Are American Women Really Going on a Sex Strike?
Don't let the internet fool you.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eb14d/eb14d6d0b84cda47bb16f1bf1034295ad0383a68" alt="Women crowd Women crowd | ID 2614104 © Photoinsel | Dreamstime.com"
"Women need to stop dating & having sex with men immediately and im not even joking or being dramatic in the slightest," said one X user in a viral post on November 6th. "take a page from the feminists in south korea."
"Ladies, we need to start considering the 4B movement like the women in South Korea and give America a severely sharp birth rate decline," reads another popular post. "We can't let these men have the last laugh…we need to bite back."
Are women really taking a page from South Korean activists and going on a sex strike to protest Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 election? While claims like this have swept the internet since Trump's victory, there's no evidence that this is happening, and no reason to think it ever will.
According to online posts about the topic, talk of a sex strike takes inspiration from the South Korean 4B movement, which encourages women not to date, marry, or have sex with men, and not to have children. The trend began in backlash to the 2016 killing of a young woman near a Seoul subway station. However, it's worth noting that South Korean men are much more hostile to feminism than men in the United States, and the nation retains larger gender gaps than most other developed nations. According to one poll, 76 percent of Korean men in their 20s and 66 percent in their 30s reported that they strongly opposed feminism. South Korea also has the largest gender pay gap among OECD nations, with men making more than 31 percent more than women.
Seventy-three percent of South Korean women reported that marriage was disadvantageous to women, and 84.4 percent agreed that having a child was disadvantageous to women. And these results aren't exactly surprising—in South Korea, women in dual-income households still spend an average of 3.4 times as many hours on housework than their male partners. A gender gap in household chores exists in the U.S., but it seems to be smaller. However, that's not the only reason to be suspicious that a 4B-style movement will take hold in the United States.
While online supporters of an antimale sex strike seemed to blame Trump's victory on men specifically, the gender gap in this year's election wasn't unusually large—around a 10-point gap between men and women's support for Trump. A full 45 percent of women voted for Trump according to CNN's exit poll, with 53 percent voting for Harris. Fifty-five percent of men said they voted for Trump—a majority, but hardly enough for a Harris-supporting woman to rationally conclude that men as a class are responsible for Trump's victory. In contrast, the gender voting gap in South Korea was an astonishing 25 percent in a recent election.
Further, it's simply difficult to believe that enough women—even fervent Harris supporters—care enough about the election results to consider such a drastic action, especially since taking a vow of celibacy can't reverse unfavorable election results.
Some media outlets have also jumped on the theory somewhat credulously. This week, The Columbia Journalism Review wrote that the trend "reflects a growing sense of frustration among women who fear that Trump's second term will be characterized by unchecked misogyny and the continued rollback of bodily autonomy in the US," while one Guardian writer argued that "moving away from men might be a needed defence mechanism for women," adding that "It is powerful in the message that it sends: that women don't have a duty to show compassion to men who deny them basic respect."
Are Harris-supporting women really going to embark on a mass movement toward celibacy in protest of the election results? The idea is so far-fetched that it's difficult to take seriously—even more so when considering that a little under half of all women voters didn't even support Harris to begin with. Rather than heralding the start of this separatist feminist movement in the U.S., online talk of a sex strike seems more akin to threatening to move to Canada if your candidate loses than a reflection of real political sentiment.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Married guys wouldn’t notice the difference.
Blue haired obese women activists won't either.
You’re talking about the individualist here, right?
Yes. Although I'm sure his bf in Maine us bald.
https://ro.co/hair-loss/alcohol-and-hair-loss/
My thoughts exactly. They have nothing to worry about.
My take is that to the degree that this exists it is a strike by sluts. For the married guys who were getting tail and now being cut off, at least now they know they married a slut.
The issue these women have is that they feel like they might not be able to get an abortion when their sexual irresponsibility results in a new life. I'd say they're doing humanity a favor by fucking off.
I'm also curious about the numbers Emma was running (ignoring that she erred in claiming 55% of men voted Harris.) Hasn't the gender gap in politics been around that gap for a while? Didn't Trump improve in basically every demographic group except for single women?
The virtue signaling will do nothing, but I sincerely hope these women stick to their guns and we end up with less batshit women becoming unwilling mothers (well, before vacuuming out the kid.)
And now they don't need all those abortion "rights", problem solved.
Men built civilization, women will cause its collapse.
"Ladies, we need to start considering the 4B movement like the women in South Korea and give America a severely sharp birth rate decline," reads another popular post. "We can't let these men have the last laugh…we need to bite back."
Serious question... why does a 'decline in the birth rate' only harm men? I want all the yarns and pushpins laid out, with the logic fully explained and argued.
Motherhood is rape.
Seriously, that seems to be the current view of whatever wave feminism they now teach at Harvard and Evergreen.
The same or similar needs to be said about pretty much everything on the list. The whole thing smacks of a vindictive, dig two graves, race to the bottom.
The whole pay gap myth in this country and much of The West has been completely dispelled and that was without even bringing in the Right Hand of Doom of household spending.
Other places, they talked about how Korean women were foregoing the fancy clothes, doing their hair, and wearing make up.
I'd totally believe that Korean men expect their wives to do all their chores for them and even command that they dress and act a certain way, and that the social practice is overbearing. I totally get that large parts of S. Asia didn't have Chivalry as a formal social practice for hundreds of years, but I'm going to need to see some receipts about, e.g., laws dictating women wear make up or stats of women dying on the job 1:1 with their male peers before I'll buy that we're getting into anything beyond "Korean men have actual expectations for women and don't constantly grovel at their feet!"
Misogyny is extreme in South Korea. Their pay gap is real. They don’t treat women as actual people, they think of them as objects to use. They don’t take them seriously, if one is killed, it’s no big deal. The entire society is like that bc of their antiquated culture. They’re making strides to fix it and they will likely make some progress moving forward bc they are also very concerned with their image - which includes how they appear to the rest of the world. I think that’s their main reason for even considering the subject of women’s rights.
You’re full of shit.
Not a single cite in that whole screed.
Ladies, we need to start considering the 4B movement like the women in South Korea and give America a severely sharp birth rate decline.
Aren't these woman all just having abortions anyway? I don't think their engagement or lack of sex is going to significantly affect the birth rate.
They use Misek's "properly applied" logic. Anything else is just part of the patriarchy
While claims like this have swept the internet since Trump's victory, there's no evidence that this is happening, and no reason to think it ever will.
Honestly, I'm a little shocked that this even requires a fact-check by a Libertarian-ish magazine.
Did a Libertarian-ish magazine fact check this? I'd like to read that.
the 80s and 90s were such a hoot. you missed out.
“…Donald Trump’s victory in the 2020 election?”
You mean 2024?
“Fifty-five percent of men said they voted for Harris…”
You mean they voted for Trump?
I think you need an editor.
She's a modern, progressive woman, things like math and defining what a woman is confuse her.
Accuracy is male privilege, so fuck you, you rapist!
I noticed that too.
53% + 55% and Harris lost? How many trannies we got in this country? And did they really all vote for Trump?
The tranny trump vote was the secret weapon nobody thought about. Except that sly orange fox.
Impressive.
Until they hit their mid to late 30s and contract a case of babies rabies. The ones that go post wall without birthing will need copious amounts of White Claw and bag-in-box to keep them semi-functional. Hoarding cats will also be a coping mechanism.
See my apropos comment below
"Babies with Rabies" is actually already being used as a band name.
That was Hank’s band name in the 30s.
Cats and box wine.
I am reminded of a comment by Rush Limbaugh, regarding abortion protestors in the 1990s:
"Who the hell would have sex with them in the first place?"
