t know if you can see that so just wanted to mention it.
All 17 of the American women participating in this movement downvoted you
It’s okay even I downvote me sometimes when I feel sad.
I think it might be a bit like antinatalism, where a lot of people simply haven’t heard of it (or have heard stupid shit about it and discounted it), but have come to the same conclusions independently and just haven’t felt the need to seek out likeminded comunities or be vocal about it to others.
Wait so the idea is do not sleep with any men? Even men who support your views and rights? This just seems like it would radicalize more incels or generate more sexism. Like the average person who did everything they could is going to go on a date and be told “I’m not have sex until the government is fixed” which would make me say “ok, well, hit me up in 4 years.”
Woman is not made for you to have sex. Women is person.
Yes, and person treating people this way will eventually result in the opposite of what that person wants. Actions have consequences.
Imagine being bothered because some people don’t want to sleep with you (?) is everything ok? What’s going on? I honestly don’t understand what your problem is at all. If all humans in the world suddenly became celibate that’s their thing. Like who are you? Sexy police?
This isn’t about me, and even if it was, I’m married. We have sex lol.
I pointed out that this could cause mental stress on women. It could cause isolation for some, and then you make all these wild assumptions. Are those projections? Are you ok?
I love the immediate switch to ad hominem.
“Obviously nobody wants to sleep with you! You must be mentally unwell”
Do you think it’s healthy to tell (and pressure) women to not be relationships until laws are changed?
If I were interested in weakening a nation, counseling the youth to walk away from relationships and turning the genders against each other would be a pretty decent tactic.
I actually didn’t imply that you are unlovable in any way but ok. I asked if you are ok because this seems to effect you a lot. Your reaction is not normal. You are making up problems in your head. Do you really think every women you meet will look at you in disgust and refuse to talk to you because of how you look? There are real problems out there. Liiiike bodily autonomy. Wich these brave young women are drawing attention to.
I’m not the other commenter. I have a long term term partner and we’re happy together so I don’t really care what any future woman does or doesn’t do with me.
I just don’t think this 4B thing will even ever happen, I think discussing it like it’s real is stupid and will only impact the terminally online and it’s likely just more Russian psy-ops designed to turn one group of Americans against another. We already have a whole legion of incel young men, maybe we need to brew up a batch of hateful young women incels to further fuck our society up.
Have you made up this whole story in your head? You’re just saying random things like they’re fact. Are you MAGA, because that’s kinda their thing.
I’m all for body autonomy. The irony is I’m calling out a risk to women’s mental health and you are getting upset for some weird reason. Then you randomly talk about my looks? You don’t even know what I look like.
Do you need help? Are you in crisis?
Which these brave young women are drawing attention to by sacrificing their own to this movement?
“women deciding what to do with THEIR bodies will eventually face the opposite (further misogyny) and that’s THEIR fault, actually”
sexism apologia? upvoted on my fediverse? it’s actually not a fucking surprise. this place is a toxic masculine hellhole
for the record, in no case is it acceptable to blame the self-preserving actions of a minority for radicalizing the majority. that is the language of abuse and oppression.
You literally just made shit up there. Did you notice yourself doing that?
What no? Wow, jumping right to rape. You know what the whole point of this is right? It’s an act of protest. A protest has a purpose. This one is for women to be treated better. But if, in that act of protest to get more support, you villainize an entire gender then you’re probably ending with a net negative addition to your cause.
The fact that you didn’t realize I was talking about the purpose of this whole thing, and just jumped right to being sexist and shit is just top tier basement troll move. Think more, react less.
thanks, i have corrected my misreading in an edit. apologies for any undue hard feelings.
The idea isn’t for women who are already in relationships with partners who support women’s rights. The idea is more, for single women, to refuse to start any relationship at all right now. Which honestly, in an era where basic women’s healthcare is under attack, maybe starting a relationship right now isn’t the best idea. Will your women’s rights-supporting boyfriend agree to become abstinent when the birth control you’re using is taken off the market due to conservatives? Or will they want to move to the pull-out method or just accept the risk of being pregnant?
If you’re a single woman, honestly, right now, maybe staying single through these next four years isn’t a bad idea. It has nothing to do with the actions or beliefs of a potential partner, and everything with the fact that being a woman in any straight sexual relationship when conservatives are ascendant simply has a lot of unavoidable risks with it. The religious crazies in power believe that the only veto a woman deserves over being pregnant is the choice to have sex or not. And they seek to take away any way for women to prevent getting pregnant besides not having sex. These Christian nationalists, who were just elected, believe that the only choice women have should be pregnancy risk or abstinence.
