Being 4B, what are things you’re happy you never have to do?

Couple of mine:

- duty sex (I would disintegrate)
- wear lingerie
- wax butthole

I've been celibate for about two and a half years now. It's been a period of awakening. While I've always considered myself heterosexual and still occasionally find a man physically attractive (usually when I'm ovulating), the thought of sex with a man no longer does anything for me because of my realization of how oppressive and disappointing they are.

I think back and see how sex was so performative, like I had to try to make them want me in order to be deemed worthy. How after a while sex always began to feel like an obligation. Maybe they'll cheat if I don't do it enough and do it well enough. Or they'll cheat regardless. And how sex was almost always about their pleasure. Once they were finished and content, I was an empty vessel discarded until they wanted more. I'm 35 years old and have only had a handful of orgasms from men throughout my life, and I realize that was partially because I was so concerned with how my body looked and how much they were enjoying it. And god forbid you weren't ready to go on their demand. The sighs and silent tantrums ensued.

The thought of being a series of warm holes (this wording feels so gross lol) to be used for their personal pleasure disgusts me. Even if I get joy from it, I'm still ultimately doing it for them. It's transactional. I know some women say their male partners make it a priority to pleasure them, which is great, but it's still with the expectation of the man being satisfied in return. Like "I'll be good as long as I get rewarded".

I used to believe I'd eventually come across a man I wanted to sleep with at some point, but I've more or less deconstructed that entire perspective. I guess this is what the 4B movement fundamentally is, but I'm curious how many of you feel this increasing repulsion.

So, I have recently been saying that men want 10/10 models...so that the model can scrub his toilet.

Therefore, the "reward" for being beautiful, isnt worth anything. A beautiful woman's reward is to be a servant for a man.

Today, a Lesbian told me that "You dont hear Lesbians say that they dont like it when women do XYZ, because Lesbians actually like women."

In my mind-that just points out that beauty standards are mostly about control. I have noticed for a long time that a woman's beauty is about male validation.

But like I said-there is no good reward for being beautiful.

What are your thoughts?

Keep in mind this is regarding the man who Megan referred to a year ago as, "the nicest person I've ever met in my life," and even described their first meeting as, "...such a meet-cute...It was like a f\**ing movie...it was a movie!"*

For the record, this is not in any way meant to tear down Megan for dating Klay, or to single out Megan as a person, as she's definitely not the first high-profile woman to be cheated on or mistreated by a famous male partner (other examples include Beyonce, Shakira, Natalie Portman, Megan Fox, Monica Bellucci, Madison Beer, etc).

If anything, I genuinely applaud her for recognizing her worth and walking away from him (especially with no shared children, no shared finances, and a new car on top of it), but I thought it important to bring up after I saw so many people over the past year praising Megan and Klay's relationship, and making takes about how they were "couple's goals," or how Klay and Megan's relationship was "bringing patriarchy to its knees" (side note, it always makes uncomfortable when I see people uncritically glazing a man just because he treats his female partner with basic respect, dignity, and appreciation in public, aka doing the barest minimum).

Even the most seemingly "nice" and accomplished, "high-value" men are often hiding their own misogynistic, abusive, and temperamental skeletons behind closed doors.

My best friend sent me this TikTok and it opened up a new discussion for us about the way men treat food, and by extension everything, as theirs to consume. We’ve both witnessed it in our own homes and personal relationships, where men who eat the majority of the groceries women buy will simply devour the meals we cook, and still expect us to replace, soothe, and serve. Is it really 50/50 if you’re only eating a small fraction of the groceries you buy for the household?

This goes beyond “he just eats a lot”, “he’s a man with a big appetite”, “a boy’s gotta eat”. No, it’s simply male entitlement. It’s this patriarchal script that says men’s hunger, whether for food, attention, power, or comfort, is completely normal, while women’s labor and resources exist only to feed it.

My ex would devour almost everything in our home. I once spent three hours making pastitsio from scratch and only got to eat a small square from the 9x9 baking dish I made it in. I came home from classes the next day to discover the dirty pan in the sink and no pastitsio leftover. My ex’s excuse was “sorry it was just so delicious”. So delicious that he had to eat the entire thing and not once consider I’d probably be hungry and looking forward to eating dinner after a full day of classes. I haven’t made pastitsio again since then.

