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.

  • scarabine@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 days ago

    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?

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 days ago

      Hmm so this movement excludes men that want abortion to be available then? Missed that.

      • BassTurd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 days ago

        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”.

          • BassTurd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            11 days ago

            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.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 days ago

              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

              • SlyLycan@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 days ago

                A quote taken right from the article, “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.”

        • MrFootball@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          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?

            • MrFootball@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 days ago

              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

      • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 days ago

        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.

      • scarabine@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 days ago

        Would you mind saying what you mean here? I’d like for you to explain your thought a little more.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 days ago

          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

          • scarabine@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 days ago

            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.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 days ago

              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.

              • scarabine@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 days ago

                It seems that way because I chose to say “you”, which is my bad. I meant it in the broader sense though, most of us are choosing not to sleep with the rest of us, most of the time.

                There is no added exclusion to that just because some of us become more firm in refusing to, and give reasons why.