Everything you need to know about the radical feminist movement that preaches 'no sex'
Everything you need to know about the radical feminist movement that preaches 'no sex'
Trump's reelection has prompted women to learn more about a radical feminist movement that preaches 'no sex.' Where did this crusade come from?
"The election of Donald Trump has sparked a surge of interest in the United States in South Korea’s 4B movement, a radical feminist crusade that preaches the four B’s: bi-hon (no marriage), bi-yeonae (no dating), bi-sekseu (no sex) and bi-chulsan (no childbirth),” the Los Angeles Times reports.
“Since Nov. 5, there have been more than 500,000 Google searches for ‘4b movement,’ while on TikTok, Instagram and X, support for the cause has been trending among young women voters who are vowing to swear off men.”
Makes a lot of sense. Think about it this way: there’s a slightly better than 50 percent chance that the random dude you walked past on the street voluntarily chose to vote against your most basic rights as a person. Why the fuck would you go near them again, let alone let them touch you without some serious national reconciliation?
Why does everyone in the internet ignore that turnout was 60%??
The reality is that around 30% of americans voted for trump
I don't understand what you're saying.
You're saying the random dude you walked past, you didn't want to go near again or touch? Because of something they might have done?
I'm saying since 59% of white men voted for Trump, when you walk by a random dude on the street there's around a 1 in 2 chance that that random dude voted against you being a full person. Since that percentage is so high, it's not unreasonable for women to swear off all men until after a serious reckoning.
It was just a silly and imprecise thought experiment to make tangible some distressing statistics about what millions of men think about women.
I see the right has found another culture war issue to distract voters from the fact that they’re getting fucked by the billionaire class.
I understand why they're doing this, but Magoos are going to be laughing their asses off absolutely loving this. In their minds they wouldn't want "a blue haired bisexual cat lady" anyway so to them the only people getting "hurt" are liberal guys who would be these women's allies anyway.
Naturally they aren't considering the actual safety aspect of it since they don't give a shit... God I hate those people... :(
Plus, they think they have the green light to rape women.
Actual feminist and liberal guys should be understanding and supportive of women's sexual/dating choices anyway. If they aren't, then what kind of ally are they?
Just FYI, there is strong terf energy in this movement if you look into its primary supporters. I'm all for withholding from men who don't support your basic human rights, that is literally why the curve from young men to mid 20s and early 30s drastically shift left, but be careful about your associations.
So jettison the terf component, it isn't germane to the overall goal or purpose and need not be carried over just because it is part of the South Korean 4B.
I'm not following the logic here. The only thing I can see is it would drive a wedge between feminists and sympathetic men. Seems like the sort of thing that would only make sense to someone uninterested in men or withdrawing from the guy they are with.
If someone has a take I'm missing, I'm all ears. I'm married 15 years and I don't have a dog in the fight, so if I'm wrong just explain how.
If you were a woman in today's world, why would you take the risk of dating someone who can rape, impregnate, and either leave or stay and dominate your life?
The reality is that tender, gentle, trusting relationships will still form... and the rest of the men will have to decide whether to try to be better men or not.
The logic is to prevent pregnancy in an environment that has become hostile towards women's rights. Sex becomes far more dangerous if you don't have access to contraceptives and abortion.
Fwiw, I'm in a LTR with a "4B ally" (and also consider myself an ally). A key points here is that I've also had a vasectomy.
I know it doesn't seem fair, and if you look at it through the lens of punishing men then maybe it isn't. But if you view it as women protecting themselves (e.g. from pregnancy) then it makes perfect sense.
I'm not really looking at it through the lens of fairness, I think, other than maybe sympathetic. I'm just not sure it addresses the problem. Seems to be the biggest issue for liberal men who wouldn't date a conservative woman. And they aren't likely to be the problem, nor is creating a rift the solution.
But I can 100% see a woman who is simply unwilling to risk pregnancy in this environment regardless of partner.
I have to admit I don't understand the friendly fire aspect of this. I totally get wanting to withhold everything positive, including any sort of affection at all, from anyone that voted for this, but doing it uniformly?
I also understand wanting to fully vet just what kind of "ally" you might be dealing with while dating. Obviously guys will lie about such a thing since they know that voting for donvict is a huge turnoff, at minimum, never mind this movement.
I also don't have a dog in the fight.
"Not giving consent is radical"
- the fuckwit that wrote this article.
Interestingly, research shows a surprising trend related to this topic: young adults today, on the whole, are engaging in less sexual activity than any generation for which we have data. Yet, this shift isn't equally distributed across genders—where young men (ages 18-25) once reported slightly higher rates of sexual activity than young women, the pattern has reversed. Now, young women report engaging in sex more frequently than their male counterparts, with the gender gap widening now to a degree that significantly favors women in this area.
