X Close

Sex strikes won’t win the midterms What's wrong with kissing a Republican?

What if a Left-leaning women want to vuck a Republican? Credit: BLK via YouTube

What if a Left-leaning women want to vuck a Republican? Credit: BLK via YouTube


October 13, 2022   6 mins

American culture will sexualise anything in order to sell it to young people: cars, hamburgers, and for decades now, voting. In 1990, the awareness-raising non-profit Rock the Vote sought to bring youths to the polls with a TV spot featuring a flag-draped Madonna: “Doctor King, Malcolm X, freedom of speech is as good as sex,” she raps, before throwing open the stars ‘n’ stripes to reveal a red string bikini. The ad ended with a threat, or perhaps a promise, delivered in Madge’s trademark breathy lisp: “If you don’t vote, you’re gonna get a spanking!”

Thirty-two years later, with the 2022 midterm elections looming, these attempts to promote civic engagement have changed their medium but not their message. Youth voter turnout is still seen as a matter of national urgency — only half of people under 30 voted in the most recent presidential election — and multiple organisations are now attempting to follow the Rock the Vote model to lure them to the polls. This brings us to a slick music video entitled “No Voting, No Vucking”, which was released last week. In it, rappers Trina and Saucy Santana narrate the story of a young black woman who matches with a promising-looking man on the dating app BLK. There’s just one, critical red flag: he doesn’t vote!

This relationship, per the video, is a non-starter: like the song says, no voting, no vucking. (At the risk of stating the obvious, the word “vucking” is phonetically indistinguishable from another, naughtier word.) This withholding — combined with plenty of no-holds-barred dancing — is enough to get the gentleman in question to change his ways. The song ends with an exchange of looks at the ballot box, then cuts to a shot of the awestruck man falling back on a bed, naked from the waist up.

Even by the standards of American raunch culture, this video is extraordinarily racy given the subject matter. (Consider the lyrics: “Don’t stop now, stuff my ballot box again.”) There is erotic cackling, lascivious lip-licking, gyrating bodies and sexual innuendo — but also whatever the opposite of innuendo is, as in the moment when Trina commands the listener to “gerrymander this coochie”, a turn of phrase that manages the remarkable twin achievements of being massively unsubtle while also making no sense. The fact that the audience cannot fail to get the message does not change the fact that the message is embarrassingly reductive.

Predictably, both the marketing of the video and the initial reaction to it focused on its racial (or, perhaps, racist) valences. On the Left, writer Thomas Chatterton Williams lamented the “outrageously insulting sense that this kind of childishness is the authentic way to reach black audiences with political messages”. He has a point: there seems to be an assumption within the awareness-raising machine about what drives black Americans to vote. In 2020, there was a “Get Your Booty to the Polls” campaign featuring scantily-clad strippers and a cringe play on words (polls = poles, get it?). Much has also been made by critics of an apparent partnership between the makers of “No Voting No Fucking” and When We All Vote, a get-out-the-vote organisation founded by Michelle Obama, although the nature of the relationship is unclear. (Within the BLK app, engaging with the video will take users to the When We All Vote registration portal, but the organisation released a statement denying that they were at all involved in its production.)

On the Right, meanwhile, Rod Dreher denounced the video as “filthy”: “There are no depths of depravity too low for progressives.” The video’s evident partisan leanings — implicit in the message is that the target audience will not just vote, but vote blue — also led to much griping about the impossibility of a Right-wing group ever creating a similar advertisement. It’s true that GOP attempts to reach young voters tend to be savaged by Dems for being clueless and, in any assortment of ways, bigoted; a Republican ad implying that black men need to be lured to the polls with promises of sex would almost certainly be met with outrage.

Ah, but wait: this is not depravity, the Left countered, but culture! In response to Dreher’s tweet, actor Wendell Pierce (one of President Obama’s top fundraisers in 2012) replied: “You must know that this message comes directly from the Greek comedy of Lysistrata by Aristophanes, where the woman of Greece refuse sexual intercourse with their husbands until they end their wars. No depravity here. Ancient story.”