You need to have a reality check here. The United States federal government, and the majority of state governments, will be telling every woman of reproductive age, “be abstinent or risk pregnancy. Any other tool to prevent pregnancy is morally wrong.”
The government is literally trying to coerce women not to have sex before marriage. The government is literally trying to coerce women not to have sex before they’re ready to become a mothers. The people soon to be in charge of the government literally believe that the only just use of sex is pregnancy. And they rule accordingly.
In what universe would you expect this to not result in a complete collapse of pre-marital sexual opportunities for straight men? It’s not about punishing men. It’s not that you do or do not have the right views or beliefs, or that you are a good or bad person. It’s simply that for women, in this world that is being created, having sex before marriage simply isn’t safe.
Sexual liberation was possible only due to the availability of effective contraception, birth control, and abortion. If you turn the contraceptive landscape back a century, sexual norms will have to return there as well. You are NOT going to have a world where there’s no access to contraceptives where women are still perfectly happy being in sexual relationships before marriage.
Men, I hope you’re ready to put a ring on it. Otherwise, you ain’t gettin’ any. Sorry, you wanted this world; you voted for it.
Will your women’s rights-supporting boyfriend agree to become abstinent when the birth control you’re using is taken off the market due to conservatives?
I will bet you $100 that zero birth control products get taken off the market because of conservatives. This is so far out there it’s nuts.
Do you really think this is going to happen?
They have attacks planned on all forms of contraception. Not just surgical abortion, but the abortion pills as well. And they’re also attacking general contraception. They’re already trying to get mifepristone. Louisiana and Wyoming have already banned it. And in Project 2025, they discuss wanting to make it easier for employers to not cover birth control products in their insurance plans.
Mifepristone has already been banned in two states. Guess you owe me $100.
So this is where we are now? All men wanted this? All men voted for this?
What next level bs is that. I did not vote for this. And if this is the blanket us vs. them that women are espousing then sexism is only going to get much worse. I did not vote for this, but people like you are starting a gender war for no reason. You are breeding sexism.
I need a reality check? The irony. You need to understand that a majority of women voted for this and not all men did. Women like you seem so ready to hate these days. If women keep attacking anyone and everyone because of what a small section of that group did they’ll have no allies very soon.
But sure, encourage all women to not be in a relationship. Encourage another form of isolation for women who may find great happiness in having a partner.
So much resentment and vile in your response. You’re so ready to have a war to fight, you don’t much care who it’s against. How much your approach to problems lines up with MAGA is uncanny.
All you can think about is men. That’s just sad. Please try to look around more. The point is that this is about women protecting themselves, not about how you voted or feel.
Nope, sorry, I mentioned how this can impact women’s mental health too. I genuinely care but you can’t see past me disagreeing with you. Sorry you’re so defensive that it prevents us from having an adult discussion. We tried.
How much your mindset lines up with MAGA is uncanny
How so?
You encourage an us vs them mindset by doing things like lumping an entire groups of people together and say they all do XYZ.
So this is where we are now? All men wanted this? All men voted for this?
It’s not about punishment. It’s about practicality given the circumstances.
I did not vote for this either, but it would be foolish to not acknowledge that sex will become far riskier for women if they do not have access to abortion and contraceptives.
The preceding commenter’s response wasn’t vile or hateful. It was a very matter-of-fact presentation of the situation that we (as a society) are facing.
“Sorry, you wanted this world, you voted for it”
That is very toxic. Maybe women voted for this and many men didn’t. My point is this kind of talk does nothing but create more sexism. Yes sex is riskier, yes I can understand abstinence, but what I can’t understand is villainizing all men. We can’t ask why young men are turning out hateful if we constantly treat them like the enemy.
Sorry, you wanted this world; you voted for it.
You seem to be unaware or are forgetting that the majority of white women wanted it too. The exit poll stats show the majority of people across the board in about every demographic “wanted this world”; it was a massive defeat for the vestiges of the American political left.
The Trump campaign successfully set up their media machine to equate every environmental protection, women’s autonomy, labor protection, and re-enfranchisement policy proposal of the working class to a talking point of a screeching radical feminist harpy cartoon character that’s bent on “destroying the patriarchy, churches, and America.”
The DNC handwaved the concerns of the working class away again to fellate the billionaire and corporate donors, the “moderate” republicans, and the social justice warriors simultaneously, thinking that would work somehow.
The blame lies on the us if we let the DNC establishment keep their jobs in the next round of primaries.
removed by mod
This is what it feels like. I would get not engaging with Republicans, but just not in general seems like a way to isolate you and hurt your cause.