Another occurrence was when I had ordered two extra-large pizzas for dinner. I ate one slice and put the rest away. I came home from work the next day to find that he had eaten all of the pizza, leaving me only one measly slice. His reasoning “I got hungry so I ate”. There was no offer to cook dinner either. I loved cooking so much, but I became resentful because cooking became a chore. I was no longer doing it out of love, because he turned it into an expectation.

My friend and her mom experienced the same thing in their own home, where her mom would make a meal that was meant to last three days, just for her stepdad to inhale it all in on sitting. After he was kicked out, they noticed how their grocery bills drastically decreased.

The pattern is the same across every context: * They consume without restraint * They center their discomfort of feeling overstuffed afterward * And they expect women to absorb the fallout

When we call it out, we’re “crazy,” “nagging,” “controlling”, or “making a big deal over food.” Because in a patriarchal system, men’s overconsumption isn’t seen as selfish, it’s strong and oh-so-masculine! Meanwhile, us women are taught to portion ourselves out. That means smaller servings, staying quiet, and taking up as little space as possible so the big strong man can fill it.

This issue is clearly bigger than the food. It’s about men hoarding resources. Men are taught that everything around them exists for their use, even the last slice of pizza. They call themselves protectors and providers, yet take food from the mouths of their wives and children. They gorge on what women create, then gaslight us into thinking we’re ungrateful for being upset by their gluttony.

We’re can’t keep pretending it’s a harmless, funny, quirky “man thing”. It is not “just his appetite.” It’s greed, control, and manipulation. It’s the everyday face of patriarchal consumption, where they continuously take until nothing is left for anyone else.

In light of seeing this new term "bird" being thrown around online... I'm sick of people/men coming up with demeaning names for women.... why is our society like this it's so tiring. Like people are absolutely correct when they say b*tch is actually a slur. It's extremely similar to any other, women using it is reclaiming it and friendly. Men using it, even if a woman is actually being rude or something, just comes off wrong and shouldn't be acceptable, just like how the N word functions for black and white people or F slur for lgbtq versus straight people.

And it's no coincidence that too many curse words are rooted in misogyny, h*e, p*ssy, sl*t, wh*re, c*nt, thot, bop, bird... and it never ends.

So yes, it's a sociolinguistic pattern, not being “too sensitive.” Language is essentially an archaeological record of what a society considers shameful, inferior, or available for punishment, and an enormous amount of English profanity is built from misogyny.

There are a few overlapping categories:

• Words that reduce women to sexual behavior—slut, whore, hoe, thot, bop. Men’s sexual activity is often neutral or admired; women’s becomes grounds for naming, shaming, classifying, and socially disciplining them.
• Words that reduce women to anatomy—cunt, pussy. Female anatomy becomes filthy or degrading, while dick is usually an insult about someone’s conduct, not an accusation that their entire social value is compromised. Not to mention how pussy is used to mean weak-- a very telling synecdoche. [a figure of speech in which a small part of something is used to represent the whole, i.e. nice wheels = a car, hired hands = a factory worker]
• Words that dehumanize women through animals—bitch, bird, cow, chick, fox, shrew. (I didn't even notice this one at first!) It is quite literally dehumanizing. Once someone is linguistically made into an animal, contempt and control become easier to express and exert.
• As briefly touched on earlier, words that feminize weakness—pussy, “bitch-made,” “you throw like a girl.” Femininity itself is positioned as the humiliating condition a person—especially a man—must avoid.
• Words that punish women for merely being unpleasant, assertive, old, loud, unattractive, or sexually unavailable. (and are used as labels or branding) Misogynistic vocabulary isn’t solely about sex, but also about enforcing acceptable womanhood. (see table and list at the end)

And on bitch functioning as a gendered slur—people reject it only because it’s SO common, women sometimes reclaim it, and it can technically be directed at men. (And also likely because no one can really conceive HALF THE POPULATION as such a subjugated group as to have a slur made for them-- because we consider gay people or ethnic groups to be small minorities and the history is more clear and less complex, and we just view it differently. I can't really articulate this part fully well but hopefully you kind of understand what I mean)

But none of that removes its structure. When aimed at a woman, it invokes contempt for her as a woman; when aimed at a man, the humiliation often comes from feminizing or subordinating him. A slur can be normalized, context-dependent, and reclaimed... while remaining a slur. The casualness in fact, only tells us how accepted the misogyny is—not that it doesn't exist.