With respect to Pierce, “depraved” actually seems like a good word to describe a society in which women could neither vote nor own property; this “ancient story” would have almost certainly worked out differently if the women of ancient Greece weren’t treated like second-class citizens by their government. And defending this trope on the grounds that it’s a classic elides the weirdness of its ubiquity in a society built on equal rights, where “No Voting, No Vucking” is not just an ancient construction but one in perpetual use by contemporary culture warriors. Lysistrata took place in a milieu in which sexual withholding was the last resort of women who would have killed for the kind of power today’s Western women enjoy, yet sex strikes remain an ever-present spectre in the American feminist political discourse, in a way that makes our British counterparts in their “Never Kissed a Tory” T-shirts seem almost quaint.

The notion of sex as a political weapon for Left-wing women has been prevalent for at least as long as the notion that Republicans, with their hostility to gender equality and reproductive freedom, are engaged in a War on Women. By this logic, women must necessarily be Democrats — and must also necessarily have the power (or perhaps the responsibility) to extort the votes of less-enlightened men by any means possible.

The call for political change via sexual blackmail had its most recent resurgence after the fall of Roe v. Wade. Outraged women vowing sex strikes caused “abstinence” to trend on Twitter (the irony of this was not lost on conservatives). But this was only the latest iteration of a conversation that has been a fixture of the landscape since at least 2010, when it took the form of earnest questions as to whether cross-political pairings were even possible — questions which have since been answered with increasingly shrill iterations of the word “no”. The message is abundantly clear: a good feminist does not sleep with Republicans, or date them. Is your boyfriend a Trump voter? Dump him. Your husband? Divorce him. This is a war, ladies: which side are you on?

For a group of people who ostensibly believe in female agency and empowerment, the feminists preaching political sex strikes seem to miss several key points. For one thing, sexually blackmailing men into the voting booth does not guarantee that they’ll pull the lever for your preferred party, a problem to which the “no vucking” video seems particularly oblivious. One of the most closely-watched midterm elections is the Georgia governor’s race, in which Democratic hopeful Stacey Abrams is beginning to flail due to a marked lack of support from black men, who prefer the (white, male) incumbent. And the longtime Left-wing belief that racial and ethnic minorities can be relied upon to vote blue by default is beginning to look like dangerous overconfidence: the party has been haemorrhaging Hispanic voters in states like Florida and Texas.

But more broadly, the women willing to abstain from sex on political grounds are vastly outnumbered by women who feel no compunction about schtupping Republicans — because they want to, because they don’t care about politics, or even because they’re Republicans themselves. And with Democrats now facing the consequences of their pandemic policies, which included closing schools and forcibly masking toddlers — policies which were deeply and disproportionately disruptive to the lives of women in Left-leaning areas — it’s hardly guaranteed that the majority of women will support Dems this year.

Meanwhile, despite the apparently widespread conviction that men can be led to the voting booth by the promise of sex, there are plenty of men for whom this sort of sexual manipulation is in itself a red flag. For every woman who has a personal policy of trying to sexually blackmail her partners into voting for her preferred candidate, there’s a guy whose personal policy is to avoid sleeping with self-advertised partisan lunatics — and the fragmentation of the dating landscape along party lines means that it’s only getting easier for people to match exclusively with those who share their political views. It’s not unusual for liberal users to filter matches by not just party affiliation but Covid vaccination status; meanwhile, Right-wing singles are gravitating to new apps designed just for conservatives. At some point, the question arises as to whether women passionately progressive enough to barter their bodies for their politics would even encounter Right-wing (or politically agnostic) men at all, let alone have the opportunity to sexually extort their votes.

But completely separate from being illogical, the calls for sex strikes — gendered as they are — are deeply and despicably sexist. This is something more than a gag T-shirt that says “WILL SUCK DICK FOR SOCIALISM”; it’s a slickly-produced political message that dresses up sexual quid pro quo as a form of feminist civic engagement. Here is a portrait of a world in which women are at once utterly Machiavellian yet completely neutered, in which sex is something they use but never desire, in which the physical act of love exists purely as a means to an end, and in which sexual availability is the ultimate (if not only) power a woman has in her arsenal. It’s a new riff on the old (and inane) notion that men have sex because they want sex, while women have sex because it helps them get something else: social status, a romantic commitment, a reassuring sense of their own desirability.