Harris merch store:
Women's large SOLD OUT
Men's small: SOLD OUT
Are Harris-supporting women really going to embark on a mass movement toward celibacy in protest of the election results?
One can only hope.
The Democratic Party to working Americans:
SOLD OUT
Harris supporters:
person 1: I cut off my dick, I'm a woman!
Person 2: I removed my uterus... I'm a man!
Person 1 & 2: Hey I know, let's cause the birth rate to decline!
"Hey I know, let’s cause the birth rate to decline!"
Considering the gene pool, I can see no downside to that.
Just traveled across country to the Bay Area this past week; only saw one woman who had shaved her head [and didn't look like she had cancer] at SFO; I am pretty sure it's a very small but very loud minority doing this [and no one is going to miss anything they claim to be withholding].
I was just there too. Didn't see any bald women. But I did see a big display of Trump t-shirts and hats and stuff at the shop in SFO.
See? SEE?!?!? Harris sold out. No one wants the Trump stuff.
This is, of course, silly and yet another example of the feminization of the broader culture. Sure most women enjoy sex with men but they are also aware of the fact that pussy is a powerful bargaining chip when wielding power as required. Always been that way. It's primal shit. It's also pretty obvious that women who are involuntarily celibate might want to claim that it's a result of their choice rather than face the possibility that they are undesirable for whatever reason. The problem in the longer term is that the female of every species has a biological clock and women are not exempt. It's easy to ignore when you're 25, at 40 not so much. Call me a natalist but someday these women may realize they made a big mistake.
the female of every species has a biological clock and women are not exempt
Slight disagreement that actually kinda supports your assertion from a different angle: humans are rather exceptional in the animal kingdom with regard to menopause. The vast majority of sexually dimorphic species that are sensibly paired or peers (i.e. not hives), reproduction takes place up until death and/or death is a part of reproduction.
Humans and some captive primates are among some of the few exceptional species that have their survival and social providence ensured such that women menopause takes place rather than death. There’s a case or argument to be had/made that women experience menopause on the backs of their dead sons. Primal shit, as you say.
One theory is that for kids to survive, they need a mother for maybe 7 or so years. Most of the species that don’t go through menopause are able to wean their children fairly quickly, so don’t have a multiyear dependency for their offspring. It’s really remarkable how slowly we develop. For example, my daughter was telling me this week that her 4-5 month old infant is just learning about object permanence (where peek-a-boo works with them). Cats, dogs, mice, etc, are long weaned by this age.
Humans come a lot less "pre-programmed" than most animals.
Kids now need their parents until they're about 27 it seems.
Didn't know that either. Thanks.
[tilts hand] You're confusing unrelated mechanisms and categorically distinct scientific axioms.
There are animals with both absolutely and relatively longer *and* shorter gestation and wean times that don't go through menopause. There is no universal biological mechanism or axiom that says "Females only get so much time, absolutely or proportionately to birth and rear young." There isn't even a universal biological mechanism that says females birth and rear young at all.
However, it is a bit of an axiom of evolution that if you aren't reproducing or actively competing to reproduce... aren't capable of reproducing... then you aren't advancing the species, you're a burden on it*. A lot of the reason there aren't more females of other species living to menopause (let alone long past) is because, as indicated, peers, predators, or the elements kill them first. If post-menopausal women were, traditionally, the largest and fiercest of the species, there's a case to be made that they're still actively engaged in preserving, defending, and strengthening the gene pool right up until death. Given that the exact opposite is the case (for our species), *some* part of the species is bearing the cost to fight off predators and the elements such that postmenopausal women live well after they're both reproductively and otherwise physically useful.
*Note: This is speaking collectively and amorally. Not saying, e.g., post-menopausal human women are worthless, just acknowledging that humans are not, e.g., bees, extracting value or survival advantage as a hive or species by working non-reproductive females from (near) birth to death.
