Trump is such a loser that even when he wins, it makes every woman in the world stop being horny.
Am I missing something or is 4B essentially MGTOW for women?
Just viewed through a more positive lens specifically because it’s women.
MGTOW is mostly men who can’t get laid. These women could get laid. Not the same.
It’s more a reaction to the policies that make relationships and pregnancy dangerous. Why settle down when you could be one of the 1/5 natural miscarriages and potentially go into septic shock or blow a fallopian tube?
You’ll have to ask all women of all time up to a few days ago
MGTOW is a right wing misogynistic movement. 4B isn’t hating anyone like MGTOW is
So, we have a group of men looking at the state of the world (and in particular law/society on gender issues) and deciding they are just going to opt out of the whole relationships/marriage/children thing and swear off women. Is there any world in which that would not be described as misogynistic by default? The swearing off itself is seen as misogyny before you go even a step further.
But this proves my point - that it’s women swearing off men rather than the reverse causes it to be viewed more positively.
I feel like MGTOW is mostly all right wingers, which brings a lot more baggage then the left-leaning 4B movement
ITT - people presenting opinion as fact.
It actually has historic precedent. Women have been using lack of sex and companionship with men for lots of issues they championed from suffrage to even early prohibition.
It’s not just a counter culture of issues with dating but a protest. I think that makes it a bit different really.
Erik the Red converted to Christianity because his wife refused to have sex with him until he did.
MGTOW is an anti-feminist movement, which means it’s based in the idea that women shouldn’t be equal to men.
This movement is based in the idea that women should be equal to men. So it’s different.
an anti-feminist movement, which means it’s based in the idea that women shouldn’t be equal to men.
Ever hear a saying to the effect of liking Christianity if it weren’t for the the Christians ruining it? As in that the ideals are fine on paper and in theory (love thy neighbor, care for the less fortunate, etc, etc), but in practice the adherents don’t really do them as such?
The same applies to feminism - in theory the idea is gender equality, but in practice it often isn’t.
I’ve been around long enough to remember when the standard feminist response to question about what should be done about male victims of abuse or sexual assault done by women was to dismiss them as not existing.
I remember a man opening the first men’s DV shelter in Canada (Men’s Alternative Safe Housing) and being denied funding because it wasn’t a women’s shelter until he could no longer keep it afloat from private donations and out of pocket funds so he had to close it and hanged himself in the garage. He left a left a four-page suicide note, condemning the government for failing to recognize male victims of domestic abuse and wrote that that he hoped his death would bring more awareness to the issue of male abuse. I wonder what ideology permeates domestic abuse services, again?
I remember big and loud feminist protests at the University of Toronto against checks notes a talk about suicide in men given by a former member of the New York board of the National Organization For Women (who he left when they opposed more equal child custody). If you’ve ever seen the “Big Red” memes with the red haired angry shouty feminist, they were inspired by a real person who was at this protest shouting a Jezebel article at the crowd and calling anyone who tried to engage with her “fuckface”. The group hosting the talk (CAFE) would go on to create another men’s shelter which still exists and is to my knowledge the only one in Canada.
Speaking of Jezebel, I remember them writing an article casually joking about the times they’ve been violent with their male significant others, including in one case hitting her boyfriend because he was worried he might have cancer.
I remember listening to a recording of a radio show on Soundcloud 9 years ago where Mary Koss (prominent sexual assault researcher - nearly all research on campus sexual assault in the US descends from her work, she’s the source of that 1-in-4 number that gets thrown around sometimes, and she coined the term “date rape” among others) was asked about male victims of female perpetrators and her response was to ask how that would even happen, how could a woman make a man have sex by force, threat of force or by incapacitating him? (I’d give you an exact quote but SoundCloud isn’t playing nice ATM, not sure if it’s the site or my adblocker- either way it’s close to her phrasing but I’m going from memory, the episode is Male Rape from You Were Here on WERS) and when given an example of a man being drugged into compliance declared that that wasn’t rape, it was just “unwanted contact.” You see, “rape” needs to be reserved for girls and women because men don’t feel violation or shame like
real peoplewomen do.Or when KY wanted to pass a law requiring family court judges operate from a rebuttable presumption of equal custody in contested child custody cases - that is that both parents having equal custody is what’s best for the child unless there’s a good reason for it to be otherwise. Out comes the feminist opposition and trying to align any supporters of it with domestic abusers.