The reasons for this shift are still under debate. Economic pressures, the influence of digital media, and evolving social norms are all posited as contributing factors. But the data does suggest (this is based on CDC and JAMA studies) that a smaller subset of men are experiencing a larger share of sexual activity, aligning with certain internet memes and narratives about “Chads” dominating the dating scene. Whether these cultural constructs, such as the "MRA" or "Chad" phenomenon, are reflective of or reactive to this social shift remains unclear. Nonetheless, they generally resonate with the timeline of the observed trends around sexual activity. I'll be curious to see how the trends indirectly the future of dating and sexual relationships among young adults.
But, all that aside, if more women choose to opt out of traditional dating or sexual encounters with men, more power to women. Coincidentally, it could begin to narrow or at least slow the widening gender gap in this area. I am unsure if that would be good, bad, or neutral. In general, a healthy sex life seems to be an important dimension of the human experience. I would imagine the fact that the overall trends are going down is probably a negative for the psychology of a generation, but I guess we'll see.
This age cohort also drinks less, has more eating disorders, smokes/vapes less, is more sleep deprived, parties less, is more risk-averse, has shorter attention spans, experiments with drugs less, is more (prescription) medicated, is more depressed, is more socially isolated, and is more anxious than previous generations at the same ages. Looking at research on Gen Z is pretty crazy. And it can be depressing sometimes, but it's a particularly unique age cohort. Scholars widely acknowledge Gen Z as being markedly different than previous youth generations.
support for the cause has been trending among young women voters who are vowing to swear off men.
hell yeah
This idea is so stupid, in my opinion. Liberal women are likely with liberal partners—they will be punishing their allies. Punishing allied men for things that other people have done is a good way to radicalize them into becoming republicans.
The more we solve our problems by withdrawing from each other and punishing each other, especially those who are not the direct cause of our problems, the more we exacerbate the division in this country.
The only people who should be withholding sex from loving partners when they would otherwise be interested are people who are sleeping with a Musk or a Trump. Everyone else is just causing more hurt with no positive outcome.
Punishing allied men for things that other people have done is a good way to radicalize them into becoming republicans.
If not getting your dick wet turns you into a republican you were never a real ally.
That is reducing my point to the most inflammatory interpretation.
Some men have been very negatively impacted by the political climate of the last 10 years too. They have weathered a lot of “white man” blame while trying to be a force for good. They have voted as an ally, protested as an ally, and held their peers accountable. And now their partner cuts off physical affection.
A man doesn’t have to be a false ally for those realities to put him in a psychological place that will make him vulnerable to conservative manipulators. It opens the door to the question “how’s your liberalism working for you?”
Denial of physical affection is a real grievance, and outside of this protest, it is usually considered an issue that needs to be fixed in a relationship. Think hard before intentionally creating relationship issues to prove a political/moral point.
It's to protect against pregnancy in an environment where women's rights have been eroded.
If Project 2025 takes away abortion rights and even contraceptives, sex becomes a really big risk.
Tbh I'm just glad I'm not some sort of heterosexual
"WGTOW"
Even though this reduces my chances of having sex to 0% (prev. 0%) I fully support this movement
I do not really see how that would help, as i hope these people would not have sex with right wingers in the first place but if they want to not have sex and all that other stuff power to them i guess.
Same situation should be applied to our LGBTQ+, like last time he was president. No sexual gratification.
reposting:
American chicks love to fuck. A lot. This is not the 1600 peasant community sworn to one man, any longer, where the denial of "marriage rights" is at the forefront of the Feminist reality. Yet. The reality of the loss of Roe really hasn't been felt yet in the majority of female spaces, especially Liberal states, but with an oncoming expected Trump/Congress push for nationwide Ban on Abortion, along with all the other and various sundry Misogynistic legislation coming in the next couple years, it will get there, and American girls and women will then be ready to swear off. But it's going to be a long time coming. I agree, the time is now, but the wave is so far off we can't even see it yet.
Don't women like and need sex too? I thought it was a chauvinistic talking point that only guys need sex.
I feel like this is more of a strike kind of thing.
Ok, that makes sense: like a hunger strike, not like withholding the sex "commodity".
Women can take care of themselves or each other.
But yeah, the human libido will take charge sometimes. They're just worried it'll be men taking charge regardless of their wishes.
Men can take care of themselves if they decide to and there is something like this (or there ued to be, I haven't heard of it lately), called MGTOW. But it wasn't particularly useful. Whereas it was useful to draw attention to the suffragettes, so it worked there.
The female MAGA-"brains" will not join, anyway, so they will continue to procreate, while the reasonable half of the country heads towards a frustrated extinction. Congratulations, feminists, to that rousing success.
"Women should consider that their choices about their bodies might frustrate men"
It is their choice, and I won't tell them to do it or not. But in this case it would be rather futile.