I mean, it isnt like it is the job of women to sleep with men in order to prevent them from becoming incels, that would be essentially like victim blaming at a population level. Im also not really sure that it would do much: most women arent going to do this, so the impact on average men’s dating prospects is much smaller than the total lack of dating for any women that actually go through with it, but nobody is seriously suggesting that doing so will turn them into something akin to incels.
I dont expect this would really help much, beyond the obvious personal benefit that not becoming pregnant in a state that is hostile to women’s reproductive health would have, but incels were going to hate and complain about women regardless of the sexual habits of those women, so I dont see it really making things worse in that regard either.
Ah yes, the obvious personal benefit of not getting pregnant. Of course.
I can’t believe someone, here on Lemmy, is actually defending women punishing all men because some are trash. It would be like if white women said they weren’t going to date black men because some black men are rapist. They are free to do what they want, but it’s racist as fuck. Just like this is misandrist as fuck.
It’s not punishment; it’s risk control. You don’t get to have post-sexual liberation values with pre-sexual liberation healthcare.
We live in a culture where premarital sex, at least outside of conservative religious communities, is tolerated and even encouraged. Yet this is a recent thing. Up until the mid-twentieth century, it was extremely shameful for a woman to have sex before marriage. It would be as shameful and socially fraught as, IDK, a kid coming out as trans to their parents today.
You, I am assuming, were born sometime well after the 1960s. You were born in the post women’s liberation world. So it is easy to forget that the world you are used to living in is actually a historical anomaly. The idea of it being normal and acceptable for women to have sex before marriage? That is a historical oddity in Western culture.
This social structure is only possible BECAUSE of contraceptives and abortion. And radical conservatives just came in to power that are doing everything they can to restrict these things. These radical conservatives believe sex before marriage is wrong, and they seek to restrict any access to abortion or contraception.
If these things are restricted, what choice do women have but to return to pre-women’s liberation sexual norms? Are you going to start a relationship with a woman and just happily agree to be abstinent, or have zero PIV sex, while conservatives retain power? Or, are you going to pressure her into trying something riskier, like the pull-out method? Are both of you capable of holding to your agreement not to be intimate, even when both really want it, even when you’re both drunk?
The simple truth is that in this environment, the government is trying to take away every option available to women to prevent or terminate pregnancy. The government is thus making sex itself incredibly risky for women. If you ask the government, they will tell you, “pregnancy or abstinence, the choice is yours.”
What choice do women have but to choose abstinence?
Sorry guys. You wanted Victorian access to abortion and contraception? You wanted Victorian views on masculinity and femininity? Well, with that comes Victorian female frigidity and sexual propriety. In the future you want, casual sex before marriage isn’t a thing. Better hope you roll the dice on the sexual compatibility with your spouse, as you certainly aren’t getting any before marriage. And even then, only when you’re actively trying to have kids.
Sex is for reproduction, not pleasure. If you have a problem with that, you’re a sexual deviant. This is the world men voted for; this is the world they’ll get. You want it? Better put a ring on it.
This is the world men voted for
No, I didn’t vote for it. That’s the whole point. Most men who voted did. That’s on them, not me. Any punishment directed at me because I’m a male and other males did bad things is blatant misandry: blaming me for my sex.
Sure, if women are not having sex because they are afraid of getting pregnant and they don’t have access to abortion, that makes sense. But this is putting words in the protester’s mouths in an attempt to justify the blatant misandry. They aren’t doing this because they are afraid of getting pregnant, they are doing it because some men did something bad (although, it was certainly not just men) and, because they are misandrists, they are punishing all men.
A woman refusing to have sex with you is a punishment? It seems that your mindset is based on the concept that you are owed sex at a baseline and a refusal to have sex with you is a violation. It’s that kind of mindset that keeps many men from being actual allies to women’s liberation. Coercion and rape are not the same thing, but they share a neighborhood in the realm of indecent and cruel things that humans do to each other, and walking around with the idea that one is owed sex in any capacity increases the likelihood that one would resort to coercion or worse when rejected or denied.
While I absolutely agree that no one owes anyone sex, and if women want to protest like this it’s entirely their right.
However, I think you’re using this fact to miss the point. Even the woman quoted in the article is saying that men wants sex, but don’t respect them, so she won’t have sex with men. The 4b all have to do with not doing something they might have otherwise done with men.
It’s clearly meant to be a punishment, a retaliation for the loss of their rights.
It’s not about me saying women owe sex to men, I never said this or implied this. It’s me pointing out what these protests are about.
