- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Summary
Following Donald Trump’s recent election victory, Google searches for “4B,” a South Korean feminist movement advocating a “no sex, no dating, no marriage, no children” stance, surged in the U.S.
The 4B movement, popular among young women on social media, promotes individual resistance against conservative politics and the erosion of reproductive rights.
The trend reflects a broader ideological divide between young men and women in the U.S., where women under 30 are significantly more liberal than men.
You must log in or # to comment.
This has literally been a thing for like… 60 years
fuck them…
I think those ladies don’t give a fuck.
Typical media BS.
Found a story about a very small movement somewhere in the world than are blowing it out of proportion and saying this is actually a thing.
This is why Dems lost the election but the media thought they would win.
Fucking click bait sex sells story.
Idgaf. Why has this story been at the top of my feed for like 4 days now?
Seems like propaganda. More gender war bullshit. Divide, divide, divide.
To incite a civil war.
People are responding to it. Idk how you sort your feed, but if its by ‘hot’ or ‘active’ then your comment just helped bump it back up to the top.
Fuck!
“Young men expect sex, but they also want us to not be able to have access to abortion,” Thomas told The Post. “They can’t have both. Young women don’t want to be intimate with men who don’t fight for women’s rights; it’s showing they don’t respect us.”
Sounds reasonable and fair to me.
In over 50% of America’s land area Rapists get to pick the mother of their child.
Flee red states.
The only why they’ll learn is if the rational people leave. The whole fill strategy will never work because red states need you more than you need them.
Flee red states!
Project 2025 advocates for tracking of child barring age women and girls. They will turn you into brood sows the moment they get a chance and justify it as the moral good.
Flee red states!
Blue states aren’t perfect but we at least know what freedom is and don’t need a 2000 yeast old book to decide what we should do next.
Fleeing my state isn’t an option. Besides, my state didn’t used to be red. A lot of states flipped or at least went from purple to red. So it’s not even a guarantee if you uproot your entire family and life that you get to stay blue.
I feel so demoralized when this comes up, as if it’s my own fault I’m living somewhere with terrible laws. I voted. I got other people to vote. I changed a few minds on abortion (not easy to do!). I don’t have the money or resources to start somewhere else, and we’re all about to have less money.
Are you willing to risk your mother’s, sisters, and daughters bodily autonomy on a under performing political party?
I’m not saying leaving will be easy. And I’m not saying it paradise and blue States. But I am saying red states don’t deserve you. Start making a plan at least because they won’t stop.
It’s my bodily autonomy. I’m a woman of child-bearing age. I even want to make a child sometime in the next four years. I’m risking my health. I can’t move. I will end up broke with zero resources in another state, with no job, and my husband will need to start his career from scratch if we move. We just can’t afford it. Plus wherever we move, we’ll be separated from both our families who are local here. And again, even if we move, wherever we start over could just be red in two election cycles anyway. Moving isn’t the answer.
One in five women in the United States experienced completed or attempted rape during their lifetime.
The chances of having a miscarriage is 1 in 4 pregnancies.
Multiply those statistics for every girl and women in your family.
Add in the fact that red states have disproportionately more sexual violence than blue states.
Are those odds you are willing to take?
No one is say moving well be easy. But you can start saving, planning, and applying for positions in safer areas. (politically, economically, and socially.) You don’t have to just move your core family. Everyone that cares about women’s rights can move too. If migrant women with no job, no prospects, no money, and no path to citizenship to receive services can do it, so can you.
Red states don’t deserve you. Every day you play the odds
An awful lot of generalizing there.
I don’t think anyone involved thinks she’s talking about every single young man. Well, except you, of course
Now he’s just worried that they’re talking about him. Which they probably are considering his immediate defensive reaction.
“Young men…” wow I wonder where that idea came from
Jesus Fucking Christ, do we literally have to have women say things like:
“Young men – not all, just some, well in some areas most, but a lot of young men – expect…”
This tiptoeing bullshit to not anger some fragile men is insane. I lived as a straight man for over 40 years and this new idea that men are somehow put upon whenever a woman brings up being objectified, or has an issues with interactions with /takes a breath some, but not all, just a large amount, enough to be traumatizing, particularly as it’s systemic to the patriarchy, men.
