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?
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
81 points (90.1% liked)
politics
19239 readers
3079 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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 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?
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.
It makes sense to me to not date men who won't stand up for your rights, but that's not my read of 4B.
How do you know you're with one of those men, really? What happens when they change their tune?
A lot of men will say whatever they need to so they can get laid. Or think they really believe it until the relationship is threatened.
It's not that women can't do all that too but that women now have less ways to extricate themselves from such relationships.
Why risk it?
I feel like a person would know, or at least could know. But I guess you have a point. I have a much different perspective on dating at fifty than would have at twenty.
I'm fifty as well, and I can be fairly certain my wife would not have risked dating me in the current political climate.
We were both a bit older and she had never had a very serious relationship prior to meeting me.
Who knows how the math would've played out? My life was a wreck and she took a gamble on me.
I've made sure that gamble paid off.
But nowadays the odds have changed.
I can identify with a lot of that. She was a recent divorcee, though, and I was supposedly the one with my shit together.
But I will say that there was a point in my late tens or early twenties where maybe I was going to go a different path. I could've turned bitter had I had to deal with loneliness at the time.
I was doing a lot of work on myself and it was messy, trying to figure out who I was. So I guess maybe I feel a certain amount of sympathy for young men in that situation. But also I'm really beyond such things at this point. It just struck me as something that gets attention but sufferers from fundamental flaws (like either they are going to find the one and have sex anyway, or they just aren't all that interested in sex with men to begin with and this is just a way to sort of turn their lack of interest into leverage).
But I'm just not twenty any more. Times are different. Kinda glad I don't have to navigate it.
I absolutely feel sympathy for young men. They didn't ask for any of this either. And they might have to do some work on themselves to get to a healthier place.
I certainly struggled with relationships, to the point of not understanding signs of clear interest.
It's hard to notice this stuff when your head is down with despair.
Why risk it? Because human companionship can be an extremely rewarding thing.
People can find all sorts of reasons to shut themselves off and create walls to protect themselves from “what if”. I hope they are happy with their decision, but in my experience, that road is a one way ticket to loneliness, ineffectiveness, and resentful feelings.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I’m a sympathetic man and this makes total sense and I support them fully.
There is no wedge.
Here here!
load more comments
(10 replies)
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.
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.
load more comments
(6 replies)
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.
4B is not women witholding sex from their partners. It's single women choosing to stay that way and be celibate. Maybe you should find out what it is before taking it personally.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Tbh I'm just glad I'm not some sort of heterosexual
Choosing not to date is now radical?
"radical feminism" refers to a specific ideology born of the second wave, not just any feminism that is radical.
load more comments
(2 replies)
"WGTOW"
view more: next ›