politics
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
view the rest of the comments
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.
The movement is to deny sex, not specifically to deny pregnancy. If it was about that, then sterile men and women would be excluded from this movement, but there is no mention of that at all. It’s just “swear off men, swear off sex”.
See, this is one of the FOUR Bs.
Being pregnant is risky enough in an enlightened society where no healthcare is withheld. I'm not a woman but I don't blame them for trying to protect themselves.
There's what is stated and what is implied. In the absence of any sort of formal or "official" organization, participants get to choose their own level of involvement.
I often refer to "birthstrike" as a conceptually similar and related group.
Well they should consider making the implication clearer, because I honestly feel that the way it is stated will do more harm than good. If it is a birth strike aimed at abortion risks, then call it that.
I have supported women’s rights in every way I know how in my lifetime, but I can’t go along with this movement as it is currently stated—to me that suggests that they need to refine the messaging a little, or explain the desired outcome more clearly.
Indeed, it seems this messaging may end up with the same energy as "defund the police" did...an albatross to put around the necks of the majority of people in this country (even if they don't always vote. FFS.).
Also, the chuds are just going to call all the liberal men dating liberal women "cucks" even more at this point...this will feed right into their enjoyment and they are going to bask in it.
Agreed
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.
Sex is not the only form of physical affection.
If he can't recognize conservative manipulation then he's maybe not a false ally, but a pretty terrible one.
The reason I hate that your response is so common is it perpetuates the stereotype of men requiring sex to prevent then from becoming animals. It's a subtle form of misandry that so many men force on others.
You are taking only the most inflammatory version of what I’m saying. Sex isn’t the only intimacy, but it is a very powerful tool for that. There are strong biological drives for sexual expression and satisfaction, and denying those leads to emotional problems—we see this all the time with homosexuals who can’t be happy in a heterosexual box. If someone has been manipulated by one of the most advanced propaganda machines ever created, that isn’t a sign that they are a “terrible” ally.
I’m not saying men only want sex, I’m saying that suddenly taking away a biological tool for human connection that they have typically had, while also living though really difficult times, while also acting like the continued desire for sex is somehow selfish on the man’s part, is a really effective way to make someone listen to the opposing side when they are promising a fiction where men have it good again.
tl;dr - If men don’t get their dick wet they’ll become republicans.
That is not what I was saying, and I don’t appreciate your interpretation of it.
If men don't have the "biological tool for human connection" then they'll "listen to the opposing side" sounds a lot like "If you don't fuck me I'll turn MAGA."