And I could keep going like this for a while if I really wanted to, but probably 9/10 readers stopped several paragraphs ago.
I don’t see how any of that applies to what I said.
If you want to focus on the worst proponents of these ideologies, please let’s take a closer look at MGTOW and see if it’s a reaction to misandry or if it’s just straight-up misogyny. Because I promise you it’s straight-up misogyny.
My point was there was lots of space in which to be anti-feminist which doesn’t mean “based in the idea that women shouldn’t be equal to men”, because defining feminism as the idea than men and women should be equal and thus anti-feminism as the opposite of that is grossly ignoring the difference between dictionary definitions and practice.
It’s like saying someone is anti-Christian means that they hate their neighbors and oppose charity and community, and just ignoring all the things done by people placing themselves under that label allegedly in the name of that label.
Exactly that
You’re missing the part where MGTOW is because no woman wants to fuck them. 4B is also because no women want to fuck them. Men’s wants have nothing to do with why they get no sex.
I’m 4B with qualifiers: No sex with anyone on the right, no dating anyone on the right, no marriage with anyone on the right, and no babies for America.
Just don’t date conservative men. First date, ask them their politics. It’s literally that simple.
You should really have a suite of questions to weed out partners you don’t want. This is what the first few dates are really for. Ask them their politics, if they voted, and who they voted for, their stance on abortion etc.
All you’re going to get with this is friendly fire. Conservatives generally do not prefer leftist women.
Men will lie, especially if they’re trying to get your clothes off. So a single question isn’t quite enough. Maybe a discussion about politics on relevant issues, for example.
As a man this is spot on. My old roommate “presented” as a neoliberal hippy with wood-bead bracelets, but would literally talk about how he wanted slaves so he didn’t have to work. Some men are literally closeted Republicans that know if they are honest they will be sexless
Get yourselves a socialist, ladies. Neoliberals are just spineless republicans
Neoliberals are just spineless republicans
love this. going to steal it and make it my new catchphrase.
First of all, you’ll be able to get their vibe from a political conversation unless they’re very well informed and very intelligent, which conservatives generally are not.
Second, if you’re forcing them to lie then it creates cognitive dissonance in their brain. So at the very least that can create genuine progress, as problematic as that may be.
When I was in high school decades ago, debate club went to a convention and one of the debate rounds was “women shouldn’t be allowed to vote”. My very good looking friend (male) argued that they shouldnt and he was so charming and confident that he got crazy crazy laid for the rest of the event. I think it helped that we all sort of understood it was not reality but a chance to do debate flourishes, but still. What the hell is that? Its almost as if the topic itself and womens’ resistence to it made him even more attractive.
He’s a minor republican operative now-- we dont talk.
Good looking people will attract women. They clearly didn’t think he was serious.
Maybe if you’re a liberal. Conservative liars can’t describe socialism either.
You’d be surprised.
Source: Pretty much every episode of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia (and, of course, real life)
They can’t keep up that sort of lie for too long without the mask slipping. So it’s a good idea to require a fair amount of together time before considering being intimate.
Especially the people who would be worth avoiding wouldn’t have the patience and feel very entitled, so they are less likely to stick around for an early dating period.
Personally right wing chicks are a no go for me so if you’re not openly atheistic (at least in spirit) and socially progressive and futurist and mega smart super nerd into PhD level autism I probably won’t even bother, it’ll never work. I’m also not looking for company so…
Part of 4B is to avoid pregnancy, especially in an environment that has banned abortions and restricted contraceptives (e.g. Project 2025).