In this view, women are too something — smart, or cool, or elevated, or sophisticated — to feel anything so embarrassing as sexual desire, especially for that basest of creatures, the human male. In this view, in other words, women are not exactly people. That is, yes, an ancient story. But as a model for women’s lives in the year 2022, it’s not an especially good one.


Kat Rosenfield is an UnHerd columnist and co-host of the Feminine Chaos podcast. Her latest novel is You Must Remember This.

katrosenfield

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

84 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago

“..For every woman who has a personal policy of trying to sexually blackmail her partners into voting for her preferred candidate, there’s a guy whose personal policy is to avoid sleeping with self-advertised partisan lunatics”
Life has taught me a valuable lesson. Be exceptionally fussy about who you share a bed with – If in doubt, don’t.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

That’s a lesson I disagree with vehemently! Share your bed with as many people as you possibly can while you can, because one day you’ll be tied down and those days will be gone forever

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Ah, but Billy! Following your policy will almost certainly get you tied down by someone you really don’t want to get tied down by. Okay, you will have more fun, but only for those few short years – Then it will be a lifetime of “Oh Bugga!”

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

But even if you’re boring and deprive yourself of fun when you’re younger, there’s still no guarantee the one you get tied down with will be the right one. You could still have a lifetime of Oh Bugga and not even have the fun times to reminisce about

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

It ain’t me downvoting you!

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Ha ha that’s fine, -15 votes is impressive though. I never knew UnHerd had so many puritans to get upset by a throwaway comment such as that.
I’m just surprised I seem to be that much in the minority, as it was just what everybody did when I was in my prime. You’d work all week then spend the weekend drunkenly attempting (usually failing) to chat up the local women. If you pulled a pretty one then fantastic, if she was a right hound at least you had a funny story for the pub the next day

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Boring Billy. Sex with dull randommers you don’t even like is tedious

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

I always enjoyed it, I didn’t find any of the randommers unlucky/daft enough to come home with me to be dull.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

I’m not sure that I agree with you, but the great Sir John Betjeman is on your side – when asked whether he had any regrets in life, he replied ‘yes, I haven’t had enough s e x’. Makes me wonder, how many people think on their deathbed that they had too much?

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Maybe someone who picked up HIV along the way?

Penny Adrian
Penny Adrian
1 year ago

Or herpes.

Harvard Fong
Harvard Fong
1 year ago

Or a court-ordered child support.

Penny Adrian
Penny Adrian
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Oh, honey, I’m not on my deathbed, but I have definitely had too much sex with the wrong people.

Mike Houck
Mike Houck
1 year ago
Reply to  Penny Adrian

Choose wisely.

Z 0
Z 0
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew D

More likely, that they might regret being too open to sex with strangers, rather than the generic “too much sex” with anybody.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 year ago
Reply to  Z 0

Fair point

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

What ointment do you use for that burning organ of generation you use so liberally?

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

Whatever the doctor recommends

Alphonse Pfarti
Alphonse Pfarti
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

The last part of your argument could be read in different ways 


And I’ve given you an upvote.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago

I think both ways are applicable unfortunately, it certainly tails off. Not that I’d have the energy for it anymore mind you

Michael Cavanaugh
Michael Cavanaugh
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

John Waters: “If you go home with somebody, and they don’t have books, don’t f**k ’em!”

Mark Bretherto
Mark Bretherto
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

My advice to my kids was somewhat coarser:
Never stick your d@!# in crazy, never let crazy stick his d@!# in you.

I learnt the hard way.

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
1 year ago

Oh wow, that video, yikes!

Is that what the Dems think of black people?? … it seems so offensive to me. The ‘bigotry of low expectations’.

Dem 1: “We’re losing the black vote! …what can we do??”
Dem 2: “Should we make a really grimy and sexually explicit rap video? …they like that stuff, right?”