I am currently married, but in my previous experiences, the majority of male partners I have had both claimed to be feminist allies and used heavy coercion (and in one case outright rape) to get what they wanted. My husband won a lot of points with me by accepting a “no” without further argument thereby respecting my choices and my consent. I try to trust other humans at baseline, but in my experience, young men are frequently horny and not overly concerned with the long term consequences of getting what they want in the short term. I have not been given strong evidence that young American men can really be trusted to protect women from unintended pregnancies if those women don’t have access to contraception or abortion.
the thing is though, its not really punishing all men. Not dating someone, or not having sex with that someone, is not a punishment. Like, I’m a guy myself, and I also happen to be asexual. Do you think that I am in some way punishing everyone around me by not dating them, because I dont happen to be attracted to them? Functional relationships cant really be forced, so if something leads someone to not feel safe dating, they’re not obligated to force themselves to go through with it when they dont feel up to it, just because not engaging denies other people the chance to be with them. I just see this as the state of the country leading some women to not feel safe, or just not enjoy, romantic and sexual relationships as much, because the real and perceived risk to engaging in them has increased. And if they dont feel up to it, and so decide not to do it, and then meet up with some other women that feel the same way and assign a label to it, why does that suddenly make them misandrist?
Yes, you are absolutely right that no one is entitled to anything. If they don’t feel like having sex, that’s their right and no one can force them otherwise. If they want to do this protest, more power to them.
But they know they have this over young men, and they are all but outright stating that the point of this is to punish young men for the shift towards the right. And they are targeting all men, due to the actions and beliefs of some. Ignoring this is just trying to justify the misandry, it doesn’t make it go away.
Women trying to protect themselves against misogyny =/= misandry. Calling it misandry is the same principle as when the ruling class opposes equal rights for others by calling it oppression against them.
Women having autonomy over their bodies means they can choose whether to have sex or not. Period. For you to call that choice punishment against you is to say that you have some kind of right to or power over their bodies. I’m already seeing this “your body, my choice” shit going around now that trump won, and it’s disgusting and horrifying.
Women trying to protect themselves against misogyny =/= misandry.
While I absolutely 100% agree, I don’t see how “punishing all men regardless of their guilt” is “defending themselves against misogyny.” It’s just being misandrists, which is my point.
Women having autonomy over their bodies means they can choose whether to have sex or not.
As I said “If they don’t feel like having sex, that’s their right and no one can force them otherwise.” We 100% agree on this point.
For you to call that choice punishment against you is to say that you have some kind of right to or power over their bodies.
I don’t believe this, so I’m sorry it’s simply untrue. The whole point of this is a protest to stop giving men what they want. And that’s their right, I’m not saying they don’t have that right. What I’m saying is that it’s very clearly meant as a punishment, and if that punishment is being directed at a person simply for being a man, regardless of their guilt, that’s blatant misandry.
I’m already seeing this “your body, my choice” shit going around now that trump won, and it’s disgusting and horrifying.
I agree. They are absolutely huge pieces of shit who women should shun. But shunning allies because “they are men too” is pretty shitty as well.
The American women are getting some inspiration for this idea from South Korea, but that doesn’t mean what happens here will be like what’s happening there. The cultures are quite different. I’d say wait and see what actually happens with this in the US, if anything even does, before getting overly worried about it.
The way Ive have been thinking about this is to work backwards: I dont think that you can have a situation where someone is morally obligated to date someone (at least when dating vs not dating is the limit of the situation. Obviously, if you add more negative things, like a trolley problem where it was somehow the only way to save people, that would be another matter, but nobody has set up such a thing here), because a forced relationship is quite harmful to the person so forced.
I suspect that you agree with that, since you acknowledge that “nobody is entitled to anything”. I also think one has a moral obligation to not act in a bigoted manner (this feels pretty much self evident to me, since bigotry harms people). Third, I consider misandry a form of bigotry, pretty much by definition, since I would define that term as “bigotry against men”.
If we consider some other case that would be clearly and obviously misandry, such as, say, someone firing an employee specifically because they were a man, in a case where the man himself had done nothing to warrant the firing, and everyone involved knew this and just didnt want a man, it would seem clear that the ethical thing to do is to not fire the guy. Depending on how the law in the place in question worked, it may or may not be a legal right, but morally speaking, I would say that since the motivation is bigotry and there is no other reason to justify the firing, theres a moral obligation not to do it.