There is this crazy thing called condoms
The failure rate may be considered unacceptably high for some people, hence 4B.
https://youtu.be/bpgDe88r-yc?si=6Py1YiCpzZ5fsHZF
Very small. The VAST majority of the time that condoms fail is when they’re improperly used. The amount of QA testing on them is enormous and very good.
Obviously for this reason you should buy a decent brand of condoms.
If you don’t want children, the risk is the same.
Ha! In a century or two it will be the Taliban v the Mormons for supremacy of what’s left of earth.
Date who you want. Do what you think is best. But it’s weird that abortion is so often posited as a gender question when race is a better predictor. If white women stop voting for Republicans all of our rights would be safe.
Talk to your mothers and aunts, the rest of us can’t outvote them yet.
Not procreating has always been a natural phenomenon in collapsing species. We just have more words about it because we think, therefore we think we’re special.
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.
conservative leadership want women to be popping out babies as fast as they can, without regards to their own well being. That is all the top cares about. The global population growth is slowing, many places, and demographics, have either plateaued, or are in decline. This is bad news for capitalism. Like it is fundamental that both the cheap labor underclass, and the consumer class, continue to expand.
While there is anti-sexual free expression talk in the movement, once you get into the inter-personal level, especially of the followers, they only want that freedom to be the choice of men. They want to fuck as many women as possible, they want women to fuck them at their demand, no matter the relationship status, without any plans to continue with that woman in the future. They want to both hit up tinder, or the bar, or whatever, see a woman, go up to them, and get casual sex from them, without being turned down, and the barefoot, and pregnant, home maker, wife, in the house.
The bottom line is, they want women to be anything they want, when they want, without resistance. They want to OWN them, own them all. They yearn for the years of a “surplus population”, withering in work houses, and the ability to own other people, for labor, for sex, for anything they want. If something they do does not violate the ethics of “I can, and will, exercise power, over others”, then they don’t see it as hypocrisy. Whatever morals, or ethics, they claim, mean nothing, unless their proclamations means to gain, and exercise, power over others.
TL;DR
They want people to be “cheap”.
Hard to have value when there is plenty to go around and you can just take what you want for free.
Except within the USA, declining population growth could be reversed immediately simply by returning to our pre-1924 immigration laws (i.e. the Ellis Island era) that between 1890 - 1924 allowed the USA to have some of the largest economic growth it ever has done. Yet “conservatives” (better termed “regressives” or “reactionaries”) these days want to do the exact opposite, out of xenophobia.
That solves the US, for a while. The population growth is slowing globally. When Immigrants arrive in countries who’s majority populations are in, or nearing, decline, their family size adjusts to the local average in a couple generations. Bottom line is that they need people to start making more babies, everywhere. Those at the top do not give a shit about expelling immigrants for real. Industrialists don’t care where their cheap labor comes from. However, they have entered a marriage with a highly xenophobic voter base to stay on top.
Is there some underlying assertion here that woman enjoy sex less than dudes? Or that sex is some kind of favor to men on the part of women without mutual enjoyment? Not having sex with someone is pretty easy if that other person is a shitty person. Otherwise I think both genders enjoy genuine intimacy and physical contact by someone they enjoy being around.
i think there is very real fear women have to take into account whenever considering getting involved with any man. you don’t really know if he is a shitty person until you have invested some time into him, and that has its own costs. the risk of getting impregnated, ditched, and stuck with the bill is just too big. these days… even more so. i think this is a very natural outcome in the face of the rampant misogyny (in the case of S Korea) or revocation of reproductive rights (USA)
It’s a reference to an old Greek comedy called Lysistrata from 411 B.C. The gag was, in order to end the Peloponnesian war (460 B.C.), women colluded to refuse sex until the men come to their senses and stop the war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata
Sex strikes have been used more recently as well to end gang conflicts, wars, and other violence.