Cringe factor = 100%

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

Quite! I can hear the shrills and outright apoplexy from the left if that was a video made by Trump to get out the male white vote.

Aaron James
Aaron James
1 year ago

”that basest of creatures, the human male.”

Reminds me of the old Calamity Jane words on men:

”Men! Cant live with them; can’t live without them; and you can’t just shoot them.”

I happen to be in the market for a Wife at this time, and I have been amazed at how often I have seen Profiles which talk of love, romance, holding hands on sunset beaches… and ending with the note that if you voted for Trump to move on as they are not interested…. haha, life… can’t live with it, can’t live without it…..

(any woman interested; pls leave a note below…x)

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago
Reply to  Aaron James

Dating apps are all about box ticking. Physical attraction, chemistry, trumps everything. (ooh, did I just use the T word?). My late wife and I disagreed about almost everything, including politics but we had 43 happy years together. We met in a pub by chance and it was instant. We would never have met on a dating app. I couldn’t think of anything more boring than a partner who thinks like me.

Clara B
Clara B
1 year ago

Sounds lovely, Brendan (and I’m teensy bit jealous – you obviously had something special).

Laura Kelly
Laura Kelly
1 year ago

My late husband and I met on the street. We had very little in common other than our habits of mind, but I taught him about my world and he taught me about his (I learned to ride motorbikes!). I feel so sorry for all these people who have rejected serendipity in favor of these stupid technocratic solutions.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago

Quite lovely, that. My late wife and I agreed to disagree for some 25 years. I also spotted her in a bar surrounded by competition at times, but we ended up together – took a bit, but succeeded. She was not a looker but had great charm. I can’t imagine the chemistry from a screen image.

Laney R Sexton
Laney R Sexton
1 year ago
Reply to  Aaron James

Best of luck on the wife hunt, Aaron! I know great women who are searching in vain as well, hopefully you bump into them

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

“lt’s a new riff on the old (and inane) notion that 
 women have sex because it helps them get something else:”
Oops.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Indeed. Where’s the inanity?

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago

I though it was just cults that used young women to lure troubled young men in with the promise of sex. Have the Democrats become a cult? Rather pointless while the secret ballot exists one would think – many young men would enjoy V**king the woman and her policies.

Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago

The thing is you have to face facts, up until quite recently in history, a woman needed a man to protect her, a father, brother, husband or guardian. A fair amount of marriages were arranged for dynastic, financial or land acquisition reasons. For most women marriage was the only way to have a sex life safely, even if that sometimes meant cuckolding your husband on the side. It’s only been in the last 60 years or so that we’ve been able to take the risk of giving way to our desires willy nilly (could’nt resist that).

So, Yes there is female desire but there is also sometimes sex as part of a deal. I don’t think that will ever change.
And what of Love ?
Not a few deals have turned into love.
Considering Love, the sex written about in this article becomes almost obscene (no criticism of Kat Rosenfield intended), it reduces us, men and women, to our lowest and worst.

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

Men understand that to get sex they have to provide a woman with something she wants. Historically it used to be a romantic commitment.  Today, despite the fact that young women, pre-children, earn as much or more than young men, it’s mainly financial. Witness the huge number of university students on SugarBabies and OnlyFans for example.

Last edited 1 year ago by William Shaw
Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

My understanding is that notions of romance don’t go back very far. Marriages for the very vast percentage of the population were necessary alliances from which affection grew naturally. Lust on both sides helped kickstart the process.

Penny Adrian
Penny Adrian
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

You wrote “Men understand that to get sex they have to provide a woman with something she wants.”
Yes – they have to provide a woman with PLEASURE. And ORGASMS.
When a man can provide those to a woman without being a horse’s ass outside the bedroom, he can get ALL the sex he will ever want.
It’s only when a man is unattractive and bad at sex that a woman will seek material forms of compensation.

Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

I’m not sure you’re right about “Historically it used to be a romantic commitment”, unless you mean recent history, ie, the 20th century. “Historically”, in Britain at least, marriage was viewed more pragmatically than romantically, though romance was not necessarily lacking by any means. Historically, sex outside marriage was generally only for whores and the demi monde, with a few exceptions.