This is ridiculous semantic bullshit in response to women feeling like objects and pushing back.
We’re better than this, and I’m tired of watching us act absolutely horrible whenever women point out systemic, extremely frequent issues they have with men, and have to inch around it so as to not break our fragile egos.
Women need to say, “Well, not every man is a rapist, but every person who raped me was a man, amd when I tried to speak up, almost every man told me he needed more evidence, that was an extreme claim that could ruin that man’s life, and when I tried to call police, they were made also of men who also rape and commit domestic violence at high rates, and when I went to court the judge was a Trump appointeee… So I guess really no men are rapists because the system doesn’t allow us to label them. Or maybe that makes all of you dangerous.”
I teared up a bit reading your comment, I’m so sorry you all go through this, and continue to go through this.
The worst part is a lot of the men saying this shit, even here in this thread, consider themselves ‘Leftist’. They know it’s the wealthy causing fighting amongst the poors to distract, and yet still these men fall for it. They think there’s some ‘women’s agenda’ coming for them and never once look back and think to themselves ‘wow, thank god they want equality and not revenge.’
I agree. It’s like the whole “Not all men” deal: nitpicking the details of the phrasing instead of tackling the root issue. You’re only fighting those symptoms that affect you directly, not the root cause.
The day I have someone yelling in my face that I’m to blame for some other man’s rape is the day I’ll argue about that issue. Until then, let’s focus on the actual problem: In this case (some) young men being pieces of garbage.
Just the word “most” or “some” would avoid this whole conversation. Why does it have to come to this every time?
Why does it have to come to this every time?
I don’t know, why do men require people to use extra words not to hurt their feelings?
“Young men expect sex, but they also want us to not be able to have access to abortion,” Thomas told The Post. “They can’t have both. Young women don’t want to be intimate with men who don’t fight for women’s rights; it’s showing they don’t respect us.”
See, they even included parts like that, and still people are here whining about it.
My feelings aren’t hurt by the presence of people who hate me.
But I will call a spade a spade. A person too lazy to add the word “some” to their statement does hate all men. Can’t be bothered with a syllable to honor them, and that’s hate.
Removed by mod
Just the ones who conform to my incredibly contemptuous description of them (a majority of white women apparently).
Going to need an attribution there, champ.
What kind of attribution do I need? I’m only talking about the ones who fit the description. Seems to me like trump voters fit that description but hey, if I’m wrong no biggy. After all I am only talking about the ones that do. Can’t you just infer that?
I’m definitely not young. I’ve pretending to know me though.
I’ve pretending to know me though.
You’ve what? Had a stroke?
It doesn’t seem generalized at all to me.
- A series of laws are passed that make this thing riskier.
- Do less of the risky thing.
- Make it clear why.
What’s the problem?
Hmm so this movement excludes men that want abortion to be available then? Missed that.
I think the subtext implies that you can have sex with people that don’t suck. This is the female counterpart to, “don’t stick your dick in crazy”.
I mean the “no sex, no kids, no marriage” slogan seems not that.
Taking into context that it’s to protest people against reproductive rights, I take it that it’s to punish and withhold specifically from those people.
I think they are more saying none of that with people who don’t respect our right to our own bodies
That is mentioned nowhere in this argument. But the credo of the movement is:
No sex. No dating. No marrying men. No children.
This sounds pretty intentionally absolute in nature
Did really some of the American women need for Trump to be elected twice before learning this? Isn’t this supposed to be common sense, not just only for women?
Either everyone but you is stupid, or you’re missing something.
Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t understand why a movement is necessary to understand that you shouldn’t have sex with people that, in your opinion, suck
It’s about risk management, first and foremost.
I suppose you might get a second look from a 4B-practitioner if you had a vasectomy (i.e. to remove the risk of pregnancy), but I’m a man so I can only speculate on this. And of course this isn’t such a great option if you do plan to have kids some day. Then again, despite the anti-abortion rhetoric of “don’t have sex if you aren’t ready to reproduce”, planned pregnancies are much more dangerous under abortion bans.
Would you mind saying what you mean here? I’d like for you to explain your thought a little more.
I’m responding to “it doesn’t seem generalized at all”. If that were the case it would not be a movement based on absolutes that apply to all men
It most certainly doesn’t exclude anyone unless you think someone refusing to have sex with you is an act of exclusion.