It’s a protest of how in today’s society, even if sex has exactly the same pro’s, the cons fall much more heavily on women.
They don’t say it’s not without personal sacrifice.
deleted by creator
Opposition to transgender rights movements
The 4B movement predominantly sees transgender rights movements as incompatible with feminism.[10] Developing out of transgender-exclusionary radical feminism (T.E.R.F.), the movement holds to gender-critical views on sex and gender,[10] supporting gender essentialism and the exclusion of transgender women from feminist spaces.[12][14] Advocates of 4B are opposed to what they call “gender ideology” (젠더론x) and promote excluding transgender women from feminist spaces, as well as romantic or sexual relationships with them (트젠 안사요).[10] In South Korea, members of the 4B have created gatherings exclusively for what they call “biological females” and “real women”.[10]
yikes
The changelog shows that this section has been added sometime between Oct 30 (last version before Nov) and today. Some possibilities:
- disinformation to discourage the movement. I find this most likely given that “Trans” did not appear anywhere in the original article until this was politicized in the US. The updates between versions inserted anti-trans language in multiple places throughout the article.
- Or, if this is actually part of the SK movement, then I have not heard anything TERF related for the US movement. The US movement probably should rename or otherwise distinguish itself from that.
Either way, I do not think this should be a point to discredit the movement. It at minimum does not seem related to the US movement and IMO is likely some clever FUD attempt to undermine the movement before it gets traction.
Just be aware that people might be into 4B for the purpose of man-hating. A lot of times man-hating extends to transphobia.
The ideological basis is strong.
Also none of the sources linked there mention anything about trans women.
Ffs, you can do 4b without being transphobic.
Just because some 4b assholes with a website have written a transphobic clause in their manifesto, doesn’t mean they speak for all 4b followers.
Stop shitting all over this movement because you’ve found somebody in it with an awful take on an unrelated matter.
Not having sex or relationships with folk who can impregnate you is sensible when your country is about to ban abortion and restrict contraceptive access.
I had not heard of this movement before today. Forgive me if my first instinct is to read their Wikipedia, and be off-put by various descriptions of transphobic stances. I agree with the stated goals, and @nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone pointed out that the article might have been manipulated to paint them in a bad light.
If that’s the case, then I hope the article gets corrected with proper sources soon, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. But I don’t like that you’re insinuating that trans issues, and transphobia in particular, are unrelated to feminism.
I wish everyone earnestly resisting attempts to limit bodily autonomy strength and success in their endeavors.I’m not saying trans rights are unrelated to feminism.
I’m saying that transphobic rhetoric has been shoehorned into this cause and has nothing to do with abstaining from PiV sex for the safety and respect of ovulating people.
Also you may not be aware of how conservative South Korea is. There probably are more than a few transphobic 4b South Koreans as feminism as a movement is still newer there.
In ‘western’ countries, radical feminism (with all its flaws) was an integral part of the cultural/philosophical journey into the 3rd wave and intersectional feminism as we know it today.
It would be really nice if the gender critical terf bullshit could be skipped when other cultures journey into exploring feminism, but as conservative culture by definition has such deeply ingrained bigotry towards minorities, it might sadly just be inevitable.
I mean, we kind of act like the worst men speak for the entire gender. These people can choose to be 4B
And I am saying this as someone who thinks if the entire male population of the US dropped dead on Nov 4 the world would be a better place.
The American version need not be TERF though. It is not an inherent part of what 4B actually entails and is extraneous to the purpose of 4B.
The 4B movement predominantly sees transgender rights movements as incompatible with feminism
Interesting, that his since been deleted from the Wikipedia article.
Really? I still see it, under “Beliefs”
Women hate women.
MAGA is a promotional tour for lesbianism and sex toys. Toxic masculinity does not attract women and never did.
