I tend to read up on history from time to time. No I'm not a historian nor will I ever have a degree in it, but it's still a delightfully fascinating topic to look into. If for no other reason than to spot similar currents and trends repeating themselves throughout history.

One thing that stood out to me was sex strikes throughout history and how remarkably effective such protests are at achieving their goals. And how it's always women doing the withholding and not the men. I was curious as to how well this would go if men did it. And I don't mean a small minority, like we currently are. I mean the vast majority of men committed to not fucking their wives or girlfriends. Or refusing to date or provide women with resources. I don't know if it would ever happen but with the current state of affairs between the sexes, I think it's more possible now or in the near future than ever. Even if done passively, such as the case of the Japanese Herbivore Men. I believe such abstinence could have a pronounced impact of legislation and culture.

This is by no means a call to arms or any of that horseshit. But as an amateur hobbyist scholar of history, I merely wonder about the feasibility of such a movement. Call it the "Sausage Strike" or the "Dick Drought" or some goofy shit like that, I don't care. Assuming the vast majority of men actually did rally and deprive women of not just sex, but also relationships and financial assistance, what do you think the social/legal/cultural/religious repercussions would be? Also, again referencing the Herbivore Men, would their passive approach be treated differently than an active "call to arms" approach?