I would have said people are much more romantic today, if not unrealistic. Not many young people would think of getting married in 2022 unless they loved each other, or imagined they did.

Last edited 1 year ago by Claire D
William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

Historically in the sense that before the pill women wanted marriage before sex.
Young people may or may not be more romantic today, that’s mostly besides the point. Romantic or not, sex has become transactional and a large percentage of young women are making money selling it online.
As a one time girlfriend said after she set up her account online

“I look at it as
 I have an ATM between my legs. All I’ve got to do is use it and money comes right out. It’s like pu55y is just this treasure that women are born with.”

Last edited 1 year ago by William Shaw
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

I think you probably read that somewhere and the person quoting it was a man making it up.

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Believe what you want but no, it wasn’t a man who said it.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

Clearly you have never encountered an aggressive modern woman who follows her desires.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

Must have been a lot of that cuckolding. Analysis of gene variation shows we have half as many ancestral fathers as mothers. (I.e. half as many menin the past successfully reproduced.)

Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago

Surely you’re getting that the wrong way round, ie, one man would get through more than one wife, due to the dangers of childbirth = fewer men reproducing with more women.

Last edited 1 year ago by Claire D
William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

Nope, not wrong. The statistic is true
 half as many male ancestors as female.
Historically almost every female had one or more child whereas only half of men ever had any.

Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

You are not understanding my comment, the statistic may be true* but Jeff’s analysis is the wrong way round.
I can only suggest you read it through again slowly and carefully.

* it looks as if the “statistic” is NOT true in fact, see B Emery’s comment below.

Last edited 1 year ago by Claire D
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

Claire’s right.

Laura Kelly
Laura Kelly
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

Couple that with men dying young as cannon and industrial fodder, people in the past often ran through several partners!

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

Taken from https://support.ancestry.com/s/article/Unexpected-Ethnicity-Results?language=en_US
You can’t inherit more than half of an ancestor’s DNA
You receive 50% of your genes from each of your parents, but the percentages of DNA you received from ancestors at the grandparent level and further back are not necessarily neatly divided in two with each generation. The chart below shows probable (but not necessarily actual) percentages of genes you may have inherited from ancestors going back four generations.

At seven generations back, less than 1% of your DNA is likely to have come from any given ancestor.

So I don’t know your source but I don’t think you can actually definately state that we have so many fathers to mothers DNA, you don’t really make sense.

Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

That’s interesting, unfortunately I just replied to someone saying “I know the statistic is true” (I did’nt really know for sure), only to go on and read your more informed comment and discover it is’nt !
Hell’s teeth.

Last edited 1 year ago by Claire D
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

The stats don’t matter. The cuckold statement is still absurd.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

It isn’t at all absurd. You should read a bit more before blasting people ignorantly. I’ve read half a dozen books on DNA analysis of ancient genomes and they all say the same thing. (Pre-)historically we have never been strictly polygamous nor strictly monogamous and the ratio has been roughly 2 females per (breeding) male. Check out, say, David Reich’s book, “Who We Are, How We Got Here” for a decent discussion. In modern western civilization where we have outlawed polygamy the ratio still is not 1:1 but by a different mechanism. Many of the highest ranking males in the status hierarchy have more than one wife, but now it’s serially. Women continue to be hypergamous – that is, they almost always marry across or up the status hierachy. Combine those two principles and you end up with the low status males not being able to reproduce. So what are their options? Monks? Incels? Rapists?

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago

sexually blackmailing men into the voting booth does not guarantee that they’ll pull the lever for your preferred party

Unless you can bypass the voting booth altogether with, say, postal voting.
Then a foundation stone of modern democracy and universal suffrage, the secret ballot, is no longer secret.