53% of white women voted for Trump, and they aren’t going to join 4B. “Men” didn’t elect Trump, a slight majority of America did. When you point a finger, three are pointing back…
22% of Americans voted for Trump. 78% did not. I can tell you I voted and was offered to answer none of those questions from that site. So I’m going to say none of them represent all of the voters if you don’t actually ask all of the voters.
Just for the sake of more information: 337m Percentage over 18 ~78% That makes about 262m voters possible. 74m vote for Trump makes 28-29% of possible votes in 2024 81m votes for Biden in 2020, population was around 331m then. About 31-32% of the possibilible votes.
Point being, people need to vote. Making voting easier makes it possible to ensure you get a more complete tally of what people want in a democracy. People shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to say they won’t be in town, and will be working or w.e else to convince someone that a mail in ballot is wanted.
Should have a request a ballot button online as well. Why mail a form in to have the forms sent to you. Gets rid of some waste there too.Uhh… 335 million Americans, 260 million voting age Americans. With 63% turnout.
22% of Americans voted for Trump. 78% did not.
and what, 40% of those didn’t vote at all? How many people here voted for kamala 20%? 21%? Man you aren’t very good at statistics.
That data was irrelevant to the premise. I could also have listed how many men, women, and chariots voted, but it really doesn’t do anything more than show that if there is a 2 party system, it would be nice to have the winner near 50%. Id like to see everyone vote.
so why did you even bring up the data lmao? Just make the argument without it.
I’d also like to see more people vote, but i think we’re probably our own biggest obstacle here lmao.
If you’re sceptical about exit polls you could always look up how they’re conducted…
deleted by creator
Is manly man == toxic masculinity ?
No, and the fact that we have to explain this every time someone talks about it is why I hate the phrase “toxic masculinity”
“Toxic masculinity” doesn’t mean all masculinity is toxic any more than “rotten fruit” means all fruit is rotten
no. Toxic masculinity is just being a shitty person, simple as.
No, only when they’re dicks about it.
Here’s a 30 minute introduction by hbomberguy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8dfiDeJeDU
Get back to me when you have methods to test, data collection from a large sample size, and positive results all published in a peer reviewed medical journal.
deleted by creator
Looks like I triggered you. I’m sure all those white women who voted Trump want to be abused, battered, and raped by all the Fuentes incels.
What is wrong with you? No I decided my comment wouldn’t be well received and decided to delete it.
It was a comment about men driving bi women into my lesbian arms
Nothing. You do you with your comments. I do me. Though not with sex toys. 🤷♂️
Hardcore Trump fans will still fuck and procreate. I don’t consider sex abstinence a viable long-term strategy.
…wut
Apply this protest over generational periods of time, we end up in a world with way more people from the population that didn’t choose to abstain from procreation. All the assholes in charge have to do is maintain power for a generation or two and the population will be way more submissive over all
Angry people should be having angry babies
Again… Wut
Apply this protest over generational periods of time, we end up in a world with way more people from the population that didn’t choose to abstain from procreation
The alternative is to try and outbreed them. Given that we’re running headlong towards climate change and ever-increasing environmental toxins, this is not a winning play. I’m willing to step back and opt out of this reproductive arms race.
I highly doubt many people are doing this.
Media hyped bullshit.
its getting a lot of press because it will upset a lot of dumbfucks
But the internet told me a lot of people are doing it. But since you were the last statement I read, it is now my point of view until I stumble upon another comment.
Many people are doing this.
I’m sure that a few, very dedicated, women are doing this.
It’s unlikely to be widespread. Sex is one of the most powerful drives humans have. We generally have a terrible track record of trying to convince people to avoid or even delay sex. Even when people believe that their eternal soul is on the line they keep having sex. That’s exactly why all the “abstinence only” policies fails so spectacularly.
There are cases where voluntarily giving up something important has led to change. Hunger strikes are the prime example of this. They can have the affect of drawing attention to a matter and raising sympathy.