But, if we apply that same reasoning to the situation of a woman deciding to swear off dating because they want to punish men for many of them shifting to the right, and we assume that this is misandry, we would then have to say that, since misandry is bigotry and doing bigoted things is wrong, the “not dating” must be wrong, and therefore that there is a moral obligation to date. But that is a conclusion that, as I said in the beginning, I dont think makes sense. And since it seems like it should follow from adding the assumption that a woman swearing off dating men is misandry, I think I have to conclude that that assumption must be wrong. I cant necessarily explain how it is wrong, just that I think that it leads to a nonsense conclusion if it is correct, and so cannot be even if it appears that it should be on first glance.
Say to some male employee, “Hey, at the end of the quarter, I am planning on giving you a raise.” Now, I’m not obligated to give them that raise, as I’m well within my power to change my mind. I think it’s safe to say we both agree on this.
However, some other guy says to me “go fuck yourself” and so when the end of the quarter comes around I say to the male employee, “Sorry, but I’m not giving you that raise because some other guy told me to fuck myself.”
Would you argue that I haven’t punished that guy, simply because whether to give you the raise is completely up to me? To me, this is clearly a punishment: they were going to get something, but I decided to not do so in retaliation to how I was treated.
This is a different situation though, for a few reasons: first, I actually don’t agree, once you’ve promised the raises, people will reasonably make plans in anticipation of them, so I do think you have an obligation (maybe not a legal one, but that isn’t what we’re talking about) to give them once you’ve made those promises. I don’t recall the women involved in any of this 4b stuff promising a relationship to any man or group of men, it isn’t like they “were going to get it” already.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the stakes for business and personal relationships are different. We don’t generally require continuing and revokable consent for giving someone money, the state can for example issue someone a monetary fine, and that’s considered an acceptable consequence for many things. If you promise to buy something, and they then come to deliver it and you decide “actually I’ve changed my mind, keep it, I’m not buying it from you anymore”, the other person can in a number of circumstances sue you for breaking your agreement.
However, if the state were to mandate that someone enter into a relationship, or have sex with someone, as a penalty for something, that would be considered a human rights abuse where the monetary fine would not, and if you were to tell someone that you found some type of flower super romantic, and then they came over with those flowers to give, but you then told them you weren’t feeling a connection, no reasonable person would take their side if they tried to sue you to force you into a romantic relationship with them.
To put it a simpler way, if you promise someone a raise, the default state once that promise is made is getting the raise, as in professional matters, honoring promises and agreements is fundamental, revoking it later is therefore taking something from them, because you’re changing that default state to something worse for them. Personal relations do not have the same dynamic. It is well known and understood that people sometimes change their minds on romantic and sexual relationships, or sometimes just aren’t in the mood anymore. Promises don’t carry the same weight, when there exists an absolute right to revoke consent at any point and have things not continue. As such, the default state is “not having a relationship/encounter with a particular person”, right up until it happens. If the person in question never decides to enter into that relationship, because they have decided that they don’t want to even deal with having one at all, they haven’t taken anything from whoever else might have been interested in them, because they haven’t changed that state. There was never a reason for a guy to expect one of these 4b women would date them in the first place, and no reason to expect that they wouldn’t one day leave again if they did.
To be more accurate, your analogy should actually read something like this:
Origionally you give raises to your employees based on performance.
Then one of them says “fuck you”.
After that point giving a raise to any of them has a 5% chance of killing you, per raise.
How many raises do you now give?
There is no retaliation or punishing involved at all. Just a healthy respect for the consequences, however unlikely.
Never once said it was their job to sleep with men. I’m saying this will cause more sexism and isolation. What does this accomplish? Think of a woman wanting a connection, going on a date, and telling him she won’t sleep with him. That’s not a relationship most would be interested in. This will result in her isolating herself.
Thinking that an entire group of women refusing to be in relationships because of what some men did is just hurting them and snubbing people who are allies. I am all for women’s rights, I even got a vasectomy so my partner feels more comfortable and worries less. But if I were dating and ran into people like this it would put a bad taste in my mouth. I just don’t see the point.
I mean, arent they swearing off dating as well though, not just sex? You wouldnt even get that situation of going on a date and then telling the guy that if they arent even going on dates in the first place.
I do actually agree that this might not be the most mentally healthy reaction, at least for straight women that actually would otherwise want to date men, but I dont really think that it is really the fault of the women themselves, I think that it is the kind of angry or fearful reaction to being put in a dangerous situation that, while it might not really help, is at least understandable and not some failing on the women’s part. The problem, in my mind, is the situation that leads them to be this upset in the first place.