Gordon Hackman
Gordon Hackman
1 year ago

But more broadly, the women willing to abstain from sex on political grounds are vastly outnumbered by women who feel no compunction about schtupping Republicans — because they want to, because they don’t care about politics, or even because they’re Republicans themselves. 
When you constantly send people the message that fulfilling their desires is the most important thing in life, don’t be surprised when they choose that over ideological conformity.
Also, regarding the Wendell Pierce’s response to Rod Dreher, it doesn’t seem to occur to Pierce that one possibility is that ancient Greek culture might have also been depraved in some way. Being of ancient pedigree doesn’t automatically make something right anymore than being new does.

Will Rolf
Will Rolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Gordon Hackman

How much leverage could those Greek women have had in a society where over 90 percent of the men had male lovers?

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  Will Rolf

Men are more .promiscuous?

James Jenkin
James Jenkin
1 year ago

Who agrees Kat Rosenfield is the most interesting writer on unherd, which is saying a lot

Penny Adrian
Penny Adrian
1 year ago
Reply to  James Jenkin

She’s one of the most interesting, And she’s a really good novelist.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago

Good article. Women are hornier than men anyway, https://www.indy100.com/news/women-higher-sex-drive-men-study-research-7900696 so can’t see too many women sticking to a sex strike for very long lol

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

 “It’s not unusual for liberal users to filter matches by not just party affiliation but Covid vaccination”
Is that because the vaccine is synonymous with fertility issues and an increase risk of disabled progeny

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago

A striking example of stupidity that clearly captures both the mental gymnastics that the American left is capable of and their fanatical devotion to win at any cost. A party that is avowedly feminist, anti-racist, and ostensibly sexually liberated puts out an ad campaign filled with a bunch of racist and misogynistic tropes that reduce women, particularly minority women, to sex objects whose only power over or value to men is sexual in nature, and that seems to promote the decidedly un-liberated narrative of men demanding sex and women exchanging sexual services for male compliance to female wants and needs. Then when criticized, they point to a play that is blatantly misogynistic by today’s standards and arguably even when it was written, when at most other times, they dismiss western culture as having any value whatsoever and distance themselves from any reference to or respect for tradition and culture. And all this is justified if they can keep those racist, fascist, xenophobe, Republicans out of office. Encouraging women to leverage or sacrifice their own sexual agency for the sake of political/social social goals. Where have I heard that before? Lie back and think of Biden, perhaps?

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
1 year ago

Dems are weird.

Andre Lower
Andre Lower
1 year ago

“Here is a portrait of a world in which women are at once utterly Machiavellian yet completely neutered, in which sex is something they use but never desire, in which the physical act of love exists purely as a means to an end, and in which sexual availability is the ultimate (if not only) power a woman has in her arsenal. It’s a new riff on the old (and inane) notion that men have sex because they want sex, while women have sex because it helps them get something else: social status, a romantic commitment, a reassuring sense of their own desirability.”
Kat, much as you may dislike it, the reality in the field is that many women can be counted on to do just that – and quite consistently. Not only is this a moral issue (essentially comparable to prostitution), but it keeps widening the gap between female narrative (on female sexual honesty) and what many men learn from objective experience. It is not really surprising that some men dissociate their libido from flesh&blood women. But that is another uncomfortable consideration, and you’re already having trouble with the first one…

David Giles
David Giles
1 year ago

Men, if you are right-of-centre, be very careful to keep your political leanings ‘under wraps’ as it were before you get to seal the deal. And then, afterwards, don’t forget to tell her she’s the most beautiful thing in the world… except the secret ballot.

Lennon Ó Náraigh
Lennon Ó Náraigh
1 year ago

This brings us to a slick music video entitled “No Voting, No Vucking”, which was released last week.

When young people are patronized like this, they will fote with their feet.

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago

It is curious but true that many “get out the vote” initiatives have the opposite effect. Oregon was once in the top 5 turnout States but is now in the bottom half. The reason is that, years ago, Oregon went to mail in voting, which makes voting easier but also lower in integrity, and when the voting process lacks integrity folks peal off. This article show us, I think, just how desperate some folks have become.