The proper place of menopausal women is to help rear future generations by passing on knowledge and experience to future generations of child-rearers. The disconnect between modern retirees and their daughters/grandchildren is an historical anomaly.
Like many other things I did not know that. Thanks for the info.
Reason has hit rock bottom and has started digging.
"There's a pony in here somewhere!"
> A full 45 percent of women voted for Trump according to CNN's exit poll, with 53 percent voting for Harris. Fifty-five percent of men said they voted for Harris—a majority, but hardly enough for a Harris-supporting woman to rationally conclude that men as a class are responsible for Trump's victory.
Something doesn't add up here. If majorities of both men and women voted for Harris, how did Trump win the popular vote? Either that poll is garbage or the reporting on it is.
Lack of proofreading, I think. When everyone's an editor, no one is an editor.
Trannies & Nullos for Trump
See? The election was rigged!
"talk of a sex strike takes inspiration from the South Korean 4B movement"
Sorry, Emma but women talking about sex strikes goes all the way back to "Lysistrata" if not before. Although Aristophanes wrote it as a comedy, it backfired then and will continue to backfire whenever the idea is floated. Women use sex to get what they want from men; there has never been a time when that wasn't true. If they actually did stop, they would lose that leverage and have to start supporting themselves. Although I'm a firm believer in equal rights and personal responsibility, if you think any significant number of women want to strike out on their own without the men, I have a bridge to Manhattan I'd like to sell you!
Thanks for pulling an ancient reference out of the attic. More recently, in the 1985 movie "Working Girls," Ron Jeremy's wife got a new kitchen by temporarily withholding sex. So it's not completely ineffective.
Bill, what you’re describing is a tactical mission, not a strategic initiative. "Not tonight, Dear – I have a headache" only works if the headache goes away after you get what you want. Men who aren’t getting what they want from their usual source tend to get it from another supplier, which also tends to account for the high divorce rate in the United States. Going on strike usually implies a longer-term strategy, which was the point about back-firing I was trying to make.
sorry, meant to add “a longer-term strategy by a significant portion of the population” like “grape pickers” or "dock workers" or “liberal women.”
Feminists are huge advocates of equal rights as well, until the rent/mortgage needs to be paid.
The beauty of leftist ideology is that they generally see no connection between rights and accountability. As adamant as modern "feminists" are about the evils of the "wage gap", they're working up to getting over the idea that a man who can't provide financial support for their lifestyle is a "loser" by definition, and maybe someday they'll look into the logic underlying their idea that while women should have total agency in any and all decisions which might affect something that they might happen to witness or hear about third-hand, any and all unpleasant consequences of whatever they choose is just another part of the "patriarchy" and that somewhere there's a penis-having person whose ultimately responsible for shielding the uterine-carriers from any and all outcomes which might lead to any degree of displeasing result.
I hope they follow through. Imagine being so uncommitted to your personal relationships you're willing to damage them over a useless political stunt no one else cares about?
I'm not in the dating pool but people I care about are. And they would be much better off if these people removed themselves from the dating population.
According to online posts about the topic, talk of a sex strike takes inspiration from the South Korean 4B movement,
Maybe, but this is roughly the 10th such strike I've heard about most of which predate Korea's 4B. 4B may convince them they can be successful, but more likely it's this week's college freshman taking her shot at "community organizing" hoping it will make her famous enough result in a job requiring skills other than asking "will that be a grande"?
Sounds a lot like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Don't hear too much about that these days.
This is more direct coercion than changing the rules as is NPVIC.
They know they can't convince people they are right so they threaten them with the only thing they have. This isn't appropriate in a free democracy, but we all know left wingers don't really give a shit about that. Coercion is how decisions are made in their institutions as we learned during Covid and this is the model they think should be operative everywhere. That's why they commit their lives to institutional control rather than making things, so they can impose their preferences on a public they know overwhelmingly opposes their preferences.