I get they might still date, but at some point a relationship becomes physical. Having a barrier to that can very negatively impact the relationship. There are certain people who are fine with low/no sex, but I don’t believe that’s the norm.
I can understand this reaction, but as you said this is not the best approach for mental health. I don’t see it as a failing, I see it as a very reactionary move that wasn’t fully thought out.
I agree on your last point for sure, the situation is fucked and I can’t blame anyone for being scared or angry about it.
Is there some underlying assertion here that woman enjoy sex less than dudes? Or that sex is some kind of favor to men on the part of women without mutual enjoyment? Not having sex with someone is pretty easy if that other person is a shitty person. Otherwise I think both genders enjoy genuine intimacy and physical contact by someone they enjoy being around.
Not all men are evil… There are many of us out there fighting for women’s rights. Sorry that so many feel they need to resort to this, I guess I get it though.
Honestly not sure it is going to be that many of them at least after an amount of time has passed
Entirely up to people who they want to sleep with and personally would rather not date someone who paints an entire gender with the same brush anyway
Trump is such a loser that even when he wins, it makes every woman in the world stop being horny.
I don’t think this will work. Say what you want about non-Conservative men, the Conservative ones never cared about consent. It’s like a slave refusing to work. The best adage is “the beatings will continue until morale improves”. Rapists always act the same toward their victim, no matter the age, and they are best dealt with in the electric chair.
MAGA is a promotional tour for lesbianism and sex toys. Toxic masculinity does not attract women and never did.
deleted by creator
Looks like I triggered you. I’m sure all those white women who voted Trump want to be abused, battered, and raped by all the Fuentes incels.
What is wrong with you? No I decided my comment wouldn’t be well received and decided to delete it.
It was a comment about men driving bi women into my lesbian arms
Nothing. You do you with your comments. I do me. Though not with sex toys. 🤷♂️
53% of white women voted for Trump, and they aren’t going to join 4B. “Men” didn’t elect Trump, a slight majority of America did. When you point a finger, three are pointing back…
22% of Americans voted for Trump. 78% did not. I can tell you I voted and was offered to answer none of those questions from that site. So I’m going to say none of them represent all of the voters if you don’t actually ask all of the voters.
Just for the sake of more information: 337m Percentage over 18 ~78% That makes about 262m voters possible. 74m vote for Trump makes 28-29% of possible votes in 2024 81m votes for Biden in 2020, population was around 331m then. About 31-32% of the possibilible votes.
Point being, people need to vote. Making voting easier makes it possible to ensure you get a more complete tally of what people want in a democracy. People shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to say they won’t be in town, and will be working or w.e else to convince someone that a mail in ballot is wanted.
Should have a request a ballot button online as well. Why mail a form in to have the forms sent to you. Gets rid of some waste there too.Uhh… 335 million Americans, 260 million voting age Americans. With 63% turnout.
If you’re sceptical about exit polls you could always look up how they’re conducted…
22% of Americans voted for Trump. 78% did not.
and what, 40% of those didn’t vote at all? How many people here voted for kamala 20%? 21%? Man you aren’t very good at statistics.
That data was irrelevant to the premise. I could also have listed how many men, women, and chariots voted, but it really doesn’t do anything more than show that if there is a 2 party system, it would be nice to have the winner near 50%. Id like to see everyone vote.
so why did you even bring up the data lmao? Just make the argument without it.
I’d also like to see more people vote, but i think we’re probably our own biggest obstacle here lmao.
deleted by creator
People want to vote. Give them a candidate and party worth voting for.
Abstaining from a broken system is a protest in itself. How else would we know how broken the system was if people weren’t allowed to withhold their vote from all candidates.
I’m not saying to force everyone to vote. But if mandatory voting was a thing I’d say put a new candidates opinion in, and if it gets over 50% of the popular vote, all new candidates required would be an interesting change. Probably has holes, but what the hell, I’ll try anything rather than this 2 party money fueled government we have now
There’s abstaining and there’s not being bothered to vote
If the object is to send the message that the current options aren’t good enough at least in the UK we vote for parties other than the main two (green and reform for example)
People can write in a name. That’s a protest vote, and one that should be fine in a mandatory voting system as seen in literally all the places it is.
A good candidate would be a great idea to help deal with apathy from a difficult to vote in system but making it easier would also be a huge step up.
Both things are needed and I wish could be done in any order. But not voting at all is definitely the goal of one side more than the other.
Is manly man == toxic masculinity ?
No, only when they’re dicks about it.