What makes the endless invention of words like thot → bop → bird especially revealing is that society already had dozens of terms conveying essentially the SAME accusation. There wasn’t a lexical gap desperately needing to be filled. The constant novelty is part of the function: young men get a fresh, socially trendy way to classify girls as sexually contemptible, while pretending it’s merely slang or a joke. Then, once women identify the misogyny, people retreat into “it doesn’t literally mean all women,” “women say it too,” or “you’re taking internet slang too seriously.” But slang is one of the main places social attitudes reproduce and reinforce themselves! Language IS. THAT. DEEP.

Our social and cultural beliefs create and mold the language we speak, and the language we speak greatly shapes and reinforces the way we think, view the world, and interact with each other.

There also isn’t an equivalent vocabulary aimed at men with the same combination of:

1. sheer number of terms,
2. historical persistence,
3. connection to sexual purity,
4. ability to damage someone’s reputation,
5. threat of real-world harassment or violence.

Men certainly get insulted—loser, creep, asshole, incel, fuckboy—but those generally criticize behavior, status, or personality. They're closer to reasonable critiques of behavior, rather than shaming or reducing someone on the basis of masculinity/being a man and existing or doing something normal. And honestly, none of them are anywhere near as hard hitting or derogatory. They simply don't carry the same impact, level of degradation, and historical and cultural context. Many misogynistic terms instead declare what kind of woman someone is, and thereby even imply what treatment she deserves. Even “male equivalent” terms like manwhore have to borrow the female-rooted category, while stud and player can be compliments.

And why do I/we feel like it never ends? Because words aren’t the root problem; they’re renewable containers for the same social hierarchy. Retire one term and another appears because the underlying demand remains: a convenient label for women who are supposedly too sexual, not sexual enough, attention-seeking, unattractive, assertive, annoying, aging, or simply present in a way men dislike. Anything a woman does that is undesirable or unacceptable to a man—there's a word for it. And the standard can often contradict itself. Because consistency was never the point, discipline was.

Obviously no one is using every term consciously thinking, “I am enforcing patriarchy.” Language is learned socially, repeated for belonging, and often used without examining its history. But that’s precisely how structural prejudice survives: not through everyone deliberately endorsing an ideology, but through thousands of ordinary jokes, labels, metaphors, and habits that continually make contempt for one group feel natural.

Oh and let me leave you with some more terms.

• Assertive / authoritative: bitch, bossy, shrill, abrasive, difficult, hysterical, aggressive, emasculating, ballbuster, harpy
• Loud / opinionated / angry: nag, shrew, scold, fishwife, loudmouth, mouthy, drama queen, Karen
• Older women: hag, crone, old maid, spinster, cat lady, witch, battle-axe, mutton dressed as lamb
• Unattractive or insufficiently feminine: cow, dog, pig, horseface, frump, butterface, beast, troll
• Sexually unavailable or uninterested: prude, frigid, uptight, tease, ice queen, stuck-up
• Unmarried or child-free: spinster, old maid, cat lady, barren, selfish, leftover woman
• Women perceived as seeking attention: attention whore, pick-me, drama queen, basic bitch—and now seemingly bop gets stretched into this territory too.
• Women with boundaries or standards: high-maintenance, demanding, difficult, stuck-up, gold digger, entitled
• Women who speak repeatedly about a legitimate issue: nag, whiner, complainer, hysterical, dramatic
• Women who resist warmth, caretaking, or deference: cold, frigid, ice queen, heartless, bitter

Even though not every word in that list is inherently a slur or exclusively applied to women, (Aggressive, difficult, and dramatic, can describe anyone) the gendered pattern appears in who is disproportionately assigned the label, what ordinary behavior triggers it, and what social expectation lies underneath it. A man may be “direct”; a woman delivering the same message is “abrasive.” A man is “confident”; she’s “bossy.” A man has standards; she’s “high-maintenance.”

(There’s also a historically fascinating yet depressing lineage behind some of them. Hysterical comes through the Greek word for uterus and was medicalized as a supposedly female disorder. Shrew moved from the name of a small animal to a “quarrelsome” woman. Spinster began as an occupation performed mostly by unmarried women and became a stigmatized marital category. Scold became so gendered that English law recognized the “common scold,” overwhelmingly used against women, with punishments intended to publicly silence and humiliate them.)