Next up, Democrats will demand a National Equity Vote Interstate Compact. That where no matter who the citizens of designated swing states vote for, the EC votes are assigned to Democrats.
It's not often that I hear interesting new points of view here on Reason that make me think and adjust my "standard fundamental assumption set!" Thanks!
People willing to engage in such shenanigans removing themselves voluntarily from the gene pool is a net plus for the human race.
Sadly, I don't think they'll actually succeed.
"Are American Women Really Going on a Sex Strike?"
Better questions:
Will anyone notice?
Will anyone care?
If any do, it's a subset that's going to lean heavily toward the high-drama, high-maintenance ones who are so convinced that they're doing their partner some kind of favor by just laying there with their knees apart that nobody is going to miss fucking them anyway.
It might even get a lot of the men who've "opted out" of dating back into the pool since so many of the women they'd been looking to avoid encountering have deliberately removed themselves from the field.
Imagine being such a pain in the ass that you're making men stop wanting to get their dick wet just to avoid ending up having drinks with you; and in addition to that being deluded to the point that you'd think that witholding your company from them is some kind of punishment.
If the feminists really wanted to screw with men, they'd get on the apps and just start swiping left on every profile.
Historically, and around the world, in places where men's access to women is severely restricted, it takes about ten minutes for the pederasty to start. If the women's sex strike is highly successful, that could be great news for Jeff and Buttplug.
"Are American Women Really Going on a Sex Strike?"
No.
Women enjoy sex too much...even with their husbands.
"Every night my wife meets me at the door wearing a negligee. We're both arriving home at the same time." "My wife wants sex in the back seat of the car. She wants me to drive"
"My wife and I...we never have sex. When we get undressed, we can't stop laughing."
"I called a girl one day and she said, "come on over, no one's home." I went to her house....no one was home."
Rodney Dangerfield.
It's too bad for the fat, girls with blue and pink hair, nose piercings and body odor and greasy hair that looks like it was cut with a dull blade.
A guy would have to be wearing beer goggles to want to dip into that. Or maybe he hadn't seen a woman for a very long time.
Using your body as currency for blackmail, very Libertarian!
Even if it were a thing, there's plenty of Filipino girls, Central American, and Eastern Europeans looking for an American husband.
Until they get their green card, then you never see them again.
Usually.
According to one poll, 76 percent of Korean men in their 20s and 66 percent in their 30s reported that they strongly opposed feminism.
Maybe they've seen what it did to the West.
'"Women need to stop dating & having sex with men immediately and im not even joking or being dramatic in the slightest," said one X user'
Is that "not dramatic" in the normal mature person sense, or in the female tween hysterical tantrum sense?
Oh please do Leftarded Women....
It's way past-time for the feminists of Gov-Gun entitlements to get handed a good dose (i.e. kick in the pants) of natural-reality to their arrogant narcissistic imaginations.
I suspect that those who would participate in such a strike are already not active.
Aristophanes' 'Lysistrata' proves that the idea of a sex strike must have been born a very long time ago. It's very much a comedy, a satire, in which women put an end to the Peloponnesian War by threatening to stop having sex with their husbands. I suspect it was enjoyed as a comedy, when theater-goers were almost entirely men, because the threat seems so outlandish as to be impossible to carry out.
And yet the idea was deemed so dangerous that the play was banned in the US under the Comstock law from 1873 to 1930. By then Darwin's 'Origin' and alcohol had became the primary targets of the social purifiers. Those fears among the pious have been almost entirely put to rest (if you don't count the Discovery Institute), but it does seem that the idea of women voluntarily cutting off sex (even without the fabled vagina dentata) still grabs a lot of attention. It's not necessary to invoke Freudian theories about male and female sexuality to see that such a powerful expression of female power must necessarily frighten men and many women alike.