Here’s a 30 minute introduction by hbomberguy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8dfiDeJeDU
Get back to me when you have methods to test, data collection from a large sample size, and positive results all published in a peer reviewed medical journal.
no. Toxic masculinity is just being a shitty person, simple as.
No, and the fact that we have to explain this every time someone talks about it is why I hate the phrase “toxic masculinity”
“Toxic masculinity” doesn’t mean all masculinity is toxic any more than “rotten fruit” means all fruit is rotten
Lmao some women can have all these things without a man in her life.
This is dumb
I get but i feel bad for anyone falling into this mind trap
Ignoring every other part of this movement, the ‘no children’ bit is a question of safety.
Even where the laws aren’t dystopian nightmare shit, and you have a healthcare team on standby to provide the best care they can without needing to worry about legal fuckery, pregnancy and delivery can still kill you cuz that shit is insanely brutal.
Disallow that team from intervening when there’s a miscarriage or some other complication and the mortality rate skyrockets, as seen in red states post-Roe.
That’s about to be the whole country soon. Ladies, if you do get pregnant, have a plan, and a backup plan, and a backup-backup plan etc with where to go and what to do if shit even even starts to feel like it’s hitting the fan.
…also if you don’t already have a passport, now might be a good time.
If I were in your shoes, I’d be scheduling a hysterectomy ASAP. And remember your doc isn’t going to do a background check or anything, so if they start giving you the shit about “nooo you’re too young, you might regret it later!” just remember that your uterus is causing you 10/10 pain, and it makes it almost impossible to accomplish any normal tasks, and even starting to cause suicidal ideation; also you already have 4 kids with 3 dads and feel like you’ve lost control of your life, etc… probably not all at once or they’ll know you’re bullshitting, but the point is denying women’s healthcare is a problem that goes way beyond abortion, and if lying is what you need to do to receive care, then don’t hesitate to do it.
Good luck everyone. This situation is absolute shit.
it didn’t work in South Korea. have you seen incel forums? they’re fueled by their imagined persecution by women. this will only solidify their positions.
South Korea has as a staggeringly low birth rate, well below the replacement rate. Even if it doesn’t change the minds of men today, in the long run it will help shape the population in significant says.
If progressive women have even less children, I don’t think you’ll like the direction
Been around the world and found <br> That only stupid people are breeding <br> The cretins cloning and feeding<br> And I don’t even own a TV
That was expected to happen. And it will lead to radicalization of various movements, with frustrated men or women.
I highly doubt many people are doing this.
But the internet told me a lot of people are doing it. But since you were the last statement I read, it is now my point of view until I stumble upon another comment.
Many people are doing this.
its getting a lot of press because it will upset a lot of dumbfucks
You could try reading the article first.
I’m sure that a few, very dedicated, women are doing this.
It’s unlikely to be widespread. Sex is one of the most powerful drives humans have. We generally have a terrible track record of trying to convince people to avoid or even delay sex. Even when people believe that their eternal soul is on the line they keep having sex. That’s exactly why all the “abstinence only” policies fails so spectacularly.
There are cases where voluntarily giving up something important has led to change. Hunger strikes are the prime example of this. They can have the affect of drawing attention to a matter and raising sympathy.
I disagree. The modern sexual revolution was only possible due to modern contraception and access to abortion. Did pre-maritial flings happen in the past? Of course. But casual sex was nothing like it is now. It was treated as the rare shameful exception. It was not the norm for people to openly date and publicly announce their sexual relationships for years prior to marriage. (Viewing from a Western perspective of course.)
So if you start taking away abortion and contraception? Why wouldn’t you expect sexual norms to return to their earlier state? Pregnancy is incredibly disruptive, dangerous, and expensive.
In Trump’s America, sex means pregnancy, and pregnancy means childbirth. In Trump’s America, a straight women does not have sex unless she is prepared to be a mother, and her partner is prepared to be a father.
Will flings still happen? Sure. I expect we’ll also see a commiserate rise in shotgun marriages.
I agree that 4B, as an organized movement, likely won’t have much direct impact. But the general attack on contraceptives and reproductive healthcare absolutely will see a rollback of the sexual attitudes that have developed in the post-1960s world. Sex just has a lot more consequences to it now than it used to. We’re going back to a world where you really can’t afford to have sex with someone unless you’re prepared to marry them and raise children together. Casual hookups on Tinder are not a practical thing in Trump’s America.
Sorry guys, you voted for this.
This is exactly correct. Hey guys, while typing all these (dare I call them “hysterical”?) comments freaking out that the number of possible sex partners might be lower than before, could you take a moment to stop and actually consider what WoodScientist is saying?