I disagree. The modern sexual revolution was only possible due to modern contraception and access to abortion. Did pre-maritial flings happen in the past? Of course. But casual sex was nothing like it is now. It was treated as the rare shameful exception. It was not the norm for people to openly date and publicly announce their sexual relationships for years prior to marriage. (Viewing from a Western perspective of course.)
So if you start taking away abortion and contraception? Why wouldn’t you expect sexual norms to return to their earlier state? Pregnancy is incredibly disruptive, dangerous, and expensive.
In Trump’s America, sex means pregnancy, and pregnancy means childbirth. In Trump’s America, a straight women does not have sex unless she is prepared to be a mother, and her partner is prepared to be a father.
Will flings still happen? Sure. I expect we’ll also see a commiserate rise in shotgun marriages.
I agree that 4B, as an organized movement, likely won’t have much direct impact. But the general attack on contraceptives and reproductive healthcare absolutely will see a rollback of the sexual attitudes that have developed in the post-1960s world. Sex just has a lot more consequences to it now than it used to. We’re going back to a world where you really can’t afford to have sex with someone unless you’re prepared to marry them and raise children together. Casual hookups on Tinder are not a practical thing in Trump’s America.
Sorry guys, you voted for this.
It’s also puts people who don’t want to have kids at all in a tough spot. It makes surgical sterilization effectively mandatory.
After they make it illegal to medically transition genders, guess what medical procedures they’ll prohibit next?
The good news is that since sterilization is a one-time thing, medical tourism (for those with the means) becomes a viable option. I don’t see them banning international travel.
Of course this does increase the barrier and will be out of reach for those who can least afford to have children.
This is exactly correct. Hey guys, while typing all these (dare I call them “hysterical”?) comments freaking out that the number of possible sex partners might be lower than before, could you take a moment to stop and actually consider what WoodScientist is saying?
Getting pregnant and having a baby when you aren’t ready for it completely changes the lives and limits future possibilities for both the father and mother, and much more so for the mother who 99% of the time is the main caregiver. It’s the woman who has the greatest risk by far.
Besides the risk to a woman socially and career-wise if she gets pregnant, it’s dangerous. There’s a chance of dying or permanent health consequences from it, physical and mental. And remember that healthcare will be worse too because they’ll be repealing the ACA and/or removing a lot of the protections the ACA provides, like requiring insurance companies to cover maternity and any complications. Many Clinics that used to be there to provide low-income women with maternal healthcare, abortion services, cancer screenings, birth control, etc. have already been shut down in red states that have banned abortion.
So a lot fewer women will even have health insurance and it won’t cover as much. Plus the odds of getting pregnant will be higher since access to contraception will be more restricted (not covered by insurance and possibly even banned entirely).
So this about more than just your fear of maybe getting less sex. Your biggest possible risk is financial, if you get held responsible for child support. Risks to women are a hell of a lot higher. They gotta do what they gotta do so.
People really don’t understand the history. Social practices evolved over the centuries and were as subject to evolution as anything genetic. Most traditional social practices evolved for a reason. Often practices stick around long after those reasons no longer apply, but they evolved for a very good reasons in the first place.
As you note, pregnancy is inherently dangerous to a woman’s health, permanently alters her body, and has a permanent and profound impact on her life. And this has always been the case.
Think about how promiscuous women have traditionally been treated. Whore. Slut. Harlot. Women were expected to be chaste until marriage. Meanwhile, promiscuity was often accepted or even celebrated for men. The reasons for this disparity are likely multifaceted, but one likely reason is that sex had such a high risk for women and girls. Think of the mother who calls her own daughter a ‘whore’ for the way she dresses. Who does that to their kid? Someone who thinks they’re doing that kid a favor. Traditionally, mothers expected their daughters to be chaste and conservative, and often that was to protect them from the inevitable risks that came with sex. Women have always had far more to risk when it comes to sex than men.
