this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
740 points (92.8% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3987 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 77 points 4 days ago (19 children)

I find nothing wrong with this movement, but at the same time I almost feel like this movement is exactly what "government's" may want. Less educated individuals having children means more uneducated voters in the long run.

Kind of like that scene in Idiocracy (2006).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJDcoqrh1ac

[–] warm@kbin.earth 48 points 4 days ago

I thought the idea of the US version was just to avoid republicans.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Conservatives don’t want women to sleep around and have casual sex. So they make abortion illegal. In protest women stop having sex. Conservatives get exactly the outcome they wanted.

The Korean 4B movement is TERF on top.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Atlas_@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago (15 children)

(very obviously, but people keep covering this like it's a real thing so...)

You get 100% or even like, 60% of women in on this, yeah. Things will change real quick. I'd hope for the better.

If you get like 5-10% of liberal women doing this, which is by far the most that I'd believe, what's going to happen is the corresponding 5-10% of men get sexually frustrated. Then they'll go online and get caught up in all the incel->alt-right pipelines that already exist today, and men will swing further right.

If we want a movement like this to work it needs to 1. Not punish people who are already on our side and 2. Provide a better pipeline than the alt-right already has for channeling sexual frustration into action.

So cool, interesting idea, I wish it was workable but remember that a majority of women who voted voted for Trump. Even if men didn't exist he would have won.

[–] apocalypticat@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

So ... to shower other progressives with love so pure it makes the incels want to join the movement? I honestly think love's the way to go. Leave the hate for the far right, and show the world the beauty that caring and kindness can achieve.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (7 children)

Hardcore Trump fans will still fuck and procreate. I don't consider sex abstinence a viable long-term strategy.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 39 points 4 days ago (7 children)

I feel like the only ones doing this are the perpetually online echochamber sorts. The female equivalent to the wannabe alpha male losers.

Most women living in reality, even the furthest left feminists aren't doing this shit, at least not intentionally as part of some movement. This whole article is just propaganda and rage bait to get clicks and drive ad revenue.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 23 points 4 days ago (66 children)

Wait so the idea is do not sleep with any men? Even men who support your views and rights? This just seems like it would radicalize more incels or generate more sexism. Like the average person who did everything they could is going to go on a date and be told "I'm not have sex until the government is fixed" which would make me say "ok, well, hit me up in 4 years."

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 28 points 3 days ago (10 children)

The idea isn't for women who are already in relationships with partners who support women's rights. The idea is more, for single women, to refuse to start any relationship at all right now. Which honestly, in an era where basic women's healthcare is under attack, maybe starting a relationship right now isn't the best idea. Will your women's rights-supporting boyfriend agree to become abstinent when the birth control you're using is taken off the market due to conservatives? Or will they want to move to the pull-out method or just accept the risk of being pregnant?

If you're a single woman, honestly, right now, maybe staying single through these next four years isn't a bad idea. It has nothing to do with the actions or beliefs of a potential partner, and everything with the fact that being a woman in any straight sexual relationship when conservatives are ascendant simply has a lot of unavoidable risks with it. The religious crazies in power believe that the only veto a woman deserves over being pregnant is the choice to have sex or not. And they seek to take away any way for women to prevent getting pregnant besides not having sex. These Christian nationalists, who were just elected, believe that the only choice women have should be pregnancy risk or abstinence.

You need to have a reality check here. The United States federal government, and the majority of state governments, will be telling every woman of reproductive age, "be abstinent or risk pregnancy. Any other tool to prevent pregnancy is morally wrong."

The government is literally trying to coerce women not to have sex before marriage. The government is literally trying to coerce women not to have sex before they're ready to become a mothers. The people soon to be in charge of the government literally believe that the only just use of sex is pregnancy. And they rule accordingly.

In what universe would you expect this to not result in a complete collapse of pre-marital sexual opportunities for straight men? It's not about punishing men. It's not that you do or do not have the right views or beliefs, or that you are a good or bad person. It's simply that for women, in this world that is being created, having sex before marriage simply isn't safe.

Sexual liberation was possible only due to the availability of effective contraception, birth control, and abortion. If you turn the contraceptive landscape back a century, sexual norms will have to return there as well. You are NOT going to have a world where there's no access to contraceptives where women are still perfectly happy being in sexual relationships before marriage.

Men, I hope you're ready to put a ring on it. Otherwise, you ain't gettin' any. Sorry, you wanted this world; you voted for it.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (65 replies)
[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 13 points 3 days ago (3 children)

I really can't emphasize this enough. Look into all the nuances of gun ownership. Nothing crazy, just a handgun. There's a lot to it to be safe and responsible, and it is not for everyone, but look into it. That's all. Then decide. Looking into it also involves knowing your local law and what could happen to you if you fire it. Look into pepper spray, local and state law, but honestly, backsplash happens. Inhaling a lungful of that shit while trying to flee isn't going to help. Tazers. Again, local regulation, state regulation, sometimes they are different.

4b does not stop "your body, my choice" individuals claiming to be men.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Hackworth@lemmy.world 26 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Vote for hate. Get no love.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RawrGuthlaf@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Not all men are evil... There are many of us out there fighting for women's rights. Sorry that so many feel they need to resort to this, I guess I get it though.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›