Getting pregnant and having a baby when you aren’t ready for it completely changes the lives and limits future possibilities for both the father and mother, and much more so for the mother who 99% of the time is the main caregiver. It’s the woman who has the greatest risk by far.
Besides the risk to a woman socially and career-wise if she gets pregnant, it’s dangerous. There’s a chance of dying or permanent health consequences from it, physical and mental. And remember that healthcare will be worse too because they’ll be repealing the ACA and/or removing a lot of the protections the ACA provides, like requiring insurance companies to cover maternity and any complications. Many Clinics that used to be there to provide low-income women with maternal healthcare, abortion services, cancer screenings, birth control, etc. have already been shut down in red states that have banned abortion.
So a lot fewer women will even have health insurance and it won’t cover as much. Plus the odds of getting pregnant will be higher since access to contraception will be more restricted (not covered by insurance and possibly even banned entirely).
So this about more than just your fear of maybe getting less sex. Your biggest possible risk is financial, if you get held responsible for child support. Risks to women are a hell of a lot higher. They gotta do what they gotta do so.
People really don’t understand the history. Social practices evolved over the centuries and were as subject to evolution as anything genetic. Most traditional social practices evolved for a reason. Often practices stick around long after those reasons no longer apply, but they evolved for a very good reasons in the first place.
As you note, pregnancy is inherently dangerous to a woman’s health, permanently alters her body, and has a permanent and profound impact on her life. And this has always been the case.
Think about how promiscuous women have traditionally been treated. Whore. Slut. Harlot. Women were expected to be chaste until marriage. Meanwhile, promiscuity was often accepted or even celebrated for men. The reasons for this disparity are likely multifaceted, but one likely reason is that sex had such a high risk for women and girls. Think of the mother who calls her own daughter a ‘whore’ for the way she dresses. Who does that to their kid? Someone who thinks they’re doing that kid a favor. Traditionally, mothers expected their daughters to be chaste and conservative, and often that was to protect them from the inevitable risks that came with sex. Women have always had far more to risk when it comes to sex than men.
Effective contraception and abortion access changed this. It was only once the very real risks of premarital sex were ameliorated could modern straight casual sex culture emerge. Yes, some flings did happen in 1850, premarital sex did happen. But it was much rarer, and it was mostly among people who were already on the path to marriage anyway. There were not mixed-sex bars in 1850 that you could go and try and find a partner for a casual fling. Men could go hire a prostitute in most towns and cities, but the idea that a respectable woman would meet a man, alone, then go to his house and have premarital sex that night? That’s the kind of thing that could literally end up in the town newspaper the next day.
Contraceptives - the pill, IUDs, condoms, and abortion; these are foundational technologies to modern sexual practices. They are as important as to modern dating culture as the automobile is to a suburban land use culture. When sex means pregnancy, it means you should never have sex with someone unless you are prepared to spend the next 20 years together raising kids. And yes, that means the casual dating scene is going to take a big hit.
It’s also puts people who don’t want to have kids at all in a tough spot. It makes surgical sterilization effectively mandatory.
After they make it illegal to medically transition genders, guess what medical procedures they’ll prohibit next?
The good news is that since sterilization is a one-time thing, medical tourism (for those with the means) becomes a viable option. I don’t see them banning international travel.
Of course this does increase the barrier and will be out of reach for those who can least afford to have children.
When we swap out sex ed for abstinence only we don’t get less sex. We get a surge in teen pregnancies.
Children are different than adults. Adults are perfectly capable of altering their behavior. Do you think it was a coincidence that the sexual revolution just happened to occur immediately after the introduction of effective contraception?
The sexual revolution was the product of many changes. Cheap and effective ontraception was one of them, legal abortion was not. Roe v Wade wasn’t until after the sexual revolution had already happened. Ante hoc ergo non propter hoc.
There’s a classic greek play, Lysistrata, that tells a tale of women refusing sex to get the men to end a war. It is notably a fictional account.
Essentially the reference resonates most with college educated (white) women.
Media hyped bullshit.
Noone is doing it.
And we can check birthrates a year later to prove it.
White liberals women are going volcel until the Conservatives change their ways!
I’m going ahead and this dismissing this out of hand. It’s not a thing outside of there curiosity articles and niche circles that have sort of read a bout the SCUM-manifest and so on.
volcel
Is that supposed to be vocal?
And spreading the story of it is a good starting point for getting it outside of smaller niches. Cause this has been a tool for thousands of years that has pretty ok success rate.
No.i meant Vocel, as in voluntary celibate. Sort of the inverse of the incels.
Ohh ok.