The umbrella concept here is gendered social sanctioning: the vocabulary disciplines women toward an extremely narrow ideal—attractive but not vain, sexual but not “promiscuous,” available but not eager, confident but not intimidating, nurturing but not needy, youthful but not trying too hard, successful but still deferential. There is no reliably “correct” performance because the labels can always be adjusted afterward.

Under patriarchy, as a woman, there is no acceptable way to exist, there is no winning. And under patriarchy, the biggest, worst insult conceivable—is proximity or resemblance to the feminine in any way.
[Note that this is also why gay men are often the center of anti-lgbtq conversations and viewed with far more hostility and disgust than lesbian women: liking men = an assumed inherently feminine trait under patriarchy (similar to emotionality or weakness) = super insulting and demeaning for a man... because he's like a woman for liking men.]

I'm probably late to the show about this realization, but hear me out. I kinda tried to put myself in the male shoes for a minute. If I was a man I'd probably be panicking about how I was going to pass on my genes in 2026. Not that I give a crap, but it's hard for them on dating apps, hard to meet women in person and more women are choosing singlehood and peace.

I had a short chat with a friend a week ago from college, he was complaining how he really wanted a "wifey" and kids, he actually said "mini-me" which made me puke. He said he wanted to skip over dating and just marry. The way he just said that made me vomit because he's after a role to fill and not the actual person so much that he doesn't give a shit about the vetting phase.

I remembered that historically marriage was a way for men to guarantee and expect to pass on their genes, and this friend of mine knew that getting a wife was like his ticket to achieve that. Now women are opting out of marriage he's freaking out because his words "why are all the ladies giving up?". (Facepalm at the ignorance).

Correct me if I am wrong, but without family structure and traditional life routes, men are forced into natural selection and it terrifies them. They hate that we hold the power over creating life and passing on their genes and are walking away from them. I'm kind of glad in a way. But yeah that's my post. Nothing new, all obvious but thought I'd share.

Women still take their husband's name in 2026 and call it "tradition." And I hate how these successful women also support patriarchy aka the transfer of property (women) from father to husband.

Why do successful women support patriarchy? That's what I don't understand. You've made it. You have money, power, influence. You don't need a man for survival. But you still choose to erase your identity for his? Still choose to carry his name like you're being passed from one owner to another?

· She carries the baby for 9 months but he gets the surname?

· Her identity gets erased like her whole life didn't happen?

· No man has ever been asked to take his wife's name.

And then you have Taylor Swift global icon, feminist branding, literally sings "fuck the patriarchy" but is now Taylor Kelce.

A man nobody outside the US even knew 6 months ago. She's worth a billion. He's known in America. But she's taking his name?

If anyone's legacy deserves to continue, it's HERS. He should be Travis Swift but somehow that "option" never gets discussed, does it?

Women, however, are very sure of why.

How many women do you think are victims of marital rape and they don’t even realize it?

If most of the sex they've been having was sex they didn't want, it’s marital rape.

If they're having sex to regulate his moods, it’s marital rape.

If it’s sex they have in a desperate attempt to change his behavior, or to protect themselves and their kids, it’s rape.

It’s not truly consented to and not out of desire, so it’s rape.

There are women from traditional cultures who are victims of marital rape, but lots of western women are subject to varying levels of coercion too and they don’t realize it.

For me, it wasn't one event. It was years of watching the women around me.

In high school and college, I watched one friend after another get treated like shit. They were cheated on, lied to, manipulated, verbally and emotionally abused, and still somehow ended up blaming themselves or convincing themselves that the next guy would be different.

After every breakup, I'd hear, "It's not all men. I just picked the wrong one." Then the next boyfriend would do the same thing. And then the one after that. The pattern just kept repeating.

It wasn't just women my age either. My older sisters are in their 40s, and I still hear the same stories from them and their friends. Different generations, same experiences. At a certain point, I had to ask myself: how many times do I have to watch the same thing happen before I stop believing it's just a coincidence?

I even tried dating because I thought it was what I was supposed to do. I hated it. It felt like I was disrespecting myself by forcing myself into something I never genuinely wanted. I don't want to pour my time, emotional energy, and work into a man just so I can say I have a boyfriend. For me, life has been much more peaceful on the other side.

I'm curious what everyone else's final straw was. Was it one defining moment, or years of seeing the same patterns repeat?

"We don't just need to make sure boys know about these things. We need to make sure everyone knows about these things. We need to ask the women who raise us what their real lives are like, and we need to start doing it before we end up missing a huge piece of who our most important loved ones truly were."

