Being a Feminist Who Dates Straight Men

When I say I date men, people freeze. The reaction usually lands somewhere between confusion and judgment, often masked as concern. There is a specific kind of disbelief that shows up, like I have just contradicted my politics out loud. Before I get into this, this article is NOT for people who need a crash course on what feminism is, how patriarchy is a system of oppression, or how intersectionality makes feminism a valid belief system for Black Women in particular. I highly recommend watching ‘Black Feminist’ on KweliTV- a 60 minute documentary that breaks it all down.

That said, straight men are some of the most consistent defenders of patriarchy. That reality does not surprise me. I am an asexual, polyamorous woman with no interest in sexual relationships, monogamy, or building a life that centers men by default. I am still emotionally and romantically drawn to men. For many people, that combination feels impossible.

The belief underneath the shock is that feminism requires distance from men entirely. If you take patriarchy seriously, men should not have a meaningful role in your life. Anything else gets framed as denial or weakness.

I disagree.

I do not date men casually. I do not move on chemistry alone. Attraction does not determine access to my life. Over time, I learned that dating men required firm boundaries and clear standards. That clarity became a way of organizing who gets proximity and who does not.

I group straight men into levels based on how they relate to power. 

Level One Men 

Level one men meet the minimum requirement to be present in my life. Not date- simply be considered a friend, acquaintance, or a family member I have a cordial relationship with. At this level, a man understands patriarchy as a system of oppression that materially affects women. This understanding shows up in his beliefs and his behavior. If a man believes women are meant to submit to men, if he believes men are inherent authorities in relationships, or if he treats women’s autonomy as something that can be debated, he does not have access to me. That boundary applies to every relationship category.

This usually rules out religious men, especially Christian ones. In my experience, there is no way a man who believes women are the spawns of men’s ribs truly sees women as autonomous human beings. Religious men often take the Bible and use it as a scapegoat for misogyny, then blame God to evade accountability for their own beliefs. Scripture becomes a shield that allows them to outsource responsibility while maintaining control.

I am not interested in conversations where my humanity is questioned. I am not interested in men who treat feminism as a thought exercise. Level one men recognize women as full people with agency. That recognition establishes baseline safety. Like I said, I don’t date these men. If I’m dating a straight man, he at the very least has to be at level 2. 

Level Two Men

Level two men take responsibility for their role within the system.

They understand intersectionality. They grasp that people can experience multiple forms of oppression at the same time. We may both be Black, but being a Black queer woman moves through the world very differently than being a Black straight man. These men do not collapse those experiences into one narrative. They understand power is layered and uneven, even within shared identities.

They read feminist work and engage with it seriously. bell hooks is familiar to them, especially The Will to Change. They have read We Should All Be Feminists by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. They do not flinch at the word feminist or treat it like an accusation. They can acknowledge that Black women experience gender based oppression while also understanding that white feminism has historically leaned on white privilege and sidelined the rights and humanity of women of color.

These men understand nuance. They can hold complexity without becoming defensive. They recognize that solidarity requires listening rather than flattening experiences to preserve comfort.

Most of the men I have dated fall into this category. They are intentional partners. They are emotionally present. They work to unlearn harmful patterns. They care about how their actions affect women in their lives.

But with level 2 men….there is still a limitation.

A level two man focuses primarily on his own conduct. He wants to avoid causing harm himself. When another man crosses a line, he often stays silent. He notices the problem and removes himself mentally. As long as he is not directly responsible, he feels disconnected from the outcome.

Patriarchy becomes something he opposes privately rather than something he actively interrupts.

Level Three Men

Level three men are rare. I have met very few of them, and every time I have, the difference has been immediate and unmistakable. Think Deante Kyle from the Grits and Eggs podcast, or Will Hitchens (a ruthlessly level 3 content creator).

These men understand that patriarchy was created by men and protected by men. They do not intellectualize that fact. They act on it. They do not wait for women to explain what is wrong or ask for backup. They move the moment something crosses a line. They stitch viral videos, tag the misogynist directly, call him out by name, and dismantle the faulty logic he thought he could get away with.

A level three man blatantly confronts misogyny out loud and in real time. He will shut his friend down mid sentence when a joke turns degrading. He will step between a woman and a man who refuses to take no for an answer. He will call out a coworker in a room full of other men and accept the tension that follows. He does not soften his response to keep the peace. He wants other men to stand ten toes down on their bullshit so he can cut it out from under them.

I have watched a level three man end a friendship without hesitation because that friend refused to stop speaking about women like they were disposable. I have watched one interrupt another man who was hovering too close to a woman at a party and tell him directly to back the fuck up. I have watched one refuse to laugh along or stay quiet when silence would have been easier.

These men do not wait until women leave the room, and they damn sure do not need an audience, but they could care less if there is one. They also don’t explain themselves afterward. They act because silence feels like complicity.

Level 3 men do not care if other men think they are dramatic or aggressive. They do not measure their behavior against male approval. Women’s safety and dignity matter more to them than being liked by other men who are willfully upholding the very system they are actively trying to dismantle.

Even men who read feminist theory or say the right things often freeze when accountability costs them status.

The irony is that most of the level three men I have encountered are monogamous and want sexual relationships, which does not align with my asexuality. The tricky thing about being an unconventional relationship woman is that my values can align with someone, but that does not mean we are relationally compatible.

Why Polyamorous Men Often Fit My Life Better

In my experience, straight men who are polyamorous tend to grasp my asexuality faster because sex is not treated as the price of admission. There is no unspoken countdown and no expectation that I will eventually change my mind.

They already have sexual relationships elsewhere. That allows what we build to focus on emotional intimacy, romance, companionship, and care. The relationship does not orbit my body. It is not structured around access to me.

This does not mean polyamory makes men feminist or safe. It does remove the assumption that my value is tied to sexual availability. For an asexual woman, that distinction is not theoretical. It is felt immediately in how a relationship moves.

What People Are Actually Reacting To

When people hear that I date men, the reaction is usually surprise. Not curiosity. Not questions. Just surprise, like something does not line up in their head.

What they are reacting to is the assumption that straight men are a single category. That dating men means tolerating misogyny. That attraction automatically comes with lowered standards. When I say I date men, people fill in details I never offered.

My guess is that they imagine me doing the emotional labor of translating feminism into something more palatable or keeping these beliefs to entirely to myself if I’m to engage romantically with men. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. In fact, my feminism is at the forefront of any relationship I engage in, especially with a man.

I am not dating men in general. I am dating specific men who meet specific criteria, and that distinction matters more than people want to admit.

There is also a ridiculous belief that feminism is fragile. That it can be undone by who you love or who you are drawn to. As if my politics live in theory instead of daily decisions.

It does not.

Conclusion

These three levels I use function as a filtering system. They shape who gets access to my life and who does not.

I date straight men without pretending they are all the same and without lowering my standards to make that easier to swallow. The levels allow me to stay precise about what I will and will not tolerate. They remove ambiguity and eliminate the expectation that I should be flexible in places where I am not.

This is about clarity. I know what alignment looks like for me. I know what safety feels like. I know when a man understands power well enough to be trusted with proximity. I also know where his capacity lies in terms of rejecting the patriarchy or being a traitor to it. 

Most men do not meet that threshold. That reality does not bother me.

The point was never to include everyone. The point was to protect myself while staying honest about who I am drawn to and what I require in return.