The play itself frightened me when I was a green-as-grass freshman, and the instructor included the reading of the play in his Greek history course. The translation we used was as earthy as most Greek comedy is said to be. The class was coed, and I was too embarrassed to read out loud; instead all I could do was laugh hysterically, to the point that the instructor became annoyed with me. I got over my shy embarrassment about sex in general, but my persistent, vivid memories of that episode are among the many I would love to shed altogether.
Was it the idea of the play or the inclusion of the subject matter that made the Victorians upset?
This wasn't a threat or intimidating to social order. Just people being upset at the subject being discussed
TY! Did not know the history.
Millenials think they're inventing literally everything.
When Post Malone put out a song that had Ozzy Osborne on it, half the people in the US under 40 thought that Malone had "discovered" Ozzy.
I encourage all 4B women to not stop at denying sex. Deny men your business and money. Don’t put your garbage out on the street for some man to pick up. Keep it until you can be assured that a female trash collector will be by. If your car takes a crap on the highway, make sure to tell every man with a tow truck to keep on driving and wait for a girlboss with a hauler to pull your car from the ditch. If your house needs a new roof, make sure you only find a team of women to replace it.
Girlpower!!
And change your own damn flat tire.
Here's the thing. The average person won't be doing this. The average Harris supporter is normal and disappointed or perhaps a bit worried, but aren't going to be making things.
However, the political groups aren't normal or average. Voting for Trump was evil and wrong and they must punish everyone with symbolic gestures, no matter how pointless.
The thing is, the people they are punishing are almost certain to be the ones who already agree with them. Their husbands and boyfriends are most likely to support them, but they are the ones who will be cut off in solidarity with a movement. The ones they want to punish aren't with them in the first place.
online talk of a sex strike seems more akin to threatening to move to Canada if your candidate loses than a reflection of real political sentiment.
The sad part being is that all of America wishes all these women and/or would-be expats would make good on their threats.
Leftist women: "We're not going to have sex or procreate unless you reflect our values!"
America: "Your terms are accepted."
As an anti-abortion 3D chess move, I approve Plan 4B wholeheartedly.
If a woman is having sex "to show compassion to men," she should feel free to stop doing it whether or not she's "on strike," 'cause that attitude isn't going to make anybody happy.
It's not like the far-right Reason commentators ever get laid, so how would they know?
^ Sarc or stupidity?
You really have to feel for liberal women, just look at their “men.”
There are many more Korean women desperate to get married than Korean women going on any sex strike.
99% of Korean men look like Asian variant of dilbert. If they have money, they can easily marry some woman who looks fit for a kpop group.
Birth rate is low in Korea because it’s a crappy place to live. If a woman there is obese and have purple hair and nose ring, she’d never get hired anywhere too important. This is why western feminists are so dangerous. They’re a threat to women.
Meh, a big nothing burger.
1. The US birthrate is already in steep decline and has been for decades
2. GenZs are not getting laid
3. Conservatives enjoy sex more than proggies anyway
https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/18/health/kerner-politics-sex/index.html
Why would I not have sex with my husband ? He supports my rights.
If anything, I would say that women shouldn't have sex with people who would try to deny your basic body autonomy .
Unfortunately for that view, those who would truly refuse your bodily autonomy might not take "no" for an answer in such a situation.
Kind of like the old canard about how we teach girls self defense, but supposedly never tell boys "don't rape". As if making it a felony isn't sending a clear message. Not to mention that not stopping when they're told to is kind of a defining characteristic of most rapists (other than the "statutory" version, which in many states applies almost exclusively in cases where the people involved actually were actively consenting but are denied such agency by the laws of the particular state).
Women seem to forget that they HAVE rights because men SAY they have rights and protect them.
When they cease being partners in society, they become something else.
A commodity.
Is that some kind of implied threat ? Because it sounds more than a little rapist to me. So I don't get the wrong idea, go ahead a clarify what that means. I dare you.
*Sigh* I guess we'll all have to turn gay then...bet they never thought of that! Checkmate, ladies!