Most of all of us are refusing to have sex with you at this very moment.
This seems to assume that I’m concerned this will impact me. I’m not, at all. Not slightly. It wouldn’t even impact me if I were even single, which I’m not.
I could probably put out an ad on Craigslist offering to pay someone like this for an interview and still never meet such a person or even get an email back about it.
Did the hat fit you?
I voted for Kamala thanks.
Even incels can vote for Kamala
You really nailed me. What a joke this place is.
That’s not helping.
Dig a hole speed run any%
It’s talking about people who support trump. But you can’t only target them as people will just hide their political views to get laid.
Good for them for asserting their autonomy but basically the end affect is the opening plot of Idiocracy
I get your point, but I wouldn’t worry about what might happen in 20 years when what is currently happening is bad.
Yes, women should rape themselves by having sex with men they are furious with to avoid the ending of a random documentary
I think you misunderstood me. Assuming this is sarcasm, which I think is fair, I was also saying people shouldn’t oppose 4B because of Idiocracy.
I get your point, but I wouldn’t worry about what might happen in 20 years when what is currently happening is bad.
Ahh, the ol’ false bifurcation ostrich effect as a thought-terminating-looparoo.
I don’t think dismissing eugenics based arguments based on movie plots is a thought terminator lmao.
Downvoting to save words in your reply - nice. Have another upvote.
Your most recent reply actually conveys meaning/makes a specific versus broad point. To that point, I don’t necessarily think they were making a eugenics based argument (though I would agree with you in dismissing an argument based on that) since they didn’t explicitly state the reason for mentioning the movie was because they believe in some idea of politics being genetic versus simply being most effectively passed down via social means from one’s parents while living with them through adolescence. Call me crazy, but I think most of the folks posting here should be given the benefit of not assuming they’re talking about eugenics until they are explicitly promoting it versus something more widely accepted, such as the aforementioned idea that it’s highly likely that parents pass down their politics through social means to their children. I could, of course, be wrong and maybe they were intending to make a eugenics based argument, but they weren’t specific enough to divine that. All of that said, I should edit the phrasing in a sarcastic comment I made elsewhere about removing oneself from the gene pool being a bad strategy since I probably wasn’t clear enough to get across that I was using the very real right-wing perspective where they favor their “good genes” over others’ “genes” for added effect.
Your initial (decidedly vague) comment, as quoted, presents a false choice as if the person you were replying to was worrying about a future problem that is totally disconnected from the current topic of discussion, but they’re not and I don’t think the person you were replying to gave any reason for one to infer that they were ignoring the current issue in favor of some future issue. If they were talking about disconnected topics/problems then what you were saying would make more sense (or if you had been more specific, like in your followup, that would help too). It’s as if the person noticed a ceiling was leaking and exclaimed to someone suggesting to just put a bucket under it “Ignoring a leak is exactly how my neighbor ended up needing to replace their roof, I don’t think the bucket plan is a good plan in the long term!” and you were there to reply “Don’t tell them to worry about the roof, they need to fix the leak!” It’s not wrong, it just doesn’t really say anything or lead to further thought beyond the loop and comes across as a “calm down!”
20 years from now is current when you’re older
Until the loneliness of conservative men hits the breaking point.
They have each other. Why does their loneliness require women?
What was the 2024 election if not that?
It was stolen.
White women voting for whoever their white husband/pastor/dad told them to vote for.
Sure, blame women for the actions of men
Fuck that if they voted for him they’re to blame.
The first time you say no to someone you really want to be with, that is when the 4B life starts. Till then, it’s just business as usual (I really hope you don’t sleep with/date people you don’t like!).
The life continues when you see them with someone else, and realise some things can’t be undone. People move on, they’re not static NPCs you can just reload and date later.
It goes ever on, life stops for no-one and it runs it’s course far too soon. To those who choose that path, make sure you know where it leads.
Edit: nice catch apostrofail! I’ll keep no-one though, I feel they need that special dash bond ;)
No judgement, just curious, but is the idea here that conservative men should not be allowed to have sex since they don’t respect women? All for it, agree 100%. But i have a hard time imagining a feminist being with that type of man anyways, since the majority of feminist Ive met have self respect. So then you’re not sleeping with any men to punish them, and yourself, for conservative men? I feel like I’m missing something.