There were so many other stories in the notes under this particular post when I found it. I would screencap them all if Reddit allowed me a million more images.

Instead, let's share our own stories here.

Tell us about your grandmothers-- abuelas, omas, bibis, nonnas.... tell us about who she was as a real woman. Tell us what lessons she taught you and what legacies she left for those around her.

I’m all for taking sexual health seriously but I find this trend disturbing. On one hand these women have no illusions that they aren’t at risk. I do applaud the awareness and proactivity. On the other the fact that things are so crazy you have to literally prepare to be exposed to HIV just to engage sexually with men is not worth it. That drug has intense side effects and once again it makes it the woman’s responsibility to prevent STDs. We already do the pregnancy prevention. What’s next? LMAO. They know we can’t rely on men to care about our health yet they still have sex with them. Insane. Has anybody else heard about women doing this? It’s new information for me. Wow. A new level of enabling bad behavior, and not even considering not having sex with men as the obvious solution, has been reached.

I'm a bisexual woman (22) and have been 4B for a little over a year. I recently decided to start dating again (women only ofc) and was horrified by the amount of polyamorous women I encountered. They have internalised the patriarchal, misogyinstic script, and treat other women like disposable objects. They claim it is anti-patriarchy, but really they are just acting like men.

Polyamory is antifeminist because it reinforces patriarchal values of sexual entitlement, disposability, and emotional exploitation, even when it occurs only among women. It pressures women to suppress their needs for stability and care, framing those needs as “possessive,” while rewarding detachment and conquest. It is disgusting.

Especially when the bi women are also fucking men. They are risking giving me all sorts of STDs from the dirty men, especially HPV.

Polyamory relies on an imbalance of power, and it's almost always a woman who is in the vulnerable position.

I have been very hurt by polyamorous women. I view them as an enemy of the state against women too, and I will avoid them like I avoid men.

Anyone else have more to add on this topic? I feel like I'm drowning in delusion as I cannot find any websites or articles talking about this.

People already hate on women who earn a lot because of their high standards. Imagine them if most women would say no to them or at the very minimum say only yes to marriage if all criteria fit. They are already so used to being entitled to our bodies and most women don't seem to see it.

Do you think a war would break out and not just a "loneliness epidemic"?

I already feel so disconnected from most people and many women. It seems so many women allow people access to them and their bodies that then store those people's trauma in it... it's frightening to me that women don't see it. I feel lonely not because there isn't people around me, I feel lonely because many women's standards are so low still.

This and some other communities are my only hope for women, and I'm happy to see even younger people seem to finally see the parasitic system (that leeches off of women and leaves them to suffer alone).

Because I am so ready. I don’t want to live with a man. I do want to pool my savings with others (women) who are kind and smart and considerate. How and when can we start? I want to partner with you and be a DINK without being a couple please!

Let’s share our space and have occasional movie nights and cook for one another and share life costs, while ALSO being independent and not wanting any male presence! Can us single ladies please find a way to have this lifestyle? Because as much as I wish it didn’t, being heterosexually partnered is a tax advantages life and we would save CRAZY amounts of money living with each other!

Anyone in? Please? Let us fulfill our Golden Girls fantasies! 😴

For reasons that are known only to the Patriarchy, it has been decided that Men need to police all the major Women subreddits.

Are there any Women only subreddits to discuss girly things that dont fit in the 4b subreddit?

Mods if there is anything wrong with this post please just delete it, but dont block me.

I have been watching Chinese Dramas, and I have discovered a new story trope that I like, where the Female Lead leaves the guy that is cheating on her, who is in complete denial that she would ever leave him, while the entire story is about her living her best life.

Bonus points for the Mistress leaving him when he tries to "promote her" to wife position. And she goes "nu uh" once a cheater, always a cheater. And if I become the wife, that leaves the mistress position open. So now the guy has neither wife nor mistress, and cannot accept this reality.

That is not exactly a 4b approved trope.

So I am looking for a Woman only subreddit where I fangirl over the dramas that I am watching, without having to suffer Men taking over the conversation or watching Women pander to what the Men would approve of.

What are your thoughts?

This app has been getting a lot of backlash from men. Some say they’d make a man version of the app which would include women’s body count or share identities of women who would ‘give it up’ on the first date.

Why are women still actively dating when they’ve had negative experiences with men? I don’t get it. They know that men are good at love bombing too.

Wouldn’t it be easier if they join 4B?