Sex strikes and the 4B movement: The South Korean-born campaign taking on far-right men

Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential elections has not only sparked a stock market frenzy but has also sparked a wave of interest in the 4B movement. Originating in South Korea, this movement advocates for women’s absolute renunciation of men. Faced with alarming rates of gender violence, the stark wage gap (South Korea’s being the largest among OECD countries), and a troubling rise in sexual harassment, many women chose to organize autonomously, rejecting motherhood and seeking safe, male-free spaces.

In December 2016, in response to low birth rates, the Korean government published an online National Birth Map identifying women of reproductive age, igniting widespread anger. Many women felt dehumanized, describing the map as treating them like “cattle.”

The four Bs of the movement represent a rejection of heterosexual marriage (bihon), motherhood (bichulsan), dating (biyeonae), and heterosexual sexual relations (bisekseu). Trump’s electoral victory — Kamala Harris did, however, secure 54% of the women’s vote compared to Trump’s 44% — has intensified interest in the 4B movement. This stems from widespread fears about how his policies and rhetoric might impact women over the next four years.

“As a woman, my bodily autonomy matters and this is my way to exercise sovereignty over that. So I highly encourage any other women who are single and still care about progressing women’s rights and still fighting for our bodily autonomy to do the same. Delete your dating apps,” says one TikTok user, joining the growing number of women advocating for sex strikes.

Sex strikes have been used as a bargaining tool since ancient times, as exemplified by Aristophanes’ Lysistrata, a play first performed in 411 BC. It portrays women declaring a sex strike out of frustration with their husbands going to war and having their children die in conflict.

In 2017, in light of the political climate in the United States, singer Janelle Monáe proposed a sex strike, while actress Julia Fox has abstained from sex for over two years as a personal protest against the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

“Calling 4B a ‘sex strike’ suggests that the fundamental purpose of the movement is to change male behavior,” writes author Hugo Schwyzer in his newsletter. “Best I can tell, 4B is more similar to my reasons for celibacy: a resigned acceptance of the facts on the ground. It is a calculated decision that the costs of sexual relationship exceed the benefits. It is less about transforming the hearts and minds of the opposite sex – probably a fool’s errand if ever a fool had an errand — and more about ensuring one’s own inner peace.”

“What we have to be clear about is that these strikes are not against men, because refusing to have sex with someone is not going against them: we don’t owe sex to anyone,” Júlia Salander, author of Your Feminist Argument in Data, tells EL PAÍS. “There are women who, for ethical, political, and social reasons, refuse to have sex with men. And I think this is legitimate. Does it serve a purpose? We’ve seen this approach before — from Valerie Solanas, with her infamous moment involving Andy Warhol and her SCUM Manifesto, to the present day in South Korea with the 4B movement, which is gaining significant momentum, especially in light of Donald Trump’s victory.”

She continues: “I think the underlying approach is to draw attention to how we understand sexuality, especially heterosexual sexuality, in this system. At a communicative level, it is very powerful. Feminism that does not make people uncomfortable is marketing, and this movement clearly makes people uncomfortable. If we are having such unequal sexual relations — under these power structures in which we clearly have a systemic problem of sexual violence — it’s powerful to call this out and say that until the rules of the game change, we are not going to continue playing this game, and we do not want to sleep with men.”

But not everyone agrees. In the article The Complicated Success of Sex Strikes, Erin Tansimore argues that sex strikes “contribute to the perpetuation of women’s oppression, harmful heteronormativity, marginalization or erasure of both sex workers and LGBTQ+ women, as well as the reduction of women to sexual objects and reproductive machines.” Tansimore further claims that these strikes imply that sex is something only men enjoy, that women’s value is tied to their sexuality, and that withholding sex serves as punishment — reinforcing traditional notions about power dynamics between genders.

“It’s like a form of punishment for them,” says Noemí Casquet, a journalist and writer specializing in sexuality. “For centuries, sexuality and sexual pleasure have been framed in relation to men. Men were seen as having high desire, as though they needed sex. In this sense, sexuality has been maintained as something ‘at the service of’ men, rather than an empowered sexuality serving women’s desires. When women go on a sexual strike, they do so not only to punish men — in part — but also, in some ways, to punish themselves.”

Casquet believes these strikes reflect a persistent societal perception that women’s sexuality exists primarily to serve men. “In the patriarchal system we live in, women are still viewed as sexual objects and reproductive tools. Our sexuality continues to revolve around male pleasure, and our reproductive capacity remains subjugated to men’s needs. We still have a lot of work ahead of us,” she explains.

Both Casquet and Júlia Salander agree on the importance of encouraging women to prioritize values beyond romantic love. “On one hand, it’s crucial that women place their own desires at the center,” Salander says. “But I think the movement’s primary goal is to highlight that heterosexual sexual relations have a potential problem: the lack of sexual education and the way violence has been normalized. I think the aim is simply to show that women are fed up with suffering sexual violence.”

Casquet adds: “For me, it all comes down to education and social awareness. But there has to be a genuine willingness from men to listen. If they continue to dismiss women’s perspectives, viewing them as conquests and minimizing their issues, what’s the point? Right now, the solution lies in raising awareness among women and in stopping women from seeking validation through love. If women begin to tolerate less, men will have no choice but to reevaluate their own behavior. But currently, many men don’t see themselves as part of the problem — they’re still entrenched in their privilege.”

Halima Jibril, writing for Dazed, offers a broader critique of these discussions. “I’m not trying to overlook the power of sex strikes, but the discussion raises many tensions and complications. I don’t know what we’re supposed to do about men, but I do know that feminist activism that is framed primarily around gender alone is harmful. It excludes people, focusing primarily on white cisgender, heterosexual women rather than those who are the most marginalized in society. And a feminist politic that doesn’t address this is a feminist politic that will fail.” she concludes.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition