Recently, actress Alyssa Greene, known for her white feminist viewpoints, sparked a controversy on Twitter with her call to action. In response to draconian legislation in states like Georgia and Alabama, where predominantly male lawmakers sought to impose strict abortion bans, she proposed a “sex strike.” The idea was that if women united and withheld sex, they could demonstrate to men that women’s rights cannot be trampled upon.
As expected, the Twitterati did not hold back, and rightly so.
Some believe a sex strike could serve as a powerful collective statement. The notion is that women could stand in solidarity and refuse intimacy until men understand the gravity of the situation. However, it’s an overly simplistic and naive perspective. The real issue isn’t sexual access; it’s the misguided belief that abstaining from sex can effectively resolve systemic oppression.
Let’s get real—this isn’t a modern-day interpretation of Lysistrata, the ancient Greek play where women denied men sexual favors to end a war. While the play is entertaining, it’s not a viable blueprint for contemporary activism.
Moreover, the concept is fundamentally flawed. For one, abstaining from sex doesn’t address the fact that some women have played roles in enacting these oppressive laws. Notably, in Alabama, the anti-abortion bill was signed into law by a female governor, which means a sex strike won’t single-handedly resolve the issue.
Additionally, advocating for a sex boycott reinforces the very notion we’re trying to challenge: that women’s bodies exist solely for male gratification. By suggesting a sex strike, we risk perpetuating the idea that our worth is tied to our sexuality. It’s concerning that many already treat sex as a bargaining tool in relationships, thinking, “I’ll have sex if you do the dishes.” While that may yield short-term results, it ultimately undermines the value of consensual intimacy.
Sex should be a mutual source of pleasure, not a weapon. Ironically, a sex strike could deny women their own enjoyment just as much as it would deny men’s pleasure.
Another significant issue with this proposal is its exclusivity. Cisgender, heterosexual women are not the sole individuals impacted by these laws. The idea of a sex strike overlooks a wide spectrum of identities and experiences. As a queer woman who exclusively partners with women, I’m already not having sex with men. Furthermore, the notion of “sex” is often narrowly defined as intercourse, which excludes many forms of intimacy.
Trans women can become pregnant, just as trans men can. Non-binary individuals also navigate their own experiences with pregnancy and sexuality. This raises the question: how does a sex strike pertain to them?
Moreover, for victims of sexual abuse, the idea of a sex strike could be catastrophic. Those in abusive relationships may have no control over their sexual encounters, and suggesting they participate in a strike could put them in further danger. It’s unrealistic to think they could just opt out when faced with coercion.
Let’s not forget about sex workers, who may engage in sexual acts as their livelihood. Many of them might be trapped in situations of abuse or trafficking, and a sex strike does nothing to address their plight, which is equally affected by restrictive legislation.
In these challenging times, suggesting a sex strike stems from a place of privilege and internalized misogyny. Reducing the fight for women’s rights to our sexual capabilities undermines our humanity. We cannot perpetuate the harmful belief that women exist merely as vessels for sex. A sex strike is not the solution we need; rather, we should focus on supporting organizations that actively fight for our rights on the ground.
That’s the real path forward.
For further information on fertility and resources, check out this excellent resource for pregnancy and home insemination. If you’re interested in enhancing fertility for men, find more here. For insights on syringe reuse, see this authoritative source.
Summary
Alyssa Greene’s proposal for a sex strike as a response to oppressive abortion laws is misguided and fundamentally flawed. It overlooks the complexities of women’s experiences and reinforces harmful stereotypes. Instead of reducing activism to sexual access, we should support organizations that advocate for women’s rights.