Or is this article just implying 4B is something completly different than what it actually is? You know, cuz clickbait isn’t concerned with being factual…
I think, and here the key word is think as this goes beyond my mandate so to speak, it’s more an act of resistance. A bit like protesting, but with less risk.
I’d say the aim is to rallying over retribution, to push those “good men” into fighting more strongly. It’s not a bad tactic, it’ll be interesting to see how it pans out.
It’s also not really that widespread, searches for it are up because it’s making the rounds is all.
not static NPCs*
for no *one
Self-selective removal of oneself and those of probable left-leaning male partners from the gene pool* is certainly one strategy left-leaning women could try in the fight for a political environment where their rights are protected and progress further. Probably a terrible strategy, but certainly one that could be chosen.
I respect any individual’s bodily autonomy and am not trying to make a statement in favor of men having a right to access or anything like that. It’s just an illogical movement if the goal is a society that has more individuals likely to support women’s rights - the gamble that thirsty men of the left will somehow save the day or that it would affect men on the right is kind of silly unless we’re assuming that there is a statistically meaningful amount of (secretly) left leaning women out there choosing right wing men as partners. (I wonder if anyone has tried to focus a campaign on seeing if the latter group exists in a sizable amount and can be convinced to be vote left - somebody should look into that and see how it works out. /s)
It’s almost like 4B is something that the right wing would push to further their current advantage in household size in the US…
*I am not seriously implying politics are a matter of genetics (though parents commonly pass down their politics to children in their household via social means), but plenty of people on the right do believe in their own “good genes” versus the “bad genes” of the left and I’m leaning on their perspective for sarcastic effect here.
Yeah, the whole concept of 4B only works if a vast majority of women are on the same page, and given the results from this election, they clearly are not.
It was stolen.
4B is doable! My wife and I haven’t had sex in 3 years and we sort of like each other.
Just imagine not actually liking anyone at all, easy!
For everything else, there’s pornhub.
Until the P25 porn ban anyway
Start downloading now!
For the planet! We should have National Pornstars. Additionally, National Pornstar Social Security to provide for our loved pornstars after they retire or if they sustain health issues regardless of their origin…like if they have a fall from a ladder vs herpes rash, all covered. They give us sexual gratification and bring stability to the world. The least we can do is to take good care of them and all their arousing features and bodyparts.
It’s fine, the president-elect is standing by to pay an out of court settlement to each and every porn star.
It’s always amazing how many men out themselves in these threads. Immediately angry and defensive. There’s no greater way to know that you’re exactly the kind of man these women are worried about than having that reaction.
In this thread a few people left mild and fair criticism and immediately got accused of being conservative. Some I recognized as having specifically progressive ideas in other threads.
I think there are fair criticisms of this for sure. Saying them out loud does not mean you have anything but the opinion you say. And now watch, I’ll be dog piled and accused of hating women or whatever.
Which isn’t true at all, it just seems kind of weird to deny yourself the pleasure of sex because… I guess… you don’t trust yourself to find a man who isn’t a piece of shit? Either that or you somehow believe such a person doesn’t exist? The only other option is it’s about being spiteful in a way that won’t help anyone at all. Conservative men are already having trouble getting women and you aren’t going to turn them liberal by not having sex with anyone. For this to ever work you’d need a large percentage of women to participate, which obviously isn’t going to happen.
Reactionaries suck and I’d hate to date one
deleted by creator
Point proven. Blocking you.
I call bullshit. Any politicaly aware liberal/progressive woman can sniff out a conservative dude 5 miles away. They ain’t fucking these kinda dudes unless they actually wanna be fucking them. I just don’t see it
Yep, it also doesn’t consider the 46% of women that voted for Trump or the near 50 million women that couldn’t be bothered to vote at all.
This is a minority movement that is probably not much more than ineffective virtue signalling.
If you’re wife doesn’t want sex then that’s usually a big problem for the relationship and could even end it. How many guys are going in to the ballot box in four years time and voting differently because they decided to get a divorce? It could possibly even entrench their views.
I’m probably going to get bored of saying this, but people that disagree with you need to be engaged not derided.
Understandable.