Garrett R
Garrett R
1 year ago

https://unherd.com/thepost/peter-thiels-dating-app-is-suffering-from-an-identity-crisis/

Kat—you need to back your claims with actual data, not USA Today articles that are bulletin announcements. This is from UnHerd on 10/3 about the struggles of the Right Stuff. You are a great writer but often your articles have zero data to back your claims. It’s why I can’t take anything you write as indicative of anything.

Here is another gem—it is hardly a guarantee that women will vote more for Democrats than Republicans. Women have voted for more for Democrats in every election since 1980.

In 1952, 36% of women identified as Republican. In 2019, this figure had skyrocketed to
.38%. In 1952, 59% of women identified as Democratic. In 2019, this had dropped allllll the way to
.56%.

What’s your theory there, Kat?

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  Garrett R

Women seem more motivated by emotion, it might seem. Some who must pay the bills might differ. And ill treatment of children via brain washing might draw a rebuke.

Michael Cavanaugh
Michael Cavanaugh
1 year ago

Actually, the Right invented this (sort of): “lips that touch wine will never touch mine” (Temperance moral crusaders) or giving out the white feather in WWI. The Left picked it up later (“Girls say yes to boys who say no” re: Vietnam draft resistance). Of course in none of these earlier eras was coital blackmail on such steroids as it is today!

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago

What was Right about Temperance crusaders? Quite a bit of overlap with suffragettes.

Michael Cavanaugh
Michael Cavanaugh
1 year ago

Their evangelicalism. The crusade bit.

David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago

I’m afraid your claim is a bit of historical illiteracy: both temperance (esp. as carried to the extreme in Prohibition) and American involvement in WWI were projects of the Progressive movement, not right-wing at all.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  David Yetter

Quite correct. In the era of suffragettes, prohibition was all the rage.

Michael Cavanaugh
Michael Cavanaugh
1 year ago
Reply to  David Yetter

Once the war was on, one could count on the rah-rahs to line up behind it. (Lynching dachshunds along with at least one German-American.) The white feather example was actually British — the same sentiment that put Bertie Russell in prison simply for criticizing the war effort. The same sentiment that shortly thereafter carried over into the Red Scare.

Gary Cruse
Gary Cruse
1 year ago

Forty-seven comments and not one mention of Lysistrata. Aristophanes asks, “What was all that, then? Paint-by-Number?”

Last edited 1 year ago by Gary Cruse
Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago

The point being missed is that Conservative anti-abortionists want people NOT to have sex outside marriage, so sex strikes is right up their street. And that is not a euphimism.

Ray Adnrews
Ray Adnrews
1 year ago

(At the risk of stating the obvious, the word “vucking” is phonetically indistinguishable from another, naughtier word.)
Pardon but that’s not correct. ‘fat’ and ‘vat’ are quite distinguishable phonetically. Mind, ‘fin’ and ‘thin’ are very close to phonetically indistinguishable, we mostly hear what we want to hear based on context. Say: ‘that lady really is too fin’ in a conversation and nobody will not hear ‘thin’.

Michael Cavanaugh
Michael Cavanaugh
1 year ago
Reply to  Ray Adnrews

I dunno what to fink . . .

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  Ray Adnrews

Could have been xucking to arrive at the same place, but a “v” is closer.

David Kingsworthy
David Kingsworthy
1 year ago

sexually blackmailing men into the voting booth does not guarantee that they’ll pull the lever for your preferred party, a problem to which the “no vucking” video seems particularly oblivious
They’re oblivious because they hold the position that any vote is a good vote for democracy, in classically liberal sense — but in the progressive sense they will certainly retaliate, condemn or harass if they discover your vote is incorrect.

Iris C
Iris C
1 year ago

It could only happen in America!

Marianne C
Marianne C
1 year ago

Great article. Never understand how come the would be ‘strikers’ don’t get the bleeding obvious – how they are undoing themselves as equal humans – as per Kate’s piece.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago

Women are not intellectually suited for clear-eyed voting. Emotions rule them, which is why Democrats win so many elections and the country and especially the big cities are in such precipitous decline.

Alphonse Pfarti
Alphonse Pfarti
1 year ago

Stuff my ballot box again???

Blimey. And the Macc Lads have been cancelled!