Effective contraception and abortion access changed this. It was only once the very real risks of premarital sex were ameliorated could modern straight casual sex culture emerge. Yes, some flings did happen in 1850, premarital sex did happen. But it was much rarer, and it was mostly among people who were already on the path to marriage anyway. There were not mixed-sex bars in 1850 that you could go and try and find a partner for a casual fling. Men could go hire a prostitute in most towns and cities, but the idea that a respectable woman would meet a man, alone, then go to his house and have premarital sex that night? That’s the kind of thing that could literally end up in the town newspaper the next day.
Contraceptives - the pill, IUDs, condoms, and abortion; these are foundational technologies to modern sexual practices. They are as important as to modern dating culture as the automobile is to a suburban land use culture. When sex means pregnancy, it means you should never have sex with someone unless you are prepared to spend the next 20 years together raising kids. And yes, that means the casual dating scene is going to take a big hit.
When we swap out sex ed for abstinence only we don’t get less sex. We get a surge in teen pregnancies.
Children are different than adults. Adults are perfectly capable of altering their behavior. Do you think it was a coincidence that the sexual revolution just happened to occur immediately after the introduction of effective contraception?
The sexual revolution was the product of many changes. Cheap and effective ontraception was one of them, legal abortion was not. Roe v Wade wasn’t until after the sexual revolution had already happened. Ante hoc ergo non propter hoc.
There’s a classic greek play, Lysistrata, that tells a tale of women refusing sex to get the men to end a war. It is notably a fictional account.
Essentially the reference resonates most with college educated (white) women.
You could try reading the article first.
To men who are actively sleeping with women, or who want to, now is a great time to consider a vasectomy. It’s cheap and safe and greatly reduces the risk of undesirable outcomes.
I’ve got an even better one. Do something more interesting, go make friends. Sex is boring and just something evolution tries to force upon us. Well ofc it’ll work eventually but that’s not the point. 😂
Hey man you being asexual is cool and all but most people aren’t so can you not
Just remember that reversing the procedure is not a guarantee, should you think you will change your mind later. Other options are more flexible and also protect from things other than pregnancy, which are also undesirable outcomes.
Other options are more flexible and also protect from things other than pregnancy, which are also undesirable outcomes.
Are you talking about condoms? Because those aren’t nearly as effective. Hardly comparable to a vasectomy. I recommend everyone who wants to have sex with someone who could get pregnant to get a vaseceomy.
Unlovable women vow to keep men who wouldn’t approach them with a stick away from them
You’re applying male insecurities to women. I bet you don’t even see the issue here.
Maybe. I’m all for women, not for male hating feminists. But I don’t want to make a big deal out of it. Wish we could all live peacefully
You don’t have to be a feminist to hate men that didn’t vote for their rights.
I’m a man myself and started hating the average selfish, hateful and victim playing dumbass man that seems to be the majority.
Don’t get me wrong, I hate men that want to deprive women of their rights. I also dislike women who think all men are like that
Portuga! It’s you again! “Mi planta de naranja lima!”
Ffs that’s still spanish 🤦♂️ but I’m starting to like your style
Thanks 👍
We could but people like you who want to talk shit but never listen are part of the problem.
You don’t want a big deal because you know it will make you look like a bad person and that’s hard to face.
People like me, like you know me. Ok
Judge the action not necessarily the person.
Totally agree but did I really do any bad action?
Unlovable women vow to keep men who wouldn’t approach them with a stick away from them
That’s called misogyny, I suggest you pick up a book and do some reading if that’s an actual legitimate question.
“I wish we could all live peacefully while women take subjugation without fighting back in any way.” Lol, don’t fuck you.
You think you figured me out but I’m actually from a developed country that respects women’s rights
Seems like I have you figured out no matter what country you’re from.
This sounds like you looking in a mirror and talking about what you see and then acting like it’s about women.
Nobody who gets laid talks or thinks like this.
Unlovable women
while “unlovable” men vote republican, and still cant get laid without a prostitute.