But sweaering of ALL men is neither healthy nor realistic and the 4B movement is not really helping the issue. Plua the movement is extremely transphobic and essentialist. Its just TERFs doing a thing again…
A more practical solution: Dont date MAGA and leave them if need be. Take the children from them as well. They deserve scorn for voting in a dictator, just because they cant get laid. And they deserve to be reminded on how parhetic they are for all of it every single das until they change.
Agreed. I also can understand the feelings behind this, but it seems to ignore that quite a number of women voted for Trump.
Bingo. My wife won’t vote for a woman president because she, not me, thinks that they’re too emotional. I know a decent amount of women in the workplace that feel the same way. I voted for Kamala because Trump is a paranoid narcissist that is a thief, liar, and can’t be trusted and she was a darn sight better to keep the boat moving predictably forward.
Your wife is a moron
I hope that made you feel better.
Needs to be said mate
Preaching to the choir doesn’t do any good. Just makes that person feel better about themselves.
They should feel bad
I hope you realize your wife is a moron and a fascist.
Never said she voted for Trump. In fact, we don’t tell each other who we vote for. So yeah, try again. She’s typically strongly independent and really hates the two party system. RCV FTW.
My wife won’t vote for a woman president because she, not me, thinks that they’re too emotional.
This is directly from the Right’s playbook. She’s a moronic fascist.
Talk to her, and teach her the error of her ways. If you continue to be an apologist for a fascist, you might as well give up and join their ranks.
It’s not about feeling better. It’s about calling out bad behavior (i.e. misogyny).
Women are too emotional to be president? Shit man, maga and their current figurehead are fueled by extremely volatile emotion, no matter how much they crow about facts vs feelings. Rage is an emotion, and it’s what’s driven the movement for years before it even had a name. Citing emotionality as a reason not to elect a woman is just an excuse—a very poor one, at that—and everyone knows it.
Hey, you’re preaching to the choir. Lol.
That’s rich. How could one ever think in this election that Kamala was the emotional one. She made one joke about his crowd size and he went completely off the rails.
Got me. I think Trump is incredibly unstable.
deleted by creator
Might want to re-read that comment.
Reading comprehension. Jesus you people are stupid.
No wonder why the Democrats continue to underperform.
Downvoted for advocating taking men’s children away.
There’s nothing inherently unhealthy about being asexual.
4B isn’t about asexuality, it’s about abstinence. Not the same thing.
From a physiological standpoint? Seems virtually the same to me. The other guy said it was unhealthy. Is there anything unhealthy about abstinence?
The difference is that one is identity and the other is a choice.
Yes, no one is arguing that. The context was there’s no difference physiologically speaking. That was the premise.
I think the distinction is important to some people.
I have enough respect for those people to know they are smart enough to understand the distinction.
They’re not necessarily the same, there’s two major differences between them physiologicaly:
- Asexual people date others unless they are also aromantic (well aromantic people also can date but it’s less common)
- Some asexual people can and do have sex
Asexuality doesn’t have the desire for sex.
This is abstinence for those that would like to have sex but don’t feel safe.
Physiologically it means that abstinence produces stress.
So yes, there are physiological differences, even if they arent measurable on the short term but instead of the long term.
This is not just being asexual. This incel behaviour.
It’s called celibacy, and it’s voluntary in this context.
Abstains from sex is celibacy. That’s 1B.
There are 4Bs
The Bs are celibacy, no marriage, no children, no dating. None of that is incel behavior.
Incel = involuntary celibacy
These women are volunteering to be celibate.
Wow you don’t understand what incels are at all do you?
The problem is that some men will literally tell a woman anything they want to hear until they’re in bed. They will lie their ass off and avoid political discussion until after the proposal, then they’ll suggest maybe she could cook a little more
Wait for more polarisation.
But the large swatch of incel’s that voted for Trump aren’t going to be affect by this.
They will just be able to further blame women. I’m all for that shit-show though. 🍿
The good thing about incels is they won’t pass on their hatred, their line dies with them.
They pass it on to someone else’s kids.
You underestimate the number of incels who wank in a cup for recreation, and a side hustle.
No, they won’t. But then the men affected will complain to other single men, and those of us that agree with 4B can say “yeah, it sucks, but how many guys have you stood up to and said ‘knock it off’”.
I guarantee the number is small.
incels*
